Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


Babel_17's Journal
Babel_17's Journal
February 24, 2016

I can't resist an opening like that

The Doors’ John Densmore Presents “Window Of Opportunity” Film Screening Fundraiser for Bernie Sanders


Date: October 28, 2015
Place: The Egyptian Theater, 6712 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, CA 90028.

Time: 7:30 p.m.
Tickets: $15

Details: Musician, activist, and New York Times best-selling author of Riders On The Storm and The Doors: Unhinged, John Densmore, will be hosting an exclusive, one-night only screening of the film "Window Of Opportunity" at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood to support Bernie Sanders for President. All proceeds from ticket sales will go directly to Bernie Sanders for President.

The film, written and directed by Sam Joseph, and produced by John Densmore, is a suspenseful dark comedy thriller about greed and the corporate world. While the story is fiction, the themes of the film support Bernie's beliefs about corporate corruption in America and returning power to the people. This fundraising event is the only currently-scheduled screening of the film in Los Angeles, and will include an introduction by John Densmore.

Join John Densmore and likeminded individuals for a fun night out at the movies to support the next POTUS!


Musician | Author John Densmore The Doors, Riders on the Storm



February 2, 2016

The state should have been a Sanders cakewalk (sarcasm)

Lol, Clinton had campaigned there, albeit intermittently, for a decade, still had all her contacts from last time, and had the Democratic establishment behind her. She's had years worth of free publicity, and Senator Sanders has been barely been an afterthought in the media until the last few months.

Half of Iowa defied the media, the party leadership, and said "No!" to one of the largest, and most lavishly funded, political machines ever to set foot in their state. Half of Iowa said "Yes!" to the campaign that the establishment has tried to ignore, and which is funded by the small donations of the people.

Half of Iowa voted for the campaign that generates its own buzz, and which doesn't need publicity, and establishment endorsements, handed to it as an entitlement.

All of the nation got to see that Secretary Clinton's campaign couldn't put down the upstart rebellion of the Sanders campaign. Combine that with the ongoing FBI investigations into the Clintons modus operandi, and ethics, and then add in a likely defeat for them in New Hampshire, and we'll see that adding up to the Sanders campaign being portrayed in a more positive light by the media.

The party establishment will look rotten to the core if they continue to ignore the importance of the enthusiasm of this part of the party, and that of Independents who are now willing to vote for a Democrat. They must begin to weigh how the party will fare with Clinton at the top of the ticket, vs. with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

A Clinton that already has 60% of the voters seeing her as dishonest, that the FBI wants to see indicted, will not bring out the droves of Independents and new voters that we must have to win in the swing states. And that won't win us the close elections for the House and Senate, or win us back the local offices. The party establishment will be seen as clearly having a choice here. They can keep their fingers off the scales, or they can risk being seen as willing to crash and burn our chances in November because they can't think outside the box.

I'll spell it out for them. For whatever reasons, Secretary Clinton is basically incapable of ever co-opting the vast majority of Sanders supporters. So when they crunch the numbers for winning swing states, prudence dictates that they should allow for a massive Republican turnout (look at Iowa) to keep Secretary Clinton out, and a depressed Democratic turnout as many of these new voters just won't show up for a Democratic candidate who looks like part of the problem.

January 28, 2016

Interesting, but I still think they should have "read them the riot act", ...

... as the saying goes. That should have happened, repeatedly, and from the beginning. We knew who they were, and what they represented. Federal law enforcement should have loudly explained the penalties they were risking. They should have also offered the carrot of being willing to use their discretion if the nonsense ended immediately. As things stand some are going to use the defense that they thought they had a tacit understanding that law enforcement saw them as peaceful protesters, and not actually committing the kinds of crimes that would have been spelled out to them. IANAL but listing the statutes being broken would have helped make the prosecutor's case easier for the more basic charges. And that would have smoothed the path for the more serious charges.

And now the bar is raised, and every bunch of wackos will want this level of deference, and "if they don't get it, it's discrimination, and because this time the government is really scared of their righteous cause, and they're martyrs" (as I imagine their claims going).

There's discretion, and then there's the rule of law. People don't want to see the rule of law go down the tubes just so those enforcing it get to look clever.

And somebody did get his wacko ass killed, so the "nip it in the bud" side has that going for it.

But I'll be impressed, and adjust my weighing of things, if the government goes after all the shitbirds on conspiracy and/or other charges. And with "all" I include the shitbirds from the standoff at the Bundy ranch. Because that helped enable what happened in this new instance of armed insurrection.

If all of this was just so the government could rack up a non-controversial win, one that doesn't upset the anti-government gun-humpers, I'll be very unimpressed.

P.S. There's something to be said for the government having an obligation to not give people too much rope to hang themselves with. Not that I think the government wasn't smart to listen in, and so on. But I think we'll be hearing more about that defense at the trials. And that goes back to why I said the riot act should have been read to them.



To this day many jurisdictions that have inherited the tradition of English common law and Scots law still employ statutes that require police or other executive agents to deliver an oral warning, much like the Riot Act, before an unlawful public assembly may be forcibly dispersed.

Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression "to read the Riot Act" entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely." with the added sense of a stern warning. The phrase remains in common use in the English language.
January 1, 2016

If you want to stop smoking, the Allen Carr book works (he tells you to smoke while reading it)

He doesn't use scare tactics, says they don't work. He tells you not to nag current smokers, it's not helpful.

His book works like deprogramming/hypnotic suggestion. He addresses your concerns in a well thought out manner. He addresses all the concerns that smokers have.

I read the book several times, watched the movie a few times, and I became convinced I was now a non-smoker.

You don't stop smoking when you open the book, all that's needed is a desire to stop. As he says, you have nothing to lose. You'll either want to stop at the end, or you won't. Lol, and it's a very entertaining read.

Well, the full movie is back up on youtube. That alone can be enough for anyone. See if you can spot which Game of Thrones star has a prominent part in it. He's good in his roles, he doesn't reek. lol

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Tue Mar 16, 2004, 08:58 PM
Number of posts: 5,400

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Babel_17's Journal