A group of student-activists at the University of Florida painted their pants in fake blood to simulate menstrual flow earlier this week in order to protest the lack of free menstrual products on the school’s campus.
Calling it a “bleed-in,” about two dozen students participated in the faux-menses demonstration on campus, according to The Independent Florida Gator.
“If you’re disgusted with our bloody pants, then maybe you should rethink whether or not this is important for everybody or if everybody would use it,” 30-year-old student Jenny Boylan said, according to The Gator. “I think you all collectively benefit from me not bleeding in your seat.”
The protest comes after the university’s student government voted against a proposition to provide free menstrual products to women on campus.
From the report:
Although organizers did not expect everyone to paint their pants, they hoped the visual inspires students to advocate for accessible menstrual products.
Shannon Mathew, a UF psychology and sociology senior, was one of the first students to paint their pants at the protest.
The 21-year-old said she’s had no access to a tampon in an emergency too many times to count.
“This is a part of reproductive justice,” Mathew said. “I’m not ashamed of my period, and I don’t think anyone should be.”
A Change.org petition in support of free menstrual products at the university garnered 3,200 signatures last semester.
Would somebody be this fools daddy so he can stop being mad at Donald Trump.
Eminem has hit out again at Donald Trump, arguing that both Hillary Clinton and “a fucking turd” would have made for a better President than the current US leader.
The Detroit rapper has been vocal in his criticism of Trump in recent months, saying that Trump doesn’t care about America and that he has “brainwashed” his supporters.
Now, speaking to Billboard, Eminem has claimed that he foresaw Trump’s election win. “Watching the TV in fucking disbelief. I was in my basement, on the phone back and forth with friends like, ‘He’s going to fucking win’,” he said.
“I called it just from the rallies he was having when he first started running. Because just watching the impact he has, they were fanatics. There is something to be said about the person who really felt like he might do something for them – and he just fucking duped everybody.”
“I know that Hillary [Clinton] had her flaws, but you know what? Anything would have been better [than Trump]. A fucking turd would have been better as a president.”
Last October, Eminem slammed Trump in a freestyle performed at the BET Hip-Hop Awards, drawing a “line in the sand” between him and Trump, telling his fans to pick a side. He later expressed his surprise at Trump failing to respond to the freestyle.
“I felt that everybody who was with him at that point doesn’t like my music anyway,” Eminem said. “I get the comparison with the non-political-correctness, but other than that, we’re polar opposites. He made these people feel like he was really going to do something for them.”
“It’s just so fucking disgusting how divisive his language is, the rhetoric, the Charlottesville shit, just watching it going, ‘I can’t believe he’s saying this.’ When he was talking about John McCain, I thought he was done. You’re fucking with military veterans, you’re talking about a military war hero who was captured and tortured. It just didn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. And that’s some scary shit to me.”
“I knew [the BET freestyle] would get a reaction, obviously; that’s what I rap to do,” Eminem added. “But where I was coming from in that cypher was a genuine place in my heart. I [hesitate] to say [I have] hatred in my heart for him, but it’s serious contempt. I do not like the guy.”
“At the end of the day, if I did lose half my fan base, then so be it, because I feel like I stood up for what was right and I’m on the right side of this. I don’t see how somebody could be middle class, busting their ass every single day, paycheck to paycheck, who thinks that that fucking billionaire is gonna help you.”
He continued: “Y’all saw the tracklist and had a fit / Before you heard it / So you formed your verdict While you sat with your arms crossed / Did your little reaction videos and talked over songs / Nah dog, y’all saying I lost it / Your fucking marbles are gone.”
Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/music/eminem-says-a-fucking-turd-would-be-a-better-president-than-trump-2229077#EP8k5yKTRqGEsV52.99
These idiots want to control everyone on Social Media.
There is a growing drumbeat for tech regulation coming from the establishment, the latest example being Salesforce.com CEO Mark Benioff’s call, made at Davos, for the world to “wake up to the threat from tech giants.” But what kind of regulation are they looking for?
Benioff compared the tech giants to tobacco companies, suggesting that their product is “addictive” and in some cases “bad for people” before alluding to the “manipulation” of elections by “outside forces.”
“I think you’d do it exactly the same way you’d regulate the cigarette industry. You know, here’s a product, cigarettes, they’re addictive, they’re not good for you, maybe there’s all kinds of different forces getting you to do different things …”
The Salesforce.com CEO’s comments echo the narrative of the left, which is that “fake news,” spread through social media and financed by Russia, put Donald Trump in the White House. Aside from the inflated claims and Red Scare-level establishment panic, the subtext of the argument is that users of social media platforms can’t be trusted to choose what information they receive. Unless social media companies limit access to information, they will be manipulated by hostile forces (and many on the left consider Breitbart News and the alternative media to be synonymous with “fake news.”)
It’s a narrative that says the free flow of information is dangerous, because voters are stupid and easily misinformed. It’s a narrative hostile to the idea of human rationality, one that says free speech and the free marketplace of ideas are flawed, because human beings — given the chance — will choose bad speech and bad ideas. Instead, governments and Silicon Valley gatekeepers should act as enlightened overlords, deciding what information the mentally feeble users receive. Rupert Murdoch expressed this opinion last week, when he said Facebook and other social media platforms should pay reputable new sources to atone for the crime of spreading “scurrilous news sources,” referring to the alternative media.
The right wants regulation too, but of a very different kind. Multiple right-wing commentators have called for Google and Facebook, whose market share eclipses old 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and the Bell System, to be regulated like utilities.
The impetus is the threat of political bias from companies that now have more influence over the flow of news and information than any other company in history. Facebook, through a recent change to its news feed algorithm, threatens to undercut the success of new media outlets. Google, by tweaking its search results, could swing an election anywhere in the world. Twitter has been the birthplace of entire political movements.
Yet all of these companies are subject to less regulation on viewpoint neutrality than a small-time radio or TV broadcast station, which are subject to the equal time rule (not to be confused with the Fairness Doctrine.) This states that broadcast stations must give equal and equivalent airtime to political candidates who request it. Give a Democrat five minutes, and you have to give his opponent five minutes too.
Unlike Benioff’s suggestion, the equal time rule weakens rather than strengthens the power of information gatekeepers, limiting their ability to choose what the public sees. Instead of one “unbiased” source who claims to offer the whole truth without bias (arguably an impossible feat for anyone, let alone a mainstream news company), the public will see two competing sets of partisan information, and decide for themselves which one rings true. It’s regulation that affirms, rather than denigrates, the intelligence of voters.
Tech companies, despite having political influence that vastly exceed a single T.V or radio station, are subject to no such rule, which means they can kick off or censor political candidates at will — as they’ve done to Roger Stone and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
In addition to the utility argument, which would subject the tech giants to similar rules on content neutrality that were previously applied to ISPs under Title II regulations, conservatives have also suggested tying social media company’s legal immunity to viewpoint neutrality. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media companies from legal liability for posts made by their users — without this protection, there is no way the tech giants could have grown to the size that they have achieved.
The legislation was written with the justification that the Internet offers a forum for “true diversity of political discourse,” and the “user control over what information is received by individuals” must be maximized. Conservatives want to tie the immunity more closely to its justification; if social media companies fail to deliver political diversity (say, by banning their prominent conservative users, as Twitter has done), then they lose the protection of Section 230.
Facebook, by insisting on ranking news content via an algorithm that favors so-called “broadly trusted” sources, instead of letting users decide what they see, is also violating the spirit of Section 230. They aren’t maximizing user control over the information they receive. As with political diversity, this could again be strengthened so that tech companies that meddle too much in their users’ ability to choose their own information sources without giving them a chance to opt-out should also lose the protections of section 230.
This, unlike the “solutions” suggested by the left, is again a type of regulation based on an optimistic view of users’ intelligence. The subtext is that users can be trusted to choose their own information sources, without the need to be protected from nefarious influences by Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
The elites at Davos, terrified of the unwashed masses, don’t think users can be trusted. They’re terrified of the choices being made by ordinary people, from the sites they read to the candidates they vote for, and they desperately want to regain control. Unable to countenance that their worldview might be flawed, they’ve convinced themselves that voters are stupid, and led astray by “fake news.”
Heck, even if they’re right and voters are morons, that doesn’t imply the elites are geniuses by process of elimination. They might be even bigger morons! The reason we have free speech isn’t that everyone is perfectly rational, but because no-one is, and therefore no-one should be allowed to go unchallenged. That’s why restoring their ability to control the flow of information, something now being loudly demanded by the left, must be opposed at all costs. Censorship is caused by people who believe that everyone except themselves are idiots.
Pope Francis denounced “fake news” as evil, comparing it to the snake that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden.
In his annual social communications message, Francis dedicated his missive this year to “fake news and journalism for peace,” saying misinformation dates back to the Biblical beginning of time.
“The strategy of this skilled ‘Father of Lies’ is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments,” he said, adding “fake news” played on stereotypes and prejudices. “This biblical episode brings to light an essential element for our reflection: There is no such thing as harmless disinformation; on the contrary, trusting in falsehood can have dire consequences.”
Francis then called on journalists to be “protectors of the news” and to rediscover the dignity of their profession. He said it was their responsibility to communicate the truth.
“The tragedy of misinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict,” Francis said.
A journalism of peace, Francis said, is one that is truthful, and devoid of “rhetorical slogans and sensational headlines.”
Yes He Worships the Devil.
“A journalism created by people for people, one that is at the service of all, especially those – and they are the majority in our world – who have no voice,” he said. “A journalism less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflict, in order to promote deeper understanding and contribute to their resolution by setting in place virtuous process. A journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence.”
The Pontiff’s message comes after he faced unprecedented bad press during his South American tour. It also comes a week after President Trump announced his “Fake News Awards” winners.
The message made no reference to how some public figures often label unflattering or critical reports “fake news” to try to discredit the information.
Francis has frequently railed about journalists, and before he became pope was known for his frosty relations with the Argentine media. Just this week, while chatting with reporters aboard the papal plane, he admitted he hated giving interviews and joked: “And look at the job God gave me now.”
Bob Mueller is a self-righteous POS that should be investigated.
Special counsel Robert Mueller may have helped cover up connections between a Saudi family and the 9/11 terror attacks, according to Tuesday report from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Court documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that as FBI director, Mueller was “likely involved” in releasing deceptive agency statements to cover up a connection between a Saudi Arabian family living in Florida and the 9/11 hijackers. The statements were tailored to discredit a 2011 story exposing an FBI investigation into the family, who lived in Sarasota, Fla. The investigation was also withheld from Congress, according to Judicial Watch.
The FBI investigation into the Saudis came when news stories found that they had abruptly left the country two weeks before 9/11, reportedly leaving behind their cars, furniture, clothes, and other personal items.
“Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that the lies were approved by Mueller,” Judicial Watch wrote. “Not surprisingly, he didn’t respond to questions about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.”
Some republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have been clamoring for him to fire Mueller in recent months as they perceive his credibility to be waning. They cite that more than half of Mueller’s team has worked for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation or have a history of donating to Democrats.
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in early December demanding that Mueller release hundreds of anti-Trump text messages exchanged by FBI agent Peter Strzok – who was on Mueller’s Russia investigation team – and FBI lawyer Lisa Page throughout 2017. Now, with some of the messages released, it’s become clearthat Strzok may have thought the investigation was a dead end.
Why don’t he interview Peter Strzok, Obama, or Hillary?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is seeking an interview with President Donald Trump about his decisions to dismiss FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The Washington Post reports that Trump’s team has crafted negotiating terms for his interview with Mueller’s investigative team that could be presented to Mueller as soon as next week, according to two sources familiar with the special counsel’s plans.
According to the report, Mueller’s interest in those firings indicates his Russia probe is focusing on possible efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation:
The president’s legal team hopes to provide Trump’s testimony in a hybrid form — answering some questions in a face-to-face interview and others in a written statement.
Those discussions come amid signs of stepped-up activity by the special counsel. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was interviewed for several hours by Mueller’s investigators, according to Justice Department officials.
A spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr, declined to comment. A White House spokesman referred questions to the president’s legal team. Two attorneys for Trump, Jay Sekulow and John Dowd, declined to comment
Within the past two weeks, the special counsel’s office has indicated to the White House that the two central subjects that investigators wish to discuss with the president are the departures of Flynn and Comey and the events surrounding their firings.
Trump has been unclear on whether he would meet with Mueller, saying Jan. 10, “we’ll see what happens.” He has repeatedly said there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Kremlin, and he has reportedly told his lawyers he has no worries about being interviewed since he has nothing to hide.
Trump fired Comey in May of 2017, and Comey has testified about previous conversations with Trump where he said the president asked him about laying off investigating Flynn.
Mueller interviewed Comey last year, the New York Times reported, and Comey was asked about the memos he kept about conversations with Trump while he was FBI director.
Trump fired Flynn in February after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about discussions with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Kislyak. Trump then tweeted he fired Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” even though the White House had before only cited his lying to Pence as the reason for his ouster.
Mueller is also supposed to be interested in Trump’s prior pressuring of Sessions to quit. Trump reportedly berated Sessions and demanded that he resign for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and the resulting appointment of Mueller.
It was reported that Sessions offered his resignation, but White House advisers convinced Trump that Sessions’ departure would only add to the administration’s troubles.
