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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nuclear Unicorn
Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
March 22, 2015
It's our fault we didn't dig the vibe on his stupidity.
By the way, it'd be really nice if he'd put his shirt back on.
Austin lawyer Adam Reposa says he put up ‘white people’ stickers
Austin lawyer Adam Reposa says he put up white people stickers
AUSTIN (KXAN) An Austin lawyer is claiming responsibility for several stickers placed on East Austin businesses that claimed they were exclusively for white people.
Adam Reposa posted the video on YouTube and made a statement on Facebook saying he was trying promote the issue of gentrification in East Austin. (Warning: The video contains explicit language)
Theyre getting pushed out, and pretty quick. This area of town is turning into whites only, Reposa said in the clip. Not by law like it used to be, and everyones going to jump on, thats racist! thats racist! Man, this town, the way **** works is racist! And I knew I could just bait all of yall into being as stupid as you are.
Reposa went on to blast people for not getting the message.
http://kxan.com/2015/03/20/austin-lawyer-adam-reposa-says-he-put-up-white-people-stickers/
AUSTIN (KXAN) An Austin lawyer is claiming responsibility for several stickers placed on East Austin businesses that claimed they were exclusively for white people.
Adam Reposa posted the video on YouTube and made a statement on Facebook saying he was trying promote the issue of gentrification in East Austin. (Warning: The video contains explicit language)
Theyre getting pushed out, and pretty quick. This area of town is turning into whites only, Reposa said in the clip. Not by law like it used to be, and everyones going to jump on, thats racist! thats racist! Man, this town, the way **** works is racist! And I knew I could just bait all of yall into being as stupid as you are.
Reposa went on to blast people for not getting the message.
http://kxan.com/2015/03/20/austin-lawyer-adam-reposa-says-he-put-up-white-people-stickers/
It's our fault we didn't dig the vibe on his stupidity.
By the way, it'd be really nice if he'd put his shirt back on.
March 21, 2015
Role of Hillary Clinton’s brother in Haiti gold mine raises eyebrows
Role of Hillary Clintons brother in Haiti gold mine raises eyebrows
MORNE BOSSA, Haiti Drive down the rutted dirt road a couple of miles to the guardhouse, then hike 15 minutes up to the overgrown hilltop, and there it is: a piece of 3 1/2 -inch-wide PVC pipe sticking out of the ground.
This is what, at least for the time being, a gold mine looks like.
It also has become a potentially problematic issue for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she considers a second presidential run, after it was revealed this month that in 2013, one of her brothers was added to the advisory board of the company that owns the mine.
Tony Rodhams involvement with the mine, which has become a source of controversy in Haiti because of concern about potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors, was first revealed in publicity about an upcoming book on the Clintons by author Peter Schweizer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?postshare=9431426941780024
MORNE BOSSA, Haiti Drive down the rutted dirt road a couple of miles to the guardhouse, then hike 15 minutes up to the overgrown hilltop, and there it is: a piece of 3 1/2 -inch-wide PVC pipe sticking out of the ground.
This is what, at least for the time being, a gold mine looks like.
It also has become a potentially problematic issue for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she considers a second presidential run, after it was revealed this month that in 2013, one of her brothers was added to the advisory board of the company that owns the mine.
Tony Rodhams involvement with the mine, which has become a source of controversy in Haiti because of concern about potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors, was first revealed in publicity about an upcoming book on the Clintons by author Peter Schweizer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?postshare=9431426941780024
March 20, 2015
Lanza did not purchase his guns. he killed the owner, his mother, and stole the weapons.
Other notable, recent shootings such as Loughner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan, Rogers, Alexis did not purchase their weapons absent a BC.
A laudable action but -- again -- Lanza did not purchase his weapons and in cases where the police should have intervened they chose to not do so.
In the 4.5 minutes it took the police to arrive a 10-round capacity would not have made a difference. In fact, Lanza was changing magazines before exhausting them.
The AWB is likely what sank the proposal in the first place. It's been tried.
The term "loophole" is ambiguous, at best. This needs to be defined.
Police do not prevent, they react (except in the case of Columbine) and even then they are not obligated to act.
A tad undefined.
4.5 minutes is still 4.5 minutes.
Okay but, Holmes WAS reported by his mental health care provider under provisions of Colorado law but the authorities did nothing. The day Eliot Rogers went on his killing spree his own parents reported him to the police saying they thought he was going to hurt people. Loughner, Lanza, Hasan, Alexis and Cho also had histories with authorities and providers and yet nothing was acted upon.
Last I heard "school resource officer" means "cop with a gun." I've been told guns in school is not the answer.
He should really talk to his former chief-of-staff.
*****
CORRECTION -- I originally wrote the post stating the police response time was 12 minutes. I was informed the response time from the placement of the call to 911 to police arriving on-scene -- at which time Lanza shot himself -- was approximately 4.5 minutes. The OP has been corrected, I apologize for the error and I appreciate Lurks Often for bringing it to my attention.
Which of these proposals could have prevented Sandy Hook?
Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
Lanza did not purchase his guns. he killed the owner, his mother, and stole the weapons.
Other notable, recent shootings such as Loughner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan, Rogers, Alexis did not purchase their weapons absent a BC.
Provides states with monetary incentives$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
A laudable action but -- again -- Lanza did not purchase his weapons and in cases where the police should have intervened they chose to not do so.
Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
In the 4.5 minutes it took the police to arrive a 10-round capacity would not have made a difference. In fact, Lanza was changing magazines before exhausting them.
The AWB is likely what sank the proposal in the first place. It's been tried.
Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes loopholes in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for straw purchasers who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.
The term "loophole" is ambiguous, at best. This needs to be defined.
Urges Congress to pass the administrations $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.
Police do not prevent, they react (except in the case of Columbine) and even then they are not obligated to act.
Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.
A tad undefined.
Provides training for active shooter situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.
4.5 minutes is still 4.5 minutes.
Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.
Okay but, Holmes WAS reported by his mental health care provider under provisions of Colorado law but the authorities did nothing. The day Eliot Rogers went on his killing spree his own parents reported him to the police saying they thought he was going to hurt people. Loughner, Lanza, Hasan, Alexis and Cho also had histories with authorities and providers and yet nothing was acted upon.
Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.
Helps schools invest in safety. The presidents plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.
Last I heard "school resource officer" means "cop with a gun." I've been told guns in school is not the answer.
Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
He should really talk to his former chief-of-staff.
*****
CORRECTION -- I originally wrote the post stating the police response time was 12 minutes. I was informed the response time from the placement of the call to 911 to police arriving on-scene -- at which time Lanza shot himself -- was approximately 4.5 minutes. The OP has been corrected, I apologize for the error and I appreciate Lurks Often for bringing it to my attention.
March 19, 2015
This is interesting because the city has also been spending a lot of money fighting in court to keep its gun ban or defending itself from its disingenuous efforts to skirt USSC rulings.
Yet, when statistics for gun deaths are analyzed over half of gun deaths are from suicides -- people in need of mental health care.
Is it really about saving lives or is it about control?
According to salon.com Mayor Rahm Emmanuel closed half of Chicago's mental health clinics
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/16/rahm_emanuels_achilles_heel_6_reasons_he_may_lose_his_reelection/This is interesting because the city has also been spending a lot of money fighting in court to keep its gun ban or defending itself from its disingenuous efforts to skirt USSC rulings.
Yet, when statistics for gun deaths are analyzed over half of gun deaths are from suicides -- people in need of mental health care.
Is it really about saving lives or is it about control?
March 17, 2015
Thank-you to Virginia_mountainman for the US v Haynes reference in another thread. I had heard this case referenced in the past but didn't know the exact title of the case until he made mention of it in.
Haynes v. United States
Haynes v. United States
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]
Background of the case[edit]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
Majority opinion[edit]
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]
Background of the case[edit]
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
Majority opinion[edit]
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Thank-you to Virginia_mountainman for the US v Haynes reference in another thread. I had heard this case referenced in the past but didn't know the exact title of the case until he made mention of it in.
March 16, 2015
I think I'm just beyond caring anymore. I'm just numb from it all.
White House office to delete its FOIA regulations
White House office to delete its FOIA regulations
WASHINGTON The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.
The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law. The office handles, among other things, White House record-keeping duties like the archiving of e-mails.
But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It's also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.
"The irony of this being Sunshine Week is not lost on me," said Anne Weismann of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/
WASHINGTON The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.
The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law. The office handles, among other things, White House record-keeping duties like the archiving of e-mails.
But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It's also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.
"The irony of this being Sunshine Week is not lost on me," said Anne Weismann of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/
I think I'm just beyond caring anymore. I'm just numb from it all.
March 12, 2015
Is there any practical use for the far end of the toaster dial?
I was making toast and I guess I accidentally turned the knob to a higher setting; not much, just from, "2 1/2" to about, "3 1/2" (okay, I have no idea what those little tick marks mean). First, I smelled the smell of burning toast and when my toast popped up I thought, "Well, I could probably use this to patch the hole in my car from that hailstorm."
Now, my toaster goes up to, "8." It can't be for bagels because the toaster has a bagel button. So, what reason could anyone have for turning the dial all the way up?
March 10, 2015
Okay, so let's "war-game" this: The President orders the arrest of 47 opposition senators.
He's sitting at his desk when an aide hands him a printout of the petition. After consulting with his advisors he instructs the DOJ to file arrest warrants.
Then what happens?
March 6, 2015
We do things diff'rent, out here in the country
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 06:33 PMNumber of posts: 19,497