Breaking News Events

[katsarecool]

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/10/florida-attorney-general-bill-mccollum-wont-appeal-gay-adoption-ruling.html
This is great news!!!

[AtLast]

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/10/florida-attorney-general-bill-mccollum-wont-appeal-gay-adoption-ruling.html

fantastic!

[Nat]

Ex-Companion Details ‘Real’ Thomas (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23thomas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

WASHINGTON — Lillian McEwen is not one of the women whose name is generally associated with Justice Clarence Thomas and his contentious confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court seat.

But now, at age 65 and retired from a long legal career, with nothing to lose and a book to sell, Ms. McEwen is ready for that to change.

This week’s news that his wife, Virginia, had left voice mail for Anita Hill, asking her to apologize for “what you did with my husband” at the confirmation hearings, gave Ms. McEwen an unexpected opportunity to talk about Justice Thomas, the man she was romantically involved with for “six or seven years” in the 1980s. The phone call, she said in an interview Friday, makes sense to her.

For Ms. Thomas, she said, the accusation of sexual harassment made by Ms. Hill “still has to be a mystery, that he is still angry about this and upset about it after all these years, and I can understand that she would want to know why, and solve a problem if she could — I mean, acting as a loyal wife.”

But Ms. McEwen said she knew a different Clarence Thomas, one whom she recognized in the 1991 testimony of Ms. Hill, who claimed that he had repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments to her at work, including descriptions of pornographic films.

Ms. McEwen said that pornography for Justice Thomas was “just a part of his personality structure.” She said he kept a stack of pornographic magazines, “frequented a store on Dupont Circle that catered to his needs,” and allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships.

[AtLast]

Ex-Companion Details ‘Real’ Thomas (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23thomas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

WASHINGTON — Lillian McEwen is not one of the women whose name is generally associated with Justice Clarence Thomas and his contentious confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court seat.

But now, at age 65 and retired from a long legal career, with nothing to lose and a book to sell, Ms. McEwen is ready for that to change.

This week’s news that his wife, Virginia, had left voice mail for Anita Hill, asking her to apologize for “what you did with my husband” at the confirmation hearings, gave Ms. McEwen an unexpected opportunity to talk about Justice Thomas, the man she was romantically involved with for “six or seven years” in the 1980s. The phone call, she said in an interview Friday, makes sense to her.

For Ms. Thomas, she said, the accusation of sexual harassment made by Ms. Hill “still has to be a mystery, that he is still angry about this and upset about it after all these years, and I can understand that she would want to know why, and solve a problem if she could — I mean, acting as a loyal wife.”

But Ms. McEwen said she knew a different Clarence Thomas, one whom she recognized in the 1991 testimony of Ms. Hill, who claimed that he had repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments to her at work, including descriptions of pornographic films.

Ms. McEwen said that pornography for Justice Thomas was “just a part of his personality structure.” She said he kept a stack of pornographic magazines, “frequented a store on Dupont Circle that catered to his needs,” and allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships.

ARGH! I don't give a flip about the porn in terms of individual freedoms, but, this jerk is on the Supreme Court and Anita Hill was smeared all over during and after those hearings. And pornography and professional relationships.... WTF??????

[Corkey]

Just when you thought it was safe to go to the gym.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/golds_gym_takes_your_membership_fees_and_gives_the m_to_anti-gay_politicians?me=nl

[Tommi]

Subject: GovExec Story:

'Don't ask, don't tell' divides secretaries, commanders.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1010/102210cd2.htm

Go to the link above to read the entire story and to the Vet's and familes and children of Please COMMENT.

'Don't ask, don't tell' divides secretaries, commanders
By Sara Sorcher CongressDaily October 22, 2010

The three service secretaries now with the power to discharge any openly gay officer under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy have all voiced their support for a repeal of the controversial policy in the past, putting them at odds with the senior military commanders.

"It's the first time in the 20 years I've spent studying the military that there has been a split between the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of the Joint Chiefs [who have voiced support of legislative repeal] and the other chiefs," said professor David Segal, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization.

A directive from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday limited discharges under the policy to an elite team of five: the Air Force, Army, and Navy Secretaries in conjunction with the Pentagon's legal counsel and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

[AtLast]

Subject: GovExec Story:

'Don't ask, don't tell' divides secretaries, commanders.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1010/102210cd2.htm

Go to the link above to read the entire story and to the Vet's and familes and children of Please COMMENT.

'Don't ask, don't tell' divides secretaries, commanders
By Sara Sorcher CongressDaily October 22, 2010

The three service secretaries now with the power to discharge any openly gay officer under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy have all voiced their support for a repeal of the controversial policy in the past, putting them at odds with the senior military commanders.

"It's the first time in the 20 years I've spent studying the military that there has been a split between the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of the Joint Chiefs [who have voiced support of legislative repeal] and the other chiefs," said professor David Segal, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization.

A directive from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday limited discharges under the policy to an elite team of five: the Air Force, Army, and Navy Secretaries in conjunction with the Pentagon's legal counsel and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

Very interesting. I say, kick the other chiefs to the curb! They do not understand the very Constitution they have sworn to defend!

[Nat]

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1028-court-execution-20101027,0,5707237.story

http://biggaynews.com/young-gay-hivaids-activist-commits-suicide/6390

http://blogs.alternet.org/antbern/2010/10/25/another-black-gay-man-cut-down/

A 26-year-old gay youth activist who worked with HIV/AIDS charities in New York and graduated from the Harvey Milk High School committed suicide over the weekend. Rod 2.0 spoke with friends and colleagues of gay youth activist and HIV peer educator Joseph Jefferson. “Joseph was truly a sweetheart,” a friend who asked to remain nameless said. “Extremely bright and impassioned about social justice causes… It’s such a loss.” On Saturday, Jefferson posted on his Facebook page: “I could not bear the burden of living as a gay man of color in a world grown cold and hateful towards those of us who live and love differently than the so-called ’social mainstream.’”

[MsDemeanor]

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1028-court-execution-20101027,0,5707237.story


Good for her. Too bad the blood thirsty majority on the Court went ahead and allowed the state to commit murder.

[Corkey]

This part makes me question the judges sanity. Not Kagan.


A judge had put the execution on hold because she said she was "left to speculate" whether this drug was safe for its intended use.

"Safe for it's intended use", which is death. Do people even think any more?

[Corkey]

If you do nothing more, watch Keith Olbermann tonight.

[Gayla]

Just when you thought it was safe to go to the gym.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/golds_gym_takes_your_membership_fees_and_gives_the m_to_anti-gay_politicians?me=nl

I've seen a number of people posting about this in various places along with calls to boycott, etc. The person who made the donation is a member of the board of the holding company that owns Golds Gym. The donation was not made by Gold's Gym or the holding company.

The holding company issued a press release the day this was announced stating that they did not make the donation, the donation was made by a private citizen in his own name, not the name of the business and that they, as a company, reaffirm their support of the GLBT community and it's causes. Indirectly, the person making the donation has profited from membership fees of Gold's Gym customers but that is much different from saying your membership fees were donated to this organization.

It's really frustrating to see how this has been blown up. It's, essentially, a media created story.

This is like saying that Campbell Soup supports S/M because I donated money to the IML travel fund.

[Corkey]

Could you point me to the story of what the holding company said this?

[Gayla]

I'm trying to find the articles about it. I read them last night, I think on HuffPost. The donation was made by Robert Rowlings, who's actually the CEO of TRT Holdings, not just a board member.

Here's a link to the Salon.com article that includes part of several different press releases about it.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/25/san_francisco_gold_s_american_crossroads/index.html
(http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/25/san_francisco_gold_s_american_crossroads/index.html)

Most of the Gold's Gyms are actually franchises rather than corporate owned. Four of the bay area locations are attempting to break their franchise agreements over this.

[Corkey]

I'm trying to find the articles about it. I read them last night, I think on HuffPost. The donation was made by Robert Rowlings, who's actually the CEO of TRT Holdings, not just a board member.

Here's a link to the Salon.com article that includes part of several different press releases about it.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/25/san_francisco_gold_s_american_crossroads/index.html
(http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/25/san_francisco_gold_s_american_crossroads/index.html)

Most of the Gold's Gyms are actually franchises rather than corporate owned. Four of the bay area locations are attempting to break their franchise agreements over this.

Ok, read it, now I have a question. Did he or did he not, Rowlings, make his money off of the good folks who either went to golds gyms or those who bought franchises from him? Leading to him donating to the right wing crazies. So some of the contracts are up in 2012, doesn't do much good this time around. 4 golds gyms out of how many? We have one here, I'm not sure if they would agree with lgbt issues. Don't get me wrong 4 is a good start, but really what is the impact?

[Gayla]

Ok, read it, now I have a question. Did he or did he not, Rowlings, make his money off of the good folks who either went to golds gyms or those who bought franchises from him? Leading to him donating to the right wing crazies. So some of the contracts are up in 2012, doesn't do much good this time around. 4 golds gyms out of how many? We have one here, I'm not sure if they would agree with lgbt issues. Don't get me wrong 4 is a good start, but really what is the impact?

I don't know if the majority of TRT Holdings income is from Gold's Gym or not. I imagine that most of the income they get from GG comes from franchise fee's rather than directly from membership fees. Of course, that is paid to the franchise via membership fees at the local level.

My issue with the whole thing is this implication that he doesn't have the right to support who ever and what ever he wants to support. The donation was not made in the company's name. It's very different from Target making a corporate donation to a right wing group but the media is comparing the two and people are all up in arms about it.

[Corkey]

I don't know if the majority of TRT Holdings income is from Gold's Gym or not. I imagine that most of the income they get from GG comes from franchise fee's rather than directly from membership fees. Of course, that is paid to the franchise via membership fees at the local level.

My issue with the whole thing is this implication that he doesn't have the right to support who ever and what ever he wants to support. The donation was not made in the company's name. It's very different from Target making a corporate donation to a right wing group but the media is comparing the two and people are all up in arms about it.

While I agree he has the right to do it, I'm also concerned with how it's done. I am on my own personal boycott of companies who donate to the tea party and Gop, as well as US Chamber of Commerce associates. It is difficult, but I have to do what I feel is right for myself and those who concern me.

[Gayla]

While I agree he has the right to do it, I'm also concerned with how it's done. I am on my own personal boycott of companies who donate to the tea party and Gop, as well as US Chamber of Commerce associates. It is difficult, but I have to do what I feel is right for myself and those who concern me.

That's my point. The "company" didn't donate. The holding company didn't donate. Robert Rowling donated.

I'm all about boycotting companies that do stupid shit. Hell, I still feel a little twinge of guilt when the office orders pizza from Dominoes and I think they've been "good" for 10+ years now! I don't shop at Target. I found a local pharmacy that meets Walmart prices so I don't even get my meds from them anymore.

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw the line, between the business and the individual? With the way corporations work these days, most are more than just one common brand. TRT Holdings is more than just Gold's Gym. They own hotels, various real estate businesses, oil & gas exploration and, I'm sure much more. Their principles have probably been donating to Republican, right wing, conservative causes for decades but until now, it's not been a publicized fact. I know that I don't research every aspect of a company, including the giving policies of their senior executives, before I choose a hotel or a gas station or where I want to eat lunch. Even if I did, I'm still not sure that I would base that decision on the political beliefs of the individuals over the actions of a company.

Robert Rowling made an individual donation to a conservative cause but Gold's Gym as been supporting liberal/GLBT causes for years. Does boycotting them due to to Rowling's donation help us or hurt us in the long run?

[Corkey]

That's my point. The "company" didn't donate. The holding company didn't donate. Robert Rowling donated.

I'm all about boycotting companies that do stupid shit. Hell, I still feel a little twinge of guilt when the office orders pizza from Dominoes and I think they've been "good" for 10+ years now! I don't shop at Target. I found a local pharmacy that meets Walmart prices so I don't even get my meds from them anymore.

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw the line, between the business and the individual? With the way corporations work these days, most are more than just one common brand. TRT Holdings is more than just Gold's Gym. They own hotels, various real estate businesses, oil & gas exploration and, I'm sure much more. Their principles have probably been donating to Republican, right wing, conservative causes for decades but until now, it's not been a publicized fact. I know that I don't research every aspect of a company, including the giving policies of their senior executives, before I choose a hotel or a gas station or where I want to eat lunch. Even if I did, I'm still not sure that I would base that decision on the political beliefs of the individuals over the actions of a company.

Robert Rowling made an individual donation to a conservative cause but Gold's Gym as been supporting liberal/GLBT causes for years. Does boycotting them due to to Rowling's donation help us or hurt us in the long run?

I don't use them in the first place. But here's the thing, he made his money off the sweat of others, I will research him and his holdings and I will boycott all of the entities he has any association with. I no longer shop at wally world, nor do I buy campbell soups, and I don't ever shop Target. It is small, but it is my protest, you are under no obligation to join me.

[Gayla]

I don't use them in the first place. But here's the thing, he made his money off the sweat of others, I will research him and his holdings and I will boycott all of the entities he has any association with. I no longer shop at wally world, nor do I buy campbell soups, and I don't ever shop Target. It is small, but it is my protest, you are under no obligation to join me.

Yeah, I get that's where his money comes from and I'm not saying that you shouldn't boycott any of them. Mostly I'm just thinking out loud and trying to figure out why it irks me so much that this has blown up the way it has. I'm also not trying to argue with you, or be obnoxious, so I hope it's not coming across that way.

As I think about it, for me, it probably comes down to the fact that I'm at a point where I have to separate the business from the politics to a certain extent. I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing anymore and many of my clients are people whose politics is completely opposite of mine. My last paycheck came directly from the pockets of someone who supports many of the conservative causes that I oppose.

So while I get it on the corporate level, on a personal level, I have to hope that there are people who can see the difference between the person and the company or I'm just screwed! :)

[Corkey]

Yeah, I get that's where his money comes from and I'm not saying that you shouldn't boycott any of them. Mostly I'm just thinking out loud and trying to figure out why it irks me so much that this has blown up the way it has. I'm also not trying to argue with you, or be obnoxious, so I hope it's not coming across that way.

As I think about it, for me, it probably comes down to the fact that I'm at a point where I have to separate the business from the politics to a certain extent. I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing anymore and many of my clients are people whose politics is completely opposite of mine. My last paycheck came directly from the pockets of someone who supports many of the conservative causes that I oppose.

So while I get it on the corporate level, on a personal level, I have to hope that there are people who can see the difference between the person and the company or I'm just screwed! :)

I get you gayla, no worries. I'm in a unique position, as I don't owe my income to anyone. I worked all my life for it and to see some of these businesses taking a stand against social security and other social issues, it makes me mad as hell. So I do have the inclination to study them and do what is right for me. Happy hunting!

[Gemme]

I've seen a number of people posting about this in various places along with calls to boycott, etc. The person who made the donation is a member of the board of the holding company that owns Golds Gym. The donation was not made by Gold's Gym or the holding company.

The holding company issued a press release the day this was announced stating that they did not make the donation, the donation was made by a private citizen in his own name, not the name of the business and that they, as a company, reaffirm their support of the GLBT community and it's causes. Indirectly, the person making the donation has profited from membership fees of Gold's Gym customers but that is much different from saying your membership fees were donated to this organization.

It's really frustrating to see how this has been blown up. It's, essentially, a media created story.

This is like saying that Campbell Soup supports S/M because I donated money to the IML travel fund.

I know you and Corkey have kind of covered this a little bit, but what about this?

From the article in question:

*Rowling, head of TRT Holdings, which is the owner of Gold's Gym, is spending quite a bit of money this election cycle. Upwards of $2 million to be exact, through both his corporate and personal bank accounts. Where is he sending that money, which he no doubt earns on the backs of many an LGBT customer?*

Before I hop on either side of the debate, I'd like to know WHAT corporate accounts, exactly.

[Corkey]

Gemme, if you go back to the first post I made about this it shows some links to Karl Rove and his "grassroots" organization. There are other links within the story as well.

[Greyson]

NPR

October 28, 2010

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

"The gentleman that's the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger," Nichols said. "He's a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman."

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

"They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community," Nichols said, "the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate."

But Nichols wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said.

That's because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona's immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.


Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.
The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona's Immigration Law
And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."

"ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group," said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he's also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona's law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together."

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce's immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

"I don't go there to meet with them," he said. "I go there to meet with other legislators."

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR's Anne Hawke.

[Liam]

NPR

October 28, 2010

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

"The gentleman that's the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger," Nichols said. "He's a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman."

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

"They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community," Nichols said, "the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate."

But Nichols wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said.

That's because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona's immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.


Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.
The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona's Immigration Law
And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."

"ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group," said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he's also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona's law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together."

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce's immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

"I don't go there to meet with them," he said. "I go there to meet with other legislators."

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR's Anne Hawke.

I am so sick of corporations driving this country's politics.

[MsDemeanor]

I love watching the snails pace at which this sort of news travels.

The private prison scheme was first reported in the local news, which pretty much no ones pays attention to. Radical lefty Rachel paid attention, and covered it a couple of months ago. The story now seems to be drifting toward the center, as elitist NPR is finally reporting it. If it can get pushed to the liberal NYT and WaPo, then perhaps the liberal televised MSM will report it, and eventually CNN will put it up on a big graphic with some accompanying twitter posts from viewers. I can't wait to hear how Faux Republican Party Newz will spin it into a Kenyan conspiracy.

[AtLast]

NPR

October 28, 2010

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

"The gentleman that's the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger," Nichols said. "He's a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman."

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

"They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community," Nichols said, "the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate."

But Nichols wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said.

That's because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona's immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.


Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.
The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona's Immigration Law
And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."

"ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group," said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he's also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona's law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together."

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce's immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

"I don't go there to meet with them," he said. "I go there to meet with other legislators."

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR's Anne Hawke.

I hope this gets out there more and more- MsD is right, Rachael covered this a few back. I hope it takes hold as a mainstream media story.

[AtLast]

As messed-up as it is, the only way we can know if a major business we want to do business with is LGBTIQ friendly, is to do research BEFORE joining or buying from them.

Also, there are several websites that identify large corporations as well as small businesses all over the US that are either for or against us. After researching, as individuals, we have to make decisions about who we will buy from (or what gym, etc. to join). I hate WalMart and Target for example, yet, times are tough for a lot of people and I have access to more local type businesses because of where I live. So, I have more choices than many people in more rural areas. Plus, my kid is raised, but there are a lot of people here raising (and supporting) children and trying to make ends meet. We also have quite a few military people/families- and they sure as hell don't make a boat load of money!

On the other hand, our wanting less expensive goods has contributed to large corporations producing goods in countries that it costs less to do so. We can't have it both ways. Are we going to support labor in the US and bringing back manufacturing here. And are we willing to pay more for this? No, we shouldn't have to pay crazy proces, but, we won't be getting things at the prices we now see due to what has gone on with trade in the US.

[Corkey]

As messed-up as it is, the only way we can know if a major business we want to do business with is LGBTIQ friendly, is to do research BEFORE joining or buying from them.

Also, there are several websites that identify large corporations as well as small businesses all over the US that are either for or against us. After researching, as individuals, we have to make decisions about who we will buy from (or what gym, etc. to join). I hate WalMart and Target for example, yet, times are tough for a lot of people and I have access to more local type businesses because of where I live. So, I have more choices than many people in more rural areas. Plus, my kid is raised, but there are a lot of people here raising (and supporting) children and trying to make ends meet. We also have quite a few military people/families- and they sure as hell don't make a boat load of money!

On the other hand, our wanting less expensive goods has contributed to large corporations producing goods in countries that it costs less to do so. We can't have it both ways. Are we going to support labor in the US and bringing back manufacturing here. And are we willing to pay more for this? No, we shouldn't have to pay crazy proces, but, we won't be getting things at the prices we now see due to what has gone on with trade in the US.

We try very hard to buy made in the usa, problem is not much is made in the usa any more. While we have choices on where to buy, it is the what that we are having difficulty with. So I am voting on Tuesday to do my part. I hope all who are registered to vote do so as well. If I can make it to the polls, then the rest of you can too.

[Nat]

North Korea opens fire at South Korea (http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101029/korea-tension-101029/20101029/?hub=CalgaryHome)

Tensions escalated along the North Korea-South Korea border on Friday after the North fired two rounds at its southern neighbour.

South Korean troops immediately fired back, an official told The Associated Press.

The shots from North Korea were fired towards a South Korean guard post in the Demilitarized Zone between the two countries, an official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul told AP.

No one was injured and it wasn't clear whether the shots represented a military action or were an accident.

However the shots came just hours after the North vowed to retaliate after the South rejected a Pyongyang proposal for military talks.

[Nat]

FBI: Same Gun Used in Military-Related Building-shootings

f__m0dD64Go

The same gun was used to shoot at the Pentagon, a Marine Corps museum and a military recruiting center, the FBI said Thursday. The conclusion was based on testing of evidence at the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. All shootings happened to the buildings at night when nobody was there.

[Nat]

mDnldUKUiPo

Panel: Halliburton knew of faulty cement mixture used to try to seal BP well (http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-oilspill_29tex.ART.State.Edition1.47b8952.html)

WASHINGTON – Halliburton officials knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but they still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said Thursday.

In the first official finding of responsibility for the blowout, which killed 11 workers and led to the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the commission staff determined that Halliburton had conducted three laboratory tests that indicated the cement mixture did not meet industry standards.

The result of at least one of those tests was given March 8 to BP, which failed to act on it, the panel's lead investigator, Fred Bartlit, said in a letter delivered to the commissioners Thursday.

"There is no indication that Halliburton highlighted to BP the significance of the foam stability data or that BP personnel raised any questions about it," Bartlit said in his report.

Another Halliburton cement test, carried out about a week before the blowout of the well on April 20, also found the mixture to be unstable, meaning it was unlikely to set properly in the well, but those findings were never sent to BP, Bartlit found after reviewing previously undisclosed documents.

[katsarecool]

Haliburton will be the death of us yet!!!!! And their former CEO Dick Cheney!!!

[Greyson]

Note how wealth is passed on from generation to generation. Also, notice the pace at which personal wealth can increase once you are elected into public office. If you are working class, middle class, how and when will you deal with the obvious disparity, if ever?
______________________________________________


Senate Procures Influx of Millionaires
Oct. 28, 2010
By Jennifer Yachnin
Roll Call Staff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate’s famed “millionaires club” is becoming a little crowded.
According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber’s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
In addition, more than half of the Senate’s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.

Those increases are reflected in the chamber’s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.

Roll Call’s analysis of Senators’ wealth is based solely on the information lawmakers provide in their annual reports. The minimum value of all liabilities is subtracted from the minimum value for all assets.

Among the Senators who tallied the largest percentage increases in wealth in 2009, several lawmakers benefited from inheritances. Sen. John Cornyn reported four new investment funds and a retirement account valued at a combined $96,000, inherited from his mother. The additional funds increased his minimum net worth 550 percent, to at least $130,000.

Despite his significant percentage increase, the Texas Republican is among the 10 poorest Senators, tied with Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in 90th place.

Sen. Sherrod Brown saw his bottom line increase to $370,000, nearly 429 percent over the minimum net worth of $70,000 he disclosed in his previous report.

That increase results from an uptick in the value of the Ohio Democrat’s investment in the Mansfield, Ohio-based Brownlea Farm, which rose to at least $250,000. He had previously valued his investment in his family farm, which he first began reporting in 1992, at $15,000.

According to his office, Brown’s family had the farm reappraised in 2009 following the death of his mother. An amendment Brown filed in May states he should have previously reported his share of the farm at the higher value.

Along with another amendment Brown filed in March reevaluating his investment in his state’s pension plan, the Ohio Senator’s minimum net worth for 2008 would have been reported at $384,000.

His current $370,000 net worth places him 77th among his colleagues, tied with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).

Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose mother also died in 2009, reported an increased value in several properties, noting in his report that the parcels are being appraised as part of his mother’s estate.

The Alabama Republican reported the value of the largest asset, 1,100 acres of timberland, at $1 million to $5 million.

He also reported 500 acres of farmland in Wilcox County, Ala., valued at $500,000 to $1 million. He previously reported a half-interest in the same property, valuing it at $250,000 to $500,000. The report also lists three other tracts of Alabama timberland comprising another 63 acres.

Sessions’ minimum net worth increased 124 percent from $1 million to at least $2.24 million in 2009. He is now the 33rd wealthiest Member of the Senate, tied with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

Both Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) also reported gains of at least 100 percent — catapulting both lawmakers out of the red after each reported a negative net worth the previous calendar year.

Baucus no longer reports a $100,000 line of credit from Sun Trust Bank, increasing his net worth to about $10,000.

Stabenow likewise dropped a $15,000 revolving line of credit from a Lansing, Mich.-based credit union, which brings her reported net worth to $0. She reports no assets and no liabilities.

It is possible that both Senators are worth significantly more, however.

While lawmakers are required to disclose their personal finances annually, the forms allow Senators to report their assets and liabilities in wide ranges, providing a sometimes imprecise summary of each lawmaker’s fiscal state. The financial disclosure process also shields certain assets from public view, including primary or secondary residences that do not produce income, as well as artwork, antiques or other collectibles not held for investment purposes. Payments from federal retirement accounts and Social Security also are exempt from the reporting requirements.

Such exemptions likely account for the more than 43 percent drop in wealth Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported in 2009. The Minnesota Democrat, who claimed about $300,000 in 2008, reported transferring assets from four private 401(k) retirement accounts to the government’s Thrift Savings Plan, which Senators are not required to report.

As Roll Call reported in its 50 Richest Members of Congress survey in September, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) remains the wealthiest lawmaker, with $188.37 million. Another 21 Senators also are among the richest Members.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) ranks as the poorest Member of Congress in 2009, despite the fact that he likely is among the richest.

Like most lawmakers, Kohl uses only the broad reporting categories required in the financial disclosure forms to provide information on his finances. Those forms limit the greatest minimum value of an asset to “over $50 million.”

On the forms, Kohl places the value of his NBA franchise, the Milwaukee Bucks, in the more than $50 million category. Forbes estimated in December that the team is worth $254 million.

But with the NBA franchise contributing only $50 million to Kohl’s wealth, according to the form, and liabilities related to the team counted elsewhere at $115 million, Kohl’s minimum net worth on financial disclosures settles at negative $4.64 million.



2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

[Nat]

Tsunami baby found alive in storm drain
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39905639/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

[Greyson]

I wonder how long it will take the Pentagon to actually release the FULL Report and analysis. Then what is the timeline for the U.S. Senate and Congress to review the report and actually take action?

As for the Dream Act being attached to this bill, if it is true, I don't think it was a wise decision to attach two controversial pieces of policy and potential legislation into one piece. IMO, throwing other non-related, nor relevant piece of legislation into other legislation is a common action taken in our Senate and Congress, but it does not make it ethical, nor in the best interest of the people of the USA.

The Dream Act is about helping the children of Illegal Immigrants that are U.S. Citizens by birth and are here through no fault of their own. How is this related to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

Finally, before anyone interprets that I do not support the Dream Act, please read my words again. I do not support "pork barrel legislation." I think it is used in the belief that most Americans are too stupid to notice.

________________________________________
________________________________________


DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers

Tonight, NBC News’ Richard Engel has learned some early results from the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to military sources who have seen the report, a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers:

ENGEL: The findings are that for most soldiers, and this wasn’t the sum total of all soldiers, it wasn’t that big of a deal…The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care.’ That’s significant.

MADDOW: Predominant answer is ‘no big deal.’

ENGEL: Most common, number one. Number two was, ‘I would deal directly with the person involved.’ So when you put the two of those together, it is the majority. Now, there were some people who said, three, they would go to the chain of command and some four, who hated it, hated it. But the answers one and two are considered positive. So these studies show a relative if not positive outlook, at least an accepting outlook.

MADDOW: So the military study is, as you said, the survey of the troops is part of it. It’s an overall study of the feasibility of the issue….this survey of the troops, what you’ve learned is that a majority of troops it’s not going to be a major deal.

ENGEL: Not a deal breaker, that they they’re not going to be running from the army in droves. A key thing this study kept coming back to is that it’s very important about the chain of command. What commanders say. How far commanders act. What tone they set. The marines were the most negative out of the services. They had the most people who were — with negative responses. And the marine corps leadership has taken a stance and has been very vocally against this issue. And the study found that most soldiers and sailors and all different service members follow a chain of command. So if the chain of command accepts this as the law, the data is that so will the soldiers.

The study, which Engel described as the ‘core’ of the Pentagon’s review, is particularly significant since moderate Republicans have pledged to listen to the troops before voting to repeal the policy. In fact, when Republican (and several Democrats) filibustered the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the bill in which the amendment to repeal the ban is housed — most argued that their final vote would depend on the study. Now that the results seem positive, they should have no reason to oppose the measure:

– SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): “We should all have the opportunity to review that [DADT] report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.”

– SEN. SCOTT BROWN (R-MA): “The Pentagon is still in the midst of its study of the matter, and its report is due in December…. I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military.”

– SEN. GEROGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): “The DREAM Act deals with immigration and shouldn’t be on this bill. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a controversial issue that needs to be debated on the Senate floor but I believe it would be logical to wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): “I do not support the idea of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before our military members and commanders complete their review. This so-called compromise would repeal the legislation first then receive input from the military. This is not the proper way to change any policy, particularly something as controversial as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

– SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “Let’s let the military professionals work through their process. I’d hate to kind of short-circuit that with congressional action, so I’d rather let that occur before we start making policy here on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

The final results are due the first week of December. Earlier today, Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United outlined a strategy for how advocates could use the study to urge the Senate to repeal the policy in the lame duck session.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/28/engel-dadt/?wpmp_tp=1

[AtLast]

Tsunami baby found alive in storm drain
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39905639/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

WOW!!! Fantastic!

[AtLast]

Note how wealth is passed on from generation to generation. Also, notice the pace at which personal wealth can increase once you are elected into public office. If you are working class, middle class, how and when will you deal with the obvious disparity, if ever?
______________________________________________


Senate Procures Influx of Millionaires
Oct. 28, 2010
By Jennifer Yachnin
Roll Call Staff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate’s famed “millionaires club” is becoming a little crowded.
According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber’s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
In addition, more than half of the Senate’s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.

Those increases are reflected in the chamber’s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.

Roll Call’s analysis of Senators’ wealth is based solely on the information lawmakers provide in their annual reports. The minimum value of all liabilities is subtracted from the minimum value for all assets.

Among the Senators who tallied the largest percentage increases in wealth in 2009, several lawmakers benefited from inheritances. Sen. John Cornyn reported four new investment funds and a retirement account valued at a combined $96,000, inherited from his mother. The additional funds increased his minimum net worth 550 percent, to at least $130,000.

Despite his significant percentage increase, the Texas Republican is among the 10 poorest Senators, tied with Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in 90th place.

Sen. Sherrod Brown saw his bottom line increase to $370,000, nearly 429 percent over the minimum net worth of $70,000 he disclosed in his previous report.

That increase results from an uptick in the value of the Ohio Democrat’s investment in the Mansfield, Ohio-based Brownlea Farm, which rose to at least $250,000. He had previously valued his investment in his family farm, which he first began reporting in 1992, at $15,000.

According to his office, Brown’s family had the farm reappraised in 2009 following the death of his mother. An amendment Brown filed in May states he should have previously reported his share of the farm at the higher value.

Along with another amendment Brown filed in March reevaluating his investment in his state’s pension plan, the Ohio Senator’s minimum net worth for 2008 would have been reported at $384,000.

His current $370,000 net worth places him 77th among his colleagues, tied with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).

Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose mother also died in 2009, reported an increased value in several properties, noting in his report that the parcels are being appraised as part of his mother’s estate.

The Alabama Republican reported the value of the largest asset, 1,100 acres of timberland, at $1 million to $5 million.

He also reported 500 acres of farmland in Wilcox County, Ala., valued at $500,000 to $1 million. He previously reported a half-interest in the same property, valuing it at $250,000 to $500,000. The report also lists three other tracts of Alabama timberland comprising another 63 acres.

Sessions’ minimum net worth increased 124 percent from $1 million to at least $2.24 million in 2009. He is now the 33rd wealthiest Member of the Senate, tied with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

Both Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) also reported gains of at least 100 percent — catapulting both lawmakers out of the red after each reported a negative net worth the previous calendar year.

Baucus no longer reports a $100,000 line of credit from Sun Trust Bank, increasing his net worth to about $10,000.

Stabenow likewise dropped a $15,000 revolving line of credit from a Lansing, Mich.-based credit union, which brings her reported net worth to $0. She reports no assets and no liabilities.

It is possible that both Senators are worth significantly more, however.

While lawmakers are required to disclose their personal finances annually, the forms allow Senators to report their assets and liabilities in wide ranges, providing a sometimes imprecise summary of each lawmaker’s fiscal state. The financial disclosure process also shields certain assets from public view, including primary or secondary residences that do not produce income, as well as artwork, antiques or other collectibles not held for investment purposes. Payments from federal retirement accounts and Social Security also are exempt from the reporting requirements.

Such exemptions likely account for the more than 43 percent drop in wealth Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported in 2009. The Minnesota Democrat, who claimed about $300,000 in 2008, reported transferring assets from four private 401(k) retirement accounts to the government’s Thrift Savings Plan, which Senators are not required to report.

As Roll Call reported in its 50 Richest Members of Congress survey in September, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) remains the wealthiest lawmaker, with $188.37 million. Another 21 Senators also are among the richest Members.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) ranks as the poorest Member of Congress in 2009, despite the fact that he likely is among the richest.

Like most lawmakers, Kohl uses only the broad reporting categories required in the financial disclosure forms to provide information on his finances. Those forms limit the greatest minimum value of an asset to “over $50 million.”

On the forms, Kohl places the value of his NBA franchise, the Milwaukee Bucks, in the more than $50 million category. Forbes estimated in December that the team is worth $254 million.

But with the NBA franchise contributing only $50 million to Kohl’s wealth, according to the form, and liabilities related to the team counted elsewhere at $115 million, Kohl’s minimum net worth on financial disclosures settles at negative $4.64 million.



2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

I so love it that Whitman and McMahan (the the World Wrestling airess) are way down in the polls! I think that most "just regular" voters are sick to their stomachs with these billionare candidates spending this kind of money to get elected.

Look at what the Supreme Courts election funding-related decision has done! As if it wasn't bad enough before!

I am discusted. But, maybe, the people will now see what is going on and rise up! Can happen!

I know, I am sick to my stomach with this!

[Nat]

There is some chance that I am standing about 15 feet from Sharon angle at the moment. Should I throw my shoe at her? Jk these shoes are way too fabulous.

[AtLast]

There is some chance that I am standing about 15 feet from Sharon angle at the moment. Should I throw my shoe at her? Jk these shoes are way too fabulous.

OMG! You poor woman!

Isshhhh... I actually have relatives in Nevada that are voting for her- mainly because they want Reid out. One of them (we were arguing on the phone- I called all of my GOP relatives for "a talk") actually said, Oh hell, I know she's an idiot, but I want Reid gone"! This is what we are dealing with!! We'll just vote her out in 6 years."

I was stunned. This goes right along with the GOP having nothing but beating Obama in 2011 and not a care in the world about our country and just how scared and hurt our citizens are. I don't believe I have ever been as disturbed with politics as I am right now, not in all the years I have been a voter (age 21, couldn't at age 18- wasn't passed yet). I feel like so much of what I am countless others stood and worked for throughout the 60's and 70's (beyond, really) with the Vietnam War, Civil Rights and the Woman's Movement and onto early Gay & lesbian rights (now the issues for all Queers) has been in vein. It feels like losing a child, so deep.

I know I will regain hope as I found the spark during Obama's election, but, I am concerned about the lack of outrage and activism we have now during these mid-term elections. They are critical and it seems that people are just not doing anything to stop the madness.

There has to be less splintering and more cohesion among liberal, progressive and moderate voters to do anything about the whacko ultra conservative tide.

[Nat]

I've heard people in Nevada say the same stuff - they don't seem to care how awful she is - they just hate Reid. I actually shared a plane with this woman from Vegas to Reno. It may not have been her but she looked like her, had an entourage of men in suits, took pictures with some other folks on the plane, and a guy in line told me that was her. I said very loudly, "isn't she the lady who is using all those racist tactics in her campaign?" and the guy said "I don't know" and quit talking to me. But I'm not sure it was her. My partner didn't think she looked quite like her.

[MsDemeanor]

There is some chance that I am standing about 15 feet from Sharon angle at the moment. Should I throw my shoe at her? Jk these shoes are way too fabulous.
I'm not sure that she's worth wasting the bail money for....

[katsarecool]

Not sure where to put this so it goes here. From a friend of a friend on FB:

David Smith Want to see some eye-opening shit that will make you want to. . . *PUKE*?

Here's a comparative list of democrats vs republicans who served in the military:

Republicans:
...
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. Investigated by the FBI for treason as head of Haliburton for secret deals with Libya and Iran, both terrorist enemies of the United States of America while those nations were under US sanctions for direct involvement in the deaths of US military personel and civilians. Put profit over patriotic duty to his country.

* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.

* Tom Delay: did not serve.

* Roy Blunt: did not serve.

* Bill Frist: did not serve.

* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.

* Rick Santorum: did not serve.

* Trent Lott: did not serve.

* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

* Jeb Bush: did not serve.

* Karl Rove: did not serve.

* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max
Cleland's patriotism.

* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.

* Vin Weber: did not serve.

* Richard Perle: did not serve.

* Douglas Feith: did not serve.

* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.

* Richard Shelby: did not serve.

* Jon Kyl: did not serve.

* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.

* Christopher Cox: did not serve.

* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.

* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.

* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty

* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role

making movies.

* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.

* Phil Gramm: did not serve.

* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart
and Distinguished Flying Cross.

* John M. McHugh: did not serve.

* JC Watts: did not serve.

* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued

in NFL for 8 years.

* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.

* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.

* George Pataki: did not serve.

* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.

* John Engler: did not serve.

* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.

* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits &Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.

* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')

* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.

* Michael Savage: did not serve.

* George Will: did not serve.

* Chris Matthews: did not serve.

* Paul Gigot: did not serve.

* Bill Bennett: did not serve.

* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.

* John Wayne: did not serve.

* Bill Kristol: did not serve.

* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.

* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.

* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.

* Ralph Reed: did not serve.

* Michael Medved: did not serve.

* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.

* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot

back.)

Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.

* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.

* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,
Purple Hearts.

* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star,

Vietnam.

* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.

* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.

* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven

campaign ribbons.

* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze

Stars, and Soldier's Medal.

* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star

and Legion of Merit.

* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.

* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.

* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.

* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57

* Chuck Robb: Vietnam

[AtLast]

Not sure where to put this so it goes here. From a friend of a friend on FB:

David Smith Want to see some eye-opening shit that will make you want to. . . *PUKE*?

Here's a comparative list of democrats vs republicans who served in the military:

Republicans:
...
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. Investigated by the FBI for treason as head of Haliburton for secret deals with Libya and Iran, both terrorist enemies of the United States of America while those nations were under US sanctions for direct involvement in the deaths of US military personel and civilians. Put profit over patriotic duty to his country.

* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.

* Tom Delay: did not serve.

* Roy Blunt: did not serve.

* Bill Frist: did not serve.

* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.

* Rick Santorum: did not serve.

* Trent Lott: did not serve.

* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.

* Jeb Bush: did not serve.

* Karl Rove: did not serve.

* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max
Cleland's patriotism.

* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.

* Vin Weber: did not serve.

* Richard Perle: did not serve.

* Douglas Feith: did not serve.

* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.

* Richard Shelby: did not serve.

* Jon Kyl: did not serve.

* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.

* Christopher Cox: did not serve.

* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.

* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.

* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty

* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role

making movies.

* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.

* Phil Gramm: did not serve.

* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart
and Distinguished Flying Cross.

* John M. McHugh: did not serve.

* JC Watts: did not serve.

* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued

in NFL for 8 years.

* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.

* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.

* George Pataki: did not serve.

* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.

* John Engler: did not serve.

* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.

* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits &Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.

* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')

* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.

* Michael Savage: did not serve.

* George Will: did not serve.

* Chris Matthews: did not serve.

* Paul Gigot: did not serve.

* Bill Bennett: did not serve.

* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.

* John Wayne: did not serve.

* Bill Kristol: did not serve.

* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.

* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.

* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.

* Ralph Reed: did not serve.

* Michael Medved: did not serve.

* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.

* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot

back.)

Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.

* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.

* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.

* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.

* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.

* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.

* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,
Purple Hearts.

* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.

* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star,

Vietnam.

* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.

* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.

* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.

* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven

campaign ribbons.

* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze

Stars, and Soldier's Medal.

* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star

and Legion of Merit.

* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.

* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.

* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.

* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57

* Chuck Robb: Vietnam

Sounds about right. Most white, rich, Republican, trust fund brats do notserve in the military and look how many did not during time of war. One, I respect very much is Colon Powell, not white.

Thinking about troops today- just about the same break-down as during Vietnam in terms of POC and lower economic classes as well as age. Many POC and people that just have no way to get an education or good job training join the military and do right out of high school.

[katsarecool]

Sounds about right. Most white, rich, Republican, trust fund brats do notserve in the military and look how many did not during time of war. One, I respect very much is Colon Powell, not white.

Thinking about troops today- just about the same break-down as during Vietnam in terms of POC and lower economic classes as well as age. Many POC and people that just have no way to get an education or good job training join the military and do right out of high school.

When I first posted that list; I felt Colin Powell should have been there. He bailed out of the Bush admin and I admire him for that and for many other things.

[AtLast]

VOTE TUESDAY!!

Offer rides to the polls to friends and family..... I know, sometimes it feels futile, but, it is more important than ever to vote and we need to organize in a more central manner!

PLEASE- spend some time each month from now until the 2011 General Election volunteering time to Democratic candidates in your state! Contact all queer-based organizations you like and make the case for OUR NEED FOR COHESION on a national levbecome a force. el. Stop the splintering over issues and combine efforts! This is exactly how and why the Tea Party has become a force and it is threatening our cicil liberties on every front! They like it that we remain divided.

Going to a more moderate position at this time is needed to build a strong liberal base. We can't afford continuing to be at the far left until we have some money and power and get the GOP and Tea Baggers out of any office they hold!

[Corkey]

MSNBC will be having their weeknight election programing starting tonight with Hardball at 7 PMET.

Vote!

[MsDemeanor]

Thank you for the reminder Corkey.

[AtLast]

MSNBC will be having their weeknight election programing starting tonight with Hardball at 7 PMET.

Vote!

Yes, thank you!

I really like that show and Mathews. Please tell me all the pundits are wrong about the GOP winning so many seats!!!

[Soon]

Brazil's First Female President (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39944857/ns/world_news-americas/)

[katsarecool]

Very anxious today over the results of tomorrows election in the United States. If the Republicans take over the majority in the House and the Senate; it will make out battles that much harder for full equality including ending DADT and Marriage Equality. But if they win I am still prepared to battle on as long as I live!!!

[AtLast]

Very anxious today over the results of tomorrows election in the United States. If the Republicans take over the majority in the House and the Senate; it will make out battles that much harder for full equality including ending DADT and Marriage Equality. But if they win I am still prepared to battle on as long as I live!!!

I know! but, I keep looking back at the '94 mid-terms and how in the end, Newt & Company ended up helping Clinton get re-elected as well as setting the stage for many of the things we support as queers like marriage Equality (think about the changes in the national polls about this then and now). It was just one battle won, not the entire war.

That said, we still need to be on target tomorrow with getting out the Democratic vote! And we need early preparation for 2012.

[Cyclopea]

God, I'll miss her.

s5hAKbBsPz0

Take care of yerself Christine!
Don't let the door hit ya!
:byebye:

[Cyclopea]

2012 !!!

http://rickmc.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/another-sarah-palin.jpg?w=485&h=366

[Cyclopea]

http://estergoldberg.typepad.com/.a/6a0105349ca980970c0133f4596666970b-500wi

[Cyclopea]

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2010_09/christine_le_film.jpg

[AtLast]

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2010_09/christine_le_film.jpg

OHHHHHHH.... GOOD One, Cyclopedia!!!

[Corkey]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2010/11/abcs-letter-to-andrew-breitbart.html

The lying piece of garbage will not be participating.

[AtLast]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2010/11/abcs-letter-to-andrew-breitbart.html

The lying piece of garbage will not be participating.

Isn't that the truth- so glad to see him kicked to the curb!

[MsDemeanor]

ABC was stupid for even considering him. They're saving their collective ass by doing this.

[AtLast]

ABC was stupid for even considering him. They're saving their collective ass by doing this.

Oh, yeah! why in the world did they consider him?

[Jesse]

Hopefully this is the correct place to post this. This is an article about a mother in Spain whose 10 year old daughter just gave birth to a baby girl.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_child_mother

[Gemme]

Hopefully this is the correct place to post this. This is an article about a mother in Spain whose 10 year old daughter just gave birth to a baby girl.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_child_mother

Wow. Just wow.

[Sabine Gallais]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?trendingnow

$200 million per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama's two-day stay in the city.


If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

[AtLast]

Hopefully this is the correct place to post this. This is an article about a mother in Spain whose 10 year old daughter just gave birth to a baby girl.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_child_mother

Makes me sick.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?trendingnow


If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

Michelle Bachman is off her rocker. These figures are untrue.

[Jess]

Makes me sick.



Michelle Bachman is off her rocker. These figures are untrue.

I agree with your comment on the first article, however, in reading the second one, I didn't actually see where Bachman stated the figures, she simply commented on them. The figures appear to have come from an organizer in Mumbai.

"A huge amount of around $ 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," the official said in Mumbai."

Not knowing exactly how reliable this news source is ndtv.com, I looked to see if they had any other stories regarding this Presidential visit and found this:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459

Some of the itinerary could easily explain that dollar amount. May be worth peeking over.

I guess the cost of protecting our President should have no bottom line, however, it almost sounds like statements from the National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, that is is more of a feel good about AF-PAK and to try to keep Indias support against China's rise in the socio-economic world.

The statement from Nat Sec came from another related article:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-the-pak-china-factor-64145

It is also noteworthy, that Bachman not only "slammed" this administration's overspending, but alloted it to the past four years, not just his two. For me personally as a pretty bi-partisan person, I try to look at the whole picture.

[MsDemeanor]

It's been a while since DailyKos has given me a laugh out load post...

Why haven't you fixed it yet? You've had a day, it should be fixed by now. Is it fixed yet? Where's our jobs? Why am I still paying taxes?
Is it fixed yet? Why haven't you fixed it yet? Where are our jobs? Shouldn't you have fixed it by now? Is it fixed yet?
When are you finally gonna fix it? Where's the jobs? Are you hiring? Why haven't you fixed it?
How much longer do you expect us to wait? Get off your lazy ass and fix it already. My gosh, you've had more than 24 hours, it should be fixed by now!
Do I have to get my friends together and start asking you why you haven't fixed it yet at your town halls? Should we bring megaphones? Should we hold rallies on the D.C. Mall asking you why you haven't fixed it yet?
So when are you going to get it fixed? You're being mighty socialistic about this, get in there and get it fixed.
Is it fixed yet?



linkyloo (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/3/914562/-HEY-BOEHNER%21-The-Fixit-Party-Wants-to-Know...UPDATED)

[dreadgeek]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?trendingnow




If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

Actually, if this were a Republican President there would be no comment what-so-ever.

Look, the POTUS can't just catch a commercial flight out of Dulles and land in Mumbai. He is going to have an entourage. At *minimum* he's going to be traveling with:

1) His Secret Service detail.
2) The Presidential medical team (and yes, he has his own medical team and no, they SHOULDN'T just check the POTUS into the nearest hospital)
3) His military advisory team (meaning the guy who carries the 'football').
4) Vehicular support team (and no, the POTUS shouldn't just use whatever transportation is convenient at his destination).
5) His advisory staff--so probably his CoS and a few others.
6) Ground support crew for all the vehicles (the Air Force and Marines are NOT about to let someone else work on vehicles carrying the POTUS).


That's the minimum. Figure a dozen people on his personal detail (immediate, close-in physical protection plus the snipers, driver, etc.). The Secret Service advance team (before the President even sets foot on AF1 a team of agents is already on the ground at the destination, coordinating the security arrangements with the locals). Figure the medical team is two or three people. There's the guy carrying the football. Then there's the drivers for the vehicles which is usually three or four--the one carrying the POTUS and two or three other vehicles for the security detail and as decoys.

Now, that means two aircraft (AF1, as far as I am aware, has no more cargo capacity than a standard, commercial 747 since the aircraft is packed full of electronics so that the POTUS can run the country from anywhere); AF1 and a cargo aircraft to carry the vehicles. Marine 1 (the Presidential helicopter) also flies with him requires another cargo vehicle (a C-5 Galaxy) to carry it.

So when the President takes the show on the road, we're talking upwards of 50 or 60 people total. C-5s and 747s are NOT cheap vehicles to operate.

Now, is the $200 million figure correct? No, I would strongly doubt that it is a quarter of that figure but it is not cheap to fly the President anywhere. Now, we COULD, I suppose, decide that the POTUS simply doesn't travel but the consequences of that would be rather negative. In fact, I did a little research on what it costs for the President to travel and found the following:

1) In 2002 the entire White House travel budget was around $4 million for the YEAR! Now, I understand that inflation happens but it would be shocking to see that ONE trip, 8 years later, would cost 50 TIMES as much!

2) Cost of flying AF 1 = ~ $60K per hour (figure from 2002 is $34K to $56K so I'm taking the highest number and adding to it a bit)

3) Food and board for his entourage = ~ $60K (again, the figure is from 2002 and I'm taking the upper range)

Now, taking these numbers--in fact, I'll actually be generous and err on the side of it being more expensive.

Flight time DC to Delhi (18 hours) @ $100,000 per hour (meaning I've almost *doubled* the operational cost of AF 1). $1,800,000 one way. Total cost = $3,600,000.

Food and board for the Presidential detail. Call it $100,000 per day (like I said, I'm being generous) Length of this visit is 2 days so ~ $200,000.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the actual operational cost of a C-5 or C-17 (the only aircraft that could lift the vehicles the POTUS travels with) is 1/4 the cost of operating AF-1. But to be generous, we'll double that figure. So call it $50,000 per hour. That's another $3,600,000 for two aircraft (assuming one carries the helicopter and the other carries the ground vehicles).

Let's also say that it's another $250,000 per day for miscellaneous (meaning salaries, etc. although it's going to be nowhere near that).

That means that the two day trip is:

$7,200,000 for transportation costs (all three aircraft)
$200,000 for food and lodging
$500,000 for miscellaneous expenses.

Total cost $7,900,000. That's for the WHOLE trip. Now, in order for this story to be at all true, we have to account for another $392,100,000.

Let's say that my figures are too low by half--that brings the total to $16,000,000 for the entire trip. Meaning we'd still have to figure out where another $384,000,000 is going.

Now, my figures are rough, back-of-the-envelope numbers and I doubt that we can get at the actual figures for a very simple reason. If you know what an entity is spending money on, you can--if you are a trained intelligence analyst--make some kind of reasonable guesses as to WHAT they are spending it on and thus their capabilities. There is a reason why every intelligence agency on the planet keeps their budgets as a closely-guarded secret--keys to the kingdom secret. When I worked at NSA one of the things we listened for were mentions of budgets for the Soviet military. Why? Because if we knew what, say, a Guards Tank regiment had allocated we could know if they had gotten new T-80 tanks, for example. If you know the precise figure that is spent shuttling the POTUS then you can start to make reasonable guesses about what they money is going to. So given that, how likely do you think it is that the White House would allow a leak of what this trip will cost? How likely do you think it is that the Secret Service would let that kind of leak slide?

This isn't a partisan argument, this is an argument about math. The numbers simply do not work, UNLESS, of course, the POTUS is traveling with a light infantry division. If he's taking the entire 10th Mountain Division with him then I can see $200 million a day but since I doubt that he's traveling to a foreign nation with a fully-armed infantry division (nation's tend to take a dim view of that kind of thing) I don't see how this figure can have anything to do with reality.

One other thing, regarding the fleet of warships in the region. That would be the US 7th fleet. The 7th fleet is ALWAYS on station in the Indian Ocean. That is their area of operations. Whether they are loitering off the coast of India or steaming around the region, about a quarter of those ships would be there no matter what.

There will be at least one carrier battle group in the area (probably centered on the USS George Washington) which means--at minimum--the following:

1 aircraft carrier
2 guided missile cruisers
2 anti-aircraft cruisers
2 anti-submarine frigates or destroyers
Add to that one or two Los Angeles-class attack subs and a boomer (missile submarine) for a total of ten.


Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

One other thing on this subject:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

To give you a sense of perspective, the ENTIRE Afghanistan war is costing $190 million per day.



I agree with your comment on the first article, however, in reading the second one, I didn't actually see where Bachman stated the figures, she simply commented on them. The figures appear to have come from an organizer in Mumbai.

"A huge amount of around $ 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," the official said in Mumbai."

Not knowing exactly how reliable this news source is ndtv.com, I looked to see if they had any other stories regarding this Presidential visit and found this:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459

Some of the itinerary could easily explain that dollar amount. May be worth peeking over.

I guess the cost of protecting our President should have no bottom line, however, it almost sounds like statements from the National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, that is is more of a feel good about AF-PAK and to try to keep Indias support against China's rise in the socio-economic world.

The statement from Nat Sec came from another related article:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-the-pak-china-factor-64145

It is also noteworthy, that Bachman not only "slammed" this administration's overspending, but alloted it to the past four years, not just his two. For me personally as a pretty bi-partisan person, I try to look at the whole picture.

[MsDemeanor]

Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.

Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?

[AtLast]

Actually, if this were a Republican President there would be no comment what-so-ever.

Look, the POTUS can't just catch a commercial flight out of Dulles and land in Mumbai. He is going to have an entourage. At *minimum* he's going to be traveling with:

1) His Secret Service detail.
2) The Presidential medical team (and yes, he has his own medical team and no, they SHOULDN'T just check the POTUS into the nearest hospital)
3) His military advisory team (meaning the guy who carries the 'football').
4) Vehicular support team (and no, the POTUS shouldn't just use whatever transportation is convenient at his destination).
5) His advisory staff--so probably his CoS and a few others.
6) Ground support crew for all the vehicles (the Air Force and Marines are NOT about to let someone else work on vehicles carrying the POTUS).


That's the minimum. Figure a dozen people on his personal detail (immediate, close-in physical protection plus the snipers, driver, etc.). The Secret Service advance team (before the President even sets foot on AF1 a team of agents is already on the ground at the destination, coordinating the security arrangements with the locals). Figure the medical team is two or three people. There's the guy carrying the football. Then there's the drivers for the vehicles which is usually three or four--the one carrying the POTUS and two or three other vehicles for the security detail and as decoys.

Now, that means two aircraft (AF1, as far as I am aware, has no more cargo capacity than a standard, commercial 747 since the aircraft is packed full of electronics so that the POTUS can run the country from anywhere); AF1 and a cargo aircraft to carry the vehicles. Marine 1 (the Presidential helicopter) also flies with him requires another cargo vehicle (a C-5 Galaxy) to carry it.

So when the President takes the show on the road, we're talking upwards of 50 or 60 people total. C-5s and 747s are NOT cheap vehicles to operate.

Now, is the $200 million figure correct? No, I would strongly doubt that it is a quarter of that figure but it is not cheap to fly the President anywhere. Now, we COULD, I suppose, decide that the POTUS simply doesn't travel but the consequences of that would be rather negative. In fact, I did a little research on what it costs for the President to travel and found the following:

1) In 2002 the entire White House travel budget was around $4 million for the YEAR! Now, I understand that inflation happens but it would be shocking to see that ONE trip, 8 years later, would cost 50 TIMES as much!

2) Cost of flying AF 1 = ~ $60K per hour (figure from 2002 is $34K to $56K so I'm taking the highest number and adding to it a bit)

3) Food and board for his entourage = ~ $60K (again, the figure is from 2002 and I'm taking the upper range)

Now, taking these numbers--in fact, I'll actually be generous and err on the side of it being more expensive.

Flight time DC to Delhi (18 hours) @ $100,000 per hour (meaning I've almost *doubled* the operational cost of AF 1). $1,800,000 one way. Total cost = $3,600,000.

Food and board for the Presidential detail. Call it $100,000 per day (like I said, I'm being generous) Length of this visit is 2 days so ~ $200,000.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the actual operational cost of a C-5 or C-17 (the only aircraft that could lift the vehicles the POTUS travels with) is 1/4 the cost of operating AF-1. But to be generous, we'll double that figure. So call it $50,000 per hour. That's another $3,600,000 for two aircraft (assuming one carries the helicopter and the other carries the ground vehicles).

Let's also say that it's another $250,000 per day for miscellaneous (meaning salaries, etc. although it's going to be nowhere near that).

That means that the two day trip is:

$7,200,000 for transportation costs (all three aircraft)
$200,000 for food and lodging
$500,000 for miscellaneous expenses.

Total cost $7,900,000. That's for the WHOLE trip. Now, in order for this story to be at all true, we have to account for another $392,100,000.

Let's say that my figures are too low by half--that brings the total to $16,000,000 for the entire trip. Meaning we'd still have to figure out where another $384,000,000 is going.

Now, my figures are rough, back-of-the-envelope numbers and I doubt that we can get at the actual figures for a very simple reason. If you know what an entity is spending money on, you can--if you are a trained intelligence analyst--make some kind of reasonable guesses as to WHAT they are spending it on and thus their capabilities. There is a reason why every intelligence agency on the planet keeps their budgets as a closely-guarded secret--keys to the kingdom secret. When I worked at NSA one of the things we listened for were mentions of budgets for the Soviet military. Why? Because if we knew what, say, a Guards Tank regiment had allocated we could know if they had gotten new T-80 tanks, for example. If you know the precise figure that is spent shuttling the POTUS then you can start to make reasonable guesses about what they money is going to. So given that, how likely do you think it is that the White House would allow a leak of what this trip will cost? How likely do you think it is that the Secret Service would let that kind of leak slide?

This isn't a partisan argument, this is an argument about math. The numbers simply do not work, UNLESS, of course, the POTUS is traveling with a light infantry division. If he's taking the entire 10th Mountain Division with him then I can see $200 million a day but since I doubt that he's traveling to a foreign nation with a fully-armed infantry division (nation's tend to take a dim view of that kind of thing) I don't see how this figure can have anything to do with reality.

One other thing, regarding the fleet of warships in the region. That would be the US 7th fleet. The 7th fleet is ALWAYS on station in the Indian Ocean. That is their area of operations. Whether they are loitering off the coast of India or steaming around the region, about a quarter of those ships would be there no matter what.

There will be at least one carrier battle group in the area (probably centered on the USS George Washington) which means--at minimum--the following:

1 aircraft carrier
2 guided missile cruisers
2 anti-aircraft cruisers
2 anti-submarine frigates or destroyers
Add to that one or two Los Angeles-class attack subs and a boomer (missile submarine) for a total of ten.


Cheers
Aj

THANK YOU, Aj for this knowledgble break-down as well as the cost of the Afghan War on a daily basis (and we still are spending in Iraq). Why anyone would think that the US President (any time, any president from any party) would be able to travel worldwide on JetBlue rates and free luggage, is just stupid! FerGoddessSakes, the US President is the leader of the free world and of a nation that is high on the nuclear weapons list as well as one that is the target of terror cells all over the world! He is going to another country that has nuclear weapons and in an unstable part of the world in which Pakistan and India are not exactly friends! And we have a lot at stake in Pakistan as well as other counjhtries in thsi region.

Do I believe that saving money is important in the government, yes. I also believe that the numbers in that artilce are trumped up. And MsD is right about the fact that these people get paid the same no matter in travel or not. What is wrong with people???

[Jess]

Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.

There are some of us out here who do not agree with one another and that's fine. I have however not chosen to name call and behave as demeaning as what I just saw above. I can appreciate your position and not bash you even when I might see it as very biased and not at all logical based on the information that was being discussed.

If AJ were perhaps working for the White House and presenting known numbers based on this trip, instead of saying..."Figure this.". or "let's say that", because to me, those are guesses. Even if loosely based upon an article she came across from some former presidential envoy, they are not current, not based on this trip, so to me they hold no water.

The article that was linked clearly states that the comment was made from inside officials within the government of India. I don't know Bachman from Eve, however, I can read an article without extrapolating words or innuendo that isn't in print. So, while you may feel justified in making snide snarky comments, I feel quite justified in pointing out that A) I was responding directly to a specific post B)I was responding based purely on the article presented, C) Snide comments hold no merit.

Sorry I didn't hit quote, but this post in in response to this:

MsDemeanor " Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.

Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?"

This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

[Corkey]

Jess it is hard to give exact numbers on something that hasn't happened yet.
Each trip the POTUS takes requires any number of precautions, some more than others even in the US proper. GW had the same amount of coverage as did Clinton as did Bush SR, as did Kennedy. That is the whole issue to protect the POTUS from harm, and I dare say that the numbers are higher now than when Kennedy was in office due to 1. higher fuel costs, 2, higher threat levels, 3, higher federal employee costs, among other things. Numbers are an estimate of the total until the time as to which the costs are actual.

[Jess]

I don't and didn't disagree with that, Corkey. Not at all. I actually said I think the cost of protecting our President should not have a bottom line. My original post was an attempt to perhaps suggest that the article actually be read. If it is read, without bias, it is clear the statement came from other officials and Bachman was merely commenting on that information.

It was an attempt to once again say "hey, don't just read the headline or the slant, but read all of the information provided". I just get really tired of folks getting all bent out of shape and making assumptions based on half truths, ya know?

Thanks.

[Diva]

Just heard from NBC News that Aretha Franklin is seriously ill and her doctors have instructed her to cancel her appearances until May.

Her illness was undisclosed.

[dreadgeek]

So let me see if I've got this correct:

You take as having veracity a statement that a Presidential visit has a cost out of ALL proportion to any OTHER Presidential visit EVER--EVER!!!!--and yet, you dismiss my breakdown even though:

A) I admit that the numbers I'm working off of are dated (they are from the Bush the Younger administration)
B) I take those numbers and then, just to see if I can get anywhere NEAR the numbers mentioned in that article, double them.

In order for this logic to work, what one would have to believe is that the cost of an overseas Presidential visit has gone up by a *full* order of magnitude in a space of less than a decade. To communicate the sense of proportion, that means that the Toyota you bought in 2002 for $25,000 would now be a $250,000 car. In less than ten years. Now, do I have all the numbers? No. I don't. I admit that. But I'll bet you dinner, at any restaurant in this country, that my numbers are CLOSER to reality than the numbers that you think have some veracity.

I'm sorry but how that logic works is *utterly* inescapable to me. How anyone could believe that this trip could cost anywhere *near* $200 million per day is absolutely beyond my ability to comprehend.

The point of the numbers I ran was not to give an absolutely accurate picture of what the Presidential trip would cost--even if I HAD access to that information I wouldn't publish it for the reason I already elucidated, to do so would give a reasonably talented intelligence analyst enough information to begin building a picture of the security arrangements. I wouldn't do that because I would not want the Secret Service showing up at my door wanting to have a conversation about Presidential security and how I'm making their job harder--something I think that they take a rather dim view of. No, my point was to demonstrate that this $200 million figure is patently ridiculous. If the figure were, say, $25 million or $50 million a day okay I wouldn't quibble but we're talking about a sum of money that is keeping the best part of 100,000 soldiers in the field in combat operations. That is a non-trivial amount of money.

You can dismiss my back of the envelope math if you wish and accept as being true a figure that was created out of sheer prestidigitation but please don't try to pretend that there is a *logical* reason for doing so because, quite plainly, there isn't. AT LEAST the numbers I was working with had some tenuous connection to reality and, as I stated, I was generous and assumed that the cost of everything had doubled so I took the 2002 figures, took the high-end number and then doubled it.

Since this Indian official has no BETTER access to the information than I do why is it that you consider his figure of $200 million to be at all plausible while you dismiss my more conservative figures out of hand?

Cheers
Aj



Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.

There are some of us out here who do not agree with one another and that's fine. I have however not chosen to name call and behave as demeaning as what I just saw above. I can appreciate your position and not bash you even when I might see it as very biased and not at all logical based on the information that was being discussed.

If AJ were perhaps working for the White House and presenting known numbers based on this trip, instead of saying..."Figure this.". or "let's say that", because to me, those are guesses. Even if loosely based upon an article she came across from some former presidential envoy, they are not current, not based on this trip, so to me they hold no water.

The article that was linked clearly states that the comment was made from inside officials within the government of India. I don't know Bachman from Eve, however, I can read an article without extrapolating words or innuendo that isn't in print. So, while you may feel justified in making snide snarky comments, I feel quite justified in pointing out that A) I was responding directly to a specific post B)I was responding based purely on the article presented, C) Snide comments hold no merit.

Sorry I didn't hit quote, but this post in in response to this:

MsDemeanor " Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.

Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?"

This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

[MsDemeanor]

Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.
...
...
...
This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

Jess, my comments were not directed at you. The original poster of the link to the article is a notorious drive-by-drop-a-pile-of-lies-crap-article-and-then-run-away conservative. I get tired of that bullshit behavior; the person has no interest in facts or in debating, just in stirring up shit. If a person wants to debate or discuss, then they should show up with some facts and they should bother to stick around.

[dreadgeek]

I don't and didn't disagree with that, Corkey. Not at all. I actually said I think the cost of protecting our President should not have a bottom line. My original post was an attempt to perhaps suggest that the article actually be read. If it is read, without bias, it is clear the statement came from other officials and Bachman was merely commenting on that information.

It was an attempt to once again say "hey, don't just read the headline or the slant, but read all of the information provided". I just get really tired of folks getting all bent out of shape and making assumptions based on half truths, ya know?

Thanks.

Here's my problem with this:

IF Ms Bachmann had, over the last 18 months or so, had proven herself to be a fair-actor then okay. However, Ms Bachmann has *repeatedly* made statements that are, at very best, wildly inaccurate. To wit:

Ms Bachmann has stated that there were FEMA camps being set up in which the Obama administration would put their political opponents. Do these camps exist? No. Is there ANY evidence such camps exist or were planned? No. Yet, she has repeatedly said this.

Ms Bachmann has stated that the expansion of Volunteer for America and Americorps was meant to create a cadre of young Marxists who would go out and be the Obama administration's thugs. Is this, in fact, what is happening? No. Is there any evidence that anything remotely LIKE this is happening? No.

Ms Bachmann has stated that the HCR bill had provisions for 'death panels' in it. Did it? No. Was there any evidence that would point to something even remotely like a death panel? No. There was payment for end of life counseling but that was simply to allow people on Medicare to have Medicare pay for any EOL counseling that they might seek (Medicare didn't pay for it).

I could go on and on. So when Ms Bachmann latches onto an off-the-cuff remark and runs with it on national television, it seems reasonable to dismiss what she is saying as having no more veracity than any of the statements above. What's more, Ms Bachmann is NOT speaking as a private citizen. If you or I want to rant about the money it costs for Mr. Obama to travel or even what it costs for him to use the toilet at the White House that is fine. We are private citizens with very limited sphere of influence. On the other hand, if a sitting member of Congress, who aspires to be House majority leader, starts parroting things without fact-checking them that is a different kind of matter altogether. It is irresponsible and i am being *very* generous.

Lastly, my concern--and you can dismiss this if you wish--is that Ms Bachmann will, as House majority leader, have the power of the purse. The White House cannot spend money not approved by Congress. Now, it doesn't take a particularly active imagination to conjure up a scenario where the House slashes the White House travel budget for FY 2012, just before the Presidential election. Now, Mr. Obama either has to stay in D.C. and not campaign OR he has to take the risk and travel on a seriously restricted budget. He has to do this and travel to places where people have been convinced--thanks in no small part to the effort of people like Ms Bachmann--that the POTUS is a Marxist, Manchurian-candidate, terrorist. The geometry of THAT scenario is too horrible to pursue further.

Baseless non-logical claims that may make us emotionally satisfied, or which comport with a pre-existing ideological commitment bother me and I'm not going to just pretend that it is just as likely that Ms Bachmann's parroting of this claim has anything to do with reality as, well, any of the OTHER statements she has made in the last 18 - 24 months regarding this administration.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Jess, my comments were not directed at you. The original poster of the link to the article is a notorious drive-by-drop-a-pile-of-lies-crap-article-and-then-run-away conservative. I get tired of that bullshit behavior; the person has no interest in facts or in debating, just in stirring up shit. If a person wants to debate or discuss, then they should show up with some facts and they should bother to stick around.

Ms D:

Like you, I am done with the 'drive by' crap. If one of my neighbors ran into my house and took a dump on the hardwood, I wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I see no reason why I should let slide someone doing the Internet message board equivalent. You have characterized it perfectly. What this person does is post some crap that has about as much fact to it as a Harry Potter movie and then scampers off until the next time she chooses to do that act. While I understand all the arguments for "don't give them energy" I am also reminded of a line that Terry Pratchett, the British satirist, likes to have his characters quote: "a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on". Every time that we allow an untruth to sit in these forums unchallenged, we do two things: We *encourage* the behavior of posting untruths and put the wind at the back of the lie. We have had a real-world view of how that plays out watching how the Democrats dealt with (or failed to deal with) the lies told about Mr. Obama and the HCR bill.

I get it that my fact-based, reality-based commitment doesn't make me the most popular poster here. I don't care. Thirty years of epistemic relativism to the contrary, there really are facts, there really is reality, and no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but no one is entitled to their own facts.

I think it's long past the time that we stopped pretending that everyone gets their own facts.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

So I did some more research into this matter. If you believe this story has any legs at all Jess, then what you believe is this:

1) That the United States government is going to somehow figure out how to spend $200 million every 24 hours when a full-blown war, with tens of thousands of troops in an active combat zone, can't *quite* get to that figure per day.

2) That the United States Navy is going to task 10% of its ENTIRE fleet to provide off-shore security for a 48 hour visit. What that means is that 3-THREE!--carrier battle groups (30 ships) will be tasked to this The 7th fleet total is about 80 ships. Why on EARTH would they need three carrier battle groups to handle this task?

(To give you a sense of perspective, a carrier battle group is the carrier and between 9 and 11 additional ships depending upon the mission profile. A carrier battle group can pretty much control an area of between 100 to 200 miles surrounding the fleet. By control, I mean near *total* control of the seas and air around it. By total control I mean just that. NOTHING that is mechanical flies within 200 miles of a carrier battle group unless the CAG (commander air group) suffers it to do so. What's more, nothing larger than a dinghy sails the seas within 200 miles of a carrier battle group unless the group commander suffers it to be so. What that means is that the commander of the CBG centered on the Washington could shut down Indian aviation at the time and place of their choosing and there is not a damn thing the Indian government could do to stop it. That's ONE battle group.)

[betenoire]

If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

You've got to be kidding me.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama can't even blow his nose without a bunch of jackasses having a revolt in the streets. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a very vocal and very stupid minority of people in the US who have made it their new favourite hobby to toss a fit and revolt in the streets over EVERYTHING that Obama does - and even about things they are only pretending that he has done.

[dreadgeek]

You've got to be kidding me.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama can't even blow his nose without a bunch of jackasses having a revolt in the streets. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a very vocal and very stupid minority of people in the US who have made it their new favourite hobby to toss a fit and revolt in the streets over EVERYTHING that Obama does - and even about things they are only pretending that he has done.

Obama blows his nose? You know who else blew their nose? HITLER!!!

Also, blow your nose? Blow yourself up? So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is a SUICIDE BOMBER!!!!!


Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Cheers
Aj

It's cool, I also frequently can't help myself.

:)

[dreadgeek]

Rachel Maddow's opening segment this evening had to do with acceptance of false beliefs in the conservative movement. She correctly described it as a *political* problem.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Ms D:

Like you, I am done with the 'drive by' crap. If one of my neighbors ran into my house and took a dump on the hardwood, I wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I see no reason why I should let slide someone doing the Internet message board equivalent. You have characterized it perfectly. What this person does is post some crap that has about as much fact to it as a Harry Potter movie and then scampers off until the next time she chooses to do that act. While I understand all the arguments for "don't give them energy" I am also reminded of a line that Terry Pratchett, the British satirist, likes to have his characters quote: "a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on". Every time that we allow an untruth to sit in these forums unchallenged, we do two things: We *encourage* the behavior of posting untruths and put the wind at the back of the lie. We have had a real-world view of how that plays out watching how the Democrats dealt with (or failed to deal with) the lies told about Mr. Obama and the HCR bill.

I get it that my fact-based, reality-based commitment doesn't make me the most popular poster here. I don't care. Thirty years of epistemic relativism to the contrary, there really are facts, there really is reality, and no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but no one is entitled to their own facts.

I think it's long past the time that we stopped pretending that everyone gets their own facts.

Cheers
Aj

Count me in with being discusted with drive-by conservative crap that has no basis in fact! You bet disagreement via opinion is different than spewing facts without research and getting to the primary sources. I could line up a kazillion "facts" that align with my views from several sources, but to do so is only doing exactly what the likes of beck, O'Rielly, Limbaugh and Coulter do.

I am also tired of liberals and or progressives being viewed as not caring about how funds are used and just wanting tax revenues to be used without accountability. I don't feel that way at all and again, one would have to be stuck on stupid right now to not have concerns over US spending and the deficit. There are just different policies and approaches I would want to see over what the Right views as the way to go.

[Nat]

Fort Hood Shooting (Texas)

7 dead
20 injured
1 in custody after shooting (unsure of multiple shooters)
Army Base that deals with the soldiers coming back from overseas duty

Fort Hood to mark anniversary of shooting rampage (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/05/texas.fort.hood.anniversary/)

The final count was 13 dead and 32 injured. My impression is that some of the injured were *very* injured. The shooter is paralyzed from the chest down.

[Nat]

Glenn Beck Fantasizes About Obama Being Assassinated In India (http://www.politicususa.com/en/beck-obama-india)

On his radio show today Glenn Beck fantasized that Muslim extremists could assassinate President Obama while he visits India because, “If anybody thinks he was a Muslim over here, well God forbid, they think he was a Muslim over there because he left his religion for Christianity, death sentence, behead him.”

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011040016

[Nat]

Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/all/1) (This is a month old, but it's new to me)

A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do.

It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted its expensive device back, the student told Wired.com in an interview Wednesday.

The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi’s apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device.

Afifi, a 20-year-old U.S.-born citizen, cooperated willingly and said he’d done nothing to merit attention from authorities. Comments the agents made during their visit suggested he’d been under FBI surveillance for three to six months.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/10/GPS-Tracking-Device.jpg

[betenoire]

Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/all/1) (This is a month old, but it's new to me)

That is so gross. Seriously.

(Oh, and regarding your other post just now - I bet Glenn Beck had an erection the entire time he was doing that particular show.)

[Greyson]

:mountie:


Published: 2010-11-04
What would you do with $11,255,272?

Couple lavishes entire lotto jackpot on charities, family

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter


LOWER TRURO — They won $11.2 million from a lottery ticket in July. And now every penny is gone. But Allen and Violet Large didn’t spend any of it on themselves. And that’s just the way they like it.

"What you’ve never had, you never miss," said Violet, 78.

Married since 1974, the Lower Truro couple don’t live large. They don’t travel, they don’t gamble and they don’t buy what they don’t need.

"We have an old house, but we’re comfortable and we’re happy in it," Violet said.

They spent 30 years in Ontario where Allen was a steel welder and Violet worked for cosmetics and chocolate companies. They retired in 1983 and returned to Nova Scotia.

"We were pretty well set, not millionaires, but comfortable," said Allen, 75.

So when they hit it big in Lotto 6-49’s July 14 draw, they decided to give it all away.

All that money "was a big headache," Allen said. Violet said she was concerned about "crooked people" who might try to take advantage of them.

But the big win came at a difficult time in their lives: Violet was undergoing treatment for cancer that doctors discovered in the spring.

"That money that we won was nothing," said Allen, choking back tears. "We have each other."

Violet has been through surgery and finished her last chemotherapy treatment a week ago.

"I’ve been very fortunate not to be bedfast," said Violet, who also pointed to the support of her family and neighbours who bring them meals and keep their spirits up.

"It’s very hard" to watch the woman he married 36 years ago go through so much, Allen said.

"All the money in the world can’t buy your health," he said.

After the win, the couple took about a week to work out the details before embarking on their $11,255,272 spending spree.

They took care of family first and then began delivering donations to the two pages’ worth of groups they had decided on, including the local fire department, churches, cemeteries, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, hospitals in Truro and Halifax, where Violet underwent her cancer treatment, and organizations that fight cancer,

Alzheimer’s and diabetes. The list goes on and on.

The couple won’t say how much they gave each group, but they’ve received plenty of phone calls, letters and plaques of gratitude. While they’re thankful for each one, they didn’t do it for the recognition.

"It made us feel good," said Violet. "And there’s so much good being done with that money."

She and her husband said they feel privileged to be able to give back to the community, to help the firefighters, the doctors and nurses and the volunteers who have helped them.

"We’re the lucky ones," Violet said. "I have no complaints."

( pbrooks@herald.ca)


http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1210191.html

[Nat]

(Oh, and regarding your other post just now - I bet Glenn Beck had an erection the entire time he was doing that particular show.)

Ewww and hahaha

[Tommi]

Small rumbles and an earthquake predicting cat that remind me I live in earthquake country, and someday may own ocean front property. :cigar2:

Region: GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIF.
Geographic coordinates: 33.783N, 118.131W
Magnitude: 3.7 Ml
Depth: 21 km
Universal Time (UTC): 5 Nov 2010 16:06:37
Time near the Epicenter: 5 Nov 2010 09:06:37


Location with respect to nearby cities:
3 km (2 miles) SE (133 degrees) of Long Beach, CA
4 km (3 miles) ESE (119 degrees) of Signal Hill, CA
5 km (3 miles) WNW (301 degrees) of Seal Beach, CA
32 km (20 miles) SSE (160 degrees) of Los Angeles Civic Center, CA

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/032D6WbacbaKV/610x.jpg

[dreadgeek]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/obamas-india-visit-slammed-for-over-the-top-spending-64405?trendingnow




If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

Sabine:

I think that there is as little chance of your responding to this as there was you admitting you were wrong about the Shirley Sherrod blow-up over the Summer but I'm going to put this out there at any rate.

Why did you post a lie? Because what you posted was a lie. This isn't a matter of interpretation and it isn't a matter of being off by a few thousand dollars. What you posted was a lie and I'm curious as to why you did so. It took me all of about 15 minutes to debunk your lie so I'm curious were you simply too lazy to do the research yourself, figuring that someone like me would do your homework for you, did you not even have a moment of "that figure seems a bit high" or were you SO gleeful at being handed a stick with which you could poke liberals that it never even occurred to you to actually fact-check this? I ask because this behavior is genuinely perplexing to me.

It seems as if you do not CARE if something is empirically true. Or perhaps you do not realize that, all the rhetoric you may have learned in humanities classes at university to the contrary, there IS such a thing as reality. EITHER this trip is going to cost $200 million per day or it is not. EITHER there will be 34 warships off the coast of India or there will not. These are matters subject to empirical verification. You do not get to interpret that 10 warships that are on station in the Indian Ocean as part of a the normal deployment of the 7th fleet is somehow 34 warships that are being sent to the region for the purpose of Mr. Obama's trip. Either they are there on normal deployment or they are there because of this trip. Either there are 34 ships or there is a number other than 34.

Now, the chances are that you will do what you did with the Shirley Sherrod incident and just pretend that you never posted a lie--and it was a lie that Ms Sherrod's speech was racist gloating. If so, I'm curious why you want us to think that you are either dishonest, gullible or lazy. Because it has to be one of those three. If you knew what you were posting was inaccurate but posted it anyway, you're deliberately posting a lie which makes you mendacious. If you didn't realize that what you were posting was a lie but posted it anyway, that means you were gullible. If you weren't sure about the veracity of the claim but didn't take the time to verify it before posting it, you were lazy. There are no OTHER generous interpretations of your actions. I suppose you might rejoin that you just don't give a damn but if that is the case that really puts you in the category of dishonest. At which point why should we take ANYTHING you say as having any weight what-so-ever?

Like I said, it's highly unlikely that you will respond to this because you seem to lack the courage of your convictions but I would be fascinated to know by what core conservative belief do you base your posting of lies--and whether you knew it or not what you posted was a lie--and why you would consider dishonesty an honorable thing.

And if you feel you must report me for saying you posted a lie, so be it. When you can demonstrate that this $200 million figure is anywhere NEAR close then I will stop calling it a lie but until such time as you do so, I'm not going to pretend that you get to have an opinion about WHAT amount is being spent. You don't, I don't. An actual dollar amount is being spent, that dollar amount is a matter of empirical fact and not subject to opinion. You have every right to an opinion, you have no right to your own set of facts.

Cheers
Aj

[Tommi]

California voters elect country's first transgender judge

NEWS
Published 11/04/2010

Transgender judicial candidate Victoria Kolakowski made history Tuesday night, becoming the country's first out transgender judge.

According to unofficial returns Wednesday morning, Kolakowski had garnered 115,570 votes or 50 percent of the total, giving her a 3,329-vote lead over her opponent, Alameda County Deputy District Attorney John Creighton, for the Alameda County Superior Court's Office #9.

With an unknown number of ballots remaining to be counted, Creighton has yet to concede the race and a final count isn't expected until Friday at the earliest. But Kolakowski was cautiously optimistic that her lead would hold and she would be sworn into office in early January.

"I've got the lead and it looks really good, but it is not 100 percent. It is not in the bag yet," Kolakowski told the Bay Area Reporter early Wednesday morning. "When the final votes are counted, I think I will have won."

Yet the congratulatory calls were already coming in and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helped Kolakowski raise money for her campaign, featured her on a call with its major donors Wednesday.

Her campaign had attracted national attention, with the mainstream media playing up the history-making potential of her campaign. But Kolakowski said voters paid little attention to her transgender status and were more focused on her resume. Victoria (Vicky) is married to Cynthia Laird, the news editor of the Bay Area Reporter newspaper.

[Nat]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/keith_olbermann_suspended.html

Keith Olbermann has been suspended “indefinitely without pay” for making campaign donations to three Democratic candidates. In a statement, network president Phil Griffin said, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.” According to a report in Politico, the host of Countdown gave the maximum legal contribution ($2,400) to Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway.

[Medusa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-pfeiffer/fact-check-obamas-india-t_b_779496.html

Here's an article talking about how the whole "Obama's trips are costing a Bazillion Farillion dollars!!!!!" thing is "not based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.

[betenoire]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-pfeiffer/fact-check-obamas-india-t_b_779496.html

Here's an article talking about how the whole "Obama's trips are costing a Bazillion Farillion dollars!!!!!" thing is "not based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.

I enjoyed Rachel Maddow's little rant on her show regarding this. Basically she said that it's now impossible to debunk lies and rumours started by the crazies at Fox News and their friends - because they are all confirming the lies and rumours FOR EACH OTHER to such a degree that it becomes as good as fact.

linkarinkaroo (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40018314)

Second video down (at this moment, anyway) titled: Echoing falsehoods still don't ring true.

[katsarecool]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/keith_olbermann_suspended.html

Keith Olbermann has been suspended “indefinitely without pay” for making campaign donations to three Democratic candidates. In a statement, network president Phil Griffin said, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.” According to a report in Politico, the host of Countdown gave the maximum legal contribution ($2,400) to Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway.I am very angry about this decision. I wrote an email to the man who made this decision. Here is his email address for anyone wanting to vent to him and ask him to change his mind: phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

[betenoire]

I am very angry about this decision. I wrote an email to the man who made this decision. Here is his email address for anyone wanting to vent to him and ask him to change his mind: phil.griffin@nbcuni.com

See, I just don't know how I feel about this.

I'm bummed out, for sure. I enjoy his show and I will be sad without it.

OTOH....well. If it is in fact in their rules and in his contract that they not donate to any political campaigns without permission...then what could he expect? If I break the rules at my job, even ones that I think are stupid, I get fired. That's just how having a job and having a contract that you sign works.

It still really sucks, though.

[Tommi]

Dear Mom, There is another one just like you. What a nice link a friend sent me and I wanted to post is somewhere. It touched my heart, and I want to share with those that know. I had a Mom just like Boo's.

In your honor :fastdraq:, your lil cowboy

RIP Mom
Nov. 2, 1990:rose:


""Nerdy Apple Bottom says My Son's Gay""

Or he’s not. I don’t care. He is still my son. And he is 5. And I am his mother. And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don’t want to know you.

I have gone back and forth on whether I wanted to post something more in-depth about my sweet boy and his choice of Halloween costume. Or more specifically, the reactions to it. I figure if I’m still irked by it a few days later, I may as well go ahead and post my thoughts.

Here are the facts that lead up to my rant:

1. My son is 5 and goes to a church preschool.
2. He has loved Scooby Doo since developing the ability and attention span to sit still long enough to watch it.
3. Halloween is a holiday and its main focus is wearing a costume.
4. My son’s school had the kids dress up, do a little parade, and then change out of costumes for the rest of the party.
5. Boo’s best friend is a little girl
6. Boo has an older sister
7. Boo spends most of his time with me.
8. I am a woman.
9. I am Boo’s mother, not you.

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago. I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/05/article-1326968-0BED5184000005DC-945_468x498.jpg
Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

And then the big day arrives. We get dressed up. We drop Squirt at his preschool and head over to his. Boo doesn’t want to get out of the car. He’s afraid of what people will say and do to him. I convince him to go inside. He halts at the door. He’s visibly nervous. I chalk it up to him being a bit of a worrier in general. Seriously, WHO WOULD MAKE FUN OF A CHILD IN A COSTUME ON HALLOWEEN? So he walks in. And there were several friends of mine that knew what he was wearing that smiled and waved and gave him high-fives. We walk down the hall to where his classroom is.

And that’s where things went wrong. Two mothers went wide-eyed and made faces as if they smelled decomp. And I realize that my son is seeing the same thing I am. So I say, “Doesn’t he look great?” And Mom A says in disgust, “Did he ask to be that?!” I say that he sure did as Halloween is the time of year that you can be whatever it is that you want to be. They continue with their nosy, probing questions as to how that was an option and didn’t I try to talk him out of it. Mom B mostly just stood there in shock and dismay.

And then Mom C approaches. She had been in the main room, saw us walk in, and followed us down the hall to let me know her thoughts. And they were that I should never have ‘allowed’ this and thank God it wasn’t next year when he was in Kindergarten since I would have had to put my foot down and ‘forbidden’ it. To which I calmly replied that I would do no such thing and couldn’t imagine what she was talking about. She continued on and on about how mean children could be and how he would be ridiculed.

My response to that: The only people that seem to have a problem with it is their mothers.

Another mom pointed out that high schools often have Spirit Days where girls dress like boys and vice versa. I mentioned Powderpuff Games where football players dress like cheerleaders and vice versa. Or every frat boy ever in college (Mom A said that her husband was a frat boy and NEVER dressed like a woman.)

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it ‘concern.’ Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

It is obvious that I neither abuse nor neglect my children. They are not perfect, but they are learning how to navigate this big, and sometimes cruel, world. I hate that my son had to learn this lesson while standing in front of allegedly Christian women. I hate that those women thought those thoughts, and worse felt comfortable saying them out loud. I hate that ‘pink’ is still called a girl color and that my baby has to be so brave if he wants to be Daphne for Halloween.

And all I hope for my kids, and yours, and those of Moms ABC, are that they are happy. If a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. If he wants to carry a purse, or marry a man, or paint fingernails with his best girlfriend, then ok. My job as his mother is not to stifle that man that he will be, but to help him along his way. Mine is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.

I hope I am doing that.

And my little man worked that costume like no other. He rocked that wig, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.


IF you want to comment the site is below
http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/comment-page-474/#comment-30080

[AtLast]

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.

[dreadgeek]

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.

FOX News contributed a million dollars to the RNC over the summer. Herein lies a principle difference between FOX News and its fans and MSNBC News and its supporters: at FOX it is perfectly acceptable for a news organization to contribute to the political campaign of a party it covers, while at MSNBC that is unacceptable. With FOX News fans/watchers/adherents/partisans this kind of behavior is unquestionably correct. With MSNBC fans/watchers/adherents/partisans, at *best* that kind of behavior is questionable or up for debate.

For the record, while I do not wish to see Mr. Olbermann lose his job over this what he did WAS, in point of fact, a violation of journalistic ethics and he should be disciplined for it.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.

Well sure, but that is kind of the point.

MSNBC is not Fox News. Some people have started describing them as being the Fox News of the Left (or something like that) so of course they are going to want to keep their political commentators from doing the sort of thing that is considered acceptable at Fox.

FOX News contributed a million dollars to the RNC over the summer. Herein lies a principle difference between FOX News and its fans and MSNBC News and its supporters: at FOX it is perfectly acceptable for a news organization to contribute to the political campaign of a party it covers, while at MSNBC that is unacceptable. With FOX News fans/watchers/adherents/partisans this kind of behavior is unquestionably correct. With MSNBC fans/watchers/adherents/partisans, at *best* that kind of behavior is questionable or up for debate.

For the record, while I do not wish to see Mr. Olbermann lose his job over this what he did WAS, in point of fact, a violation of journalistic ethics and he should be disciplined for it.

Cheers
Aj

Exactly.

[Nat]

Glad it wasn't maddow

[betenoire]

Glad it wasn't maddow

Seriously. I wouldn't be able to get out of bed for a week if it was Maddow. :)

[MsDemeanor]

It seems from that long post earlier that Aj is feeling rather polysyllabic today :giggle:

I'm quite fine with Olbermann's suspension. The news will hopefully start a conversation about the difference between MSNBC and Faux, between ethical and slimy. If I had a spare fifty bucks, I'd bet it on him having intentionally created this situation.

[MsDemeanor]

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.
If the MSM picks up the story (I happened to see it mentioned on CNN, they'll cover it more detail once they generate some giant graphics and collect viewer tweets to read on-air), then perhaps someone will bother to look up this information for us.

[katsarecool]

See, I just don't know how I feel about this.

I'm bummed out, for sure. I enjoy his show and I will be sad without it.

OTOH....well. If it is in fact in their rules and in his contract that they not donate to any political campaigns without permission...then what could he expect? If I break the rules at my job, even ones that I think are stupid, I get fired. That's just how having a job and having a contract that you sign works.

It still really sucks, though.
More information just revealed in the news. This man who fired Keith for campaign contributions has also made a few of his own. Not in the $2,400 range but in the six figure range to several different right wing ultra conservative Republicans. I will post more later. If so, the board should fire Phil as well! This is going to be a big scandal!!!

[Corkey]

If one signs a contract after they have hopefully read and negotiated in good faith, then goes and breaks said contract, it is called breach of contract. People get fired over breach of contract, sometimes they sue each other. He is suspended and I hope he has learned not to breach his contract.
Ethics folks, ethics.

[Nat]

tzGyHZx56fE

[AtLast]

tzGyHZx56fE

Maddow makes the distinctions clear between MSNBC's and Faux News as far as Fox really pimping for the GOP as well as the employment rules. I wonder if management will trump this up as making a point and Olberman will be back next week?

I am also wondering about what Corkey and others bring up about Olberman just breaching his emplyment contract. This doesn't make sense after hearing in this video that he could have asked management about making the donations. It seems like permission was granted to other MSNBC employees to do so.

Some of this seems strange to me.

[Nat]

Maddow makes the distinctions clear between MSNBC's and Faux News as far as Fox really pimping for the GOP as well as the employment rules. I wonder if management will trump this up as making a point and Olberman will be back next week?

I am also wondering about what Corkey and others bring up about Olberman just breaching his emplyment contract. This doesn't make sense after hearing in this video that he could have asked management about making the donations. It seems like permission was granted to other MSNBC employees to do so.

Some of this seems strange to me.

I have mixed feelings. I really don't think Olbermann has the same powers of logic and consistency that Maddow (for example) has. He makes great points, he has interviewed people - very interesting people with very interesting points of view - that nobody else has.

He interviewed Raul Grijalva (one of the people he donated to) after Grijalva's office received a package of white powder with swastikas on the outside packaging. He's the best source on youtube for finding out more about that guy whose house burnt down while the firemen watched because he hadn't paid his pay-as-you-go fireman fee.

But he is a very emotional, impassioned speaker and he also delivers a lot of low blows. Which to me puts him further into the Fox-News-Like arena whether or not he actually fundraises for the people he's interviewing.

A friend and I were talking about how Jon Stewart kinda attacked him at the rally for sanity thing - basically saying Olbermann was part of the problem. (Which kinda reminds me of that saying about when you have one finger pointed at somebody else, the other three are pointing back at you). We were wondering whether Jon Stewart's conflation of MSNBC and especially Olbermann has had more to do with why MSNBC has suspended him than anything else.

It doesn't make sense that he would have intentionally gone against his contract to donate toward 3 campaigns. His ability to keep his job was doing more for those candidates than whatever money he could have given them (which would have gone back into tv exposure anyway). Either he knew it was a matter of public record or he thought it was somehow secret. If he knew it was a matter of public record, it doesn't make sense that he would have done it if he knew it would get him in trouble at work or make him look bad on the national stage. If he somehow thought his donations would remain a secret, then that would make him look extremely bad because he's been attacking the US Chamber of Commerce for accepting secret and overseas donations and then running republican political ads. The guy who originally replaced him was then also found to have made political contributions, so if I had to make a guess it would be that there was the official policy which wasn't enforced, that there was a culture of violation of that policy or a culture of not caring if people violated that policy and that MSNBC suspended him because they are very concerned with not looking like the liberal equivalent to Fox (which Jon Stewart recently emphasized).

The thing with Fox is that there really does need to be an equally strong counterbalance. They don't have to be so crooked, but MSNBC's shying away from liberalism right now just stinks of fear and disloyalty that has been the sickness of many dems and other leberals since obama took office.

[MsDemeanor]

The guy who originally replaced him was then also found to have made political contributions, so if I had to make a guess it would be that there was the official policy which wasn't enforced, that there was a culture of violation of that policy or a culture of not caring if people violated that policy and that MSNBC suspended him because they are very concerned with not looking like the liberal equivalent to Fox (which Jon Stewart recently emphasized).
Unfortunately, whoever gave you this information had their facts wrong. Chris Hayes, who was supposed to fill in for Keith, is a contributor to MSNBC; his real job is Washington editor of The Nation magazine. He's not a show host, so he works under different rules, rules that do not include a ban on political contributions - which he did before he had signed a contract, BTW. Chris didn't do the show because he refused, not because he had also contributed money. It was his decision, not MSNBCs.

Chris' twitter on the subject : "OK: I'm not filling in on Countdown tonight because I didn't feel comfortable doing it given the circumstances." And "My not hosting tonight has *nothing* to do with several donations I made to two friends *before* I ever signed an MSNBC contract"

Peter Sagal of NPR has been abuzz on twitter over this, too. He points out that this is a condition of employment, both at NBC and at NPR (and ABC and NYT and CNN), but not a Faux. Notice how the legitimate news sources all ban this stuff, but not the Republican Campaign News Network.

[Nat]

152 Arrested in Oakland Cop Sentencing Protest (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/national/main7029257.shtml)

Police arrested 152 protesters who streamed through the streets Friday - some breaking windows and knocking down fences - after a white ex-transit officer received the minimum two-year prison sentence for fatally shooting an unarmed black man on a California train platform.

The case against defendant Johannes Mehserle has provoked racial unrest at every turn, and police in Oakland, the scene of the killing, were on alert for more problems following a sentence many thought was too light.

"This is outrageous - This sentence of two years is outrageous," one protester told CBS Station KPIX. "For murder, for killing somebody!"

A rally billed as a tribute to Oscar Grant turned into a march through the downtown area, where people broke car windows and two windows on a bus. After police in riot gear repeatedly blocked and outflanked them, several hundred protesters splintered into smaller groups and entered residential neighborhoods.

Police helicopters hovered above, shining spotlights on the crowd.

A group of about 100 protesters holding a banner reading “Justice for Oscar Grant” was hemmed in with officers on both sides of the street before police started making arrests around 8 p.m. Friday, saying the assembly was illegal.

The action was taken, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said, after one officer had his gun taken from him in a fight and another officer was hit by a car and suffered what police described as a non-life-threatening injury. "It's one thing breaking windows; it's another thing taking a gun from an officer," the chief said.

Police spokesman Jeff Thomason said officers checking the backpacks of several of those arrested found hammers, pepper spray, switchblades and anti-freeze.

Mehserle's sentence, handed down in Los Angeles, also angered the victim's family and friends, who demanded a much harsher punishment.

Wanda Johnson, Grant's mother, shouted, "Oh my!" when Superior Court Judge Robert Perry issued the two-year sentence. She burst out of the courtroom saying, "He got nothing! He got nothing!"

Grant's uncle, Bobby Cephus Johnson, said outside court: "I do believe it's a racist criminal justice system."

Still, he said the family was reacting calmly but added he could not comment for others.

"I have no power over what people feel their matter of expression should be," he said.

Some of the dozens of people who gathered outside Oakland City Hall for a tribute to victim Oscar Grant broke into tears when they learned of the judge's decision. Outside the Los Angeles courthouse, a small crowd that had earlier shouted "No justice, no peace" reacted relatively calmly to the sentence.

Mehserle, 28, had faced a possible 14-year maximum term after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. At the time of the shooting, Mehserle was a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer responding to a report of a fight.

In making his decision during the highly charged, 3½-hour hearing, Perry threw out a gun enhancement that could have added as much as 10 years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence that it was an accidental shooting.

Perry said race would not factor into his decision and although Mehserle had shown "tons of remorse" for killing Grant, he would have to account that a "young man needlessly died."

"I did the best I could with this case," Perry told the courtroom. "My decisions today will not be well-received by many people. I'm sorry for that."

Police said they were prepared in case there was a replay of the rioting in Oakland that followed the shooting on New Year's Day 2009.

Mayor Ron Dellums said he understood the pain and disappointment sparked by the sentence.

"It is still my hope that people will express their anger, will express their disappointment, their outrage, their pain in a manner that is nonviolent, in a manner that is not destructive to our community," he said at a news conference.

Johnson family attorney John Burris acknowledged a small step was taken by the justice system in sentencing Mehserle to two years, but he said that was insufficient. Both Burris and Bobby Johnson noted that NFL star Michael Vick got a harsher sentence for running a dog-fighting ring.

"What you take from that is that Oscar Grant's life was not worth very much," Burris said.

He also targeted Perry's comments before sentencing that he was saddened by the polarization of the community over the shooting.

"This case does nothing at all to heal, if that was ever any intent," Burris said.

Reaction to the case has drawn comparisons to the infamous 1991 Rodney King beating by Los Angeles police officers, which inflamed a racial divide and led to the disastrous 1992 riot when the officers were acquitted of brutality charges.

Mehserle was convicted in July in the videotaped killing of Grant, 22, in Oakland. The case was moved to Los Angeles for trial.

Perry had wide discretion when sentencing Mehserle. Prosecutors sought prison time while defense lawyers argued for probation. The judge gave Mehserle the minimum possible prison sentence.

Defense attorney Michael Rains immediately filed an appeal with the court after the sentencing. After time already served and good behavior credits, Mehserle will likely serve an additional six to seven months based on California's sentencing guidelines, the lawyer said.

Mehserle testified during the trial that he thought Grant had a weapon and decided to shock him with his stun gun but instead pulled his .40-caliber handgun. Grant was unarmed and face down when he was shot.

Sentencing came after four relatives of Grant and his fiancee pleaded with Perry to send Mehserle to prison for 14 years.

Wanda Johnson cried and struggled to give a victim impact statement. She said she regrets telling her son to take a BART train to San Francisco before the shooting.

"I live every day of my life in pain," she said. "My son is not here because of a careless action."

The family continues to maintain that it was murder when Mehserle shot Grant.

Mehserle, shackled and wearing a jail jumpsuit, also stood before the judge before sentencing and apologized for the shooting, which he contended was accidental and not racially motivated.

"I want to say how deeply sorry I am," Mehserle said. "Nothing I ever say or do will heal the wound. I will always be sorry for taking Mr. Grant from them."

He cried during portions of his 10-minute statement and said he and his family have received numerous death threats and he's been "green-lighted" - a term in which other jail inmates have the go-ahead to kill someone.

Earlier, the judge said he had received more than 1,000 letters urging a harsh sentence.

Prosecutors had sought a second-degree murder conviction, saying Mehserle became angry at Grant for resisting arrest.

However, jurors were given the choice of lesser charges, including voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In reaching a decision on involuntary manslaughter, jurors found that Mehserle didn't mean to kill Grant, but his behavior was still so negligent that it was criminal.

Involuntary manslaughter has a sentencing range of two to four years, while the gun allegation carries a term of three, four or 10 years.

The judge rebuked prosecutors for arguing that Mehserle intentionally shot Grant, saying there wasn't any evidence to back up that allegation. Perry also said he believed the videos showed Grant resisted arrest and many people, including Mehserle's fellow officers and Grant's friends, contributed to the tragedy.

"All of these people share some responsibility," Perry said.

Early in the day, before the sentencing, there was a scuffle outside the Los Angeles courthouse that led to at least one arrest and an undercover officer being briefly handcuffed.

Police Lt. John Romero said the undercover police officer was coming out of the building when a member of the crowd recognized him and the two had a verbal exchange. When it escalated to pushing and shoving among the crowd, sheriff's deputies who guard the building moved in.

[katsarecool]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/latinos-prevent-republica_b_779355.html Well it appears the latino vote busted Republican chops and will do so with 1.25 million more registered latino voters by 2012!

[Soon]

Report: Iranian authorities give go-ahead to execute woman (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/02/iran.woman.execution/index.html)

[waxnrope]

L.A., the place where I was born and raised. Where I learned to fear police, and for a long time, hate them.

L.A. It's a hot place. So dry, the air sometimes crackles.

In L.A., law enforcement exists to enforce those situations that threaten white privilege. Of course, this doesn't include poor whites ... except when that group is privileged over brown or black. This helps to maintain tension between groups, dontcha know. And supposedly gives poor whites a sense that they are at least over somebody else.

L.A. the place where, in my youth, a male companion, also a POC, was picked up by police while we walked around the closed shops of Wilshire Blvd. I looked for my friend, for the police department. Found him around the corner from where he was picked up. He was beaten.

L.A. They said that things had changed there. It wasn't like the old days. Then, Rodney King happened. He was a long time ago, too. But I hear, once again that things are better. The things I look for to change, though, are not the presuppositions and facile pronouncements of an accepted multiculturalism. Rather, it is the heat and dryness ... of racist thoughts and the actions, or lack of same, which follow such thinking that renders my judgement. Just my penny's worth...

[AtLast]

L.A., the place where I was born and raised. Where I learned to fear police, and for a long time, hate them.

L.A. It's a hot place. So dry, the air sometimes crackles.

In L.A., law enforcement exists to enforce those situations that threaten white privilege. Of course, this doesn't include poor whites ... except when that group is privileged over brown or black. This helps to maintain tension between groups, dontcha know. And supposedly gives poor whites a sense that they are at least over somebody else.

L.A. the place where, in my youth, a male companion, also a POC, was picked up by police while we walked around the closed shops of Wilshire Blvd. I looked for my friend, for the police department. Found him around the corner from where he was picked up. He was beaten.

L.A. They said that things had changed there. It wasn't like the old days. Then, Rodney King happened. He was a long time ago, too. But I hear, once again that things are better. The things I look for to change, though, are not the presuppositions and facile pronouncements of an accepted multiculturalism. Rather, it is the heat and dryness ... of racist thoughts and the actions, or lack of same, which follow such thinking that renders my judgement. Just my penny's worth...

And so goes Richmond and Oakland, California! I don't know if the new Oakland police chief is going to deal with this stuff, I hope so. Richmond is a mess and has such a high population of unemployed POC, the desperation hangs in the heavy in the air. Kids kill each other there like going to a Friday night movie. Rapes on school campuses happen all of the time- we just hear about the gang ones!

About a month ago, I was physically threatened in a Richmond park by an African American man who really had a problem with a butch woman just asking him to leash his dog after it attacked my dog (his dog was about 85 pounds to my 25 pound little guy). The guy was big and I had no escape route and with my mobility problems, I was even more in a pickle and it was getting dark.

I made a police report after getting to safety. And I have to say that while talking to the Richmond PD officers (both white), I immediately felt something change when I told them the guy was African American. At first they were not all that interested in my complaint (hummm... not such a big deal that a butch is threatened with physical violence and stalking, I guess). But since the guy was a POC, that was cause for action and getting all the facts as well as statements from these so called "professionals" that frankly were racist.

Weird, weird situation! The guy could have been any race that attacked me- he did call me "white bitch," (I’m a quarter Latino, but don't look it) "bull dagger" and said, "you can suck my cock" to me. he told me that he was going to come back every day to the dog park and "make me miserable." And that there are no rules at dog parks (there are, it is run by (the regional park service).

Mostly, he was a sexist, homophobic ass that decided to throw in some racial stuff while threatening me. But, I didn't feel like the Richmond PD officers were much better than him and frankly, I think that they would have gone after him differently than if he were white if he had stuck around.

This whole thing demonstrates just how fucked up race, homophobia and police in areas where POC are the majority. It is craziness!! not to mention that I was very scared and am always looking for this guy at that park. For awhile, I went to another dog park, but, I have gone to this one almost every day for 10 years and it is close to my home. I decided to face my fears and reclaim my dog park! Have never seen him again.

[katsarecool]

are coming from some very surprising sources. And evidence that other employees have made donations to candidates too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspensio_n_779727.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1107170,b=facebook

[AtLast]

are coming from some very surprising sources. And evidence that other employees have made donations to candidates too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspensio_n_779727.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1107170,b=facebook

Very interesting article! Especially...


Among media personalities and even straight-forward reporters, there has been a bit of shock over what was viewed as a knee-jerk punishment for a fairly minor ethical lapse. Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative scribe for the Weekly Standard, penned a blog post under the headline "Keep Keith!" extolling MSNBC's brass for muzzling someone whose ideological leanings are fairly self-evident.


Kristol is pretty damn right-wing!

[Nat]

Gene Robinson, first openly gay Episcopal bishop, announces his retirement (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/11/gene_robinson_f.html)

Robinson made it clear that the stress of being the focal point of discussion in the Anglican Communion has taken a toll on him. Robinson has been at the center of an international uproar over whether a married, openly gay man should lead a church that disapproves of homosexuality.

[Nat]

Cholera death toll rises in hurricane-hit Haiti (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11704945)

The death toll from the current cholera epidemic in Haiti has exceeded 500, the country's health ministry has said.

Fifty-nine people had died up until and including Thursday, and 617 others had been infected, bringing the total affected to 7,359, the ministry added.

The news came as the local authorities and relief agencies attempted to get clean drinking water to those areas worse affected by Hurricane Tomas.

[katsarecool]

Nat what a horrible situation! It is unforgiveable that our country has not made good on their $$$ pledges as of this date. There is no excuse for millions of people to be living in ragged tents or even a new tent for that matter. The situation is Haiti is deteriorating each and every minute. So many people over there volunteering their money and time but still it is not enough. Very very sad. Most of the victims are probably children, this sick and elderly. I bet, and I will probably get slammed for saying this I bet if this was a country with white citizens it would totally be different!!!!

[AtLast]

Gene Robinson, first openly gay Episcopal bishop, announces his retirement (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/11/gene_robinson_f.html)

Robinson made it clear that the stress of being the focal point of discussion in the Anglican Communion has taken a toll on him. Robinson has been at the center of an international uproar over whether a married, openly gay man should lead a church that disapproves of homosexuality.

What has always gotten to me is when he was made bishop, he wore a bullet-proof vest and was surrounded by body guards! Great display of Christian love, huh?

I wish him the best in retirement, some peace would be nice..

[betenoire]

This isn't really a breaking news event, but it's hysterical and you all want to watch it. Trust me.

Why have I never seen this before?

q3h5oUWHsnQ

[katsarecool]

This video is a must see!

http://www.countercurrents.org/rifkin051110.htm

[Jesse]

http://http://education.change.org/blog/view/welcome_to_white_supremacist_101_brought_to_you_by _wilson_sports?me=nl (http://http//education.change.org/blog/view/welcome_to_white_supremacist_101_brought_to_you_by _wilson_sports?me=nl)

[Gemme]

http://http://education.change.org/blog/view/welcome_to_white_supremacist_101_brought_to_you_by _wilson_sports?me=nl (http://http//education.change.org/blog/view/welcome_to_white_supremacist_101_brought_to_you_by _wilson_sports?me=nl)

Is there another link? That one didn't work for me.

[Jess]

Cross posting these articles from the Beginning of the End of DADT thread, as I think our current position on this very important issue needs to be passed on as much as possible.

Keeping up with this issue after mid-terms. I ran across a couple articles of interest. Will continue watching and sending every petition in I come across.

One from Huff Post:

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780371.html

Another from Metro Weekly/ Poliglot:

The (Military) Brass Tacks of Lame-Duck DADT Repeal

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010...-military.html

From the Wall Street Journal:

Drive to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Policy All but Lost for Now

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...961320666.html

[Tommi]

Having raised O/our wonderful Daughter with love and care and diversity, I am so glad to see this study.

New Study Shows 0% Abuse Experienced by Adolescent Children of Lesbian Parents

A paper published on 11/10/10 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior showed that none of the sample 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers who are part of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS ) experienced physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. The paper contrasts these results with “…26% of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3% who report sexual abuse.”

The NLLFS was funded in part by the Lesbian Health Fund, a program of GLMA.

Information: For more information about this study, please visit the NLLFS website at http://www.nllfs.org/publications/.

[AtLast]

Cross posting these articles from the Beginning of the End of DADT thread, as I think our current position on this very important issue needs to be passed on as much as possible.

Keeping up with this issue after mid-terms. I ran across a couple articles of interest. Will continue watching and sending every petition in I come across.

One from Huff Post:

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780371.html

Another from Metro Weekly/ Poliglot:

The (Military) Brass Tacks of Lame-Duck DADT Repeal

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010...-military.html

From the Wall Street Journal:

Drive to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Policy All but Lost for Now

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...961320666.html

Sure does need to be spread around the site! GRRRRRR!!! A whole lot of the right-wing wins have stopped repeal of DADT!

[Greyson]

NEWSWEEK's Power 50: The List

November 01, 2010

In the oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives. To figure who's tops in this new world, NEWSWEEK asked Wealth-X, an intelligence and research firm, to compile a list of the 50 highest-earning political figures of 2010. Included in the rankings are politicians, ex-politicians, media personalities, and political consultants who hawk their personal brands in the public marketplace—and influence American political discourse in the process. To see a profile of any member of the Power 50, just click on their name in the list below. You can also sort these names to see the list broken down by gender or occupation, just click on the category at the top of the list. And, you can find our full methodology here.


1 Rush Limbaugh Male Talk show host $58.7 million

2 Glenn Beck Male Talk show host $33 million

3 Sean Hannity Male Talk show host $22 million

4 Bill O'Reilly Male Talk show host $20 million

5 Jon Stewart Male Talk show host $15 million

6 Sarah Palin Female Current or former government official $14 million

7 Don Imus Male Talk show host $11 million

8 Bill Clinton Male Current or former government official $7.7 million

9 Keith Olbermann Male Talk show host $7.5 million

10 Rudy Giuliani Male Current or former government official $7 million

11 Laura Ingraham
(tied with 10) Female Talk show host $7 million

12 Newt Gingrich Male Current or former government official $5.5 million

13 Madeleine Albright Female Current or former government official $5 million

14 Stephen Colbert
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

15 Arianna Huffington
(tied with 13) Female Journalist $5 million

16 Mark Levin
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

17 Chris Matthews 31 Male Talk show host $4.5 million 17

18 George W. Bush Male Current or former government official $4.2 million

19 Bill Maher Male Talk show host $4 million

20 Barack Obama
(tied with 19) Male Current or former government official $4 million

21 Jorge Ramos
(tied with 19) Male Journalist $4 million

22 Joe Scarborough 45 Male Talk show host $3.5 million 22

23 Fareed Zakaria Male Journalist $3.1 million

24 Bob Barnett Male Power broker $3 million

25 Alan Greenspan
(tied with 24) Male Current or former government official $3 million

26 Frank Luntz
(tied with 24) Male Political strategist $3 million

27 Mark Halperin Male Journalist $2.5 million

28 John Heilemann
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

29 Bob Woodward
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

30 Thomas Friedman Male Journalist $2 million

31 Al Gore
(tied with 30) Male Current or former government official $2 million

32 Rachel Maddow
(tied with 30) Female Talk show host $2 million

33 Jon Meacham*
(tied with 30) Male Journalist $2 million

34 Charlie Rose
(tied with 30) Male Talk show host $2 million

35 Karl Rove
(tied with 30)
Male Current or former government official $2 million

36 Condoleezza Rice Female Current or former government official $1.8 million

37 Charlie Cook Male Journalist $1.5 million

38 David Plouffe Male Political strategist $1.5 million

39 David Remnick 41 Male Journalist $1.3 million 39

40 Roland Martin Male Journalist $1.1 million

41 Tina Brown Female Journalist $1 million

42 Dick Cheney
(tied with 41) 7 Current or former government official $1 million

43 John McLaughlin
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

44 Colin Powell*
(tied with 41) Male Current or former government official $1 million

45 Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

46 Richard Stengel
(tied with 41) Male Journalist $1 million

47 Paul Krugman Male Journalist $900,000

48 Mary Matalin* Female Current or former government official $800,000

49 Ann Coulter Female Journalist $750,000

50 David Axelrod Male Current or former government official $720,000

* Disputed our estimates, but declined to provide further information on the numbers.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html#

[AtLast]

NEWSWEEK's Power 50: The List

November 01, 2010

In the oversaturated, hypercommodified media culture of 2010, the most influential political figures are generally the ones who make the most money peddling their perspectives. To figure who's tops in this new world, NEWSWEEK asked Wealth-X, an intelligence and research firm, to compile a list of the 50 highest-earning political figures of 2010. Included in the rankings are politicians, ex-politicians, media personalities, and political consultants who hawk their personal brands in the public marketplace—and influence American political discourse in the process. To see a profile of any member of the Power 50, just click on their name in the list below. You can also sort these names to see the list broken down by gender or occupation, just click on the category at the top of the list. And, you can find our full methodology here.


1 Rush Limbaugh Male Talk show host $58.7 million

2 Glenn Beck Male Talk show host $33 million

3 Sean Hannity Male Talk show host $22 million

4 Bill O'Reilly Male Talk show host $20 million

5 Jon Stewart Male Talk show host $15 million

6 Sarah Palin Female Current or former government official $14 million

7 Don Imus Male Talk show host $11 million

8 Bill Clinton Male Current or former government official $7.7 million

9 Keith Olbermann Male Talk show host $7.5 million

10 Rudy Giuliani Male Current or former government official $7 million

11 Laura Ingraham
(tied with 10) Female Talk show host $7 million

12 Newt Gingrich Male Current or former government official $5.5 million

13 Madeleine Albright Female Current or former government official $5 million

14 Stephen Colbert
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

15 Arianna Huffington
(tied with 13) Female Journalist $5 million

16 Mark Levin
(tied with 13) Male Talk show host $5 million

17 Chris Matthews 31 Male Talk show host $4.5 million 17

18 George W. Bush Male Current or former government official $4.2 million

19 Bill Maher Male Talk show host $4 million

20 Barack Obama
(tied with 19) Male Current or former government official $4 million

21 Jorge Ramos
(tied with 19) Male Journalist $4 million

22 Joe Scarborough 45 Male Talk show host $3.5 million 22

23 Fareed Zakaria Male Journalist $3.1 million

24 Bob Barnett Male Power broker $3 million

25 Alan Greenspan
(tied with 24) Male Current or former government official $3 million

26 Frank Luntz
(tied with 24) Male Political strategist $3 million

27 Mark Halperin Male Journalist $2.5 million

28 John Heilemann
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

29 Bob Woodward
(tied with 27) Male Journalist $2.5 million

30 Thomas Friedman Male Journalist $2 million

31 Al Gore
(tied with 30) Male Current or former government official $2 million

32 Rachel Maddow
(tied with 30) Female Talk show host $2 million

33 Jon Meacham*
(tied with 30) Male Journalist $2 million

34 Charlie Rose
(tied with 30) Male Talk show host $2 million

35 Karl Rove
(tied with 30)
Male Current or former government official $2 million

36 Condoleezza Rice Female Current or former government official $1.8 million

37 Charlie Cook Male Journalist $1.5 million

38 David Plouffe Male Political strategist $1.5 million

39 David Remnick 41 Male Journalist $1.3 million 39

40 Roland Martin Male Journalist $1.1 million

41 Tina Brown Female Journalist $1 million

42 Dick Cheney
(tied with 41) 7 Current or former government official $1 million

43 John McLaughlin
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

44 Colin Powell*
(tied with 41) Male Current or former government official $1 million

45 Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo
(tied with 41) Male Talk show host $1 million

46 Richard Stengel
(tied with 41) Male Journalist $1 million

47 Paul Krugman Male Journalist $900,000

48 Mary Matalin* Female Current or former government official $800,000

49 Ann Coulter Female Journalist $750,000

50 David Axelrod Male Current or former government official $720,000

* Disputed our estimates, but declined to provide further information on the numbers.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/01/power-list.html#

Freakin' ARGH!!! As the money turns.... as always, no matter the party!

[MsDemeanor]

Shrub continues to prove that he can't actually read or write. It turns out that an assistant did the online research, and the book is full of passages lifted from other sources.

That man is an idiot.

linkyloo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/george-bush-book-decision-points_n_782731.html#s180908)

[Nat]

As requested, I am crossposting this here :)

Meet The Illinois Woman Arrested For Assaulting Cop With A Sex Toy (http://rss.thesmokinggun.com/buster/illinois/meet-illinois-woman-arrested-assaulting-cop-vibrator)

when Bildsten reached inside a dresser drawer to get the purported cash, she instead removed a “clear, rigid feminine pleasure device,” held it above her head, and advanced on the cop “in a threatening manner.” The officer responded by knocking the sex toy out of the way before he was struck with the device.

The sex toy, which was not confiscated by cops, was further described by Deputy Chief Kevin Woodside in a TSG interview. The item, he noted, was six inches long and “attached to a nylon harness.”

[Dutch Leonard]

I heard this on Iowa Public radio this morning, here is a Chicago Tribune article about it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-sexstereotyping-v,0,6721747.story

[weatherboi]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/15/High_School_Student_Defends_Supportive_Teacher/

[AtLast]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/tsa-investigating-passenger/

I avoid flying as much as possible- never liked it even when I had to do a lot of it for work. Give me a train or a road adventure!

This brings up abucnh of things- from why his junk is more important than my boobs, to what IS the status of our rights and freedoms and security post 9/11? This on the heels of the non-passenger currier flight bombs. Also this story has a sexual abuse issue within it via this guy. Interesting story to ponder what we live with today in terms of security.

[Gemme]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/tsa-investigating-passenger/

This brings up abucnh of things- from why his junk is more important than my boobs, to what IS the status of our rights and freedoms and security post 9/11?

It's not. You too could refuse the search and be escorted from an airport, should you want to.

By buying a ticket and going through the various search points and security measures, we give up quite a few rights. It's in the fine print on the airline/ticket purchasing sites. I'm not saying it's right; just that that is how it is at this point in time.

[Nat]

Sarah Palin's Daughter Uses Homophobic Slurs (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/16/sarah-palin-willow-palin-homophobic-slur-facebook-attack-sarah-palins-alaska-dancing-with-the-stars-tlc/)

[betenoire]

Sarah Palin's Daughter Uses Homophobic Slurs (http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/16/sarah-palin-willow-palin-homophobic-slur-facebook-attack-sarah-palins-alaska-dancing-with-the-stars-tlc/)

Shock me shock me shock me.

Apple - Tree.

[AtLast]

It's not. You too could refuse the search and be escorted from an airport, should you want to.

By buying a ticket and going through the various search points and security measures, we give up quite a few rights. It's in the fine print on the airline/ticket purchasing sites. I'm not saying it's right; just that that is how it is at this point in time.

Interesting how the media I have been seeing about this hasn't focused on that you bring up that is very important- that fine print! He is an adult person that can read and purchased his ticket!

I see some of the issues some people are having about the body scanners, pat downs, etc., but, yes.... these measures have been taken for some pretty sobering and realistic reasons.

Probably because I don't fly often, I just do what is required for securiy when I do fly. It will be the same with these newer measures taking effect. I can understand how people that need to fly often can get annoyed with this. Yet, not having these safeguards seems nuts to me. Only takes one bomb, weapon (remember the box cutters) to cause a major disaster with innocent people being killed or injured.

[Gemme]

Interesting how the media I have been seeing about this hasn't focused on that you bring up that is very important- that fine print! He is an adult person that can read and purchased his ticket!

I see some of the issues some people are having about the body scanners, pat downs, etc., but, yes.... these measures have been taken for some pretty sobering and realistic reasons.

Probably because I don't fly often, I just do what is required for securiy when I do fly. It will be the same with these newer measures taking effect. I can understand how people that need to fly often can get annoyed with this. Yet, not having these safeguards seems nuts to me. Only takes one bomb, weapon (remember the box cutters) to cause a major disaster with innocent people being killed or injured.

Exactly.

However, in this one guy's case, I side with him. He checked the website to make sure the scanner wasn't in use at that airport but the website was not upgraded to show that it was. He even offered several times to go through the metal detector.

It feels like the TSA made a case of him, to show that they would not allow any kind of disagreement with their rules.

I've flown several times, but not really since the scanners have been in place. I've been patted down, but not in the 'new' method. So, I can only say what I 'think' I might do or choose in a situation like that but I definitely feel as if they, the individuals he came across and the department as a whole, were absolutely uncompromising. If he'd refused the metal detector as well, I could see why they might be heavyhanded with him.

[weatherboi]

vMVZy_Egg2g

:mohawk:

[suebee]

vMVZy_Egg2g

:mohawk:

For once I'm speechless. :seeingstars:

[betenoire]

Lisa Murkowski has apparently won the senate race in Alaska.

Now, I do get that she's a Republican - but she's not the Tea Party backed Joe Miller. So this IS good news.

The devil you know, kids.

Murkowski becomes 1st write-in senator since '54 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_on_el_se/us_alaska_senate)

[Nat]

Palin says she can beat Obama... (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/palin-says-she-can-beat-obama/1)

Republicans are talking openly about President Obama's vulnerability for re-election in 2012, and one of them is Sarah Palin.

When ABC's Barbara Walters asked the former Alaska governor, "if you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?," Palin replied: "I believe so."

Palin -- tabbed by Walters as one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010" -- again said she is weighing a White House bid.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land," she told ABC. "And ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing."

The full interview airs Dec. 9.

[betenoire]

Palin -- tabbed by Walters as one of the "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010" -- again said she is weighing a White House bid.

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

[Greyson]

Insurers Gave U.S. Chamber $86 Million Used to Oppose Obama's Health Law

By Drew Armstrong

Nov 17, 2010 Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia, gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats increased criticism of the industry, according to a person who requested anonymity because laws don’t require identifying funding sources. The Chamber got the money from the America’s Health Insurance Plans as the industry urged Congress to drop a plan to create a competing government-run insurance plan.

“Clearly the secrecy was important to industry,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, said in an interview. The group tracks money in politics and isn’t affiliated with a political party. “Eighty-six million dollars is an astonishing sum,” she said.

The spending on the Chamber exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 expenditures. The spending reflects the insurers’ attempts to influence the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, after Democrats in Congress and the White House put more focus on regulation of the insurance industry.

U.S. Disclosure Law

The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill, said Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber said in a statement it used the funds to “advance a market-based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs.”

The organizations disclosed the funding yesterday in annual tax records required under U.S. law. The Chamber’s records show it received $86.2 million from a single group, which a second person briefed on the transaction by those involved identified as Washington-based America’s Health group.

Insurers gave the $86.2 million to the Chamber in August 2009, funded by health insurers, said the first person. Early that month, America’s Health Chief Executive Officer Karen Ignagni said Democrats were trying to “demonize” insurers.

Only Amounts Required

Tax forms require organizations to list only the amounts granted or received from other groups, not the organizations’ identities. Health insurers expressed opposition to parts of the health-care legislation while they conferred with congressional Democrats writing the bill and the White House. At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce was advertising its opposition.

The Chamber spent $45.5 million on a campaign against the bill in 2009, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Virginia-based company that tracks political advertising.

The Chamber began in March 2010, weeks before the bill became law, another $10 million effort focused on pressuring lawmakers to vote against the bill. Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Chamber, wouldn’t say how much of the money was spent in 2009 and how much, if any, was used in 2010.

“With so much at stake we, like other major stakeholders, invested in advocacy,” Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the insurers, said in an e-mail. “We supported a number of leading health-care advocacy organizations and coalitions that shared our views.” He declined to answer other questions on the money.

‘Breathtaking’ Amount

The amount is “breathtaking,” said Trevor Potter, the head of the political activity practice at Washington law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

The $86.2 million dwarfs other large donations given to the Chamber, such as a $15.4 million 2008 transaction whose contributor isn’t identified, as well an anonymous $4.5 million contribution in 2009, according to records.

By funneling the money through the Chamber, insurers were able to remain at the table negotiating with Democrats while still getting the bill criticized. “It enables you to have it both ways,” Potter said in a phone interview.

“They clearly thought the Chamber would be a more credible source of information and advertising on health-care reform, and it would appear less self-serving if a broader business group made arguments against it than if the insurers did it,” said Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Critics Pounce

The Center for Responsive Politics’ Klein said that the public would have been “better served” by insurers disclosing the money when they gave it. “Perhaps this key debate would have progressed differently if the true source of the chamber’s spending had been known at the time,” Klein said.

The White House criticized the insurer money in a blog post. Insurers were “desperate to preserve their ability to discriminate against you if you had a preexisting condition, drop your care when you got sick and limit the amount of care you could receive in a year or a lifetime,” wrote Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects.

Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat who helped write the health-care law in the House, criticized the insurer spending in a letter to fellow members of Congress. “That $86 million in attack ads could have been better spent to reduce insurance premiums,” he wrote.

U.S. ChamberWatch, a Washington group that has been critical of the Chamber of Commerce, called the $86.2 million transaction “breathtakingly” large. “The U.S. Chamber has given up the right to call themselves the voice of American business; they are the voice of the insurance industry,” Christy Setzer, the group’s spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Insurance company members of America’s Health that didn’t respond to questions about whether they gave money to the 2009 effort were: Jim Turner, a spokesman for Louisville, Kentucky- based Humana Inc.; Tyler Mason, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group; Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna. Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., and Cigna spokeswoman Gloria Barone declined to comment.

To contact the reporter on this story: Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html

[AtLast]

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

I want to believe that she would lose. However, I remember an old time B movie star from California that wasn't taken as a serious contender for the US president in the mid-70's that went on to be elected in 1980 and re-elected even with the early symptoms of Alzheimer's. He also was the product of the ultra-far-right, Christian fundamentalists of the GOP. He too, ran during a time of economic turmoil and immgration of Latinos was under fire (although, Reagan pushed for amnesty).

After the mid-terms and just the kind of racist crap and socialist characterization of Obama, plus the impact of US politics of Faux News and multi-billionare supporters.... along with the apathy of those that came out for Obama in '08 during the mid-terms.... I will not underestimate Palin's chances of being elected US president. Or, MIS-underestimate them (peas in a pod, Palin & "Dub'ya").

George W Bush was elected and re-elected, too. And a lot of his appeal was his down-home, folksy style. Nope.... not convinced that Palin could not get elected, especially if our economy remains slow and unemployment is not significantly decreasing.

But, oh yes.... SNL would be much better if she were running... Cruel, cruel, joke as it would be if she did and won.

People are so fed-up and frustrated with Washington in growing numbers from all over the political spectrum, I really DO fear her being elected! Big time scary!!!

The one thing that gives me hope is the growing nubers of Latinos getting involved in the political process and the huge numbers that will be new voters. And let's hope that this population can finally see more of their own elected all over the US!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Dear Scary Lady Sarah;

Oh please oh please oh please run, Sarah. It'll be funny! SNL has been so -boring- lately.

And you'll lose.

Love,

Brandy

In a country where Film Stars are elected Governors and Presidents, and Citizens can proudly display the Rebel flag and bully youths into killing themselves....I believe Palin will be elected when she runs.

God help us.

[dreadgeek]

Okay this is a *really* big deal!

Scientists at CERN have created an anti-atom in a lab and held onto it long enough to demonstrate that this most elusive form of matter can be studied.

Now, the reason why this is such a big deal is that anti-matter hasn't existed in this universe in the better part of 15 billion years! Just after the moment of the Big Bang the universe was made of both matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter is just matter with an opposite charge. So the proton has a twin called an anti-proton, the electron has a twin called the anti-electron. The anti-proton has a negative charge and the positron (anti-electron) has a positive charge (because the proton has a positive charge and electrons are negatively charged). So, at the Beginning there were *almost* but not quite equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which annihilated each other. Everything you see, everything that exists in this universe is the matter that was left after this fugue of destruction (and it may have fueled the rapid inflation of the universe, matter/anti-matter annihilation releases a lot of energy).

One practical--if future--use of this would be as a propulsion source for long-distance space travel. In the VERY long term, this could actually make interstellar space travel a reality.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

In a country where Film Stars are elected Governors and Presidents, and Citizens can proudly display the Rebel flag and bully youths into killing themselves....I believe Palin will be elected when she runs.

God help us.

I don't know. I believe that even the stupids have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that they will draw that line just left of Sarah Palin.

ETA - I also think that the idea of her as president will be enough to stir up the lazy/complacent Democrat and YOUTH voters who couldn't be bothered to show up this month. I have friends in the US who are registered Republicans who jumped ship and voted Democrat in the 2008 election BECAUSE of Sarah Palin - even among people who traditionally vote Republican there are people who are reasonable enough to see those giant red flags.

[Nat]

Haitians Barricading Streets with Coffins as Protests against U.N. Continue over Cholera Outbreak (http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/11/18/un_blamed_for_killing_2_haitian)

[Nat]

This doesn't come near beating the antimatter breakthrough, but

Astronomers Discover Alien Planet In Our Milky Way (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/11/alien-planet-may-have-come-from-.html)

Astronomers have detected what they believe to be a planet at least the size of Jupiter that came from another galaxy. If true, the world is the first planetary immigrant ever detected in the Milky Way. The find would also violate the leading hypothesis of how and where planets form.

The planet lives 2200 light-years away inside the Helmi stream, a ring of ancient stars that cuts through the plane of the Milky Way. Astronomers believe the stream formed 6 billion to 9 billion years ago, when the Milky Way ripped another galaxy to shreds, swallowing some of its stars in the process. Astronomer Johny Setiawan of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, likes looking at these stars because they tend to have unusual properties. But even by these standards, one star in particular caught his eye: HIP 13044.

... :)

[Greyson]

Insurers Test Data Profiles to Identify Risky Clients

By LESLIE SCISM And MARK MAREMONT

Life insurers are testing an intensely personal new use for the vast dossiers of data being amassed about Americans: predicting people's longevity.

Insurers have long used blood and urine tests to assess people's health—a costly process. Today, however, data-gathering companies have such extensive files on most U.S. consumers—online shopping details, catalog purchases, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities and information from social-networking sites—that some insurers are exploring whether data can reveal nearly as much about a person as a lab analysis of their bodily fluids.

Life insurers are testing new ways to predict life expectancy and they're mining personal information online and offline to do it. WSJ's Kelsey Hubbard talks to reporter Leslie Scism about the brave new world of online actuarial research.

Inside Deloitte's Life-Insurance Assessment Technology Complete Coverage: What They Know In one of the biggest tests, the U.S. arm of British insurer Aviva PLC looked at 60,000 recent insurance applicants. It found that a new, "predictive modeling" system, based partly on consumer-marketing data, was "persuasive" in its ability to mimic traditional techniques.

The research heralds a remarkable expansion of the use of consumer-marketing data, which is traditionally used for advertising purposes.

This data increasingly is gathered online, often with consumers only vaguely aware that separate bits of information about them are being collected and collated in ways that can be surprisingly revealing. The growing trade in personal information is the subject of a Wall Street Journal investigation into online privacy.

A key part of the Aviva test, run by Deloitte Consulting LLP, was estimating a person's risk for illnesses such as high blood pressure and depression. Deloitte's models assume that many diseases relate to lifestyle factors such as exercise habits and fast-food diets.

This kind of analysis, proponents argue, could lower insurance costs and eliminate an off-putting aspect of the insurance sale for some people.

"Requiring every customer to provide additional, and often unnecessary, information" such as blood or urine samples, "simply makes the process less efficient and less customer-friendly," says John Currier, chief actuary for Aviva USA.

Other insurers exploring similar technology include American International Group Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc., executives for those firms confirm. Deloitte, a big backer of the concept, has pitched it in recent months to numerous insurers.

The industry is grappling with how to get policies into the hands of middle-class families more cost-effectively. Sales of life policies to individuals are down 45% since the mid-1980s. Deloitte says insurers could save $125 per applicant by eliminating many conventional medical requirements. Under Deloitte's predictive model, the cost to achieve similar results would be $5, Deloitte says. The total underwriting costs for a policy range from $250 to $1,000, insurers say.

Making the approach feasible is a trove of new information being assembled by giant data-collection firms. These companies sort details of online and offline purchases to help categorize people as runners or hikers, dieters or couch potatoes.

They scoop up public records such as hunting permits, boat registrations and property transfers. They run surveys designed to coax people to describe their lifestyles and health conditions.

Increasingly, some gather online information, including from social-networking sites. Acxiom Corp., one of the biggest data firms, says it acquires a limited amount of "public" information from social-networking sites, helping "our clients to identify active social-media users, their favorite networks, how socially active they are versus the norm, and on what kind of fan pages they participate."

For insurers and data-sellers alike, the new techniques could open up a regulatory can of worms. The information sold by marketing-database firms is lightly regulated. But using it in the life-insurance application process would "raise questions" about whether the data would be subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, says Rebecca Kuehn of the Federal Trade Commission's division of privacy and identity protection. The law's provisions kick in when "adverse action" is taken against a person, such as a decision to deny insurance or increase rates.

The law requires that people be notified of any adverse action and be allowed to dispute the accuracy or completeness of data, according to the FTC.

NetworkAccess thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More Deloitte and the life insurers stress the databases wouldn't be used to make final decisions about applicants. Rather, the process would simply speed up applications from people who look like good risks. Other people would go through the traditional assessment process.

The use of the data also may require passing muster with insurance regulators. Regulators in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, all home to major U.S. life insurers, say they haven't been briefed.

They say their concerns would include ensuring that the approach doesn't unfairly discriminate. "An insurer could contend that a subscription to 'Hang Gliding Monthly' is predictive of highly dangerous behavior, but I'm not buying that theory: The consumer may be getting the magazine for the pictures," says Thomas Considine, New Jersey's commissioner of banking and insurance.

AIG is in the early stages of analysis "to figure out what is meaningful and what is not" in the data, says Bob Beuerlein, chief actuary for its SunAmerica Financial unit. The tests are being conducted by an in-house "think tank" whose mission, he says, is "to see where we're going in the future."A Prudential spokesman says the insurer "is looking at" the potential of marketing data, declining to discuss details.

Some insurers are taking a wait-and-see approach. Deloitte's "methodology is sound," says Mike Belko, chief underwriter at USAA Life Insurance Co., but for now, "it's too soon to say how much reliance we would put on the information."

The largest marketing-database companies in the U.S. include Acxiom, Alliance Data Systems Corp., Experian PLC, and Infogroup. Each says it has detailed information on more than 100 million U.S. households, though contents of their databases vary as do their rules related to data use.

There are myriad sources of personal data. Acxiom recently told investors it takes in three billion pieces of information daily as businesses seek to "monetize" information about their customers. Some retailers share information about purchases made by people, including item description, price and the person's name.

Increasingly, information comes from people's online behavior. Acxiom says it buys data from online publishers about what kinds of articles a subscriber reads—financial or sports, for example—and can find out if somebody's a gourmet-food lover from their online purchases. Online marketers often tap data sources like these to target ads at Web users.

"Personally identifiable data from the online world is merged with personally identifiable information from the offline world, every day," says Jennifer Barrett, Acxiom's head of global privacy and public policy. She also says that, while Acxiom does store personally identifiable information, it doesn't store or merge anonymous online-tracking data, such as Web-browsing records.

Acxiom says it wouldn't let insurers use its data to help assess applicants, for fear of triggering the stiffer federal credit-reporting regulations. Infogroup says it isn't supplying information to insurers for this use. Experian said its marketing data may only be used for marketing purposes.

This isn't the first use of database mining in insurance. About 20 years ago, data pros found that some factors in people's credit histories have a strong correlation to claims on car and home-insurance policies.

In other words: The better your credit, the less likely you'll file a claim. Today, most car and home insurers use this phenomenon to price their policies. For this purpose, property-casualty insurers look at people's credit reports, as opposed to the consumer-marketing databases.

Life insurers haven't changed their general underwriting approach for decades, relying heavily on medical screening.

Deloitte's effort to promote predictive modeling to life insurers gained steam in recent months, boosted partly by the Aviva research. Deloitte detailed the test in May at a seminar hosted by the Society of Actuaries, a professional group.

At the seminar, a consultant helped explain Deloitte's concept by discussing imaginary 40-year-old insurance buyers, "Beth" and "Sarah."

Using readily available data, the consultant said, an insurer could learn that Beth commutes some 45 miles to work, frequently buys fast food, walks for exercise, watches a lot of television, buys weight-loss equipment and has "foreclosure/bankruptcy indicators," according to slides used in the presentation.

"Sarah," on the other hand, commutes just a mile to work, runs, bikes, plays tennis and does aerobics. She eats healthy food, watches little TV and travels abroad. She is an "urban single" with a premium bank card and "good financial indicators."

Deloitte's approach, the consultant said, indicates Sarah appears to fall into a healthier risk category. Beth seems to be a candidate for a group with worse-than-average predicted mortality. The top five reasons: "Long commute. Poor financial indicators. Purchases tied to obesity indicators. Lack of exercise. High television consumption indicators."

Data From 'What They Know'
The Wall Street Journal analyzed the tracking files installed on people's computers by the 50 most popular websites, plus WSJ.com. Explore the data here and see separate analysis of the files on popular children's sites.
Another consultant detailed the Aviva test to the seminar attendees. Deloitte didn't identify the insurer; Aviva confirmed its role to the Journal.

The consumer-marketing data for the test came from Equifax Inc.'s marketing-services unit, since bought by Alliance Data Systems. An Alliance spokeswoman says the company was unaware of the insurance-related test, which was done before it bought the former Equifax subsidiary. Alliance "does not provide its marketing data for such purposes," she says.

The goal of Aviva's test: With 60,000 actual insurance applicants, figure out how to use the marketing databases and other information to reach the same underwriting conclusions that Aviva reached using traditional methods such as blood work. The 60,000 people were applicants Aviva had already judged.

Such predictive models wouldn't necessarily look for indicators of all diseases, such as AIDS, because the insurer would likely learn about some conditions from the answers on an application. Rather, insurers say a model would tend to look for potential risks such as, for instance, diabetes (from, say, a poor diet).

Aviva declined to discuss the process in detail, but Mr. Currier says the insurer found that the model consistently yielded results that "closely aligned with those of purely traditional underwriting decisions."

The insurer says pilot projects with marketing data are continuing in its effort to improve clients' buying experience.

Deloitte acknowledges the potentially controversial nature of its work. "No matter what their predictive powers may be, any variable that is deemed to create a legal or public-relations risk, or is counter to the company's 'values,' should be excluded from the model," its consultants wrote in an April paper.

Deloitte isn't the only firm pushing data-mining for insurers. Celent, an insurance consulting arm of Marsh & McLennan Cos., recently published a study suggesting insurers could use social-networking data to help price policies and aid in fraud detection.

A life insurer might want to scrutinize an applicant who reports no family history of cancer, but indicates online an affinity with a cancer-research group, says Mike Fitzgerald, a Celent senior analyst.

"Whether people actually realize it or not, they are significantly increasing their personal transparency," he says. "It's all public, and it's electronically mineable."

Write to Leslie Scism at leslie.scism@wsj.com and Mark Maremont at mark.maremont@wsj.com


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html#i xzz15kusdXzj

[AtLast]

I don't know. I believe that even the stupids have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that they will draw that line just left of Sarah Palin.

ETA - I also think that the idea of her as president will be enough to stir up the lazy/complacent Democrat and YOUTH voters who couldn't be bothered to show up this month. I have friends in the US who are registered Republicans who jumped ship and voted Democrat in the 2008 election BECAUSE of Sarah Palin - even among people who traditionally vote Republican there are people who are reasonable enough to see those giant red flags.

You could have a point as voters in Nevada didn't elect Sharon Angle and in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell lost. But, I can't help but think of Reagan and the 2 terms of Dumb-Dumb Dubya.

Presently, due to how and how much $ can be poured into our elections, I am just not trusting much in our process. Also, the discust of Congress- which does have some merit.

My hope is that the general 2012 election will bring out what we saw in 2008 and Latino voters in large numbers that are the brunt of so much of what is going on in US politics.

[Nat]

Greyson - that is scary!!!

[AtLast]

follow-up on privacy rights and TSA security in airports- this is from a duscussion forum, but goes into how just by paying for an airline ticket, we agree to submit to any security measures the TSA choses to impose, giving up some tenets of privacy rights. All of this is part of the Terms Of Service in purchasing an airline ticket.

The other point is that we have options for travel other than flying. No one tells us we MUST fly.

I hate what air travel has become in relation to security measures, yet, these points make sense to me in many ways. But, I don't believe issues around the scanners and pat-downs are black and white.

I do know that I don't want racial profiling to be part of air travel security and often think about how it is usually white males that cry the loudest about security measures, often stating... "Do I look like a terrorist to you?" Think about it... seems to me they are saying that anyone other than a white male is suspect....



http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630146/pg4

As human beings, we have NO rights. If we did, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights or a Constitution.

As you knew of the security measures (including the full body scanners) well in advance of buying the ticket, you agreed to these measures under the "terms of service" when you bought the ticket. You don't have to sign anything to agree to terms of service, you agree to them simply by using the product. I can guarantee that the fine print
on the airline bill of purchase for the ticket includes a provision to submit to any security measures necessary.

You might not like it (neither do I) but there are other travel options available (even a boat if travelling overseas). These are just mostly a lot more inconvenient than flying.

A protest against airport screening and security won't matter - these security procedures were put in place "for your protection" as per the provisions of the Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act.

You gave up any rights to protest or refuse security screening when you didn't protest the signing of the Act or the creation of the Government Agency. 10 years later it's too late, and you've actually woken up and are starting to figure out how many of your freedoms you've allowed (yes ALLOWED) the Government to take away from you, without a single word of protest.

You even bent over and said "Thank you Sir, may I have another?" when you (the American public) reelected George Bush in 2004, who ran pretty much solely on the security that he had provided the country since 9/11, as he had actually done little else during his first term.

[Nat]

TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news)

A longtime Charlotte, N.C., flight attendant and cancer survivor told a local television station that she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down.

Cathy Bossi, who works for U.S. Airways, said she received the pat-down after declining to do the full-body scan because of radiation concerns.

The TSA screener "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' " Bossi told the station. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.' "

Bossi said she removed the prosthetic from her bra. She did not take the name of the agent, she said, "because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me. I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."

For Americans who wear prosthetics — either because they are cancer survivors or have lost a limb — or who have undergone hip replacements or have a pacemaker, the humiliation of the TSA's new security procedures — choosing between a body scan or body search — is even worse.

Musa Mayer has worn a breast prosthesis for 21 years since her mastectomy and is used to the alarms it sets off at airport security. But nothing prepared her for the "invasive and embarrassing" experience of being patted down, poked and examined recently while passing through airport security at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

"I asked the supervisor if she realized that there are 3 million women who have had breast cancer in the U.S., many of whom wear breast prostheses. Will each of us now have to undergo this humiliating, time-consuming routine every time we pass through one of these new body scanners?" she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com.

[Nat]

follow-up on privacy rights and TSA security in airports- this is from a duscussion forum, but goes into how just by paying for an airline ticket, we agree to submit to any security measures the TSA choses to impose, giving up some tenets of privacy rights. All of this is part of the Terms Of Service in purchasing an airline ticket.

The other point is that we have options for travel other than flying. No one tells us we MUST fly.

I hate what air travel has become in relation to security measures, yet, these points make sense to me in many ways. But, I don't believe issues around the scanners and pat-downs are black and white.

I do know that I don't want racial profiling to be part of air travel security and often think about how it is usually white males that cry the loudest about security measures, often stating... "Do I look like a terrorist to you?" Think about it... seems to me they are saying that anyone other than a white male is suspect....



http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630146/pg4

As human beings, we have NO rights. If we did, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights or a Constitution.

As you knew of the security measures (including the full body scanners) well in advance of buying the ticket, you agreed to these measures under the "terms of service" when you bought the ticket. You don't have to sign anything to agree to terms of service, you agree to them simply by using the product. I can guarantee that the fine print
on the airline bill of purchase for the ticket includes a provision to submit to any security measures necessary.

You might not like it (neither do I) but there are other travel options available (even a boat if travelling overseas). These are just mostly a lot more inconvenient than flying.

A protest against airport screening and security won't matter - these security procedures were put in place "for your protection" as per the provisions of the Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act.

You gave up any rights to protest or refuse security screening when you didn't protest the signing of the Act or the creation of the Government Agency. 10 years later it's too late, and you've actually woken up and are starting to figure out how many of your freedoms you've allowed (yes ALLOWED) the Government to take away from you, without a single word of protest.

You even bent over and said "Thank you Sir, may I have another?" when you (the American public) reelected George Bush in 2004, who ran pretty much solely on the security that he had provided the country since 9/11, as he had actually done little else during his first term.

I've been contemplating this post for a few hours. I think I will make a list.

1. Flying is optional if a. you never travel ever or b. you have all the time in the world to get where you are going. I'm not sure what the logic is here, but if they start implementing these at bus stations and train stations and bus stops - I'm just not sure where transportation becomes "optional."

2. You say that other options are available and it's just a matter of "convenience." Money and time are the two prohibitive factors for most people standing in line at the Southwest counter. It's not a matter of "convenience" to those of us who have very little money or time off work... The idea that i could get on a boat and cross the ocean is amazingly impossible unless I were working for whatever ship was crossing the ocean (since I have a job and precious few days off from it).

3. I do think the men in this community have every reason to be concerned about this process as do the rest of us. I'm not sure what you were saying about white men, but I'm pretty sure forcing people to take nude photos or be groped is pretty anti-Muslim. If flying means being subjected to humiliation and/or violating one's religious practice, then yes, many people will choose not to fly. And they will be more isolated and imprisoned in this "free" country of ours.

4. I refuse to embrace hopelessness when it comes to whether protesting this will "matter" and I haven't given up my right to protest one iota. Though you have a right to say I don't have a right to protest, I do not think you are right. I have the right to protest as long as I draw breath, and I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a bill of rights that supports my doing so.

[AtLast]

I've been contemplating this post for a few hours. I think I will make a list.

1. Flying is optional if a. you never travel ever or b. you have all the time in the world to get where you are going. I'm not sure what the logic is here, but if they start implementing these at bus stations and train stations and bus stops - I'm just not sure where transportation becomes "optional."

2. You say that other options are available and it's just a matter of "convenience." Money and time are the two prohibitive factors for most people standing in line at the Southwest counter. It's not a matter of "convenience" to those of us who have very little money or time off work... The idea that i could get on a boat and cross the ocean is amazingly impossible unless I were working for whatever ship was crossing the ocean (since I have a job and precious few days off from it).

3. I do think the men in this community have every reason to be concerned about this process as do the rest of us. I'm not sure what you were saying about white men, but I'm pretty sure forcing people to take nude photos or be groped is pretty anti-Muslim. If flying means being subjected to humiliation and/or violating one's religious practice, then yes, many people will choose not to fly. And they will be more isolated and imprisoned in this "free" country of ours.

4. I refuse to embrace hopelessness when it comes to whether protesting this will "matter" and I haven't given up my right to protest one iota. Though you have a right to say I don't have a right to protest, I do not think you are right. I have the right to protest as long as I draw breath, and I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a bill of rights that supports my doing so.

Everyone has the right to demonstrate. And I deeply believe in the Bill of Rights as well as civil disobedience. Yet, disrupting other people that have chosen to fly, some of which have no problem with these security measures is also infringing upon their individual freedoms.

I personally don't like how far these measures go, yet, I know that if the TSA did not continue to develop techniques and utilize the technology available, and something happens again like 9/11, people will be pointing to them for not making a full and concerted effort to keep flying as safe as possible in the midsts of continued threats. The "under wear bomber"
from last Christmas is the reason for these new techniques.

We can't have it both ways. I do think that complaints need to be addressed by the congressional leaders that are the ones that put these things into effect. it seems to me that sending emails or letters, making calls, sending faxes to our representatives is the way to demonstrate about this. Not making it worse for people trying to fly in the middle of the most busy travel time of the year. Most likely, that will only end up having airports closed.

Read your airline tickets- there is an agreement to the security measures including all the ones now on the news and upsetting us.

I honestly don't see how airport security measures can be taken without some kind of invasion of privacy. We either have to accept this, settle for less than state of the art techniques, or stop it entirely and accept the risks. Only questioning or scanning or doing pat-downs of POC, those in non-western cultural clothing, etc. is racial profiling and our Constitution cover this, too.

I'd rather we built better relations with countries and people worldwide so that we are not targeted at all.

My comments and link are not because I don't understand why people would be upset by the body scans and pat-downs. They are about the alternatives.

[AtLast]

TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news)

A longtime Charlotte, N.C., flight attendant and cancer survivor told a local television station that she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down.

Cathy Bossi, who works for U.S. Airways, said she received the pat-down after declining to do the full-body scan because of radiation concerns.

The TSA screener "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' " Bossi told the station. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.' "

Bossi said she removed the prosthetic from her bra. She did not take the name of the agent, she said, "because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me. I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."

For Americans who wear prosthetics — either because they are cancer survivors or have lost a limb — or who have undergone hip replacements or have a pacemaker, the humiliation of the TSA's new security procedures — choosing between a body scan or body search — is even worse.

Musa Mayer has worn a breast prosthesis for 21 years since her mastectomy and is used to the alarms it sets off at airport security. But nothing prepared her for the "invasive and embarrassing" experience of being patted down, poked and examined recently while passing through airport security at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

"I asked the supervisor if she realized that there are 3 million women who have had breast cancer in the U.S., many of whom wear breast prostheses. Will each of us now have to undergo this humiliating, time-consuming routine every time we pass through one of these new body scanners?" she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com.

I have had exspensive durable medical equipment ransacked, with dirty hands put all over what has to kept sanitary and broken by airport searches even when it says "Medical Equipment" right on it and is not a rare device. But, at one time it was not something that would be recognized for what it is. Now, due to the trainings that TSA employees are required to take, this has changed. But so have the kinds of things that terrorist types have figured out might be a good vehicle to put something in.

I'm sure my Mom would feel much the same as this woman as she wore a prosthetic breast. Yet, there are ways we can combat this. Just like people that have pace-makers carry medical cards stating so (like heart valve repacement folks carry cards with that information and people with joint replacements)- a card from a doctor for this can be given to TSA agents at airports. In fact, this would be something that could be on those data base frequent flyer security protocols being developed.

This is all on the TSA website, airline sites and the information is also given via a phone call. People that fly often know this and are prepared. Those of us that don't fly often need to look up these things when making our travel arrangements. And there is a disclaimer about things being "changed without notice."

In fact, after my medical equipment was handled and damaged, I complained and was instructed to re-read policies. I then got documentation from my doctor that I carry in my wallet. I have never had this problem since. i just show them the card and they only open the cover to my devise and that's it. It can safely go through the usual scanners, but cannot be thrown around with luggage, so it has to be part of my carry-on items. The TSA in-service trainings are continually updated about possible medical devices, either implanted or used by people that could be scrutinized.

This is a pain in the rear, but a sign of the times. I wish it wasn't and that this woman did not go through this. I also don't like how much medical 9and other) personal information is now computerized- anyone can get a hold of it really- just break into insurance computer banks!

I forgot something in the other post- talking to POC about what it feels like to continually be "suspect" by virture of their color or clothing, manner of speaking is interesting to this whole conversation. Most whites enjoy freedom from most of the kinds of suspicions that POC go through almost every day of their lives. I'm betting that it would only be POC, men in turbins or any other person in any kind of non-western clothing that would be subjected to pat-downs and body scans if we were ALL not required to go through the same security methods in airports.

[Nat]

Wesley Snipes ordered to surrender in tax case (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-snipes-20101120,0,3260770.story)

A federal judge on Friday ordered actor Wesley Snipes to surrender to authorities so he can begin serving a three-year prison sentence for tax-related crimes.

U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges in Florida rejected a request from the actor's attorneys to review Snipes' sentence and grant a new trial. Snipes has been free on bond for more than two years while appealing.

[Nat]

TSA exempts pilots from pat-downs (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1120-tsa-pilots-20101119,0,6260271.story)

WASHINGTON – After weeks of pressure from pilot unions over controversial new airport screening measures, the Transportation Security Administration has agreed to exempt pilots from enhanced pat-downs and full body scans, pilot organizations said Friday.

Pilots flying for U.S. carriers and traveling in uniform will immediately start going through "expedited" screening after having two forms of identification checked against a secure database, said TSA administrator John Pistole in a statement.

Airline pilots complained when the agency would not exempt them from pat-downs seen as too intrusive and full body scans that union leaders said would put pilots at risk for increased exposure to radiation.

"Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes smart security and an efficient use of our resources," said Pistole Friday. The changes do not affect policies for screening passengers.

[dreadgeek]

As human beings, we have NO rights. If we did, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights or a Constitution.


I have to say that I disagree with this strenuously. In fact, I would say that the case is *precisely* the opposite. If we had no rights there would BE no Bill of Rights or Constitution. Even a casual survey of Western history will show that we have gained rights. Think about the condition of your ancestors circa, say, 1010 CE (or AD if you prefer). The local Prince or Lord could come and say that he'd heard your daughter had just gotten married and he wanted to sleep with her. She would have NO right to refuse. If she did, her life and yours could well be forfeit. The Prince or Lord could, on a whim, take your land. Not because you'd done something, simply because it was his pleasure to do so. Or because the Sun rose that morning. If war came, your husband or son could be pressed into service. If a noble cut one of your relatives down in cold blood, you had no legal recourse. You could be imprisoned, indefinitely, at the whim of a noble. To speak out against the Prince or King or Lord was to court, at best, painful torture and the same followed by death. To speak out against the church was to sign one's own death warrant.

THAT, Susan, is having no rights.

As it stands you have quite a few rights. But that was a thousand years ago. So let's try 500 years ago? Significantly better? Well, there's been improvement and, at least, in England there now exists some limits on what the monarchy and the nobles can do. However, most of the above *still* applies 500 years ago. It isn't until the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the French Revolution that things improve significantly. By that point, Constitutional Republicanism is getting booted up. You get things like the Bill of Rights which lays out boundaries which the government cannot cross. If you still think we have no rights, I direct you to contemplate the following. Many of us here called the last POTUS everything but a child of God. Others here have said things about the current POTUS that are worse than that. NONE of us have given the least amount of worry that there will be a knock on the door and we will be dragged into the night. None of us have worried that we will simply not come home one night and our bodies found in a park or at the bottom of a river, the victim of an apparent 'suicide'.

I can, without the benefit of coffee, name half-a-dozen states where this isn't true. Ready? They are: North Korea, People's Republic of China, Russian Federation, Egypt, Iran, Syria. Like I said, that list is just off the top of my head and I haven't had my first cup of java yet.

I'm not saying either America or the Western Democracies are perfect. They are anything but. I am saying that your claim tosses out the fact that we can HAVE this discussion at all and demonstrates that, in fact, you DO have rights. Your rights are not in spite of the Constitution, but BECAUSE of it. If you think that non-Constitutional government would be better, would give you more rights, there's an example for that too: Somalia.

I will take the *worst* day in a modern Western Democracy, over the best *possible* day in either North Korea or Somalia. In the first case, people have no rights what-so-ever and in the second case, people have all the rights that they have the firepower to protect. No guns? No rights. Lots of guns? Lots of rights--as long as you have more guns than the next person.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

follow-up on privacy rights and TSA security in airports- this is from a duscussion forum, but goes into how just by paying for an airline ticket, we agree to submit to any security measures the TSA choses to impose, giving up some tenets of privacy rights. All of this is part of the Terms Of Service in purchasing an airline ticket.

CUT OUT THE STUFF I AM NOT RESPONDING TO ATM

As you knew of the security measures (including the full body scanners) well in advance of buying the ticket, you agreed to these measures under the "terms of service" when you bought the ticket. You don't have to sign anything to agree to terms of service, you agree to them simply by using the product. I can guarantee that the fine print
on the airline bill of purchase for the ticket includes a provision to submit to any security measures necessary.


Read your airline tickets- there is an agreement to the security measures including all the ones now on the news and upsetting us.

This is all on the TSA website, airline sites and the information is also given via a phone call. People that fly often know this and are prepared. Those of us that don't fly often need to look up these things when making our travel arrangements. And there is a disclaimer about things being "changed without notice."

The TSA publishing their TOS and putting it on tickets does not magically make the measures that they are taking REASONABLE. Nobody is accusing them of sneakiness. We are questioning the REASONABLENESS of the process.

[Miss Scarlett]

Has anyone noticed that the media tends to latch onto some things and then we are inundated with stories? These usually begin with some good/informative/necessary pieces and then deteriorate into overkill. Some recent examples that come to mind: shark attacks and bed bugs.

[Medusa]

Has anyone noticed that the media tends to latch onto some things and then we are inundated with stories? These usually begin with some good/informative/necessary pieces and then deteriorate into overkill. Some recent examples that come to mind: shark attacks and bed bugs.





And Sarah Palin - 8 stories on the Politics section of Huffington Post today about her. (admittedly, she is fascinatingly comical)

[lipstixgal]

Has anyone noticed that the media tends to latch onto some things and then we are inundated with stories? These usually begin with some good/informative/necessary pieces and then deteriorate into overkill. Some recent examples that come to mind: shark attacks and bed bugs.





Yes bed bugs they are in the news everyday somewhere in NYC, schools, hotels, etc

[AtLast]

I think what I am trying to get at is being misunderstood. My main point getting lost. I don't like these scanners or the pat-downs at all and do get why people feel our Constitutional rights are being run over. Also, I posted a link of what someone else thinks because I just don't see this whole matter as simple and it has many different variables to consider. I also am coming from a place in which racial profiling is extremely distasteful to me and it is winning over my feelings about this. I have an internal conflict going on really and would hope that this would be recognized as a legitimate concern in this debate. For some, it just isn’t as important as the other things being discussed here. We all have our personal ranking system when it comes to personal freedoms and rights. This just happens to be mine. It is no more or less important than what any one else thinks or how they personally rank these concerns. And I don’t see that this is something in which any one is right or wrong.

I remember very clearly what happened after 9/11 and racial profiling in air travel prior to how security measures have been developed more fully. This is the key aspect I am posting about which goes to our Constitutional form of government. If one group of people is going to be scrutinized before getting on a plane simply because of how they look, then I believe that all passengers should be subjected to the same screenings. This doesn't have a thing to do with what and how the screening techniques work. Maybe all of the security measures should be done away with. Especially if there is no data to support that they work.

I do think that it is my responsibility to be aware of what I am agreeing to when buying an airline ticket. Or, signing any other contract. This does not mean I think body scans are OK. They are invasive. Pat downs as they are now conducted are as well. That isn’t what I am talking about.

I also believe strongly in civil disobedience like demonstrations, but do not feel that I have any more right to disrupt others than they me when exercising this right. I have exercised this right many times in my life and follow the rules of not inter interfering with the rights of others while doing so. There is reciprocity (respecting the rights of others) in demonstrating about what I believe in, I believe.

Obviously, public out cry to congressional leaders through labor unions, for example is having an impact. This is evidenced by the changes for pilots. So, if we go through the channels available to us about this, perhaps, TSA regs can be changed. This IS how we exercise our rights and freedoms.

When I explore something, I do take a look at what other people think (like the person in the forum I posted the link to. It is called debating an issue- considering all aspects of it). I can't possibly get to a balanced opinion without hearing what other people are concerned about (and I am taking in what other people are saying right here and now). This is a fundamental of the process of debate which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Debate means looking at and assessing the validity of all that is involved and coming to a conclusion. It is part of how a democracy functions.

In all of this, I would like to hear how security at airports can be less invasive, yet have some kind of efficacy in picking up possible weapons/bombs, etc. It seems to me that is these kinds of techniques can be measured somehow to demonstrate if they do keep the public safer, then, that would be a way to get things changed at airports. If nothing (or has significant statistical support) points to these techniques actually making things safer- then, get rid of them! Actually, I think there are studies that support these kinds of measures not really being all that effective. Also, what about studies on the re-traumatizing for abuse victims? This would be something else to consider in making a case to have these security measures removed at airports.

[Nat]

Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection)

[Nat]

U.N. blasts global response to Haiti cholera outbreak as inadequate (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/20/haiti.cholera/?hpt=T2)

Port-Au-Prince, Haiti (CNN) -- The United Nations criticized the international response to the Haiti cholera outbreak as inadequate on Saturday, saying donors had pledged only about ten percent of the money needed to curb the disease.

Last week, the world body appealed for $164 million to help fight cholera in the impoverished Caribbean country. So far, the water-borne disease has claimed 1,186 lives, according to Haiti's health ministry. Almost 50,000 people have sought medical help; about 40 percent of those people have been hospitalized.

"Critical supplies and skills are urgently needed," Nigel Fisher, the world body's humanitarian coordinator in Haiti, said in a press release Saturday. "We need doctors, nurses, water purification systems, chlorine tablets, soap, oral rehydration salts, tents for cholera treatment centres and a range of other supplies."

Fisher said the lackluster response is especially troubling, given that "cholera is an extremely simple disease to cure." The disease can be deadly absent timely medical attention.

[AtLast]

Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection)

Did you catch that he said this in relationship to gay prostitutes! I guess he thinks they are the only people that have or spread HIV!! This is a learned person? This was what I heard via an NPR program today. Yikes! Please, I hope it was a mis-quote!

[AtLast]

The TSA publishing their TOS and putting it on tickets does not magically make the measures that they are taking REASONABLE. Nobody is accusing them of sneakiness. We are questioning the REASONABLENESS of the process.

I am not either- but the big "don't touch my junk" story was predicated on this. Go back and read the first articles about this.

OK.. let me make this clear- I believe that the scanners and the pat-downs stink! And do go against our civil rights. They are not REASONABLE in terms of civil rights in the US. I am, however, concerned about racial profiling and security measures and have been since 9/11.

Funny, I am not the only poster that has brought up the legality of what airline carriers have as Terms of Service. and in his case, it is part of the story and the investigation that is going on. GeeZusssss!!!

So, what are REASONABLE security measures at airports that do not infringe upon our civil liberties? Only check people that "look like terrorists?" which was exactly what was going on after 9/11 for quite awhile until people pointed out this is racial profiling. everyone goes through the exact same procedures, no matter what color they are or what kind of clothing or what they might be wearing on or around their head.

Maybe the majority of people in the US would rather there were no security checks at all? Frankly, all of them are intrusive to some degree.

[Corkey]

Do exactly what the Israelis do, interview EVERYONE.

[betenoire]

I am not either- but the big "don't touch my junk" story was predicated on this. Go back and read the first articles about this.

OK.. let me make this clear- I believe that the scanners and the pat-downs stink! And do go against our civil rights. They are not REASONABLE in terms of civil rights in the US. I am, however, concerned about racial profiling and security measures and have been since 9/11.

Funny, I am not the only poster that has brought up the legality of what airline carriers have as Terms of Service. and in his case, it is part of the story and the investigation that is going on. GeeZusssss!!!

So, what are REASONABLE security measures at airports that do not infringe upon our civil liberties? Only check people that "look like terrorists?" which was exactly what was going on after 9/11 for quite awhile until people pointed out this is racial profiling. everyone goes through the exact same procedures, no matter what color they are or what kind of clothing or what they might be wearing on or around their head.

Maybe the majority of people in the US would rather there were no security checks at all? Frankly, all of them are intrusive to some degree.

I had read all of the stories posted, and then some already.

I really resent the implication that those of us who do not want the intrusive scans or body searches do not care about racial profiling. OF COURSE WE DO. Backscatter should not be considered the only alternative to racial profiling - how about just NOT racial profiling as an alternative?

Frankly, I would be just fine and dandy with going back to the old security measures. What's wrong with metal detectors, wands, and interviews?

Plus, the focus on just airline travel is so misleading and stupid - like an airplane is the only place that there could possibly be any danger. So then what's next? Naked body scanners at the mall, the subway, baseball games?

[AtLast]

List of Trans remembrance events that took place. Looks like events were all over! KEWL!

http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+remembrance+events&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

[AtLast]

Kind of cracked me up......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/barbara-bush-sarah-palin_n_786454.html

Barbara Bush has shared her thoughts on Sarah Palin, and it sounds as if she hopes the former Alaska governor decides against running for president.

"I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she's very happy in Alaska," Bush said, before adding, "and I hope she'll stay there."
The former first lady made the comments in an interview with Larry King, which will air Monday night on "Larry King Live."

Barbara Bush is not the only prominent Republican woman to speak poorly of Palin in recent days. On Monday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom Sarah Palin vociferously opposed during the state's most recent -- and still ongoing -- Senate election, said that the former governor lacks the "leadership qualities" and "intellectual curiosity" necessary to be president.

But, she also stated she was proud of Dub-ya's new book.... Oh well, she is a mother...

[Nat]

The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Social, Cultural and Humanitarian issues removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution addressing extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions this past week in a vote that was overwhelming represented by a majority of African, Middle East and Carribean nations.

link (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gays-to-be-executed-without-cause/politics/2010/11/20/15449)

The list of countries voting to remove "sexual orientation" from the resolution:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

[AtLast]

The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Social, Cultural and Humanitarian issues removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution addressing extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions this past week in a vote that was overwhelming represented by a majority of African, Middle East and Carribean nations.

link (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gays-to-be-executed-without-cause/politics/2010/11/20/15449)

The list of countries voting to remove "sexual orientation" from the resolution:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Join the discussion on this- Aj started a thread-

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2393

[AtLast]

Tonight’s Rachael Maddow show (she was on vacation and the guy from The Nation was on) had a piece on TSA airport security coverage that was the first I've seen that gets to the sources (and motivations) of some of the backlash issues and the people behind some of the things that are being discussed. Some points were brought up about some of the far-right's contributions via Rand Paul for one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#40326939


On the Lawrence O’Donnell show, there was a very compelling piece with a man that went through horrible experience as someone going through a pat-down as a post cancer surgery patient that wears a urostomy bag. This fits with the other story of the woman with a breast prosthetic.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/pat-down-pandemonium/6pmrzz1?q=msnbc%20lawrence%20odonnell%20last%20wor d&FORM=VIRE5

A CBS link-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/22/national/main7078699.shtml

Both of these pieces bring to light the various concerns people have, but also expose both the pure nonsense being spread as well as the very painful experiences of this man's pat-down humiliation along with an idiot TSA representative. How TSA/government employees are being portrayed as part of right-wingers wanting the privatization of airport security is brought up as well as clips of Fox News inviting guests that advocate racial profiling as the answer for security.

Kind of kaleidoscope of the issues... The good, the bad and the ugly.. There are some very salient arguments on both sides of this and there is also a lot of politics in the mix. A lot of politics!

[Nat]

P8hQJ84fYzk

[Nat]

Stampede in Cambodia yesterday killed at least 378 people (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/asia/24cambo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Injured survivors lay on the floors of hospitals here Tuesday and the dead were loaded into coffins after one of the worst stampedes in recent years killed at least 378 people at a holiday celebration the previous night.

The cause of the stampede during Cambodia’s annual water festival was unclear, but most of the dead had suffocated or been trampled or crushed to death on a small bridge that became so tightly packed that survivors later said they had been unable to move or even to breathe.

The government denied reports that some of the casualties were electrocuted by loose wires or by lights on the bridge. Some survivors said the crowd panicked when people shouted that the slightly swaying bridge was about to collapse.

As the death toll rose, it appeared to surpass the worst recent stampede toll of 362 Muslim pilgrims who were crushed to death while performing a ritual at the entrance to a bridge near Mecca in Saudi Arabia in January 2006.

Prime Minister Hun Sen called it the worst tragedy in Cambodia since the mass killings that under place under the Khmer Rouge, who ruled the country from 1975 to 1979.

[Nat]

The pope annoys me to no end, but whatever bigoted language he uses to say that condoms are finally okay to use, it's still possibly a big step forward for many people in the world who are his followers.

Vatican Pope's condom comments apply to women too (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112301765.html)

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We're at the same point," Lombardi said.

The pope is not justifying or condoning gay sex or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. Elsewhere in the book he reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use in heterosexual relations is the lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner.

[Diva]

On a lighter note, and because I'm moderately superficial and a die~hard romantic.................

The Royal Wedding of William and Katherine will be Friday, April 29th, 2011 at Westminster Abbey......

157 days. Not that I'm counting or anything...... :eyebat:

[dreadgeek]

INCHEON, South Korea — North and South Korea exchanged artillery fire Tuesday after the North shelled an island near their disputed sea border, killing at least two South Korean marines, setting dozens of buildings ablaze and sending civilians fleeing for shelter.

The clash, which put South Korea's military on high alert, was one of the rivals' most dramatic confrontations since the Korean War ended, and one of the few to put civilians at risk, though no nonmilitary deaths were immediately reported. Sixteen South Korean soldiers and three civilians were injured and the extent of casualties on the northern side was unknown. (Scroll down for video.)

The skirmish began when Pyongyang warned the South to halt military drills in the area, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters, albeit away from the North Korean shore, the North retaliated by bombarding the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations and a small civilian population.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/korea-attack-yeonpyeong-island_n_787294.html#s189509

Someone on Twitter asked an interesting question "can an entire nation be suicidal?".

[waxnrope]

I want to say something that will force my return here. I have to go to work now, but before this becomes another announcement to be superseded by other issues, and relegated to the back pages ... I throw down the following: WE, the U.S., have responsibility for what happens in Korea. I will return to discuss this later ...


P8hQJ84fYzk

[AtLast]

Wall Street Profits Soar To $50B, Bonuses To Rise Up To 40 Percent

In a clear sign of Wall Street's rebound, investment firms are producing record profits this year and the average bonus could rise as much as 40 percent over 2008.

Wall Street firms produced $49.7 billion in profits in the first nine months of this year, a huge turnaround from the previous two years. The industry lost $42.6 billion in 2008 and $11.3 billion in 2007 -- according to a new report from New York State comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

"Profitability has soared because revenues rose while the costs of doing business - particularly interest costs - declined," concluded DiNapoli. In addition, Wall Street has cut costs by continuing to shed jobs, losing 29,300 between November 2007 and October 2008.

In a twist emblematic of the Darwinian nature of Wall Street, those bankers who survived the mass layoffs are due to get huge bonuses outstripping last year's payments. DiNapoli notes:

"The average bonus could grow at an even higher rate since there are fewer jobs than last year (some analysts estimate that the average could increase by up to 40 percent)."

Meanwhile, in a sign of the disparity between Wall Street and Main Street, the rest of New York City continues to suffer, according to the report, which notes that industries are still hurting and that the recovery is "expected to be slower" in the city than in the nation as a whole.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/wall-street-profits-soar_n_395682.html#

Hummmm.. womder what the average US worker thinks about this? :blink:

[Tommi]

$22.4 Million Awarded by HHS for Suicide Prevention

Keen News Service reported on 11/11/10 that up to $22.4 million was granted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for prevention of suicide. Some of the grant will be used specifically for assisting LGBT youth.

The grant funds are made available through HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). SAMHSA partnered with GLMA and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in 2007 to host a conference addressing suicide risk and prevention in the LGBT community.


http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=6FB9BA00-7E90-9BD4-C33BD398EAAE73C0
Information: For the complete Keen News Service article, go to keennewsservice.com.

[Nat]

The state lawmaker, a gun, Planned Parenthood and... a girlfriend? (http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_16694926?source=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&nclick_check=1)

Tuesday afternoon, state Rep. Tom Hackbarth went to the St. Paul Police Department and picked up his gun.

How his silver .38-caliber revolver came into the possession of the cops is a story that Hackbarth himself acknowledges sounds "really weird and odd."

Last week, St. Paul police pulled the Anoka County Republican over and seized his loaded Smith & Wesson after he told them he was "jealous" about his "girlfriend," whom he didn't have any contact information for but suspected was with another man, according to police reports.

Police had been called to the city's Highland Park neighborhood by a security guard at a Planned Parenthood clinic, where Hackbarth had parked and appeared "suspicious."

Hackbarth, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was briefly handcuffed and released without being charged with a crime, and he told the Pioneer Press he did nothing wrong or illegal.

Officers at the scene, however, suspected him of "stalking-like behavior" and borderline "harassment or terroristic threats," so they hung on to his weapon, reports state.

"What did I do that was so bad?" he asked a reporter during an interview Tuesday. "According to me, all I did was go to an empty parking lot and parked my truck ... walked around the block, and picked up the car and left."

Hackbarth said he had no idea he was parking in a Planned Parenthood parking lot. A gun-rights advocate, he said he usually carries his revolver on him and emphasized that's perfectly legal.

The 58-year-old married father of three said he and his wife are separated and planning to divorce. He said the woman, whom he met through an online dating service, "wasn't even a girlfriend" and said his description to police that he was "jealous" wasn't accurate.

"It's not like I was really jealous, but you know how you meet this person and you really like her, and she's saying all the right things, but you think she's feeding you a line of bull—? She's giving you all this ... and you want to figure out what's going on. Well that's what I did," he said in a telephone interview in which he readily talked about the incident but questioned its newsworthiness. "Sure enough, she lied to me and I'm done with it."

He said the notion that police suspected him of terroristic behavior is "insane," but he acknowledged, "It's really weird and odd when all taken together, and I can see how people took things the way they did."

[Nat]

China media takes pro-Pyongyang tone over North Korea shelling incident (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/china-media-takes-pro-pyongyang-tone-over-north-korea-shelling-incident/story-e6frfku0-1225960187431)

[Greyson]

November 22, 2010 12:38PM

Canadian Courts Consider Decriminalization of Polygamy
Post by Joanna Brooks

Share In a case that may have wide-reaching influence, the Supreme Court of British Columbia today opened deliberations in a constitutional reference case to determine whether a small group of fundamentalist Mormons living in a remote B.C. community called Bountiful may practice religiously-motivated plural marriage without fear of prosecution or conviction.


Before a courtroom packed with legal experts, scholars, civil libertarians, and child rights advocates, justices initiated groundbreaking legal processes to determine the constitutionality of section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which criminalizes the practice of polygamy, in light of sections of the Canadian Charter of Freedom pertaining to religious and civil liberties.

Polygamy-practicing Mormons began fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the 1880s, after US Supreme Court Justices upheld the conviction of George Reynolds on polygamy charges in 1879, declaring polygamy an “odious” “Asiatic” practice not protected by First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees. Mormons founded and continue to make up a significant proportion of Canadian towns such as Cardston, in Alberta. The Bountiful community began when FLDS leader Owen LeBaron visited Cardston in 1945 to proselytize and recruit mainstream LDS into “the Work” of plural marriage Mormonism. Cardston dairyman Harold Blackmore was among those who followed LeBaron and started his own remote FLDS community near Lister, British Columbia, naming it Bountiful after a city in the Book of Mormon. In 2002, when Warren Jeffs became President and Prophet of the Hilldale, Utah-based FLDS Church, the affiliated Bountiful community split over issues of succession.

The case is sure to be watched closely among tens of thousands of FLDS and non-FLDS polygamists in the Book-of-Mormon belt and beyond, and may also have implications for Muslims and other polygamy-practicing people of faith.


http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3782/canadian_courts_consider_decriminalization_of_poly gamy

[AtLast]

November 22, 2010 12:38PM

Canadian Courts Consider Decriminalization of Polygamy
Post by Joanna Brooks

Share In a case that may have wide-reaching influence, the Supreme Court of British Columbia today opened deliberations in a constitutional reference case to determine whether a small group of fundamentalist Mormons living in a remote B.C. community called Bountiful may practice religiously-motivated plural marriage without fear of prosecution or conviction.


Before a courtroom packed with legal experts, scholars, civil libertarians, and child rights advocates, justices initiated groundbreaking legal processes to determine the constitutionality of section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which criminalizes the practice of polygamy, in light of sections of the Canadian Charter of Freedom pertaining to religious and civil liberties.

Polygamy-practicing Mormons began fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the 1880s, after US Supreme Court Justices upheld the conviction of George Reynolds on polygamy charges in 1879, declaring polygamy an “odious” “Asiatic” practice not protected by First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees. Mormons founded and continue to make up a significant proportion of Canadian towns such as Cardston, in Alberta. The Bountiful community began when FLDS leader Owen LeBaron visited Cardston in 1945 to proselytize and recruit mainstream LDS into “the Work” of plural marriage Mormonism. Cardston dairyman Harold Blackmore was among those who followed LeBaron and started his own remote FLDS community near Lister, British Columbia, naming it Bountiful after a city in the Book of Mormon. In 2002, when Warren Jeffs became President and Prophet of the Hilldale, Utah-based FLDS Church, the affiliated Bountiful community split over issues of succession.

The case is sure to be watched closely among tens of thousands of FLDS and non-FLDS polygamists in the Book-of-Mormon belt and beyond, and may also have implications for Muslims and other polygamy-practicing people of faith.


http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3782/canadian_courts_consider_decriminalization_of_poly gamy

Personally, I agree with much of this argument. Plural marriage is part of many world cultures and if it were legal in the US, it might actually help thwart child sexual abuse (re- cases of forced "marriages" of minors) in some ways due to legal ages of majority for marriage.

The other thing that I am thinking about is the huge population of LDS related (white, middle class, Christian) children on welfare roles in the US. Documentation of non-legal plural marriages with up to dozens of children fathered by one man receiving welfare benefits is staggering! And this only due to the lack of a legal sanction!

I guess I just can't go to a moralistic place with this practice. There are also plural marriage families that demonstrate positive interaction and respectful ways of relating as a family unit. One of those "filtering" paradigms based upon social conventions of majority populations within societies. How someone views their "married" life is not for me to judge.

[betenoire]

November 22, 2010 12:38PM

Canadian Courts Consider Decriminalization of Polygamy
Post by Joanna Brooks

I have mixed feelings.

On one hand: it's none of my business and it's none of the government's business. So sure, have at it.

On the other hand: I do find the whole plural marriage thing to be super sexist. Men can have a bunch of wives, but the women can only have one husband. It's poop-tastic. Plus, you KNOW that this will have a negative downtrickle in terms of people fighting for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in the US and other countries that are not Canada - those "slippery slope" assholes are going to have a FIELD DAY with this.

What people do need to understand is that "decriminalised" does not mean something becomes legal. It simply stops being something that goes on your criminal record - and is reduced to something you would get a fine for (you know, like jaywalking or a parking ticket)

So simply "decriminalising" it does not, in my opinion, do anything helpful for the WOMEN and CHILDREN in these marriages. If it's simply "decriminalised" rather than "government recognised" - then there will still be no marriage certificates and therefor no RIGHTS.

[Nat]

It's not going to have the best impact on gay marriage discussions, but I think polygamy should be legal. I've known too many polyamorous people (including lesbians) to think they should be denied the benefits associated with marriage just because their love/partnering style is different.

[katsarecool]

Was just convicted of money laundering and Yahoo News is carrying the story as well! It is about time....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9625529

[AtLast]

It's not going to have the best impact on gay marriage discussions, but I think polygamy should be legal. I've known too many polyamorous people (including lesbians) to think they should be denied the benefits associated with marriage just because their love/partnering style is different.


I know, this is a big sticking point for the right-wing to wrap themselves around with attempts to ban same-sex-marriage. I remember Faux News people like Bill O’Rielly bringing up how allowing same-sex marriage would "invite" polygamy activists (and bestiality) in the debate and demand legal sanctioning. It's the whole vilification and moralizing thing going one step further with a huge Christian right-wing flavor. Really strange when you consider that the major organized religious body in the US representing polygamy historically is Latter day Saints- a Christian faith! The one that poured millions of dollars into the 2008 prop 8 election here in CA. from outside the state!

Yo, the irony of it all!

[AtLast]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/TSA-and-The-Junk-Man-The-by-Adam-Bessie-101121-464.html

TSA and The Junk Man: The Thanksgiving Trojan Horse




For OpEdNews: Adam Bessie - Writer
This Sunday morning, sitting reading the news at my corner coffee shop, I found myself sitting amidst the News Feeding Frenzy that is the Transportation Security Administration "controversy": as I struggled to find an article not focused on TSA screening procedures, two young women next to me worry aloud about being "felt up" at the airport, as if they were performing a live parody of the viral video sensation "Don't Touch My Junk," which sparked this frenzied, paranoid debate in the first place. In fact, it was just last week -" a decade in Web 2.0 years -" that John Tyner became famous for telling a T.S.A. screener patting him down that "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."
Now, Tyner's comment not to "touch his junk" has became a viral sensation, with the endless parodies, blogs, and commentaries in the new grand tradition of Mob Journalism, on par with the Ground Zero Mosque, the Koran Burner, Christine O'Donnell, and Tiger Woods. Tyner, as with all of these controversies, becomes a blogospheric black hole, a dying neutron star, into which all coverage, all informational resources and attention are sucked away.
But more than distracting us from real news, "Junk Man," as Charles Krauthammer fondly dubs him in his commentary this week for the Washington Post, has became an "airport hero," a symbol, really. Junk Man, according to Krauthammer, is an icon, he is common man tired of the government -" of Obama, of Big Brother -" trying take his rights. The Junk Man is a modern day revolutionary, and
"Don't touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don't touch my junk, Obamacare - get out of my doctor's examining room, I'm wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don't touch my junk, Google - Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don't touch my junk, you airport security goon - my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I'm a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?"
In short, the Junk Man's outrage is not really about airport policy, it's not about scanners nor pat-downs, really, but more broadly, as Krauthammer points out, his outrage is about the powerful victimizing the weak, and his anthem "Don't Touch My Junk" is a call to arms on par with "Don't Tread on Me." And in Krauthammer's worldview, the powerful is not the Koch Brothers who funded the Tea Party, nor is it the Neo-Cons who engineer Trickle Up economics, but rather, it is Obama, it is government supported healthcare -" it is the government, really. The Junk Man is a marionette for the anti-government, neo-conservative agenda, an agenda that thrives on our fear and paranoia, and the TSA controversy has presented yet another opportunity to focus the newscycle on attacking the government, and to encourage privatization, de-regulation, and the free market. Ken Taylor, a writer for Red State, exposes the real agenda behind the Junk Man Best: "TSA Controversy Exposes Failures of Government Control." He argues that this episode "exposes the true and real failures of government control over anything especially involving individuals and businesses."
But more so, the Junk Man episode reveals not a failure in government, but in our press, a press that reacts as a mob, frantically feeding on neo-conservative manufactured controversy like the Ground Zero Mosque, the Koran Burner, and the Tea Party itself. And all of us, the entire media that has fed into this controversy unreflectively, that have participated in this News Feeding Frenzy without asking why it's a frenzy, about asking whether these stories deserve the volume of press they receive, have also become marionettes for this same agenda, pulled around by Krauthammer and other fear mongers who use these discussions to forward an neo-conservative agenda. Even in writing this essay, and in writing on the Tea Party, and in writing on the Koran Burner, I too am a marionette, coloring within the Talking Points set by the neo-conservative controversy, which ultimately, serve to privilege neo-conservative ideas. When these discussions surround me -" in person and online -" I find it hard to not comment, as is the case with most writers. We want to jump into the conversation, to say our piece, to get into the fray.
And yet, as we jump into the conversation, so do we make the crowd bigger, so do add volume to the echo chamber, making it harder to escape. We simply make the conversation louder, and more dominating. I wrote in "Unknown Bigot Given Media Megaphone" that we should ignore these controversies in order to take away their power, to turn down the volume. The more writers -" and citizens in general - that refuse to speak, to write, to blog, to join the conversation, the lower the drone, the more other conversations and ideas can emerge.
Ignoring these manufactured controversies is only part of the solution, I realize now, as it seems unrealistic to think that our new media participatory media landscape -" which thrives on debate -" will stop these Feeding Frenzies. While we should work towards constructing a press not authored by mob-ocracy, while we should strive to not participate in the echo chamber that shuts out any diversity in news stories, we should at the same time work in the independent press to continue to create and cultivate alternative dialogues and debates, on our own time, and not in lock step with the corporate media constructed controversies. This Thanksgiving dinner, rather than talking about Junk Man, or about the evils of the T.S.A., let's start our own conversations, ones that are emotionally relevant, ones that everyone wants to join in and talk about. Then, once back, let's keep doing it, online and in person.
Adam Bessie is an assistant professor of English at Diablo Valley College, in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is a co-wrote a chapter in the 2011 edition of Project Censored on metaphor and political language, and is a frequent contributor to dailycensored.com, truthout, media-ocracy on diverse issues in education, culture and politics. Follow my essays on Twitter: adambessie

[Nat]

U.S. warns Ottawa of WikiLeak release (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/24/wikileaks-ottawa.html)

The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage U.S. relations with allies around the world.

U.S. officials say the documents may contain accounts of compromising conversations with political dissidents and friendly politicians and could result in the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from foreign postings.

A Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, has phoned Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon to inform him of the matter.

Melissa Lantsman said the Canadian Embassy in Washington is "currently engaging" with the U.S. State Department on the matter.

A State Department spokesman said Wednesday the release of confidential communications about foreign governments probably will erode trust in the United States as a diplomatic partner.

U.S. diplomatic outposts around the world have begun notifying other governments that WikiLeaks may release the documents in the next few days.

[Isadora]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/26/us-judge-says-lesbians-can-be-cured-by-male-soldiers/

So, rape is okay now...along with all those "other" countries who say it is okay to kill us, too.

[Gentle Tiger]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/26/us-judge-says-lesbians-can-be-cured-by-male-soldiers/

So, rape is okay now...along with all those "other" countries who say it is okay to kill us, too.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? I try to be a man of peace. But this is over the bloody top!

Mr Rehyansky, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, argued that men were naturally more promiscuous than women and “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it”.

Hello? Mr. Rehyansky? Can I set up an appointment with you out back for as my mom would say a meeting of the minds?

[Glenn]

his job should be taken away. he might hurt someone. he has no idea what he is talking about...he is just so out of line and out of wack. This is disgusting. Folks, put this behind you, move on, and don't think about him again. Please.

[Nat]

Iran May Have Missiles From North Korea, Cables Posted by WikiLeaks Show (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/iran-may-have-missiles-from-north-korea-cables-posted-by-wikileaks-show.html)

Iran obtained 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, potentially giving the Islamic nation the capability of attacking Moscow and cities in Western Europe, according to embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks.org and provided to the New York Times.

U.S. officials denounced the release, coming on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s departure for a security conference in the Persian Gulf, as jeopardizing U.S. ties with foreign governments and endangering individuals. WikiLeaks began posting the cables yesterday.

The 19 North Korean BM-25 missiles, based on a Russian design known as the R-27, might give Iran the “building blocks” for producing long-range missiles, according to a Feb. 24 cable posted on WikiLeaks. The cable didn’t provide specific evidence, according to the Times, which agreed not to publish the document at the Obama administration’s request.

“North Korea and Iran have had a decades-long missile relationship and also most likely a nuclear relationship,” said Bruce Klingner, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington and former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Korea branch. “The leaking of the classified documents provides a greater sense of confidence” for analysis conducted previously by outside experts and most recently illustrated in photos from a North Korean parade, he said.

Pressured the U.S.

Diplomatic cables posted by the Guardian, which also received advance copies from WikiLeaks, indicate as far back as early 2008 Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments pressed the U.S. for attacks on Iran to stop it getting a nuclear bomb, even as some expressed concern that a military strike might destabilize the region.

The Obama administration has won stiffer United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran and sealed arms agreements such as a $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years.

The State Department declined to confirm information in what WikiLeaks says is more than 250,000 documents, covering a period from December 1966 through February 2010.

“I can’t provide veracity of anything WikiLeaks has released to the media,” Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman, said in an interview, adding the agency’s policy is to refrain from commenting on specific leaked materials.

About 9,000 documents were listed as containing information too sensitive to be shared with a foreign government, the New York Times said. None was listed as “top-secret,” according to the Times.

Similar Tone

Along with the Guardian of the U.K., France’s Le Monde, Spain’s El Pais and Der Spiegel of Germany obtained the WikiLeaks documents.

On the threat from Iran, a cable posted by the Guardian quoted Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., as citing Saudi King Abdullah’s “frequent exhortations to attack Iran and put an end” to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The exchange took place in an April 20, 2008 meeting between al- Jubeir, then-U.S. Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker and U.S. Central Command commander General David Petraeus, the Guardian said.

A similar tone was struck by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain in a Nov. 4, 2009 conversation with Petraeus.

King Hamad “pointed to Iran as the source of much trouble” in the region and “he argued forcefully to take action to terminate their nuclear program by whatever means necessary,” according to a classified cable.

Hamad said “the danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” according to the cable cited by the Guardian.

Increased Monitoring

Bahrain is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters. The cable also disclosed that the king agreed to a NATO request to base Awacs air surveillance aircraft in his nation as part of increased monitoring of Iran.

Israeli military officials 14 days later in a Nov. 18, 2009 meeting with U.S. State and Defense Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, said 2010 would be a “critical year” for Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s capability to attack, according to a cable posted by the Guardian.

“If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more difficult to target and damage them,” the cable said, summarizing Israel’s concerns.

The cable said both sides discussed the need to avoid publicity for an “upcoming delivery” of GBU-28 bunker-buster bombs to Israel “to avoid any allegations that the U.S. is helping prepare for a strike against Iran.”

Carrying Cash

The leaked documents include details about governments and officials, including an episode last year in which Afghanistan’s then-vice president, Ahmed Zia Massoud, was found carrying $52 million in cash while visiting the United Arab Emirates. Massoud denied taking any money out of Afghanistan, according to the Times.

According to another cable, a Chinese contact told the U.S. embassy in Beijing in January that China’s Politburo directed an “intrusion” into Google Inc.’s local computer networks. The Google hacking was “part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government,” the New York Times said in its account of the WikiLeaks cables.

Critical Articles

The cyber attacks in China were orchestrated by a senior politburo member who found articles critical of him using Google’s search engine, the Guardian reported. The Chinese Foreign Ministry and Jessica Powell, a Tokyo-based spokeswoman at Google, weren’t immediately available today to comment on the report.

In July 2009, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, then the defense supreme commander for the United Arab Emirates, declared that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “is Hitler,” the New York Times reported, citing the documents.

The Obama administration said in a statement yesterday that embassy reporting to Washington “is candid and often incomplete information,” not an expression of policy.

“Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders,” according to the statement from the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs.

Republicans Condemn

Republicans also condemned the release of the cables, with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stating on “Fox News Sunday” that “the people at WikiLeaks could have blood on their hands.”

WikiLeaks, a nonprofit group that posts information the government wants to keep confidential, previously released 400,000 documents in October related to the Iraq war and about 75,000 in July on the Afghan conflict.

An Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning was arrested in June at age 22 and charged with illegally releasing classified information. He had said in an online chat in May that the documents he downloaded included “260,000 State Department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world,” the New York Times reported.

The Pentagon said yesterday it will take action to prevent future reoccurrences, such as monitoring user behavior in a way similar to steps taken by credit-card companies to detect fraud. The military will also conduct security oversight inspections at forward bases and remove the ability of classified computers to download information onto removable disks.

[Nat]

The real news here is that for some reason this is news (that this made the first page of google news):

For the Holidays, an Atheism Billboard (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/for-the-holidays-an-atheism-billboard/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/24/nyregion/24billboard-cityroom/24billboard-cityroom-blog480.jpg

[Nat]

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Psychotic Symptoms in Adolescents (http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/adolescent-medicine/single-article/vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-psychotic-symptoms-in-adolescents/e1f685b050.html)

NEW YORK – Vitamin D deficiency was linked with an increased prevalence of psychotic symptoms in adolescents hospitalized for psychiatric reasons in a single-center study of 77 patients.

"The association of vitamin D deficiency with psychotic features warrants further investigation as a risk factor for both physical and mental health outcomes" in adolescents with serious mental illness, Dr. Barbara L. Gracious and her associates said in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

"The importance of vitamin D for brain development and function in both healthy and psychiatric populations is less well appreciated and understood, compared with its known role in bone health and emerging role in metabolic health," said Dr. Gracious, a psychiatrist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and her colleagues.

Prior study findings documented links between vitamin D levels and seasonal affective disorder, depression, and schizophrenia, observations that highlighted the potential for vitamin D levels to modulate vulnerability to mental disorders.

[Kobi]

Whenever I read thru this thread,
I can't help but think I am living in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

I am, however, awaiting the emergence of
the (Don't touch my) Junk party for the next national elections.

[katsarecool]

Vit D deficency seems to be a big problem now. Perhaps an epidemic! I would suggest everyone get their levels tested at their next checkup!

[Greyson]

New York Times

November 29, 2010

Celebrating Secession Without the Slaves

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

ATLANTA — The Civil War, the most wrenching and bloody episode in American history, may not seem like much of a cause for celebration, especially in the South.

And yet, as the 150th anniversary of the four-year conflict gets under way, some groups in the old Confederacy are planning at least a certain amount of hoopla, chiefly around the glory days of secession, when 11 states declared their sovereignty under a banner of states’ rights and broke from the union.

The events include a “secession ball” in the former slave port of Charleston (“a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink,” says the invitation), which will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities. A parade is being planned in Montgomery, Ala., along with a mock swearing-in of Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederacy.

In addition, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and some of its local chapters are preparing various television commercials that they hope to show next year. “All we wanted was to be left alone to govern ourselves,” says one ad from the group’s Georgia Division.

That some — even now — are honoring secession, with barely a nod to the role of slavery, underscores how divisive a topic the war remains, with Americans continuing to debate its causes, its meaning and its legacy.

“We in the South, who have been kicked around for an awfully long time and are accused of being racist, we would just like the truth to be known,” said Michael Givens, commander-in-chief of the Sons, explaining the reason for the television ads. While there were many causes of the war, he said, “our people were only fighting to protect themselves from an invasion and for their independence.”

Not everyone is on board with this program, of course. The N.A.A.C.P., for one, plans to protest some of these events, saying that celebrating secession is tantamount to celebrating slavery.

“I can only imagine what kind of celebration they would have if they had won,” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina N.A.A.C.P.

He said he was dumbfounded by “all of this glamorization and sanitization of what really happened.” When Southerners refer to states’ rights, he said, “they are really talking about their idea of one right — to buy and sell human beings.”

The secession events are among hundreds if not thousands that will unfold over the next four years in honor of the Civil War’s sesquicentennial. From Fort Sumter to Appomattox, historic sites across the South, and some in the North, plan to highlight various aspects of America’s deadliest conflict — and perhaps its least resolved.

Many of the activities are purely historical, and some, like a gathering this month in Gettysburg for the 147th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, will be solemn. At Antietam, on Saturday, the annual memorial will feature 23,000 candles, representing that battle’s casualties.

Some cities and states are promoting their Civil War history with an eye toward attracting tourists. In Atlanta, the Cyclorama, a giant painting-in-the-round that depicts the first day of the Battle of Atlanta, is being “refreshed and rebranded” as part of an overall marketing plan, said Camille Love, the city’s director of cultural affairs.

Commemorating the Civil War has never been easy. The centennial 50 years ago coincided with the civil rights movement, and most of the South was still effectively segregated, making a mockery of any notion that the slaves had truly become free and equal. Congress had designated an official centennial commission, which lost credibility when it planned to meet in a segregated hotel; this year, Congress has not bothered with an official commission and any master narrative of the war seems elusive.

“We don’t know what to commemorate because we’ve never faced up to the implications of what the thing was really about,” said Andrew Young, a veteran of the civil rights movement and former mayor of Atlanta. “The easy answer for black folk is that it set us free, but it really didn’t,” Mr. Young added. “We had another 100 years of segregation. We’ve never had our complete reconciliation of the forces that divide us.”

The passion that the Civil War still evokes was evident earlier this year when Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia designated April as Confederate History Month — without mentioning slavery. After a national outcry, he apologized and changed his proclamation to condemn slavery and spell out that slavery had led to war.

The proclamation was urged on him by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which asserts that the Confederacy was a crusade for small government and states’ rights. The sesquicentennial, which coincides now with the rise of the Tea Party movement, is providing a new chance for adherents to promote that view.

Jeff Antley, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Confederate Heritage Trust, is organizing the secession ball in Charleston and a 10-day re-enactment of the Confederate encampment at Fort Sumter, where the first shots of the war were fired on April 12, 1861. He said these events were not about modern politics but were meant to honor those South Carolinians who signed the state’s ordinance of secession on Dec. 20, 1860, when it became the first state to dissolve its union with the United States.

“We’re celebrating that those 170 people risked their lives and fortunes to stand for what they believed in, which is self-government,” Mr. Antley said. “Many people in the South still believe that is a just and honorable cause. Do I believe they were right in what they did? Absolutely,” he said, noting that he spoke for himself and not any organization. “There’s no shame or regret over the action those men took.”

Mr. Antley said he was not defending slavery, which he called an abomination. “But defending the South’s right to secede, the soldiers’ right to defend their homes and the right to self-government doesn’t mean your arguments are without weight because of slavery,” he said.

Most historians say it is impossible to carve out slavery from the context of the war. As James W. Loewen, a liberal sociologist and author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” put it: “The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery — but slavery is why the South seceded.” In its secession papers, Mississippi, for example, called slavery “the greatest material interest of the world” and said that attempts to stop it would undermine “commerce and civilization.”

The conflict has been playing out in recent decades in disputes over the stories told or not told in museum exhibits and on battlefield plaques.

“These battles of memory are not only academic,” said Mark Potok, the director of intelligence at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “They are really about present-day attitudes. I don’t think the neo-Confederate movement is growing, but it’s gotten a new shot of life because of the sesquicentennial.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30confed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[katsarecool]

I live in the Atlanta area and this is the first I have heard about it. Nothing on the news anywhere yet. Thanks for the heads up!!! WTF? If there is a way I will be there to protest any such event.

[Greyson]

Going Legal in Russia
St. Petersburg holds first sanctioned gay pride demo

BY DOUG IRELAND
Published: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:25 PM CST


Maria Efremenkova, a principal organizer of Equality St. Petersburg’s November 20 gay pride demonstration.

In an historic first for Russia, on Saturday, November 20, activists in St. Petersburg held the first-ever legal gay rights demonstration approved by authorities anywhere in that nation.

The rally took place just one month after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a landmark ruling in the Alexeyev v. Russia case, declaring that Moscow’s repeated bans on gay pride marches and events were illegal.

A jubilant Maria Efremenkova, a principal organizer of Saturday’s successful demonstration, told Gay City News by telephone from St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city, that “there were 15 gay activists who were participants,” while a number of supporters looked on.

But the gay contingent was hugely outnumbered by a highly organized homophobic counterdemonstration that included more than 100 religious extremists and skinheads. Some local radio stations played Christian Orthodox religious music during the demonstration, the Russian news agency Interfax reported.

“These fanatics screamed homophobic insults at us and chanted religious songs and slogans, threw eggs at us, and finally tore down our posters, banners, and rainbow flags, at which point we ended the demonstration after about 40 minutes,” Efremenkova said.

She noted her disappointment that police did a wholly inadequate job of protecting the gay activists from the violent counter-demonstrators. The 40-some police present were outnumbered by more than two to one by the homophobic demonstrators.

“The police explained to us they weren’t expecting so many of them,” Efremenkova said. “But that is no excuse for not following Russian law and protecting our right to free speech.”

In another first, the gay activists’ rally received coverage on local St. Petersburg TV stations, which are government controlled.

“Although most media coverage focused on the egg-throwing by the homophobes,” Efremenkova told Gay City News, “the impact of breaking the silence on homosexuality cannot be overestimated. Seeing strong, proud gay people speaking out and standing up for themselves and declaring they want the same human rights as everyone else inspires many people — especially those gays in the closet and young people struggling with creating their own identity in a homophobic society — to know they are not alone.”

The demonstration was also extensively covered on Echo Moscovy, a popular independent radio station heard throughout the country.

“Most Russian gays are in the closet, so visibility and coming out are our path to a brighter future of freedom and our day in the sun,” Efremenkova emphasized.

The gay rights rally was organized by Equality St. Petersburg, a fledgling direct action group of lesbians and gays founded in February with the help of Nikolai Alexeyev, the courageous young Moscow lawyer who has been the lead organizer of the banned Moscow Gay Prides and the founder of gayrussia.ru, the gay human rights news website that has been the principal catalyst for modern Russian gay organizing. Alexeyev was in St. Petersburg at that time in connection with a gay rights demonstration at which 12 activists were arrested. (For a profile of Nikolai Alexeyev and his work, see this reporter’s June 24, 2010 article, “Moscow’s Man of Action.")

“Nikolai was terribly important in helping organizing our group,” Efremenkova told this reporter. “His example and his experiences in gay organizing were inspiring and invaluable lessons for us.”

Alexeyev told Gay City News that at that February meeting, “I related our five years of experience and struggle around Moscow Pride and told them we’d support whatever they do. But I told them, ‘You have to choose your own way to fight for your rights,’ and I reassured them that they had the right to decide for themselves what they wanted to do.”

The soft-spoken Efremenkova traces her own decision to become a gay activist to seeing the film “Milk,” which starred Sean Penn as the gay activist who was elected to the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco and assassinated by a homophobic ex-colleague from that body. The film was commercially released in Russia.

“It was after seeing ‘Milk’ that I decided I had to do something,” Efremenkova told me, saying she next began contacting people who could form the nucleus of a new, militant activist organization. “Some I’d met in discussions after an LGBT film festival, others I knew from a Day Against HIV we’d held in December 2009, and some I met through social networking on the Internet,” she said.
After pulling that group together, Efremenkova explained, “it was after our meeting with Nikolai Alexeyev that I was inspired to organize the first St. Petersburg Gay Pride, which we chose to have on June 26 this year to commemorate the Stonewall Rebellion, of course.” That event, however, was banned by the city authorities.

“Now,” she said, “we have a core group of about ten people who participate in every one of our actions, and another dozen supporters who come from time to time.”

After the visibility of Saturday’s successful demonstration, Efremenkova said, Equality St. Petersburg’s plans include launching its own website, now in preparation, and “recruiting new people to join us. We want to recruit you, as Harvey Milk used to say,” she noted with a chuckle.

There are no public actions planned in St. Petersburg for the winter months —“You know that our winters are very cold!,” Efremenkova said. The next big focus for Equality St. Petersburg will be the third annual Slavic Gay Pride march to be held there next June 26.

Slavic Gay Pride was founded in November 2008 by Alexeyev and his colleagues in the Moscow Pride committee in collaboration with activists from Gay Belarus, the LGBT group in that former Soviet republic, the Belarusian Initiative for Sexual and Gender Equality, and the LGBT Rights Committee of the Belarusian Green Party.

The first Slavic Pride was held in Moscow — and broken up by police — at the time a delegation of Belarusian gay activists traveled to the Russian capital during the Eurovision song contest, a popular annual event televised all over Europe.

This year’s Slavic Pride took place in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, but was violently crushed by police in that authoritarian country, with a dozen activists arrested.

“We will come out for Slavic Pride even if we don’t get permission to hold it!” Efremenkova declared of the scheduled St. Petersburg version next summer.

She said that the ECHR ruling that bans on Moscow Pride were illegal was “definitely a big influence” on the decision by St. Petersburg authorities to grant permission for Saturday’s demonstration.

Just as important, Alexeyev pointed out, were two October federal district court decisions in St. Petersburg invalidating that city’s prohibition on gay pride demonstrations.

“The city has very smart lawyers, and adding those district court decisions to the ECHR ruling, they saw they could be in a world of trouble if they didn’t grant permission for Saturday’s demonstration,” Alexeyev said. “The city did not even appeal those court judgments against them.”

St. Petersburg is one of Russia’s great tourist destinations, with such well-known attractions as its network of canals, the immense art collection in the Hermitage, and the sumptuous Winter Palace of the former czars, the seizure of which capped the October 1917 Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power. It has historically been considered the most European city in Russia ever since it became the country’s “window to the West” during the reign of Peter the Great. Even during Soviet rule, St. Petersburg prided itself on its reputation as culturally cosmopolitan and more liberal than other Russian cities.

The sort of unfavorable global publicity provoked by the repeated bans on gay pride celebrations in Moscow by its ultra-homophobic former mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, is clearly at odds with St. Petersburg’s efforts to continue luring Western tourists. That factor undoubtedly played into the city’s calculation in granting Equality St. Petersburg permission to demonstrate.

At the end of September, after 18 years as Moscow’s mayor, during which the notoriously corrupt Luzhkov and his wife became billionaires, he was fired by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev as he became mired in yet another ethical scandal. The new mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, a loyalist of Russia’s strongman prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was appointed by Medvedev and approved by the Moscow City Council last month.

Gay City News asked Alexeyev if, given his win at the ECHR, there had yet been any indication of the new mayor’s attitude toward gays or Moscow Pride. “Sobyanin has never publicly expressed his views on homosexuality, and so far there has been absolutely no reaction on the part of city authorities to the ECHR decision,” he responded.But on November 16, the news website Gazeta.ru published a letter penned by Moscow’s prosecutor general, Yury Semin, demanding that police crack down on opposition groups planning unsanctioned rallies, with authorities bringing charges as soon as organizers announce their plans. Human rights advocates say that Semin’s proposal is not based on Russian law, and could be considered applicable to the kind of unauthorized gay public actions Alexeyev has organized for the last five years.

And on November 22, the daily Kommersant quoted Russia’s top magistrate, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Valery Zorkin, telling a law forum in St. Petersburg this past weekend, “Russia, if it wishes, may withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Zorkin added that the right of recourse to the European Court could be seen as “encouraging those in Russia who want any excuse” to sidestep their own courts at home. To cut off Russians from the European Court, the Russian government would have to pull out of the 47-member Council of Europe, which it joined in 1996 — a move which would severely damage its relations with Western Europe.

Alexeyev responded to Zorkin’s comments by saying, in an e-mail, “This is not the first attack of the head of the Constitutional Court of Russia against the European Court. His ‘arguments’ are senseless.

“It’s worth noting that the Constitutional Court managed to make a decision supporting the law which bans propaganda of homosexuality to minors in one region of Russia. While this regional law clearly contradicts the Constitution, his Court confirmed it does not. While it obviously contradicts the European Convention, his Court said it does not. I can’t even imagine the blast at him when the European Court gives its decision in this case. And this case is also pending with the UN Human Rights Committee.”

Reuters reported it had been told by a member of Medvedev’s administration that Zorkin’s proposal would most likely not be approved by the Kremlin. “I do not think we are developing backwards just yet,” he told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

But the success of Equality St. Petersburg in winning the right to demonstrate is a clear vindication of the young Moscow lawyer’s two-pronged strategy — a series of militant direct actions, including civil disobedience, in defiance of the more than 200 bans on gay events in Russia in the last five years, which have raised the visibility of Russian gays and their human rights struggle, followed by a long and patient fight in the courts using Russia’s own laws, constitution, and the international treaties which it has signed to hold authorities accountable and to expand freedom of speech and assembly.

In the course of his intrepid fight, Alexeyev has been arrested countless times, and, in the most bizarre government harassment aimed at him, in September, he was subjected to a frightening 72-hour ordeal in which he was kidnapped, drugged, and intimidated by Putin’s security forces in an attempt to get him to withdraw the ECHR lawsuit he only weeks later won. (See this reporter’s September 29 article, “Global Outcry Frees Russian Gay Leader.”)

Just back from St. Petersburg, Alexeyev spoke to Gay City News via cell phone early on November 22 as he was heading to yet another court hearing — the first in his legal challenge to Moscow’s ban on a demonstration he and his colleagues planned outside of the Moscow office of the Council of Europe early this month in support of their victory at the ECHR.

“This ban was particularly outrageous and discriminatory because the Moscow authorities had authorized a large homophobic demonstration in the very same place protesting the ECHR’s ruling,” Alexeyev said.

Every one of these pro-gay efforts in Russia is crucial, from the perspective of activists there.

“People in many countries made this first legal gay rights demonstration here possible,” Equality St. Petersburg’s Efremenkova told this reporter. “Gay Pride means the whole history which has gone before in all the countries in which homosexuality was once a crime. It’s easier for us to speak out because of what the world’s LGBT community preceded us in doing. But it’s such a long struggle...”

The full text of the European Court of Human Rights historic decision in Alexeyev v. Russia, in English, is online at tinyurl.com/3az2sdf. Doug Ireland can be reached through his blog, DIRELAND, at http://direland.typepad.com/.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2010/11/25/gay_city_news/news/doc4ced52f76f0ea115536900.txt

[weatherboi]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/illinois-civil-unions-bil_1_n_790147.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1185583,b=facebook

[Sparkle]

...with threats of extortion and censorship by elected representatives. :|

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/30/GOP_Leaders_Attack_Smithsonian/


"It’s 1989 all over again in Washington, D.C., as House speaker designate John Boehner of Ohio and incoming House majority leader Eric Cantor of Virginia have called for the dismantling of a Smithsonian exhibit focused on same-sex attraction.

The congressmen’s efforts are already paying off, as officials at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, where the exhibit—“Hide/Seek”—is being shown, have agreed to remove one controversial piece, a video by David Wojnarowicz, The Washington Post reports. The gallery was exhibiting a four-minute video by Wojnarowicz, a gay artist who died from AIDS in 1992, that includes 11 seconds of a crucifix with ants crawling on it. (Watch an excerpt of Wojnarowicz's piece here.)

Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith told the conservative website CNSNews.com that “Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves [in].” Smith later added that his boss wants the exhibit “canceled.”

Cantor said he wants the exhibit “pulled” and that it’s “an outrageous use of taxpayer money.”

Boehner's and Cantor's censorship calls are similar to a controversy that kicked off in 1989, when then-Senator Al D'Amato of New York ripped up a catalog containing Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ" on the Senate floor. The ensuing political and legal wrangling resulted in the National Endowment for the Arts cutting off funding for individual artists.

snip/
In response to Boehner's and Cantor's demands, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian explained that no federal funding is used to pay for exhibits—only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff, The Hill reports."

[Nat]

Mercury poisoning makes male birds homosexual (http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn19784-mercury-poisoning-makes-male-birds-homosexual.html)

Low levels of mercury in the diet of male white ibises cause the birds to mate with each other rather than with females. As a result many of the females can't breed, and fewer chicks are produced.

It's the first time a pollutant has been found to change an animal's sexual preference. Many chemicals can "feminise" males or reduce fertility, but males affected in these ways still prefer females.

Mercury is extremely toxic, particularly in the form of methylmercury, which reduces breeding in wild birds by disrupting their parenting behaviours. To find out if it also affected mating, Peter Frederick of the University of Florida in Gainesville and Nilmini Jayasena of the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, captured 160 young white ibises from south Florida. They gave them food laced with methylmercury and monitored them closely.

The birds were split into four groups. One group ate food with 0.3*parts per million methylmercury, which most US states would regard as too high for human consumption. A second group got 0.1*ppm, and the third 0.05*ppm, a low dose that wild birds would be exposed to frequently. The fourth group received none.

Poisoned

All three dosed groups had significantly more homosexual males than the control group. Male-male pairs courted, built nests together and paired off for several weeks. Higher doses increased the effect, with 55 per cent of males in the 0.3*ppm group affected. Male-male matings were responsible for 81 per cent of unproductive nests in the dosed groups.

Meanwhile the heterosexual pairs courted less and were bad at parenting – patterns of behaviour that were both already known to be caused by methylmercury poisoning. The combined effects of male-male pairing and poor performance by male-female pairs could be severe. "In the worst-case scenario, the production of young would fall by 50 per cent," says Frederick.

Looking for effects on courtship and mating is novel, says Tony Scheuhammer of Environment Canada's National Wildlife Research Center in Ottawa, Ontario. "People normally study pairs that have already mated to see how good they are at parenting," he says.

Other birds would probably be similarly affected, though both Frederick and Scheuhammer say it's far from clear whether other animal groups would be. In particular, there's no evidence for increased homosexuality in humans resulting from mercury poisoning, despite several long-term studies. "If the effect was as strong in humans as in the ibises, they'd have found it," Frederick says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2189
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

[dreadgeek]

A Christian minister in Minnesota said on his radio program that the nation's first Muslim member of Congress was soliciting the support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to implement Sharia law. Follow his logic with us, wouldn't you?

Bradlee Dean of the religious ministry You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International said on his radio program that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) is only supporting LGBT rights as part of a strategy to bring Sharia law to the United States, the Minnesota Independent reported.

"I said time and time again that there is a correlation between the Muslims and the homosexual agenda, and we have a couple of fools in the state of Minnesota that are putting a rope around their neck and they just don't realize it," Dean said on a radio. "Here, let me give it to you this way: Keith Ellison is a Muslim."

Dear reasoned that Ellison's support of protections for the LGBT community (like the Matthew Shepard Act) and for same-sex marriage is part of a plot to overthrow the Constitution and put Sharia law in its place.

"Why is he so adamant about overthrowing the Constitution as it is right now? Because if you pay attention to the plow he's planting the seed," Dean said. "He's trying to come through with Sharee [sic] law."

Full article is here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/christian_minister_muslim_congressmans_support_of_ homosexuals_is_part_of_sharia_plot.php?ref=fpa).

So if I follow this person's logic, the thing that will bring Sharia law to America is gay rights because, don't you know, that homosexuality is positively celebrated in every Muslim-majority nation you can think of. I mean Iran and Saudi Arabia--just to name two--are SO enthusiastic about homosexuals that they love them to death--literally.

Cheers
Aj

[Greyson]

So if I follow this person's logic, the thing that will bring Sharia law to America is gay rights because, don't you know, that homosexuality is positively celebrated in every Muslim-majority nation you can think of. I mean Iran and Saudi Arabia--just to name two--are SO enthusiastic about homosexuals that they love them to death--literally.

Cheers
Aj

I read the article and glimpsed at his website. No Comment. :|

[dreadgeek]

I read the article and glimpsed at his website. No Comment. :|

I didn't make it far on the guy's web site. Once I saw the rant against hate crimes laws, I knew that it was too early to deal with that kind of crazy.

(Plus they won't let me keep brain bleach (aka tequila) at my desk at work, even though I only use it for medicinal purposes, so there would be nothing to kill the pain of being exposed to that kind of high-dose crazy.)

Cheers
Aj

[Isadora]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930

TSA is a homosexual plot. hahahahahaha

[Greyson]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930

TSA is a homosexual plot. hahahahahaha

Is there something in the water today? Between this story and the one AJ posted earlier, it is beyond ridiculious the accusations being made about "homosexuals" and of course the "agenda" thing.

[katsarecool]

Homophobes grasping at the last straws!!

[katsarecool]

The Huffington Post December 2, 2010


First Posted: 12- 2-10 10:37 AM | Updated: 12- 2-10 01:26 PM

Nigerian authorities will charge former Vice President Dick Cheney over a bribery scandal that is alleged to involve Halliburton, BusinessWeek reports. An arrest warrant "will be issued and transmitted through Interpol," said Godwin Obla, the prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria.

The charges center on an alleged $180 million bribery payment used to secure a $6 billion liquefied natural gas contract. Prosecutors are also looking into international companies Saipem and Technip. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, before becoming George W. Bush's running mate. "As the CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period," Obla told the AFP.

Nigeria arrested 12 employees of Halliburton earlier in the week, reports Reuters. The firm's offices in Nigeria were raided by anti-corruption police, although the company said that the detentions "had no legal basis and that its employees had since been freed."

Nigeria's Guardian newspaper reported that charges against Cheney were confirmed by the government and included "criminal conspiracy."
Well needless to say this makes me happy!!! I would be happier if Cheney was prosecuted here in the USA for crimes he committed here.

[Nat]

Death row inmate executed by firing squad (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/18/utah.firing.squad.death/index.html)

Convicted killer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad early Friday, the Utah Department of Corrections said.

Gardner, 49, is only the third person to die by firing squad in the United States in 33 years.

[katsarecool]

What a fucking barbaric way to execute someone!!!! Geeze!!!!

[MsDemeanor]

What a fucking barbaric way to execute someone!!!! Geeze!!!!
This is the problem with two-line articles.

The state of Utah allows a person sentenced to die to choose the method used, and firing squad is one option.

It was his choice to be executed by firing squad.

[Gemme]

What a fucking barbaric way to execute someone!!!! Geeze!!!!

Actually, it's not. As long as they hit his heart, he'll be dead nearly instantaneously. Considering he killed a 3 year old's father for not serving him fast enough and a court officer and wounded another court officer, I would prefer something that would take longer and hurt more.

[Nat]

i think killing people is wrong unless it's to prevent the immediate death or harm to another. it seems pretty barbaric to me - it all does - but firing squad seems pretty barbaric and bloody.

[Kenna]

I'm not being snarky or snappy at anyone for their personal opinions and views.... my tone isn't intended that way...

but.... here's an honest question...

more barbaric or horrific than what happened to little Zahra, brothers Andrew, Alexander, and Tanner Skelton and all the other helpless children and murder victims that we are all hearing about in the news lately? IMO, no one can convince me that death by firing squad is more barbaric than what little Zahra suffered.

[Nat]

I'm not being snarky or snappy at anyone for their personal opinions and views.... my tone isn't intended that way...

but.... here's an honest question...

more barbaric or horrific than what happened to little Zahra, brothers Andrew, Alexander, and Tanner Skelton and all the other helpless children and murder victims that we are all hearing about in the news lately? IMO, no one can convince me that death by firing squad is more barbaric than what little Zahra suffered.

I wasn't saying it was *more* barbaric than his crimes. I just think once a person's no longer a threat (because the person is imprisoned), killing a person is murder. I don't think the government should participate in murder. This is an area where there is a lot of disagreement - I think most people disagree with me. I think maybe I'll start a different thread just about the death penalty because I think it's a big topic.

AND it turns out that article wasn't breaking news. It happened back in June. So, sorry about that. Also, MsDemeanor had a point about the article not containing enough info. It almost seemed like a fake article to me because it was so short, but it was from CNN which I don't consider fringe, so I went ahead and posted it. If I'd hunted around for a better article I would probably have noticed that it wasn't "breaking" news.

[Tommi]

As long as they are breathing the violent criminal mind is active. They are always a threat. We just had a guy let out that was a serious agravated child molestor, because of the system. See system below.

The Really Old West Ruled. Kill someone. Get killed.:fastdraq:

Then the progressive Old West added a sheriff, then the jail, then the judge, then the jury, then the bigger jail, then the lawyer, then the bail bondsmen, then the prison for criminals, then the lawyer teams, then the institution for the criminally insane, then the rogue cops, then the appeals, then...we have today's repeat offenders..

Okay, my cat woke me at 5 AM..on my day off. :mohawk:

[Andrea]

i think killing people is wrong unless it's to prevent the immediate death or harm to another. it seems pretty barbaric to me - it all does - but firing squad seems pretty barbaric and bloody.

I understand what you are saying and I have a really hard time with the death penalty, but I also know there are times I hear about someone dying by execution, their own hand after killing others, or some type of karma, and I am relieved that person no longer resides on this planet.

Andrea

[Tommi]

I understand what you are saying and I have a really hard time with the death penalty, but I also know there are times I hear about someone dying by execution, their own hand after killing others, or some type of karma, and I am relieved that person no longer resides on this planet.

Andrea

I like your post. Karma. (f)

[dreadgeek]

As long as they are breathing the violent criminal mind is active. They are always a threat. We just had a guy let out that was a serious agravated child molestor, because of the system. See system below.

The Really Old West Ruled. Kill someone. Get killed.:fastdraq:

Then the progressive Old West added a sheriff, then the jail, then the judge, then the jury, then the bigger jail, then the lawyer, then the bail bondsmen, then the prison for criminals, then the lawyer teams, then the institution for the criminally insane, then the rogue cops, then the appeals, then...we have today's repeat offenders..

Okay, my cat woke me at 5 AM..on my day off. :mohawk:

Well, if all of the above offends you we could just go back to a feudal system of crime and punishment where you didn't get a trial (no lawyers), there was no bail (no bail bondsmen), there were dungeons but those were for torture not imprisonment.

You can have a legal system, in which case you have to put up with the fact that the legal system must play by the rules or you can have an ad hoc system of crime and punishment for which there is another name: lynching.

ETA: Let me also point out that even WITH the current system of laws, we routinely execute the wrong person. In Texas a man was executed for killing his three children in an arson fire. Except that when actual fire experts looked at the crime, they determined not only was it NOT arson but it could not have been arson. Several studies have also found that black men are three or four times as likely to be given the death penalty for the *same* crime even if you hold every other relevant detail constant. And a disturbing number (approaching a third) of those death penalties are eventually overturned on DNA evidence. So if we go back to the Old West system of lynching--and once you pull out the legal system, all you're left with is mob justice--do you really think it will be any better? I'll tell you right now, since we've *run* that experiment--it wouldn't be.

In the Deep South, into the middle of the last century, a black man could go from having a nice day to being hung from a tree in an afternoon all because he bumped into a white woman. That was also swift and sure 'justice'. Thank you very much but I'll take the set of problems flowing from having a legal system--even one as flawed as ours--to ad hoc 'we think this person did the crime, so that's the person we'll punish for it' mob justice.

[Nat]

I did start that death penalty thread should any of you like to share your thoughts there. (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2445)

[Nat]

Scientists reverse some age effects in mice (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-he-telomeres-20101204,0,7105446.story)

Telomeres "are like the caps on your shoelaces — they help maintain the package of your chromosomes," DePinho said.

As cells divide and replicate, these chromosome protectors get worn down and frayed over time. And with age, as telomeres shorten, signs of age-related degeneration — from graying hair to infertility to organ failure — emerge.

To figure out whether this process could be reversed, the scientists first engineered mice that aged artificially fast. In these rodents, the team had suppressed the gene that makes telomerase, an enzyme partly responsible for the repair of telomeres.

With prematurely shortened telomeres, the mice's coats grayed, their spleens atrophied and their brains and testes shrunk. Their skin was plagued by dermatitis and their sense of smell dulled. In short, they showed many signs of aging. At a normally youthful 6 months, they already looked 2 years old, DePinho said — equivalent to a human octogenarian.

The scientists then administered a drug that switched the suppressed telomerase gene back on. Soon enough, the mice regained the sheen in their coats, sensitivity in their noses and the sperm in their testes. The signs of age seemed to slough off them.

[Nat]

Obama announces tentative deal to extend Bush tax cuts (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-addresses-possible-deal-on-bush-tax-cuts/1)

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: DADT repeal likely to come up for a vote tonight
By Adam Bink

Just this morning, Sen. Reid said the following on the Senate floor:

“And I’m likely going to move to my motion to reconsider on the Defense Authorization Act this evening. Allowing, as I will indicate at that time, time for amendments to that piece of legislation.”

As I wrote earlier, if Sen. Reid allows for a process that accords Sen. Collins and other pro-repeal Republicans the opportunity to offer amendments with sufficient time for debate, it is very likely they will support the motion to reconsider, which requires 60 votes. That is our last major hurdle to overcome.

But, it’s no sure thing (it never is). So, that means it’s time to hit the phones for one last big push. The switchboard is 202-224-3121. This cannot be left up to backroom dealing between the Republicans and Sen. Reid. And as Joe wrote, this isn’t a political game. Both sides have to deal in good faith and not hide behind process. And then we’ll find out who’s on our side tonight.

Breaking this morning, we picked up Sen. Pryor. If that’s true, and Manchin and Lincoln go our way (and I’m told it’s likely they will), we’ll need two Republicans. So, based on what a few sources have told me this morning, the following are all potential votes for the motion to reconsider:

–Susan Collins (R-ME)

–Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

–Richard Lugar (R-IN)

–Judd Gregg (R-NH)

–Scott Brown (R-MA)

–George Voinovich (R-OH)

–Kit Bond (R-MO)

–Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

–Mark Kirk (R-IL)

The number is 202-224-3121. Call them and ask them to support the motion to reconsider on the defense authorization bill. This is especially important if you are a constituent. Then, pick 5 family/friends/colleagues, and ask them to do the same. Tell them if there’s one holiday present you’d like in the social justice realm, it’s 5 minutes on the phone.

Then, post in the comments what you heard.

Let’s do this

[MsTinkerbelly]

Update: Sen. Lieberman affirms that the biggest obstacle to repeal is process, not policy. In what appears to be a response to reports that Sen. Collins is not negotiating in good faith, via e-mail, Sen. Lieberman (who has been a strong champion for repeal) issued the following statement:

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) issued the following statement today in response to the baseless allegations that have been raised with respect to Senator Collins’ negotiations on the National Defense Authorization Act:
“Senator Collins has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested otherwise. As she always does, Senator Collins is working diligently and across party lines to find solutions to the challenges that confront our country. I call on those responsible for such baseless allegations to stop immediately and instead work to get to an agreement to bring this critical bill to the floor for Senate action.
“We are making progress toward an agreement to move forward on the defense bill that includes the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and I remain confident that we can reach an agreement, which is necessary before any vote on the motion to reconsider is taken. I am working closely with Senator Reid and Senator Collins and other members who want to reach a fair and reasonable agreement to move the defense authorization bill that that is so essential to the needs of our troops, veterans, and their families.
“It is now more clear than ever that we have 60 or more votes in support of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ so it is vitally important to reach agreement on the right process to move forward.”
Like I wrote above, this shouldn’t just be a backroom process- it’s a public process, too. We’ve been enough of a political football. Make your voice heard so that even if a swing Republican Senator doesn’t like the “agreement”, the calls coming into his/her office are 85-15% in favor of repeal, and the Senator’s decision is made up for him/her.
202-224-3121. The target list is above

[betenoire]

Warning To Gulf Volunteers: Almost Every Cleanup Worker From The 1989 Exxon Valdez Disaster Is Now Dead
(http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-every-crew-member-from-the-1989-exxon-valdez-disaster-is-now-dead-2010-6)

[Corkey]

Dream Act passed the House!

[betenoire]

Warning To Gulf Volunteers: Almost Every Cleanup Worker From The 1989 Exxon Valdez Disaster Is Now Dead
(http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-every-crew-member-from-the-1989-exxon-valdez-disaster-is-now-dead-2010-6)

I forgot to put in a disclaimer. I can't seem to find anything else online to prove OR disprove this, so take it as you will.

[Greyson]

Dream Act passed the House!

House passes DREAM Act, but bill faces tough Senate vote Thursday
By Mike Lillis - 12/08/10 09:11 PM ET

House lawmakers on Wednesday passed legislation allowing illegal-immigrant students to remain permanently and legally in the United States.

The DREAM Act — a top priority of Democrats in both Congress and the White House — was approved by a tally of 216 to 198. Eight Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor of the bill, while 38 Democrats voted against it.


The bill now moves to the Senate, which is expected to take up the measure Thursday morning. The proposal's success is much less likely in the upper chamber, where a GOP filibuster will require 60 votes for passage. The Senate shot down a similar measure in 2007, and most of the opponents at the time haven't changed their positions over the last three years.

First introduced in 2001, the House legislation extends conditional legal status for five years to those illegal aliens who:

• Were younger than 16 when they entered the country

• Have lived in the U.S. for at least five years

• Have a degree from a U.S. high school, or its equivalent

Beneficiaries can apply for an additional five years of conditional nonimmigrant status if they've completed at least two years of higher education or military service. Afterward, they could apply for permanent legal status.

RELATED ARTICLESDems make last-minute push for DREAM ActRep. Smith: DREAM Act carries some harsh realitiesLa Raza: A watershed vote Latinos will not forget
Supporters of the bill said it will offer opportunities for motivated kids who are in the country by no fault of their own.

"The beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are the kind of Americans we want," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said just before the vote.

Republicans argued that the proposal grants amnesty and puts the interests of illegal aliens above those of American taxpayers.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the proposal is "a nightmare for the American people."

"It insults American workers, American taxpayers and anyone who believes in the rule of law," Smith said. "How can we consider amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants when just last week the Dept. of Labor reported that unemployment in America jumped up to 9.8 percent?"

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill will save taxpayers $1.4 billion over the next decade. CBO warned, however, that the reforms will begin consuming government funds after 2020, as beneficiaries become eligible for other government programs.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132829-house-passes-dream-act-senate-to-move-next

[Greyson]

If you go view the link where the story came from, read the comment section too. Here is one of the comments:


"There's so much money backing the gay agenda it's obscene."

__________________________________________________ _____________




Scientists have created mice that are the genetic product of two fathers, the latest in a series of unusual experiments in mammalian reproduction.

By Gautam Naik


Researchers at University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and elsewhere first engineered a female mouse whose eggs contained the DNA from a male. When the female was mated with another male, the offspring had genetic contributions entirely from two males. The study appears online in the peer-reviewed journal Biology of Reproduction.

While the achievement is technically intriguing, its practical benefits are far from clear. Any move to try the same experiment in people is certain to be more complicated and controversial.

The study describes the technique as "a new form of mammalian reproduction" that could potentially be used to improve livestock breeds or preserve endangered species. More provocatively, the authors argue that if certain technical hurdles can be overcome, "then some day two men could produce their own genetic sons and daughters." But those technical hurdles are extremely high.

"It has been a weird project, but we wanted to see if it could be done" in mice, says Richard Behringer, lead author of the study and a developmental geneticist at M.D. Anderson in Houston.

New techniques are allowing scientists to tweak the biology of reproduction in unusual ways. In April, scientists at U.K.'s Newcastle University created embryos with DNA taken from a man and two women. The research, published in the journal Nature, was undertaken to potentially help mothers avoid passing on rare genetic disorders to their children. The embryos weren't brought to term. In 2009, a cloning-related method was used to produce monkeys with genetic material from two mothers.

So how is it possible to engineer mice whose genetic material is entirely from two males?

A human embryo has 46 chromosomes, including two that determine sex. Females normally have two of the same, written as XX, while males have an X and a Y chromosome, or XY.

In the latest experiment, Dr. Behringer and his colleagues first took a cell from a male mouse—Dad A. They reprogrammed the cell so it became similar to an embryonic stem cell, which eventually gives rise to all the tissues of the body.

When copies of the cell were grown in a cell line, about 1% spontaneously lost the Y chromosome, an occurrence that happens when mistakes creep in during cell division.

These cells—with Dad A's original X chromosome but not the Y chromosome—were injected into blastocysts, early-stage embryos created from donor egg and sperm. The treated blastocysts then were transferred into surrogate mothers.

When the mouse babies were born, they had cells from both the blastocyst and from Dad A—so-called chimeras, which are creatures composed of at least two genetically distinct types of cells. When the females matured, some produced eggs containing only Dad A's genetic material.

As a final step, the female chimeras mated with an ordinary male mouse, Dad B. Some of the resulting progeny, both male and female, were made entirely from the genetic material originating in the two dads.

One hitch was that, as part of the reprogramming step, the researchers added certain genes that triggered tumors in some mice, an inherent problem in the current approach used for cell reprogramming.

Trying this in humans is a much bigger challenge. When a human embryo inherits only one X chromosome (instead of one chromosome from each parent) it tends to die. Rarely, females are born this way, called Turner syndrome, and all are infertile. And scientists would also have to find a way to create eggs without creating human chimeras, which is ethically contentious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704447604576008031376020012.html

[katsarecool]

I am very happy to hear this great news!!! A young woman by the name of Jennifer Colido who is a student at Kennesaw State in Georgia will be very happy to hear this news. She was reluctantly thrust into the limelight when she was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation (minor) and arrested and jailed when it was discovered that she was undocumented despite the fact that she came to this country with her parents at the age of five years old. INS granted her a stay until she graduates in a few years then she will be deported to Mexico and she does not even speak Spanish!

[Sparkle]

The Senate delays (possibly kills) the DREAM Act.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/dream-act-delayed-in-sena_n_794492.html

[katsarecool]

I just saw that and it stinks!!! I hate just hate the politics that is going on in DC right now. The way they are playing with our lived regardine the Dream Act, DADT, unemployment for nine million Americans and their families, Estate tax, Tax cuts for the wealthy.... I am about over their bad behaviors and will begin writing letters and making phone calls tomorrow. Today I take for thinking about it, ranting and raving and coming to a nice logial letter and one they can understand!!!

[Nat]

Just got an email from getequal:

The Senate just voted on whether to bring the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) up for conversation. Not for passage -- just for conversation. It failed.

[MsDemeanor]

Just think how much money we would have for everything else if we quit funding Defense for a few months. Let's give 'em just enough money to ship everyone home from the wars and to make payroll.

[Nat]

I really do truly despise this woman. Just received the following email:


Dear Friend:
**** Thank you for contacting me about our nation's "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. *I welcome your thoughts and comments.
*
**** Officials from the Department of Defense previously testified before Congress that the current policy has served the military well. *However, in recent months, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly stated his support for repealing the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, pending the results of an internal Pentagon review.
*
**** The internal Pentagon review report was released on November 30, 2010, and its findings indicated that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would bring about limited disruption to unit cohesion and retention. *I respectfully disagree with the report's findings. *I will not support a repeal of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. *After speaking with military personnel and former leaders of our armed services, I remain very concerned about how repealing this policy could negatively impact unit cohesion and overall troop readiness -- especially during a time of war.
*
**** Our military has obligations around the world, including intensifying efforts to topple the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. *I, along with many others, am concerned that a drastic change in the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy could hurt morale, recruitment, and retention at a time when our armed forces need to maintain a strong presence at home and abroad.
*
**** Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind. *I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue that is important to you.
*
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
*
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC *20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
*
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. *Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm .
*
If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the Senator's website at http://hutchison.senate.gov . *You will find articles, floor statements, and press releases, along with her weekly column and monthly television show on current events. *You can also sign up to receive Senator Hutchison's weekly e-newsletter.
*
Thank you.

[katsarecool]

Now let me guess... wait a minute... almost there... She is a Republican!!!! Or wait? Maybe a Tea Bagger? Or worse yet Both?

[Nat]

Now let me guess... wait a minute... almost there... She is a Republican!!!! Or wait? Maybe a Tea Bagger? Or worse yet Both?

She's been a senator here since I was a freshman in high school. She's always been awful. Not sure how she feels about the tea party - I'd be surprised if she had any feelings at all really.