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


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 6,827

Journal Archives

Must be busy...

...Probably has another wife to murder. Meh... Priorities.

TYY --->> *who loathes celebrities who murder their wives and get away with it.*

She asked...

...that ALL activists (to include gay activists and black activists) add the fight for women's rights to their activism dockets. (You don't have to be gay or black to be involved in the fight for equality and basic human rights.)

If someone hearing Patricia Arquette's comment is already fighting for women's equality then her backstage comment doesn't apply to them. Her request for solidarity only applies to those people who are not already on board with equality for women, and activists with a narrow purview of which causes are important enough to fight for.

Black women are already included in Patricia Arquette's "us" and "we" category of "all women" by virtue of their gender. Unless there are black women who've been actively campaigning against equality for women, the call for solidarity by Patricia Arquette does not apply to them, since they are already "us." "That we've all fought for"… "that we've" includes black feminists. "…to fight for us now"… "us" includes ALL women of every stripe and hue.

Her initial call for equal wages for women, while onstage, sets the parameters for deciphering additional comments on the same topic backstage. If she hadn't already established intent with her first comment, then her backstage comment might be open to interpretation…but she did, and it isn't.

Without the first comment, I can see how the second comment might be misconstrued, but we DO have the first comment which sets the rules by which the second comment is to be judged. Anyone not understanding the thrust of the backstage comment need look no further than the onstage comment to correctly decipher and parse intent.

She didn't demand anything. She merely requested solidarity from those who are already inclined toward activism. She requested support in the fight for women's rights. She didn't qualify that statement by saying "white women's rights," she said, "all women's rights" regardless of straight, gay, black or white. Her fight is for wage equality for ALL women, period.

She's asking that ALL people join in the fight for women's equality. If you're already on board, then her words were not directed at you. But, if you are female, her goal for women's equality is meant to benefit YOU, regardless of color or sexual propensity.

She didn't imply that other oppressed groups have "won their victories." She didn't say "you owe us." That's you projecting.

She's fighting for equality for ALL women, including you, while you're doing nothing but tear her down for her efforts.

You might be the one that needs to take a step back and reevaluate.


Patricia Arquette said "women." She didn't say "white women."

Why is the internet re-framing Patricia Arquette's plea for equality for ALL women by suggesting that she somehow excluded LGBTQ women and women of color?

She didn't do that. She didn't marginalize gay women and women of color to the exclusion of straight white women. She spoke on behalf of ALL women. She asked that other oppressed groups join in the fight for women's equality.

She's not a racist. She isn't a homophobe. She didn't say "white women only" when referring to wage disparity between men and women.

I am sincerely at a loss as to why Patricia Arquette's words have been twisted and skewed into a huge morass of cognitive dissonance and challenged perception.


Here's my revolutionary costume for today...

The best kind of clothes for a protest pose
Is this ensemble of pantyhose
Pulled over the shorts, worn under the skirt
That doubles as a cape.

To reveal you in capri pants
You fashion out of ski pants,
In a jersey knit designed to fit
The contour of your shape.
Then cinch it with a cord from the drape.

Da da da da dum...

You fight City Hall with a Persian shawl
That used to hang on the bedroom wall,
Pinned under the chin, adorned with a pin,
And pulled into a twist.

The best kind of shoes to express bold views
Are strapless mules in assertive hues
Like fuchsia or peach, except on the beach,
In which case you wear flats...

Da da da da dum...


Amnesty International: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

Report - October 24, 2014

"Every day that Michael Brown doesn't receive justice, we are reminded that it's open season on black lives in Ferguson. How are we supposed to live everyday knowing that and not go crazy?" - Anonymous protester


This briefing document outlines some of the human rights concerns witnessed by Amnesty International and a series of recommendations that need to be implemented with regards to the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers and the policing of protests.


Irrespective of whether there was some sort of physical confrontation between Michael Brown and the police officer, Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat to the life of the police officer. As such, this calls into question whether the use of lethal force was justified, and the circumstances of the killing must be urgently clarified.

Also troubling is Missouri's broad statute on the use of deadly force. Amnesty International is very concerned that the statute may be unconstitutional and is clearly out of line with international standards on the intentional use of lethal force as it goes well beyond the doctrine that lethal force only be used to protect life.

Racial discrimination and excessive use of police force nationwide
The shooting of Michael Brown highlighted on a national level the persistent and widespread pattern of racially discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers across the United States, including unjustified stops and searches, ill treatment and excessive, and sometimes lethal, use of force.

Much much more: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/on-the-streets-of-america-human-rights-abuses-in-ferguson?page=show

Please take the time to go to the link. This report is extensive and well worth the read.

It includes separate, well thought out and individualized recommendations to the Department of Justice, United States Congress, Ferguson Police Department, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Governor of Missouri, the Department of Justice and the United States Congress...


So, in the final analysis, Michael Brown was murdered for jaywalking...

Where's the toxicology report on Darren Wilson? Like everything else surrounding this case, initial reports have been withheld while the corrupt Missouri 'justice system' takes 2+ months to craft a narrative.

The family had their own autopsy of Michael Brown's body performed which disputes the original "official" autopsy report.

As described by multiple witnesses to the murder, the independent autopsy suggests that Michael Brown died as a result of the "kill shot" to the top of his head after he was already on the ground.

What We Learned from an Independent Autopsy of Michael Brown
By Taylor Wofford
Filed: 8/18/14 at 1:27 PM  | Updated: 8/18/14 at 1:29 PM

An independent, preliminary autopsy performed on the body of Michael Brown shows that the 18-year-old was shot “at least six times,” according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, formerly the chief medical examiner for the City of New York, one of two experts who performed the autopsy.


Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells said the two shots to the head were probably the last two shots fired. All of the shots, with the exception of the one to the top of the head, were survivable, Dr. Baden said. An attorney for Brown’s family described the shot to the top of the head as “the kill-shot.”

The autopsy did not reveal signs of a struggle, Dr. Baden said, which casts doubt on an earlier statement by police that a struggle between Brown and Wilson precipitated Brown’s shooting. Police have said Brown forced his way inside Wilson’s cruiser, where Wilson shot at Brown for the first time.

Dr. Baden said he found no gunpowder residue on Brown’s skin, which could mean that the muzzle of Wilson’s gun was “at least one or two feet away” from Brown when he was shot. However, Dr. Baden was adamant that he would need to examine Brown’s clothing for gunpowder residue to make a conclusive finding.

Brown’s clothing was not available for Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells to examine, Baden said, though it was almost certainly examined during Brown’s first autopsy performed by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner. If no gunpowder residue was found on Brown’s clothing during the first autopsy, it will likely throw the Ferguson PD’s timeline of events into question.



Kick for Ferguson October solidarity...

...and the DU weekend crowd.


To all who answered my post…

Thank you.

My biggest concern was that this woman was unarmed. She also had a baby in her car which, in my mind, mitigates her suggested intent. The fact that the front end of her car is undamaged gives me pause over the barricade allegations.

Lots of people try to run from cops every day. I don't see that as a license to kill the fleeing perp. I'll be curious to see the dash cam video of the "80 mph" chase.

And finally, to chalk this up to her "mental health" is unfair. Her mental health doesn't explain why a group of cops mowed down an unarmed woman with a baby in her car.

Thanks again, to all who replied. I do appreciate your posts.


I'll weigh in on this one...

...because I can...and because I'm bored...and it's Friday, and...

The monthly photography 'contest' requires input from the majority of du members and not just members of the photography forum. Otherwise, ...what a circle jerk that would be.

I think GD gets the biggest cross section of DU viewers outside of meta... (gratuitous shrug smiley)

If you have the time and inclination to weigh in each month, you should do so. If not, then don't click; just hide thread and move on.

Yay Friday! (gratuitous exclamation point)


Go to Page: 1