HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JaneyVee » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:04 PM
Number of posts: 19,877

About Me

Work in tv/film production - Unionista UPM for the DGA - Mother - Music Lover - Graduate of The New School economics/film - Born & raised in Williamsburg Brooklyn 1981 - living in Manhattan.

Journal Archives

Why didn't George Zimmerman try starting a conversation with Trayvon Martin instead of killing him?

Why not just announce "I'm the neighborhood watch, is everything OK?" even if Trayvon couldn't be seen, or even when he did visibly see Trayvon, perhaps when he was driving and pulled up next to him. He could have kept announcing it allowing Trayvon to earn his trust, not be afraid, and explain who he was and where he was going.

It seems like a million different scenarios could have prevented what happened, unless of course Zimmerman WAS looking for a confrontation. Even law enforcement announce themselves.

It sure seems like George Zimmerman desperately wanted a confrontation, while Trayvon Martin desperately DIDN'T, hence Trayvon eventually running AWAY from creepy stalker.

It's just sickening that so many different scenarios could have played out without confrontation yet Trayvon ends up dead (RIP).

There's a certain gun mentality.

PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”


Some explanation up front: I spent seven years investigating the national-security systems and policies established in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for my book 500 Days. I learned a fair amount about the data-mining programs of the N.S.A. and wrote about it. I summarized those findings in my last post. However, now it has become obvious to me that I need to go further than I did in my book, at least in hopes of calming things down. When discussing errors, I’m going to mention “reports” regarding news articles, but I’m not going to identify them—the last thing I want is for this to become a back-and-forth between reporters.

First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Those rules are very specific. The targeting can only be of foreign nationals outside the United States. These are the restrictions:

[The N.S.A.] (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
 (3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
 (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

There are many other restrictions and requirements on how data can be properly obtained and used in the PRISM system. But since this doesn’t require some secret, confidential source to understand, I invite you to click on the link I provided above and read through the law.

However, targeting is not done willy-nilly. The system is subject to review by the judiciary, the Congress, and the executive branch. Both the attorney general and the director of the N.S.A. must make a determination that they “reasonably believe” a person they wish to target is, in fact, a foreign national outside the country whose activities raise national-security concerns for the United States. That standard, of course, is lower than probable cause, which is a small part of why any information obtained can’t be used in a criminal case.

The rest: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

Producer of 'Modern Family' Danny Zuker Lands Crushing Blow To Donald Trump On Twitter.

Donald Trump Gets Utterly Destroyed on Twitter

In the Red corner, standing at 6 feet 3 inches tall (plus 2 inches from the hair...), we have the Baron of Bad Business, the Chieftain of Chapter 11, the Duke of D-List Celebrities, Mr. Donald Trump!

And in the Blue corner, we have the producer of ABC's Modern Family and supposed "lightweight," the Wizard of Witty Comebacks, the Czar of Zingers, Mr. Danny Zuker!


What would be the best alternative plan to balance privacy & National security?

Assuming everyone here is for both privacy & National security, what do you envision the right balance would be?

Obama Administration Declassifies Details On “PRISM,” Blasts “Reckless” Media And Leakers.


Following near-simultaneous reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post this week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that contrary to press reports, “PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program.” He maintained that the government computer system is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and is overseen by all three branches of the federal government. He said that the program does not target US citizens or anyone known to be in the United States, and pushed back on reports that the government has continuous access to Internet companies’ systems.

“Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so,” he said.

The disclosure followed on a release Thursday of details about the National Security Agency’s collection of telephone “metadata” of all calls made in the United States.
In both instances, Clapper fiercely defended the programs, in the case of the Internet surveillance saying the program has “proven vital to keeping the nation and our allies safe.”

“It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security,” he added.

Clapper also lashed out at both the Guardian and the Washington Post, calling the disclosure of classified information “reckless.”

“There are significant misimpressions that have resulted from the recent articles,” he added. “Not all the inaccuracies can be corrected without further revealing classified information. I have, however, declassified for release the attached details about the recent unauthorized disclosures in hope that it will help dispel some of the myths and add necessary context to what has been published.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/08/obama-administration-declassifies-details-on-prism-blasts-reckless-media-and-leakers/#ixzz2Vf4sxOmJ

How The Human Face Might Look In 100,000 Years.

Today: A typical-looking man and woman.

In 20,000 years: Humans have a larger head with a forehead that is subtly too large. A future "communications lens" is represented by the yellow ring around their eyes. These lenses will be the 'Google Glass' of the future.

In 60,000 years: Human beings have even larger heads, larger eyes and pigmented skin. A pronounced superciliary arch makes for a darker area below eyebrows. Miniature bone-conduction devices may be implanted above the ear now to work with communications lenses.

In 100,000 years: The human face is proportioned to the 'golden ratio,' though it features unnervingly large eyes. There is green “eye shine” from the tapetum lucidum, and a more pronounced superciliary arch. A sideways blink of the reintroduced plica semilunaris seen in the light gray areas of the eyes, while miniature bone-conduction devices implanted above the ear work with the communications lenses on the eyes.


These are just the photos from the article which goes into detail about why we would acquire these traits: http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/

I'm SHOCKED by the number of people here in favor of heckling non-elected officials.

I get heckling elected officials, even then, there is a time & place for it if you want to do it right (otherwise it's counter-productive). I just don't get WHY we want to become a Nation of toddler-like behavior, shouting over other people. It's part of the current poisonous discourse in our country. We should value listening to people then responding in a respectful manner.

Of course you are Constitutionally allowed to just be rude & selfish & blurt out your opinion that no one asked for, but with that mind frame you must also believe it's OK to heckle Sasha & Malia Obama, or your priest during his sermon, or your classmate while they are reading an essay in front of the class, or your teacher, etc etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Do you also talk during movies? Heck, why not just heckle any private citizen you want because what would be great for this Nation is rudeness & toddler-like behavior.

Now, while heckling someone may be extremely ineffective & childish, it IS protected by the Constitution, so IF you MUST heckle, at least heckle those who write laws, write policy, are elected officials, and who receive a taxpayer funded salary. Heckling regular people is both childish & rude. But this is a free country, so if childish & rude is what you're going for then proceed, but don't expect to be put on a pedestal for making a fool of yourself, that behavior is reserved only for the rightwing.

AUDIO of Michelle Obama Taking On Heckler.

Wow, she was giving a great speech about kids and the future generation. She handled it with grace, even giving the protestor a choice to hold the mic.


Officer's Cellphone Pics Show Zimmerman May NOT Have Been Punched the Night he Killed Trayvon

Look closely at George Zimmerman's nose picture, that was taken from Officer Wagner's cell phone before EMS cleaned him up and you'll find there is no blood at all coming from Zimmerman's nostrils. Yet, Zimmerman told Detectives that Martin punched him in the nose so hard that he "fell to the ground when he punched me the first time" and that he was "punched in the nose 25 to 30 times." Looking at the nose picture, with no blood at all coming from the nostrils, it is easy to figure out why Detective Sereno told Zimmerman "the 25 to 30 punches" he claimed he took from Trayvon Martin "were not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries."
(George Zimmerman nose picture taken by Officer Wagner before EMT cleaned him)

I think it's pretty clear that the only part of Zimmerman's nose that is bleeding is the very tip of his nose. And when you compare the nose picture Officer Wagner took with the picture the Sanford Police Department took about 45 minutes after Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, you can see two pinholes on the tip of Zimmerman's nose which is exactly the location of the bleeding Officer Wagner's picture shows. Another interesting feature between the two pictures is that there is no more swelling on the right-side bridge of Zimmerman's nose 45 minutes after Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman told detectives he was "punched in the nose and face about 25 to 30 times." If that really happened, wouldn't Trayvon's fist be covered with Zimmerman's blood and wouldn't that blood on Trayvon's fist transfer to Zimmerman's face at every punch? But look at that picture Officer Wagner took before EMS cleaned him up, there is no transfer of blood from Trayvon's fist to Zimmermans face, anywhere! There is only blood on the tip of his nose and the width of the blood on his lips are the same width as the blood coming from the tip of his nose.

The Autopsy report of Trayvon Martin did not mention any blood or dirt on Martin's fists. The Autopsy also states that none of Zimmerman's DNA is under Martin's nails which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin grabbed his bald head with such a tight grip that he slammed Zimmerman's head onto the sidewalk over a dozen times.

The rest: http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213239/-Officer-s-Cellphone-Pics-Show-Zimmerman-May-NOT-Have-Been-Punched-the-Night-he-Killed-Trayvon

The Obama Administration is the LEAST Scandalous Administration of the Past 30+ Years

Look how the Obama administration's "scandal" list compares to Presidents (especially 2 term) of the past 30+ years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93_Obama_Administration

NOW SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE and look at George W. Bush's scandal list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2001.E2.80.932009_George_W._Bush_Administration

OH! And don't forget the MOST scandalous of all, Ronald Reagan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#1981.E2.80.931989_Ronald_Reagan_Administration


Next time a rightwinger opens their Teabilly doucherocket mouth screaming about the FAKE Obama scandals, just refer them to those lists, then laugh & laugh & laugh!
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »