Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Bigots really hate when minorities appropriate words that are insults. To use offensive words among us with a loving meaning is our ultimate win. Very good article
  3. Why I Quit the Writers’ Room The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democracy is silence them. By Walter Mosley (Mr. Mosley is a novelist and screenwriter.) Sept. 6, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/sunday/walter-mosley.html Earlier this year, I had just finished with the “Snowfall” writers’ room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network. I’d been in the new room for a few weeks when I got the call from Human Resources. A pleasant-sounding young man said, “Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you used the N-word in the writers’ room.” I replied, “I am the N-word in the writers’ room.” He said, very nicely, that I could not use that word except in a script. I could write it but I could not say it. Me. A man whose people in America have been, among other things, slandered by many words. But I could no longer use that particular word to describe the environs of my experience. I have to stop with the forward thrust of this story to say that I had indeed said the word in the room. I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all N*****s in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in N***** neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it. Someone in the room, I have no idea who, called H.R. and said that my use of the word made them uncomfortable, and the H.R. representative called to inform me that such language was unacceptable to my employers. I couldn’t use that word in common parlance, even to express an experience I lived through. There I was, a black man in America who shares with millions of others the history of racism. And more often than not, treated as subhuman. If addressed at all that history had to be rendered in words my employers regarded as acceptable. There I was being chastised for criticizing the word that oppressed me and mine for centuries. As far as I know, the word is in the dictionary. As far as I know, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence assure me of both the freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness. How can I exercise these freedoms when my place of employment tells me that my job is on the line if I say a word that makes somebody, an unknown person, uncomfortable? There’s all kinds of language that makes me uncomfortable. Half the utterances of my president, for instance. Some people’s sexual habits and desires. But I have no right whatsoever to tell anyone what they should and should not cherish or express. A few years ago when a group of my peers said that they supported outlawing the Confederate flag, I demurred. Don’t get me wrong. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings about that flag, but I do know that all Americans have the right of self-expression. (Also, if someone has that flag in their mind, I’d prefer to see it on their front porch too.) I do not believe that it should be the object of our political culture to silence those things said that make some people uncomfortable. Of course I’m not talking about verbal attacks or harassment. But if I have an opinion, a history, a word that explains better than anything how I feel, then I also have the right to express that feeling or that word without the threat of losing my job. And furthermore, I do not believe that it is the province of H.R. to make the decision to keep my accusers’ identities secret. If I’ve said or done something bad enough to cause people to fear me, they should call the police. My answer to H.R. was to resign and move on. I was in a writers’ room trying to be creative while at the same time being surveilled by unknown critics who would snitch on me to a disembodied voice over the phone. My every word would be scrutinized. Sooner or later I’d be fired or worse — silenced. I’m a fortunate guy. Not everyone can quit their job. But beyond that, we cannot be expected to thrive in a culture where our every word is monitored. If my words physically threaten or bully someone, something must be done about it. But if you tell me that you feel uncomfortable at some word I utter, let me say this: There was a time in America when so-called white people were uncomfortable to have a black person sitting next to them. There was a time when people felt uncomfortable when women demanded the right to vote. There was a time when sexual orientation had only one meaning and everything else was a crime. The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democratic nation is to silence them. And the easiest way to silence a woman or a man is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation. Instead let’s delve a little deeper, limiting the power that can be exerted over our citizens, their attempts to express their hearts and horrors, and their desire to speak their truths. Only this can open the dialogue of change.
  4. So Saudi Arabia's oil supply is more important than the innocent victims of gun massacres in his very own country. Also, never been any punishment for the slaughter of a journalist by Saudi Arabia.
  5. Yesterday
  6. Last week
  7. Not a mass shooting, but this could have been so much worse. I believe the gunman showed up too early. A Mariners baseball game just let out, but that station is like 5 stops down the line. 1 dead, 2 injured. They were shot on the subway platform, disgusting. Suspects at large. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/3-people-shot-on-westlake-station-light-rail-platform/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
  8. The Guardian view on Yellowhammer: the ugly truth about a no-deal Brexit Ministers insist it is a worst-case scenario. But with no new deal in sight, the dangers set out in a document they wanted to hide must be taken seriously Even for a government that prides itself on high-handedness, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s vicious attack on consultant neurologist David Nicholl was a low point. Dr Nicholl, who drew up a risk register for the newly released Yellowhammer no-deal Brexit planning document, asked Mr Rees-Mogg, on live radio, what “level of mortality” he would regard as an acceptable price for leaving the European Union with no arrangements in place. Since this was a direct challenge to ministers’ strategy of trying to normalise what should be unthinkable, Mr Rees-Mogg’s anger was not surprising. His insolence, however, in comparing Dr Nicholl to the struck-off anti-vaccination campaigner Andrew Wakefield, proved too much for his frontbench colleagues and Mr Rees-Mogg was forced to apologise. Now that Yellowhammer has been published, it is clear why Dr Nicholl felt compelled to confront him. No-deal Brexit is a recipe for chaos, with medical supply shortages near the top of a list of consequences that are already scaring people around the country. While the long-term impact of a bitter divorce is strategically more damaging than any initial shocks, even voters tempted to buy into Mr Johnson’s no-deal bluster could be put off by the prospect of two-day traffic jams, energy price rises, civil unrest or a lack of clean water. For Gibraltar and Northern Ireland the prospects are far bleaker, with a revived black market described as “likely”, particularly in border areas where criminals and terrorists are already active. Even given all the politics that surround Brexit, it is extraordinary that ministers thought it appropriate to hide such warnings from parliament and the public. Both tips of the government’s two-pronged damage limitation exercise – that Yellowhammer represents a worst-case scenario, and that a deal is in any case on the cards – require careful handling. Since other versions of the Yellowhammer document are headed “base case”, it seems more likely that it sets out what civil servants believe will happen rather than what they think won’t (even if further attempts at mitigation are now in train), while the latest claims about a new deal being within view are at odds with the resignation statements of Amber Rudd and Jo Johnson. Angela Merkel’s warning of the risk to the EU that could be posed by a low-tax, low-regulation “Singapore-on-Thames” on its doorstep is more illuminating. That such threats are being taken seriously, following Brexit negotiator David Frost’s announcement that Mr Johnson’s government wants to walk back from Theresa May’s commitment to a level playing field on social and environmental standards, should alarm everyone who wants the UK to continue in a constructive partnership with our neighbours, whether within or outside the EU. Given the enormous difficulties that would beset trade negotiations were the UK to pursue such a course, it is tempting to dismiss such statements as empty boasts, intended to force the EU’s hand with regard to Ireland. But Yellowhammer provides some support for this week’s complaint by a French foreign minister that the UK is attempting to negotiate “side deals” with individual member states, and subvert the Brussels process. Since parliament has all but ruled out no deal, Yellowhammer’s predictions are not as frightening as they might be, even if an extension from the EU is not guaranteed. But it remains extremely disturbing that members of the prime minister’s immediate circle apparently believed, as recently as last weekend, that riots and shortages could be features of the near-future for which he is readying the country. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/12/the-guardian-view-on-yellowhammer-the-ugly-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw ... meanwhile coward spineless David Camoron published his fucking book....
  9. Glad I have never ever used PayPal.... BREXIT PARTY PAYPAL INVESTIGATION Rampant Impermissible Donations Revealed by Watchdog's Visit Tip of the Iceberg? Byline Times’ exclusive report on the loopholes in the Brexit Party’s PayPal funding system led to a visit from the elections watchdog, which subsequently revealed impermissible donations – but questions remain. Following Byline Times’ investigation into the Brexit Party’s Paypal funding methods, the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, visited the party on 21 May to review the systems it had in place to receive funds. A month later, the commission concluded that “the fundraising structure adopted by the party leaves it open to a high and on-going risk of receiving and accepting impermissible donations”. It made a number of recommendations to the Brexit Party – including that it should check and identify all of the online payments it had received to ensure that the party had not accepted any donations that it was not entitled to, including foreign money. However, the latest figures published by the Electoral Commission on political party donations and loans have raised concerns as to whether the Brexit Party heeded this advice. As a result of the watchdog’s visit on 21 May, the Brexit Party altered its funding system to register the identities of donors. Prior to this, it was not recording the identities of those contributing. In line with the change, the filings from the Electoral Commission reveal that a number of prohibited donations occurred rapidly the day after the visit. This is because the changes the visit instigated resulted in illegal payments to the Brexit Party becoming visible and a pattern rapidly emerging. However, while the filings confirm that vast amounts of impermissible foreign donations were moved through the Brexit Party’s PayPal structure, they also reveal that Nigel Farage’s party has not reviewed any donations it received before the visit by the Electoral Commission on 21 May. Not a single impermissible donation was reported from this period to the watchdog. Tip of the Iceberg? When Nigel Farage launched his party on 12 April this year he claimed that, during the preceding 10 days, it had amassed funding at record rates – £750,000, all in small donations of less than £500. He had “never seen anything like it in his 25 years in politics,” he declared. Under UK electoral law, donations to political parties under £500 can be accepted anonymously as they are exempt from the requirement to store addresses and check that the donor is a UK resident. As the PayPal function for receiving donors’ addresses on the Brexit Party’s donation system was disabled, it amassed a number of anonymous payments. If several separate payments of £500 or under were made to the party, which exceeded individual donation limits by actually coming from the same source, these would be impermissible. Just six days after the Electoral Commission insisted on more checks following its visit to the Brexit Party, it made up 60% of all reported illegal payment transactions for all political parties for the entire three month period, all from separate seemingly unconnected donors. The Electoral Commission told Byline Times that it was “the legal duty of the party to report any impermissible donations it receives and it is the responsibility of the party to record details of permissible and impermissible donations”. Just six days after the Electoral Commission insisted on more checks following its visit to the Brexit Party, it made up 60% of all reported illegal payment transactions for all political parties for the entire three month period, all from separate seemingly unconnected donors. The Electoral Commission told Byline Times that it was “the legal duty of the party to report any impermissible donations it receives and it is the responsibility of the party to record details of permissible and impermissible donations”. “Some of the information you have requested relates to our visit to the Brexit Party on 21 May 2019,” the Electoral Commission wrote. “It is important that we are able to conduct such regulatory work in confidence, and disclosure would result in those we regulate having detailed knowledge of our approach to our regulatory work, with the real risk that it would provide assistance to any organisation seeking to evade the rules.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the £500 donations loophole does nothing to increase transparency and trust in electoral finances. The Brexit Party has had a profound influence on British politics since its inception. All parties must be treated impartially. Despite these glaring gaps in its finances, the Electoral Commission has told Byline Times that it is not investigating the Brexit Party’s funding, but that it reserves the right to launch an investigation if more evidence comes to light in the future. https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/03/brexit-party-paypal-investigation-rampant-impermissible-donations-revealed-by-watchdogs-visit-tip-of-the-iceberg/
  10. The Brexit Short: How Hedge Funds Used Private Polls to Make Millions Private polls—and a timely ‘concession’ from the face of Leave—allowed the funds to make millions off the pound’s collapse. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash
  11. I know we’re not supposed to hate people, but I’m making an exception: Donnie Two Poops is a dangerous malignant narcissist. There’s a documentary coming out soon called “UNFIT”. Regarding drumpf’s malignant narcissism as discussed by leading psychological professionals and psychologists. There was an unspoken rule about not speaking Ill of another republican, called the Goldwater Rule. It’s become obsolete. The movie will premier in NYC & L.A.
  12. For the 1st time, I think he's doing the right thing. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-says-he-is-concerned-about-vaping-because-people-are-dying-68684357565?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&fbclid=IwAR377wJuOpu-XNVn4bJ5gyheNtic0ZTFHqvh4WMFiyeHN3t_vmjPHMkAPvk
  13. When Yaramati visited the Ahalya IVF & Nursing Home, she reportedly concealed her age to receive IVF treatment. Were the medical team blind?
  14. Well here's the 'Operation Yellowhammer' document if anyone is curious. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf it does seem to be an updated version of the one that leaked several weeks ago and makes for grim reading.
  15. Because its rednecks - neonazis who support those "movements", who are never educated or base their decision on facts or studies. Its a well known fact (and undisputed) that EU has brought prosperity and peace to all its members and Europe in general. But that doesnt matter for those ppl. They want to "make it alone" against all odds or logic. Catalunia for example would never be as prosperious as within Spain and there are many reasons why, but the nationalists do not care about it. Anyways Barcelona is overrated, Madrid is MILES better anyways :).
  16. Yep, that is me with That Girl. June 7 2005, Bergdorf Goodman’s NYC. It seems like a lifetime ago. My story is in Icon 45. 

    148D0E29-B0BE-4790-811C-6EB43456682F.jpeg

  17. Nobody nowadays proposing disruptive politics has a plan. Nobody. Lepen has no plan in case France leaves the EU. Not even after Brexit they explain how would France trade with other countries. Catalonia has no plan at all regarding retirement pensions, economic deals, the cost of a new army (and if you go all Swiss, having no army but knowing that then civil forces will have to make those task. how much is that cost) or being expelled from the EU. Which makes a very interesting case of study: why do.people who support those movements don't ask for the planning?
  18. yes!!!! I really like him, because he is always so humble, he deserves all the good things that happen to him in his life
  19. Eight more sleeps until Madonna's Opening Night at BAM in Brooklyn! I'm so excited. I've been to NYC and all, but never been to Brooklyn. Should be fun. If anyone wants to meet up, I'd be happy to!

  20. Earlier
  21. Brexit has been a shit show since it was first announced and comes back to the arrogance of those who ran the Remain campaign that it was a done deal. Why plan for something that would never ever come to pass? Only it did. Oops! Hence why Cameron bailed. Because if he stayed on, he knew he would be exposed as having no plan. It wasn't just because he would have been doing something he claims to have not believed in (despite his pre-vote insistences that he would trigger Article 50 'the next day' after the vote if Leave won). It's something that has plagued this Government since. Theresa May's insistence that 'No Deal is better than a bad deal' yet providing minimal to no planning for it believing she could strong-arm her own vision through. And flipping that round, it seems Boris has been planning for No Deal but not for a deal, all the while thinking he can strong-arm his vision through. A responsible government should plan for every scenario. And not one of them has been responsible, so no proper planning.
  22. Unfortunately, its the common atmosphere in backward, conservative world, which is the majority of the world...
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...