HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »

yurbud

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 34,334

Journal Archives

Wow. Do they have ANY prospects with a credible chance of winning general

Or are they justtrying to create jobs for comedy writers?

The killer cop story we never hear: HEDGE FUND MANAGER SHOT FOR SUSPECTED SALE OF FRAUDULENT DERIVAT

HEDGE FUND MANAGER SHOT FOR SUSPECTED SALE OF FRAUDULENT DERIVATIVES

Goldman Sachs executive Oliver Dauphin was shot and killed today when he failed to respond to questioning by a police officer.

Dauphin was waiting for his limo at the curb outside the Bhutan Grill when police officer Damon Johnson overheard him on the phone, selling what sounded like a rent based derivative.

"I knew how much damage those mortgage back derivatives did to our economy and the world, so I wanted to ask some questions to find out if they were solid or another pump and dump fraud like the mortgage backed derivatives," said Johnson.

Johnson instructed Dauphin to hang up, so he could ask his questions, but Dauphin ignored him and walked a few feet away.

Johnson followed and took his phone out of his hand, ending his call.

Dauphin tried to grab his phone back, and Johnson said, "not until you answer some questions."

Dauphin became enraged and said, "Do you know who I am? Do you know who I am? I'm the guy who's going to get you fired. I'm going to make your life a living hell. You're dead!"

Johnson took his last statement as a threat, drew his revolver, and told Dauphin to put his hands on his head.

Rather than comply, Dauphin made a dismissive noise and reached inside his jacket.

Fearing that he may have been reaching for a weapon, Johnson opened fire, hitting Dauphin three times in the chest and once in the head.

A later search of his body found no weapon, only a wallet and a cigar.

Others in the finance industry were shocked by the shooting and demanded that the officer be fired or at least put on suspension pending an investigation.

The police chief said he had no plans to do so since the officer acted within department policy.

"A suspect wearing a long heavy coat like that could be hiding a shotgun, assault rifle or grenade launcher for all we know, so given his movements, the shooting was appropriate. Police officers deal with very dangerous people in this neighborhood who have been known to rob pension funds, bankrupt local and state governments, and even countries with their fraud. Given that threat, Officer Johnson acted appropriately."

He also said that a cigar had been stolen from a nearby bodega and it was very likely the officer could smell the tobacco. Johnson did not mention this in any of his own statements though.

What Is Driving the Charter School Movement in Newark?

The title of this article has a one-word answer: money. In this shocking article, journalist Owen Davis explains how the expansion of charters in Newark is driven by two factors:

1) the availability of millions of dollars in federal school construction bonds that have been showered on the charter schools but not the public schools;

2) the Chris Christie administration's decision to withhold funding specifically designated for the repair and renovation of existing public schools.

Put these two factors together and you get a city with gleaming charter schools and crumbling public schools.

FULL TEXT

Chicago Tribune Poll: Voters Reject Rahm’s Education Policies, Favor Teacher's Union

Note to Democrats: it's tough to appear small-D democratic when you ignore your constituents who notice that you are robbing them to give to the rich.

Nearly 80% of those with kids in public schools disapproved of his handling of education

What is especially significant is that corporate education reformers often say their goal is to help underprivileged, inner city kids get a better education.

In effect, if you don't agree with them, you are a heartless racist.

Oddly, black Chicagoans aren't feel the love from the corporate reformers since they disapprove of Rahm's approach even more than whites.

Democrats need to realize that to keep up the appearance of democracy, they need to put the people ahead of their Wall Street masters on at least a FEW issues, and this is one of them.

If you don't give us a progressive alternative to party that OPENLY favors the rich, we will have to make another one that does.

The Chicago Tribune's poll of voters' views of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's school policies showed very low approval for the Mayor. The mayoral election is in February 2015, and it appears that education is Rahm's weak spot. He favors charter schools and shut down nearly 50 public schools in one fell swoop, an act unprecedented in American history. He has fought bitterly with the Chicago Teachers Union over school funding. It is not working well for him politically, the poll shows.

"Asked about Emanuel's handling of public schools, 65 percent disapproved, 26 percent approved and 10 percent had no opinion. The latest findings show a shift of 5 percentage points toward disapproval from a Tribune poll in May 2013 — just before a vote by the school board to shut nearly 50 public schools.

"While dissatisfaction with the mayor on education crossed racial lines, it was more intense among African-American voters. Critics contend black neighborhoods were disproportionately targeted for school closings. Fully 77 percent of black voters disapproved of Emanuel's handling of the city's schools while only 14 percent approved."

"Among parents of children in Chicago Public Schools — about one-fifth of those taking part in the survey — nearly 4 out of 5 disapproved of the mayor's handling of public education while only 19 percent approved. But even those without children in the public schools disapproved at a 62 percent rate, while only 27 percent approved.

"Emanuel's approach on charters versus neighborhood schools was roundly criticized by voters: 72 percent disagreed with that approach, compared with 18 percent who agreed. African-American voters most severely opposed the policy — at 83 percent — while only 10 percent agreed with Emanuel. Nearly 8 in 10 parents of CPS children also were opposed, as well as 75 percent of female voters, 69 percent of men and 63 percent of whites."

http://dianeravitch.net/2014/08/15/chicago-tribune-poll-voters-reject-rahms-education-policies-favor-ctu/

Ferguson shows why elite should be worried about a revolution

For decades, even centuries, cops, sheriffs, and pretty much any old good old boy who felt like it could do whatever the fuck they wanted to black people and most white people wouldn't care.

After the shooting of Michael Brown, enough white people seemed to be of the same opinion as black people that Congress suddenly got bipartisan religion on demilitarizing the police.

Black and white is about as big a political divide as you can get in America, and at least on this issue, we came together.

Is it so hard to imagine middle class people making common cause with the working class and poor of their own and other races if we were able to at least temporarily bridge this race divide?

What if instead of a cop's bullet, next time it's cuts to food aid to poor family's, another job-killing trade deal, or bail out of Wall Street that saves the criminals instead of their victims, and instead of seeing those getting the raw deal as "them" and losers, we see "them" as part of "us"?

All of those things have happened before and are very likely to happen again.

But the next time they do, the elite could get the Ferguson response.

KIDS BOOK COVER: My Parents Open Carry

I found this over at Reddit.

This would comforting if we lived in a post-Apocalyptic zombie-filled world.

But we don't.



A modest proposal for Israel regarding US weapons.

Americans care deeply about the survival of Israel and feel a strong sense of kinship to our Jewish cousins over there.

At the same time, we are uneasy about seeing weapons we have given them used to kill civilians on a large scale.

Therefore, from now on, we will no longer supply heavy weapons like aircraft, tanks, and the like to Israel or the spare parts to keep those they have running. Instead, any attack on Israel by foreign armies will be considered an attack on the US, and we will respond directly.


That shouldn't happen too often though because Israel has peace treaties with two of her immediate neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, a history of cooperating with another, Saudi Arabia, and the remaining neighbors are basket cases either recovering from civil war and past Israeli invasions in the case of Lebanon or a current civil war in the case of Syria.

When it comes to dealing with terrorist or rocket attacks, I've heard that Israel has a pretty good intelligence capabilities that should allow them neutralize those on the ground.

But as in Northern Ireland and South Africa, the best way to deal with terrorists is to put them out of business by making a just peace.

If anyone says my plan won't work or that our military can't do the same job Israel's can, or that we wouldn't keep our promise to defend Israel, I would remind them of our decades of troops in Korea, Japan, and Europe.

And this wouldn't even require stationing troops in Israel. We've got plenty in the neighborhood.

Also, if you think the Israeli military can do a better job than ours, you are insulting our troops and showing a lack of patriotism.

If those who criticize the foreign policy of Israel are anti-Semites...

does that make those who criticize Russia's anti-Slavites? Or who criticize Iran anti-Persians or anti-Islamites?

Can we have one definition of racism or prejudice that applies to ALL religions or ALL ethnicities or ALL nationalities equally?

I post this because I posted a question about public acceptance of our Israel policy and someone else sent an alert that said it was anti-Semitic.

I have dated Jewish girls. I lived on the Westside of LA for twenty years where quite a few people are Jewish, and one of my best friends is Jewish, and did me at least one favor that made my life dramatically better for quite a while (and incidentally, I never saw this guy get a helping hand from any hidden Jewish cabal, which disappointed both of us).

I wish Jews a happy future and prosperity, and even in the post someone alerted as anti-Semitic, I said I would be glad to settle the Israel/Palestine problem but letting all of either side or both sides immigrate to the United States, which not incidentally, is arguably LESS anti-Semitic than one of our government's original motives for supporting the founding of Israel--reducing the number of Jews to the US (not because they are Jews but simply because our economy might not have been able to absorb so many immigrants along with returning vets).

There has been a lot of anti-Russia and anti-Putin talk here lately, and while a lot of it is cynical shilling for a dangerous and corrupt foreign policy, I don't for a second think that it's primarily racist or anti-Orthodox Christian.

A broader form of this problem on DU is the use of the "hater" and "lover" meme, ie, if you disagree with Obama, you are an Obama-hater and Republican-lover, or if you disagree with treating Russia like a pariah, you are a Putin-lover.

DU should be a place policy discussions, and unless somebody actually says that a particular race, religion, or ethnicity is inferior, evil, lazy, or somehow lesser than other people, we should not tolerate accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, or whatever anymore than we tolerate actual expression of racism, anti-Semitism and the like.

Why do Americans tolerate letting Israel dictate our Israel policy?

I can understand the various possible motivations of politicians, from campaign donations, to fear of others getting those donations, to hypothetical strategic interests, but why do average Americans tolerate it, especially when a lot of our politicians say we can't question what Israel does?

Especially the righties normally freak out about any hint of the US being anything less than the owner of the world and god forbid if we recognize any authority like the UN, which would somehow compromise our sovereignty.

Given that, why do Americans seem blase about a tiny country leading us around by the nose and using money we give them to do things that incite acts of terrorism against us?

Is it just that most people only see things exactly the way they are told to, so if the MSM and right wing media agree, they accept it without question?

And by the way, I would be glad to solve the Israel/Palestine problem by allowing all of one side or the other to immigrate to the US, so I don't ask this out of animus toward Israel.

Obama's last chance to do his presidency right: tell people "give me a Congress of Democrats...

and watch what I can do for you.

I've gotten Harry Reid and the hold outs in the Senate who voted against ending the filibuster to agree to temporarily do so until the end of term in office if they retain the Senate and we win the House, so no hiding behind the skirts of GOP obstruction or claiming that we had to dilute a proposal to break through Republican intransigence.

So from January 2015 until January 2017, you'll get a chance to see what the Democratic Party can do without obstruction and our party will entirely own the consequences of what happens during that time . It will be all on us, undiluted.

Then in the 2016 election, you will have a clear choice between a Democratic Party that works for everyone and a Republican Party that only works for the very wealthy.

It will be an experiment in democracy, but only you can make it happen if you get to the polls this fall.

You know even if you don't like me or my party, wouldn't that be worth a try? What have you got to lose?"
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »