HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 67,648

Journal Archives

How Many Feet Must a Man Wash Down?

How Many Feet Must a Man Wash Down?
By mistermix March 29th, 2013

Judging from the media response to Pope Francis washing the feet of actual poor and downtrodden people, including a couple of women, instead of the usual group of bishops, it looks like footwashing is a pretty effective way to clean up a bad reputation. In the past couple of days, Don Young called Mexicans “wetbacks”, and Ben Carson mentioned NAMBLA and bestiality as reasons for not wanting to support gay marriage. So, obviously, Don and Ben should be grabbing buckets and rags and scrubbing away some toejam to make up for their medieval attitudes.

But how many Mexican pies should Don be wetting to make up for calling them “wetbacks”? And how many homosexual toes should Ben be lathering to keep from being heckled and/or glittered the next time he’s brave enough to show his face in front of some non-Republicans? Just what is the optimal douchebag-to-toe ratio? 1:50? 1:500? This whole thing is new to me, and I need your help.


Dick Morris to help RNC with Latino Voters. How could this possibly go wrong?


Dick Morris is working with Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus on a new television advertisement that will include Preibus seeking to attract Latino voters, Morris revealed during an appearance in New York City Thursday.

Speaking at the Poli Conference, a political consulting event for Latin American campaign professionals, Morris said the ad will feature Priebus reaching out to "those Latin Americans who've come to the United States to help us build our country, to help harvest our food, to help make our economy work and (Priebus'])message is 'welcome, we need you, you're making our country younger, more prosperous, harder working and we need you for the future.'"

According to Morris, the ad will make use of "that concept of reflecting back to people their own value and their own worth. In the advertisement he (Priebus) says, 'we honor our ancestors who took covered wagons to settle the west and brave the Indians, but you are the new pioneers, you are the new people in America doing that.' And I think that is a very, very interesting thing to do in a campaign."




JESUITS GONE WILD: Two gay students allowed to attend Junior Ball together

Jesuits Gone Wild
By mistermix March 29th, 2013

This letter from Father Edward Salmon, President of McQuaid Jesuit High School, in support of his decision to allow to gay students to attend the Junior Ball together, should be included in any dictionary definition of “Jesuitical”. He name-checks his fellow Jesuit, Pope Francis like he was a brother, and by the time you get to the last paragraph, his cherry-picking of the words of Francis and the bishops will have you believing that the whole Catholics-hating-the-gays thing is just a big misunderstanding:


In that same message, Always Our Children, the Bishops are clear –“Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.” The Bishops continue: “It is also important to recognize that neither a homosexual orientation, nor a heterosexual one, leads inevitably to sexual activity. One’s total personhood is not reducible to sexual orientation or behavior.” In that same message, the Bishops refer to a 1986 Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which emphasizes that “Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them.”


With this decision I am not contradicting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to human sexuality; I am not encouraging nor am I condoning homosexual activity just as I do not encourage or condone heterosexual activity at a dance. I am not contradicting the Church’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage. With this decision I invite and encourage us all, as Pope Francis does, to exercise care, protection, goodness which calls for a certain tenderness “which is not a virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid of goodness, of tenderness.”


No matter what kind of a pretzel shape Fr. Salmon’s letter takes, it shows some guts, and it’s pretty insightful and tolerant considering that he’s pushing 75. He’s brave to risk the wrath of conservative bishops and other church members by writing this letter. But he’s also not stupid. Keeping those boys out of prom would have risked the fat stacks his school takes in from non-Catholics who want their kids well-educated, but who also don’t want to send their kids to a place with a 15th century attitude towards homosexuality. If only the rest of the church had a few more realists like Fr. Salmon in charge.


But, The NRA Is SO Respectful Of Tradition...

It will take a major revolution or an outright collapse to stop all this nonsense...

Letter from an angry reader
Posted by Dan Crawford (Rdan) | 3/29/2013 09:00:00 AM global trade

From Stormy, who has written on global trade for over a decade, sends an e-mail on the discovery that we are losing competitive advantage:

........ Four or five years ago, I saw the writing on the wall. Off-shoring, outsourcing...name of the game. All the blather about new technology was just that: blather—otherwise, how do we explain China? It uses cheap labor ...as does Vietnam, Mexico...on and on. Apple and IBM are the poster children of the modus operandi. They are American companies in name only.

Eventually, I just gave up singing the song. All the big economic voices have their selling of corporate profit.... Globalization—poorly designed for all us schmucks. It was designed for the rich....end of story.

WTO rules? Ok: Last time. China played that WTO game by stiffing its own companies to lure the multi-corporations to set up house on Chinese soil. Chinese firms were taxed at twice the rate of foreign firms. Non-existent environmental standards in China, which lowered the cost of doing business. Unions? None. Lowered the cost of doing business. Cheap, slave labor. I could continue...but what is the use? And of course: monetary manipulation. Make cheap in China—sell high in the West. Where were the big economic voices?

And what did the U.S. do? Worry about the consumer stepping up to the plate!---banks charged uxorious rates for credit cards and loans. Extending risky credit was the name of the game. Get every last penny from the American consumer.

Sorry to get so annoyed. I saw all the stupid arguments...they were dodges. Clinton gave Phil Gramm a big wet kiss –and signed the Financial Modernization Act of 1999. Then he told us NAFTA was a win-win.... create jobs at home. Yup Yup. Then Clinton joined the lobbyist crowd and made his millions. Now we have Obama his loves the big CEO`s---

Obama’s efforts to stem outsourcing/offshoring have been silly. Obama’s solution? Cut taxes on corporations to keep them here. China gave tax free ten-year holidays to many corporations. O think he is going to match that? His strategy is classic economic stupidity...a knee jerk solution. And will O match the cheap labor costs? Will he match the low environmental standards? Will he call a halt to monetary manipulation? I suggest, play Name the Corporation who hates American. Name the corporations and the CEO who have shipped jobs overseas—only to send the goods back home.

Shame them. Make it difficult for them. Put a tariff on all goods made abroad by American companies—and exported here. Revisit the idea of what a corporate charter means. Take it away from corporations who consistently stiff us.

Close down tax havens. Get serious about them. Christ, if we think Iraq and Iran are problems....what about Bermuda? Close it down. I am serious. Send in the marines. If we cannot think of ways of really hurting Bermuda and similar uglies....we do not have a country interested in defending itself.

And change the rules of the WTO: Countries must have environment and labor standards. Countries cannot have a two-tiered taxation system—one for indigenous and one for foreign firms. All must be equal. No advantages to foreign firms in order to lure them. Otherwise, ditch the WTO.

It will take a major revolution or an outright collapse to stop all this nonsense. And with Global warming, pollution, resource lost, etc. Etc.... we do not have much time.

We have to start thinking outside the box. And listen to the squeals from the very rich.


KRUGMAN: "Yes, we are cheating our children, but the deficit has nothing to do with it."

Cheating Our Children

So, about that fiscal crisis — the one that would, any day now, turn us into Greece. Greece, I tell you: Never mind.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a remarkable change of position among the deficit scolds who have dominated economic policy debate for more than three years. It’s as if someone sent out a memo saying that the Chicken Little act, with its repeated warnings of a U.S. debt crisis that keeps not happening, has outlived its usefulness. Suddenly, the argument has changed: It’s not about the crisis next month; it’s about the long run, about not cheating our children. The deficit, we’re told, is really a moral issue.

There’s just one problem: The new argument is as bad as the old one. Yes, we are cheating our children, but the deficit has nothing to do with it.


Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we’re doing to the next generation’s economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much — and the deficit scolds, for all their claims to have our children’s interests at heart, are actually the bad guys in this story.

way more:

Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forward

Source: The

Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forward
By Jordy Yager - 03/29/13 06:00 AM ET

President Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.

The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.

It is unclear whether the National Rifle Association will challenge any of the executive actions in court. A spokesman for the NRA did not return a request for comment.

The moves, which have not been widely touted by the administration, come as Obama ups his pressure on Congress to take action on gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The Senate is expected to begin floor consideration of legislation when it returns in April.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/290885-obama-uses-executive-power-to-move-gun-control-forward#ixzz2Ow78Xg2f

Obama issues Executive Order to investigate voter suppression

Source: The Examiner

President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order today, March 28, which will set up the Presidential Commission of Election Administration.

The Commission will consist of 9 members appointed by the President and have two co-chairs. Those appointed will have experience and or knowledge of “Federal, State or local elections”.

“The Commission shall be composed of not more than nine members appointed by the President. The members shall be drawn from among distinguished individuals with knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections, as well as representatives of successful customer service-oriented businesses, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission.”

The Commission will be making recommendations that will “promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay”

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-issues-executive-order-to-investigate-voter-suppression

From the WH:

The Robed Troll: It turns out Scalia’s comment was wronger than I thought

The Robed Troll:

It turns out Scalia’s comment was wronger than I thought — and wrong in a way that Scalia, in particular, should have known.

It relied, remember, on the idea that sociologists are, in some significant way, split on this question. That’s not what the American Association of Sociologists thinks. Here’s its official statement on the matter:

The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than opposite-sex parents—either because such families lack both a male and female parent or because both parents are not the biological parents of their children—contradicts abundant social science research. Decades of methodologically sound social science research, especially multiple nationally representative studies and the expert evidence introduced in the district courts below, confirm that positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.

The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents.

Pretty definitive. And here’s the punchline: That paragraph isn’t buried in a press release on its blog or in an editorial from its trade magazine. It’s from the amicus curiae brief that the ASA filed in the very case Scalia was commenting on.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »