HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Wella » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:31 PM
Number of posts: 1,827

Journal Archives

Imagine You're Making a Cup of Tea


Here’s a helpful analogy if you encounter someone who is still struggling to grasp that whole “only have sex with people who want to have sex with you” idea. The Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess recommends:

If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.

You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.

If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.

If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?

They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious.

"Zoe Saldana Won't Boycott Dolce & Gabbana, is Super Casual About Hate"

Zoe Saldana Won't Boycott Dolce & Gabbana, is Super Casual About Hate

Fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana made some awfully regressive comments about lifestyles, babies, and sexuality in a recent interview. "We oppose gay adoptions," was one such comment. Another, made by Dolce: "You are born to be a mother and a father. Or at least that's how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented wombs, semen chosen from a catalog." Now lots of famous people including Madonna, Elton John, Andy Cohen and Ricky Martin are publicly boycotting the brand.

Not Zoe Saldana. The new mom is all "it's like look people, have a drink, relax, it's okay." Adding, "My husband is from Italy, and if I judged him based on the words that he misuses in our English language he wouldn't be here today."

E! asked Saldana if she was planning to participate in the boycott:

"No! Not at all, that would be the stupidest thing if it affected my fashion choice," Saldana told E! News exclusively at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards when asked if she will boycott the famous brand. "People are allowed to their own opinion, however, I wouldn't have chosen to be so public about something that's such a personal thing."

She added, "Obviously it caused some sensitivity, but then again if you continue to follow the news, you see they all kinda hugged it out, so why are we making a big deal about it?"

Jonathan Capehart: "‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie"

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie

...What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements....

Page 6: Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV...

Page 8: Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.

While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

When discussing the Hillary Clinton email scandal, please remember:

Eric Holder Used Email Aliases. DOJ Says It Wasn't A Transparency Dodge.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder has used three email aliases to conduct government business over the past six years, a Justice Department official revealed Tuesday.

All three email aliases, including the one Holder currently uses, are official Justice Department addresses on the @usdoj.gov domain, the official told The Huffington Post. Holder has used the aliases to prevent spam and to keep his inbox from being overwhelmed by the public, not to avoid transparency, the official said. The addresses were known to DOJ officials handling Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional inquiries, according to the official.

"The Attorney General uses a Justice Department email address to conduct official business. As with many Cabinet officials, he does not use his given name in the handle of his email address,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. “This practice is similar to using initials or numbers in an email address and helps guard against security risks and prevent his inbox from being needlessly inundated. It does not in any way impact compliance with FOIA requests. The Attorney General's email address is known to the individuals who process FOIA requests, and his emails are regularly produced, albeit with his exact address redacted.”

In other words, any remarks that you make about Hillary's email account, you must also apply to Holder--and whoever else has not yet admitted to the same practice.

U of Rochester Demands Yik Yak users' names and personal info from company


ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The University of Rochester is demanding a social media site turn over the names, e-mail addresses and other information that would help the college identify its students who might have posted racially offensive and threatening language.

University senior counsel Richard S. Crummins sent a letter Thursday to Yik Yak, a popular social networking app, making the demand for information, along with screenshots of the posts the university wants to have identified.

Yik Yak allows users to post anonymously. The postings are seen within a 1.5- to 10-mile radius of the user.

Although university officials say the offensive and threatening statements on this social media app are no longer posted, the controversy raises questions about First Amendment issues and how social media is regulated...

I find all racial epithets extraordinarily offensive.

However, I would not want to see them outlawed. That would lead us into speech censorship, which is a violation of the First Amendment.

Has someone decided to tank Hillary this early on?

White House: It's a 'Fact' that Clinton's Team Owns the Email Scandal

The jailed garbageman case is NOT racism

It's not about race: it's about punishing the wrong entity, and, possibly about a corporation that does what it pleases regardless of its customer's wishes.

Over the past few days, there have been a number of posts about this story from the Daily Mail:

Garbage man jailed for 30 days because he came to work too EARLY and annoyed residents of wealthy Atlanta suburb

The headline screams classicism, and it's very easy to take the emotional bait, especially since the garbage man is black, the city is in the South, and the central problem seems to be a noise ordinance. Those of us who live in big cities know that the trash people often wake us up before the alarm goes off, an there's a certain amount of jealousy of wealthy people who can sleep without the same annoyance.

However, this is actually a more complicated case and requires a little logic to understand.

PLEASE READ my argument below BEFORE you start commenting:

The garbageman, Kevin McGill, works for a company, Waste Management Inc, which accompanied him to the courthouse:

A representative for the company went to the courthouse with McGill, who expected to be ordered to pay up to a $1000 fine, Ms Bandoh said.

...Ms Prince added that Waste Management, which operates throughout the US and reported $14billion in revenue in 2014, would coordinate with its employee about his work schedule and jail time.

Waste Management is responsible for the employee's behavior and the company had ALREADY racked up a lot of fines with this city:

Sharon Kraun, a spokesman for Sandy Springs, told Daily Mail Online that McGill's citation stemmed from an incident where his truck had been photographed by a resident.

The city had seen a previous case where a garbage man was given jail time several years ago and that while no similar cases had happened since, the collectors had 'fair warning', Ms Kraun said.

She said that Waste Management, which had amassed thousands of dollars in fines with the municipality in the last year, suspended McGill for violating its policies before he went to court.

Waste Management could not answer questions about McGill's employment history with the company as of Saturday morning and said it was 'currently still investigating all the facts in the case'.

So what is the real story?

You have an employee who either (a) ignored his employer's order to start work at 8:00am (the time the city desired garbage pick-up) or (b) was following his employer's order to start at 5:00 am (a time the city did NOT want their garbage picked up.)

These are the only two logical choices. Either McGill started at 5:00am against his employer's instructions or he started at 5:00 am with their approval.

In the first case, an employee going against his employer's instructions should have been fired or moved to another job (he was not). In the second case, the company was deliberately ignoring the city's noise ordinances. In either case, the company is taking the city's money but not giving them the service they want. The city should break their contract with Waste Management, Inc and find another company.

Now to the court case:

We don't know if McGill was acting against his employer's instructions or on their orders when he broke the city's noise ordinances. However, the fact that MANY noise violations were piling up and Waste Management, Inc, was prepared to pay yet another such violation at $1000 tells me that McGill had some kind of approval from the company to keep doing what he did. In other words, it's not the employee who is breaking the noise ordinance but the COMPANY, Waste Management, Inc.

So why did the garbage man get prison time?

Probably because you can't jail a company.

The garbage man's (ludicrous) punishment seems to be the result of a "privatized" local court system that was insufficient to handle a large recalcitrant corporation. We know from the article that the company was fined again and again by this city, to no avail. The fines had ZERO effect. The corporation seemed to just accept them as the price of doing business.

In other words, the corporation had no intention of changing its pickup time and considered itself above the city government and its laws.

Against this backdrop, the privatized court--lacking any means to get this company to change its ways--lashes out at the employee, the only person who could be jailed. The corporate "person" could not.

It was flagrantly wrong for the court to put the employee in jail for his employer's contempt of their laws and continued violation of them.

However, this case highlights just how difficult it is to hold a private corporation to account. A municipal waste company--under taxpayer control--has to follow the city laws or its employees don't get paid. There is no such leverage with a privatized service.

Remember, THIS Is the goal of the Scott Walkers, the GOP, the Third Way Dems: to privatize everything. This Daily Mail article is a perfect example of why privatizing public services is a BAD idea.

For more information on this town that "privatized everything", see this video:

Recent debate with Jason Riley and Michael Jeffries

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »