Breaking News Events

[betenoire]

This is pretty interesting. It's the annual Press Freedom Index (http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf) released by Reporters Without Borders. It takes into account a huge range of factors from "do the reporters go to jail / get assassinated" to "are the reporters able to fully protect their sources?" Worth a read.

[Vlasta]

..

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican was shaken by a corruption scandal Thursday after an Italian television investigation said a former top official had been transferred against his will after complaining about irregularities in awarding contracts.

The show "The Untouchables" on the respected private television network La 7 Wednesday night showed what it said were several letters that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who was then deputy-governor of Vatican City, sent to superiors, including Pope Benedict, in 2011 about the corruption.

The Vatican issued a statement Thursday criticizing the "methods" used in the journalistic investigation. But it confirmed that the letters were authentic by expressing "sadness over the publication of reserved documents."

As deputy governor of the Vatican City for two years from 2009 to 2011, Vigano was the number two official in a department responsible for maintaining the tiny city-state's gardens, buildings, streets, museums and other infrastructure.

Vigano, currently the Vatican's ambassador in Washington, said in the letters that when he took the job in 2009 he discovered a web of corruption, nepotism and cronyism linked to the awarding of contracts to outside companies at inflated prices.

In one letter, Vigano tells the pope of a smear campaign against him (Vigano) by other Vatican officials who wanted him transferred because they were upset that he had taken drastic steps to save the Vatican money by cleaning up its procedures.

"Holy Father, my transfer right now would provoke much disorientation and discouragement in those who have believed it was possible to clean up so many situations of corruption and abuse of power that have been rooted in the management of so many departments," Vigano wrote to the pope on March 27, 2011.

In another letter to the pope on April 4, 2011, Vigano says he discovered the management of some Vatican City investments was entrusted to two funds managed by a committee of Italian bankers "who looked after their own interests more than ours."

LOSS OF $2.5 MILLION, 550,000 EURO NATIVITY SCENE

Vigano says in the same letter that in one single financial transaction in December, 2009, "they made us lose two and a half million dollars."

The program interviewed a man it identified as a member of the bankers' committee who said Vigano had developed a reputation as a "ballbreaker" among companies that had contracts with the Vatican, because of his insistence on transparency and competition.

The man's face was blurred on the transmission and his voice was distorted in order to conceal his identity.

In one of the letters to the pope, Vigano said Vatican-employed maintenance workers were demoralized because "work was always given to the same companies at costs at least double compared to those charged outside the Vatican."

For example, when Vigano discovered that the cost of the Vatican's larger than life nativity scene in St Peter's Square was 550,000 euros in 2009, he chopped 200,000 euros off the cost for the next Christmas, the program said.

Even though, Vigano's cost-cutting and transparency campaign helped turned Vatican City's budget from deficit to surplus during his tenure, in 2011 unsigned articles criticizing him as inefficient appeared in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

On March 22, 2011, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone informed Vigano that he was being removed from his position, even though it was to have lasted until 2014.

Five days later he wrote to Bertone complaining that he was left "dumbfounded" by the ouster and because Bertone's motives for his removal were identical to those published in an anonymous article published against him in Il Giornale that month.

In early April, Vigano went over Bertone's head again and wrote directly to the pope, telling him that he had worked hard to "eliminate corruption, private interests and dysfunction that are widespread in various departments."

He also tells the pope in the same letter that "no-one should be surprised about the press campaign against me" because he tried to root out corruption and had made enemies.

Despite his appeals to the pope that a transfer, even if it meant a promotion, "would be a defeat difficult for me to accept," Vigano was named ambassador to Washington in October of last year after the sudden death of the previous envoy to the United States.

In its statement, the Vatican said the journalistic investigation had treated complicated subjects in a "partial and banal way" and could take steps to defend the "honor of morally upright people" who loyally serve the Church.

The statement said that today's administration was a continuation of the "correct and transparent management that inspired Monsignor Vigano."

(Reporting By Philip Pullella)
..

[Toughy]

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CD9SH32700%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=MNEW_LARSDCCI1_UNEWS

Prison dilemma: surging numbers of older inmates
By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer The Associated Press
Friday, January 27, 2012 7:12 AM EST

NEW YORK (AP) — In corrections systems nationwide, officials are grappling with decisions about geriatric units, hospices and medical parole as elderly inmates — with their high rates of illness and infirmity — make up an ever increasing share of the prison population.

At a time of tight state budgets, it's a trend posing difficult dilemmas for policymakers. They must address soaring medical costs for these older inmates and ponder whether some can be safely released before their sentences expire.

The latest available figures from 2010 show that 8 percent of the prison population — 124,400 inmates — was 55 or older, compared to 3 percent in 1995, according to a report being released Friday by Human Rights Watch. This oldest segment grew at six times the rate of the overall prison population between 1995 and 2010, the report says.


thats the first paragraphs.........interesting read and poses some real questions......

[SoNotHer]

How to Get a $106,000 College Education for Free
Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Friday, January 27, 2012

How would you like to go to a private liberal arts college that will give you a full-ride tuition scholarship for four years? Sounds crazy? Actually, I'm serious.
Antioch College in Yellow Spring, Ohio, is waiving the tuition for all its students, who enroll in the next three years. How much are these freebies worth? The value of the free tuition for the current year is $26,500. The scholarship, based on that price, makes each scholarship worth at least $106,000. Some students, who file financial aid applications, will capture an even greater price break. If they qualify, they may get to skip the room and board charges or pay a reduced price. Antioch's room and board is currently $8,628.

Why So Generous?

Obviously, it's unheard of for a college to offer free tuition to its all students. There is, however, an explanation for the generosity. Antioch is crawling out of the grave. Antioch College, which was originally founded by abolitionists in 1850, shut its door in 2008 after years of decline. Terrible management decisions, among other reasons, led to the closure, but tremendous financial support from dedicated alumni, who were appalled at the closure, led to its rebirth.

Antioch welcomed 35 students into its inaugural freshmen class in 2011 and it hopes to welcome another 65 to 75 students in the fall. The school's goal is to have about 300 students attending the school by 2015. "We are a 160-year-old start-up institution with a lot of history," says Cezar Mesquita, Antioch's dean of admission and financial aid. The college wants to make an investment in hard-working, engaged students, "who can help restart this great institution."

Antioch had always been known for its work cooperative program and that tradition has returned. All students will have numerous work opportunities during their four years that include, local, national and international experiences. At this point, the school offers 12 areas of concentration ranging from environmental and health sciences to languages and social sciences.

Academic Profile of Antioch Students

The inaugural class, which hailed from states throughout the country, had an average unweighted high school GPA of 3.56 and an average ACT score of 27, which is roughly the equivalent of a 1250 on the SAT. If you're a high school senior, there is still time to apply! Antioch's admission deadline is Feb. 15.

[DapperButch]

Not to be a downer about Antioch College, but please be aware of accreditation issues before you decide to send junior there for free. They are not yet accredited. It might be a fantastic school, but if it is not accredited, well.....

The free part makes sense now. They need some students to get accredited and in order to get kids to come to their lack of credentialed school, they need to make it free.

Bummer.


http://antiochcollege.org/about/accreditation.html

[SoNotHer]

The school must have lost accreditation when it closed. Hopefully, that's a temporary situation. It was a great school for 156 years.

Here's what I tell the students at the state school where I teach. Be wary if -

- if the school has a banner ad on your email screen,

- if recruiters tell you to 'not worry about costs; financial aid will cover everything,'

- if recruiters call you multiple times (I have a recruiter calling my cell every couple days from Everest College - I've called back the number),

- if the school has pop up ads, if the application process seems incredibly simplistic,

- if it seems to good to be true.

There are schools that aren't accredited. Be wary and do your due diligence with any school or program you're considering.


Not to be a downer about Antioch College, but please be aware of accreditation issues before you decide to send junior there for free. They are not yet accredited. It might be a fantastic school, but if it is not accredited, well.....

The free part makes sense now. They need some students to get accredited and in order to get kids to come to their lack of credentialed school, they need to make it free.

Bummer.


http://antiochcollege.org/about/accreditation.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

Jedi finally recieve rights to same sex marriage!



FRC: 'Rebel Fleet Surrenders to Gay Empire'

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-rebel-fleet-surrenders-gay-empire

[LeftWriteFemme]

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice



http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

Maddow to Media: Ask Romney About Antigay Donations



http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/27/Rachel_Maddow_Calls_on_Media_to_Ask_Mitt_Romney_Ab out_Antigay_Donations/

[CherylNYC]

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice



http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Wonderful article, but I should keep my promise to myself to never read the comments on any news item that says anything critical about politically conservative people. Yikes!

[LeftWriteFemme]

While clarifying remarks linking civil rights to gay marriage, Gov. Christie calls N.J. assemblyman 'numbnuts'




http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/gov_christie_clarifies_his_rem.html

[Toughy]

http://www.npr.org/webapp#1008/145926123

'Consent' Asks: Who Owns The Internet?
By NPR Staff
January 30, 2012
Morning Edition [ 0 min. 0 sec. ]

While the Internet may aid the spread of democracy, democracy doesn't necessarily mean a free and open Internet. In her new book Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom, Rebecca MacKinnon, senior fellow at the New America Foundation and co-founder of Global Voices, a citizen media network, investigates the corrosion of civil liberties by the governments and corporations that control the digital world.

"The critical question is: How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy?" MacKinnon tells Morning Edition's Renee Montagne......<snip>

[Nat]

Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada (http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-completely-banned-from-boarding-airplanes-in-canada/)

The offending section of the regulations reads:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if …
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;

[Cin]

Panetta: Decision to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism Is Obama's

—By Adam Serwer

In an interview with CBS 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta revealed more about the secret process the Obama administration uses to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without trial. According to Panetta, the president himself approves the decision based on recommendations from top national security officials.

"[The] President of the United States, obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification and in the end says, go or no go," Panetta said.

"So it’s the requirement of the administration under the current legal understanding is that the president has to make that declaration, not you?" Pelley asked. Panetta replied, "That is correct."

The process by which national security officials determine whether or not American citizens suspected of terrorism can be killed remains opaque. The administration has leaked information about certain targets, but it has never released the legal justification for doing so, nor has it explained the system by which members of the National Security Council reportedly decide to put an American citizen on a so-called "kill list." In October, Reuters' Mark Hosenball wrote that the president doesn't necessarily explicitly approve strikes—instead, the attacks go forward unless the president objects.

Panetta's explanation of why he believes killing an American citizen without due process is legal wasn't exactly comforting. Here's the exchange:

PANETTA: Without getting into the specifics of the operation, if someone is a citizen of the United States, and is a terrorist, who wants to attack our people and kill Americans, in my book that person is a terrorist. And the reality is that under our laws, that person is a terrorist. And we’re required under a process of law, to be able to justify, that despite the fact that person may be a citizen, he is first and foremost a terrorist who threatens our people, and for that reason, we can establish a legal basis on which we oughta go after that individual, just as we go after bin Laden, just as we go after other terrorists. Why? Because their goal is to kill our people, and for that reason we have to defend ourselves.

PELLEY: They’re not entitled to due process of law under the Constitution of the United States? They lose their citizenship if this administration decides they’re a terrorist?

PANETTA: If this person wanted to suddenly raise questions about whether or not they’re a terrorist, and the were to return to the United States of course they would be entitled to due process. that’s something we provide any US citizen. And for that matter frankly any terrorist who is arrested, we provide due process to that individual as well. But if a terrorist is out there on the battlefield, and the terrorist is threatening this country, that person is an enemy combatant, and when an enemy combatant holds a gun at your head, you fire back.

Panetta's explanation isn't much more complex than "when we say someone is a terrorist, then we can kill them, because they're a terrorist." The entire point of due process, however, is to determine whether or not someone is actually guilty. The defense secretary's metaphor—that you can fire back when someone "holds a gun to your head"—might justify killing an American citizen who is fighting on an actual battlefield, like Afghanistan. But it suggests violence as an appropriate response to an imminent threat, rather than the actual circumstances under which say, radical cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki appears to have been killed.

President Obama just signed a bill that, if not for its many administrative loopholes, would "mandate" military detention for non-citizen terror suspects apprehended on American soil, so it's not accurate for Panetta to state that "any" suspected terrorist apprehended by the US receives due process. The vast majority of the nearly two hundred detainees at Gitmo have never been charged with anything, let alone tried and convicted. Osama bin Laden was the admitted leader of a group engaged in an armed conflict against US troops in Afghanistan; concrete evidence that al-Awlaki was more than a font for extremist propaganda has never been aired.

There's also an Orwellian element to Panetta's argument that anyone on the US kill list should simply turn themselves in and get a fair trial. As Glenn Greenwald reminds us, we only know that al-Awlaki was on the "kill list" because his name was leaked to the press. Any other Americans who might be on the list have no way of knowing they've been targeted absent leaks from administration officials or the sound they hear right before they're annihilated by a Hellfire missile. (Even calling friends, family, or a lawyer to turn yourself in could be the act that gets you killed.) If such an individual did know he was on the list, how exactly is he supposed to believe he'd have "due process" after giving himself up, given that he's already been sentenced to death by the administration? Is a fair trial even possible under those circumstances?

[SoNotHer]

Report proposes dividing Great Lakes, Mississippi

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Great-Lakes-290.jpg

(AP) TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Groups representing states and cities in the Great Lakes region on Tuesday proposed spending up to $9.5 billion on a massive engineering project to separate the lakes from the Mississippi River watershed in the Chicago area, describing it as the only sure way to protect both aquatic systems from invasions by destructive species such as Asian carp. The organizations issued a report suggesting three alternatives for severing an artificial link between the two drainage basins that was constructed more than a century ago. Scientists say it has already provided a pathway for exotic species and is the likeliest route through which menacing carp could reach the lakes, where they could destabilize food webs and threaten a valuable fishing industry.

"We simply can't afford to risk that," said Tim Eder, executive director of the Great Lakes Commission, which sponsored the study with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. "The Great Lakes have suffered immensely because of invasive species. We have to put a stop to this." The report's release is sure to ramp up pressure on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is conducting its own study of how to close off 18 potential pathways between the two systems, including the Chicago waterways. The corps plans to release its findings in late 2015, a timetable it says is necessary because of the job's complexity and regulatory requirements. A pending federal lawsuit by five states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania — demands quicker action. "This study shows that hydrological separation is both technically and economically feasible," said Rep. Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican.

A spokeswoman said the corps would not comment until it could review the report. The project that linked the two drainage basins began in the 1890s when engineers reversed the flow of the Chicago River to flush sewage away from the city and into a newly built, 28-mile-long canal that created a connection between Lake Michigan and the Illinois River, a tributary of the Mississippi. It is now a network of rivers, locks and canals. In their report, the two groups call for placing barriers at key points to cut off the flow of water between the two drainage basins by 2029. One alternative would put barriers in five locations near Lake Michigan. Another would erect a single barrier in the ship canal before it branches off into connecting waterways. A third plan would use four barriers. The report does not express a preference but says the four-barrier plan would cost less than the others — between $3.26 billion and $4.27 billion. That plan, the report says, would cause less disruption of waterborne commerce and fewer problems with flood and stormwater control, all of which opponents contend would result from dividing the two systems. It also comes closest to restoring the natural divide between the watersheds, said David Ullrich, executive director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.

The report doesn't make a detailed proposal for covering the costs but says the four-barrier plan could be done if the average household in the Great Lakes basin paid about $1 a month through 2059. The five-barrier and single-barrier plans' price tags could reach about $9.5 billion. Despite the high cost, the report's sponsors said the project would save money in the long run by shielding both systems from species invasions. Zebra and quagga mussels and sea lamprey already have exacted a heavy toll on the Great Lakes economy, and the region's leaders fear the Asian carp could make things much worse. "Yes, it's expensive. But the cost of doing nothing is greater," Ullrich said.

Asian carp escaped from Southern fish farms and sewage treatment plants decades ago and migrated up the Mississippi and its tributaries, gobbling up plankton that is essential for other nourishing other fish. The study, commissioned by the two groups and developed by a private engineering firm, will make the idea of separation easier for people in the region to grasp, said Joel Brammeier, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, a Chicago-based environmental group. "It's a natural, practical, on-the-ground map of how to get it done," Brammeier said. Mark Biel, chairman of an Illinois business coalition called UnLock Our Jobs that opposes separating the watersheds, said the Great Lakes groups' proposals would take many years to carry out and would devastate cargo shipping and pleasure boating in the Chicago area while doing nothing to prevent species invasions elsewhere. "Calling this a solution is ludicrous," Biel said.

But the report's authors said their plan envisions upgrades to docks and other infrastructure that, in the long run, would boost water commerce while improving water quality and flood protection. The barriers themselves would make up just 3 percent of the total cost. The Army Corps of Engineers contends an electric barrier in the shipping canal is preventing Asian carp and other fish from swimming upstream toward Lake Michigan, although carp DNA has been found beyond the device. Eder said the barrier is a good temporary measure, but not a permanent solution.

"It's kind of like the old Clint Eastwood adage, 'How lucky do you feel?'" he said. "We can take chances that the electric barrier and other measures will work, but I don't think we should."

http://www.luresforfishing.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/asian-carp-jumping.jpg

Scientific American

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57368799/report-proposes-dividing-great-lakes-mississippi/

[Kobi]

I don't remember this Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act he signed into law. If the goal was "equal pay" for "equal work", why is it called a "fair pay" act? Wonder why "equal pay" + "equal work" = "fair pay" reminds me of something along the lines of "separate but equal"?


Jan 31, 2012

Three years after he signed it into law, President Obama has made the little-known Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the centerpiece of his re-election pitch to women.

It’s a “big step toward making sure every worker in this country, man or woman, receives equal pay for equal work,” Obama says in a video to supporters on his campaign blog.

The legislation repeatedly tops Obama’s list of accomplishments in stump speeches on the campaign trail and is cited as a fulfilled promise from 2008.

“Change is the first bill I signed into law that enshrines a very simple proposition,” Obama told a crowd of donors at the Apollo Theater Jan. 19. “You get an equal day’s pay for an equal’s day work.”

The idea that Obama has narrowed the gender pay gap is also the subject of an aggressive digital media push to promote his record and enlist new members to the group “Women for Obama.”

“Ensuring equal pay for women was @BarackObama’s first act as President, but not his last,” reads a message posted to the Obama for America twitter account for New Mexico, @OFA_NM.

Actress Kerry Washington, an Obama surrogate in Florida, was even more direct in a promotional video on the campaign’s blog: “There’s equal pay for women,” she declares outright.

The only problem? Women don’t enjoy equal pay, it’s improved little during Obama’s term and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has hardly been a “big step” toward the goal.

In 2010, the most recent data available, women on average earned 77.4 cents for every dollar earned by men holding the same full-time, year-round job, according to Census data analyzed by the National Committee on Pay Equity.

The gap was virtually unchanged from 2009, when it was 77 percent and 2008 when it stood at 77.1 percent, before the law was enacted.

Pay inequity remains most pronounced among women of color. African-American women made 67.7 percent of what was earned by men in 2010, according to the Census, while Hispanic women earned 58.7 percent, both figures largely unchanged from the year before.

Still, while the Lilly Ledbetter Act hasn’t directly resolved the issue of systemic pay inequality, it has helped some victims of discrimination pursue their compensation claims in the courts, women’s rights advocates say.

After the Supreme Court threw out Lilly Ledbetter’s pay discrimination suit against her employer Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., saying it exceeded the statute of limitations, Democrats in Congress with support from Obama enacted the law to extend the period for alleged victims to sue.

“After the Ledbetter law was passed, we saw specific cases that had been thrown out of court – pay discrimination cases – being allowed to be brought again,” said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “The cases still have to be shown to be true, but at least those who believe they’ve been discriminated against get their day in court.”

There’s no way of measuring whether the legal cases have or will contribute to a broader shift in pay equality to benefit women, Greenberger conceded.

“The focus on equal pay and how to make sure the promise of the law is turned into reality is also something the administration ought to not only continue to do, as it has been, but also that a spotlight will be shined on what these efforts are,” she said.

The Obama campaign has showcased Ledbetter’s story with a six-minute web video documentary, an email blast to supporters relating her story and an op-ed penned by Ledbetter in major national papers in an effort to put a face on Obama’s efforts for women.

Ledbetter, 73, says the law bearing her name is a reflection of Obama’s commitment to equality, even if equality hasn’t come quickly enough.

“It might not be such an important bill, because it just put the law back where it was,” the Alabama woman told ABC News in an interview late last year. “We, per se, did not gain anything except putting it back to where it was before the ruling in my case. But it sent a strong message. And I don’t think anyone has forgotten it.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/fact-check-obama-and-equal-pay-for-women/

[Cin]

So Pa, So Good…But Must Activists Always Align With Corporations To Win?

By Russ Baker

It’s exciting to see how a coordinated Web blackout this Wednesday got members of Congress to reverse themselves so quickly—and do the right thing. By the end of the day, the number of Senators publicly opposing PIPA (the anti-piracy legislation that threatens free speech) jumped to 35 from five the week before. By the time you read this, those numbers may have jumped again. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if, with the tidal wave of public anger, we see 100 senators scrambling to get on the bandwagon. (Well, probably not 100, but a lot.)

However, it’s important to remember that, no matter how many citizens expressed themselves on PIPA (or the House version, SOPA), it was corporations partially driving this—in competition with other corporations. Basically, it is a battle between companies that create original content (especially movie and music makers) and those who derive their living from providing communications platforms where pretty much anything goes, including “borrowing” imagery, film clips, songs and more from their owners and creators for the purposes of a vibrant dialogue.

Putting aside the complicated pros and cons of the issue, in which both sides have legitimate concerns, and the overriding conclusion that the legislation could cast a severe pall over free discourse and Internet innovation, there is another matter to consider.

Namely this: What would it take for a public movement to get a similar response from elected officials, when billion-dollar interests were not lined up on the same side? Twitter, Reddit, Google, BoingBoing, Tumblr, TGWTG, etc. may be cool, but they’re giant, or at least popular, for-profit enterprises with agendas of their own. Wikipedia and Mozilla are huge, albeit nonprofit, commercial-type enterprises with major brands to promote and protect. All of these and more were on the “free speech” side of this battle. And their role, up front and center, was indispensable in driving home the point, and making congress- members squeal.

As soon as the blackout went into effect, and these outfits got their users to begin a massive and immediate campaign of petitions, emails, and calls, elected officials reversed themselves faster than you can say “one term.”

But suppose the free-speech forces had to make their case without a turbocharging from interested parties? How would we get some other onerous piece of legislation blocked when there was no strong financial incentive for deep-pocketed corporations with slick marketing/publicity arms to mobilize?

For example, what about the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), with its onerous and vague provisions that could, under certain circumstances, potentially allow for the indefinite detention without charge of American citizens accused of connections with terrorist groups? Despite a public uproar, Congress went ahead and passed that bill. (Obama signed it, but in a “signing statement” said that his administration would not sanction indefinite detention of citizens – a proviso that offers no restraint on future administrations.)

The point is this: indefinite detention of citizens, even the remote threat of it, is surely as important a threat to our liberties as legislation that curtails our freedom to use copyrighted material on the Internet. Yet what corporations were troubled enough to join the ACLU and other liberties groups in opposing NDAA?

Before we get too self-satisfied over the SOPA/PIPA victory, we need to take a long, hard look at our increasing alliance with all manner of corporate entities to advance our own interests. We should ask ourselves: If we don’t believe that corporations should be treated as persons, why do we need to work with them as if they are? And how can we the people join together to attain political goals without an 800-pound corporate gorilla in our corner?

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2012/01/30/so-pa-so-good%E2%80%A6but-must-activists-always-align-with-corporations-to-win/

[Corkey]

I don't remember this Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act he signed into law. If the goal was "equal pay" for "equal work", why is it called a "fair pay" act? Wonder why "equal pay" + "equal work" = "fair pay" reminds me of something along the lines of "separate but equal"?


Jan 31, 2012

Three years after he signed it into law, President Obama has made the little-known Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the centerpiece of his re-election pitch to women.

It’s a “big step toward making sure every worker in this country, man or woman, receives equal pay for equal work,” Obama says in a video to supporters on his campaign blog.

The legislation repeatedly tops Obama’s list of accomplishments in stump speeches on the campaign trail and is cited as a fulfilled promise from 2008.

“Change is the first bill I signed into law that enshrines a very simple proposition,” Obama told a crowd of donors at the Apollo Theater Jan. 19. “You get an equal day’s pay for an equal’s day work.”

The idea that Obama has narrowed the gender pay gap is also the subject of an aggressive digital media push to promote his record and enlist new members to the group “Women for Obama.”

“Ensuring equal pay for women was @BarackObama’s first act as President, but not his last,” reads a message posted to the Obama for America twitter account for New Mexico, @OFA_NM.

Actress Kerry Washington, an Obama surrogate in Florida, was even more direct in a promotional video on the campaign’s blog: “There’s equal pay for women,” she declares outright.

The only problem? Women don’t enjoy equal pay, it’s improved little during Obama’s term and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has hardly been a “big step” toward the goal.

In 2010, the most recent data available, women on average earned 77.4 cents for every dollar earned by men holding the same full-time, year-round job, according to Census data analyzed by the National Committee on Pay Equity.

The gap was virtually unchanged from 2009, when it was 77 percent and 2008 when it stood at 77.1 percent, before the law was enacted.

Pay inequity remains most pronounced among women of color. African-American women made 67.7 percent of what was earned by men in 2010, according to the Census, while Hispanic women earned 58.7 percent, both figures largely unchanged from the year before.

Still, while the Lilly Ledbetter Act hasn’t directly resolved the issue of systemic pay inequality, it has helped some victims of discrimination pursue their compensation claims in the courts, women’s rights advocates say.

After the Supreme Court threw out Lilly Ledbetter’s pay discrimination suit against her employer Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., saying it exceeded the statute of limitations, Democrats in Congress with support from Obama enacted the law to extend the period for alleged victims to sue.

“After the Ledbetter law was passed, we saw specific cases that had been thrown out of court – pay discrimination cases – being allowed to be brought again,” said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “The cases still have to be shown to be true, but at least those who believe they’ve been discriminated against get their day in court.”

There’s no way of measuring whether the legal cases have or will contribute to a broader shift in pay equality to benefit women, Greenberger conceded.

“The focus on equal pay and how to make sure the promise of the law is turned into reality is also something the administration ought to not only continue to do, as it has been, but also that a spotlight will be shined on what these efforts are,” she said.

The Obama campaign has showcased Ledbetter’s story with a six-minute web video documentary, an email blast to supporters relating her story and an op-ed penned by Ledbetter in major national papers in an effort to put a face on Obama’s efforts for women.

Ledbetter, 73, says the law bearing her name is a reflection of Obama’s commitment to equality, even if equality hasn’t come quickly enough.

“It might not be such an important bill, because it just put the law back where it was,” the Alabama woman told ABC News in an interview late last year. “We, per se, did not gain anything except putting it back to where it was before the ruling in my case. But it sent a strong message. And I don’t think anyone has forgotten it.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/fact-check-obama-and-equal-pay-for-women/

It was his first piece of legislation that he signed into law, watched it live. It's true.

[Kobi]

(Reuters) - Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday that the leading U.S. breast-cancer charity would no longer provide new funding to the group, which performs abortions and other services at clinics around the country.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said the Susan G. Komen Foundation had "succumbed to political pressure" from anti-abortion groups in cutting the funding.

Komen had begun notifying local Planned Parenthood affiliates that their breast cancer prevention programs will no longer be eligible for new grants from the charity, it said.

Planned Parenthood said Komen had not responded to requests to meet and talk about the decision to cut the funding, which it said had helped thousands of women in rural and underserved communities get breast health education, screenings, and mammogram referrals.

But it said the Komen Foundation had been "repeatedly threatened" in recent years by anti-abortion groups upset with its affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

The Komen Foundation, best-known for the Race for the Cure fundraisers it sponsors around the country each year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.

The foundation said it raised more than $1.9 billion for breast cancer research and programs and has affiliates in more than 100 U.S. cities and 50 countries. Its symbol - the pink ribbon - is widely recognized.

Planned Parenthood said Komen's funding had helped pay for 170,000 of the more than 4 million clinical breast exams the group had performed over the past five years, as well as more than 6,400 of the 70,000 mammogram referrals it has made during that time.

Planned Parenthood has come under attack by lawmakers in several states over the past year, including North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas, who have attempted to block any government funding of the group.

In Kansas, county prosecutors outside Kansas City are pressing criminal charges against Planned Parenthood, alleging the group failed to maintain required paperwork related to the abortions it provided.

Under current law, Planned Parenthood cannot use federal funds to provide abortions though it receives federal money to provide family aid to low-income women.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/breast-cancer-charity-ends-planned-parenthood-funding-020112565.html

[Cin]

Obama's Destructive Urban Policy Alienates Low-Income Communities
Tuesday 31 January 2012
by: Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Report

From the window of Ruth Long's apartment in Chicago's Edgewater neighborhood, where she has lived for 33 years, Long can see a McDonald's where a man was shot, a building from which five families were forced out by development before the housing crash, and a "big, beautiful grocery store" where she can't afford to buy her food.

Long is an 85-year-old African-American woman who relies on a combination of Social Security, food stamps and Section 8 subsidized housing to stay out of the nursing home that she says, "would be disastrous" for her.

She is also one of an increasing number of low-income Chicagoans whose vulnerable standard of living is further at risk from the austerity measures and cutbacks hitting cities across the country.

Chicago has the third-highest poverty rate among America's cities, according to a 2009 study by the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, with 21.6 percent of the city's residents living below poverty level. But it tops the list in race-based poverty: one in three African-American people in Chicago, 32.2 percent, live in poverty.

These financial disparities are only part of what Chicago is known for; the Windy City is also the adopted home of the first African-American president, Barack Obama, and where he will be returning to run his re-election campaign for 2012. How has Chicago fared under the so-called "urban president," and what will Obama be able to offer a city leading the nation in black poverty in order to win its votes a second time around?

The Presidency and Urban Policy

"Our job across America is to create communities of choice, not of destiny, and create conditions for neighborhoods where the odds are not stacked against the people who live there. Barack Obama will lead a new federal approach to America's high-poverty areas, an approach that facilitates the economic integration of families and communities with efforts to support the current low-income residents of those areas."
-Change.gov

Barack Obama came into office in 2008 touting his credentials as a community organizer on Chicago's notoriously rough Southside, with his home in the city's Hyde Park neighborhood only blocks away from some of the poorest urban neighborhoods in the country.

One of his initial steps as president was to appoint the first White House director of urban policy, making him the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson to wear his plans for urban renewal in America's cities proudly.

Johnson, coming to power in the midst of the civil rights movement's push for social reform, pledged to fight "a war on poverty," created the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), increased public housing and created Medicare.

But subsequent presidents all chipped away at Johnson's already underfunded Great Society safety net. Richard Nixon came out swinging against "liberal ideology" and latched onto what CityLimits Magazine called "the boilerplate version of modern American urban history ... that cities were destroyed by a menu of activist federal policies implemented during the 1960s."

The following presidents, from Gerald Ford to George W. Bush, introduced their own policies but didn't stray far from the same narrative, decreasing welfare payments and chronically underfunding city programs.

Meanwhile, federal devolution became an increasing trend - decision-making authority regarding funding for social programs was passed from the federal level to the state and local levels, which left the burden of most public investments, with the exceptions of Social Security and Medicare, financed by state governments.

According to a 2000 report from the Economic Policy Institute, the result of this was that "almost all grants in aid to state and local governments, with the exception of the Medicaid program, fall into the category of capped expenditures, so budget balancing rules entail an erosion of aid to governments."

As the infrastructure of cities slipped further and further into disrepair, the Democratic Party assumed that they were assured the votes of low-income communities, and urban issues slipped from the dialogue of national politics, according to the report.

With a continuing economic crisis, a growing part of the American population could benefit from the kinds of programs that were originally instituted to help urban communities: Medicaid, Medicare, subsidized housing.

Many of the national policies that most affect the lives of urban residents like Ruth Long aren't categorized as urban policies, say advocates and residents. Instead, they are education, housing and civil liberties, policies that are said to apply equally to all Americans but, when unsuccessful, hit low-income communities the hardest.

Housing

Communities prosper when all families have access to affordable housing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create thousands of new units of affordable housing every year. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also restore cuts to public housing operating subsidies, and ensure that all Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs are restored to their original purpose.
- Change.gov

"Much of urban policy is tied up in urban real estate, and the housing market is fundamentally the legacy of the ongoing economic and foreclosure crisis," said Tom Feltner, vice president of Woodstock Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on a financial reforms system.

Obama had the misfortune of coming into office just as the housing market fell off the cliff it had been teetering on for years - the bubble popped in 2006 and, two years later, America was ushered into what some say has been the worst housing crisis since the Depression.

Cities across the country were hit hard, but Chicagoans have been losing their homes in record numbers. In 2010, Chicago was number one, above New York and Los Angeles, in foreclosures, and 6,112 properties were foreclosed on in the fourth quarter of 2011 alone. In addition, nearly half of Chicago-area homes are underwater, meaning the homes themselves are worth less than the mortgage.

The key components of Obama's housing policy included the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) and a cut for homeowners from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

The HAMP program, which was meant to lower mortgage rates to affordable levels for homeowners, helped a smaller percentage of people than it aimed to - only 70,000 people got help in 2009, according to The Washington Post, while 2.5 million people got foreclosure notices.

Patrick Brosnan, with the Brighton Park Neighborhood Council (BPNC), said that he has seen positive results from the money that the group received to fund the program initially, but it hasn't received the funding "to sustain all of its components."

"It has a dramatic impact, and it is directly connected to the local economy and the development and sustaining of urban communities," said Brosnan of the HAMP program. As a HUD-certified agency that offers pre- and post-purchase counseling for primarily low-income residents on Chicago's southwest side, BPNC is now fighting for sustained funding for HUD counseling services.

The Obama administration "haven't used all the resources at their disposal to deal with foreclosure in devastated communities," said Brosnan. "I just don't understand why."

Part of the issue, says Feltner, is that the administration didn't go far enough to fix some of the structural problems that led to the housing crash, such as "making sure borrowers with loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had access to loan modification.... And making sure that borrowers can maintain house ownership."

In its analysis of Obama's housing programs, The Washington Post sums up the administration's policy by saying: "they consistently unveiled programs that underperformed, did little to reduce mortgage debts owed by ordinary Americans and rejected a get-tough approach with banks.... Doing more to address the housing crisis may be crucial not only for an economy flirting with another recession but also for a president running for reelection."

Urban communities were also hit particularly hard by job loss and were more likely to be uninsured, an additional income drain that at times led to default on mortgages. And with 5 million more foreclosures estimated in the coming years, advocates expect the problems to continue mounting.

Education

"A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining not just whether our kids can compete for the best jobs, but whether America can out-compete countries around the world. America's business leaders understand that when it comes to education, we need to up our game. That's why we're working together to put an outstanding education within reach for every child."

-President Barack Obama, July 18, 2011

In Chicago, the Renaissance 2010 program started by former CEO of Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, bears a striking resemblance to some of the Obama administration's key education policies. The program, started in 2004, called for 100 new schools by 2010 in Chicago and closing those that were lowest performing.

The result of this change was an increased reliance on standardized testing, a jump in the number of charter schools in Chicago and, critics say, a leeching of much-needed funds from neighborhood schools. The minutiae of this plan includes widely using standardized testing to rate teachers, increasing the flexibility of school administrations to reward teachers who perform well on these metrics and fire those that don't, and reducing local control of education.

The Obama administration's two-pronged education policy - Race to the Top and an increase in charter schools - plays on a similar narrative: parental choice, healthy competition and the freedom to close low-performing schools.

Race to the Top opened a competition for a $4.35 billion pool overseen by the Department of Education (DOE), to "encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation," and is seen as the Obama administration's answer to No Child Left Behind.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration came into office promising to heavily fund performing charters: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program to support the creation of more successful charter schools," promised Change.gov shortly after the election. "Obama and Biden will also prioritize supporting states that help the most successful charter schools to expand to serve more students."

The administration moved quickly to execute this plan. In the last two years, 19 states have partially or entirely dropped limits on the number of charter schools that are allowed to open. Six school districts have more than 30 percent of their students in charters, and 18 school systems have more than 20 percent of their students attending the privately owned, partially publicly funded institutions, according to the demographics report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

Struggling urban school districts house the highest number of students enrolled in public charter schools that receive government subsidies: Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York and Chicago are home to the top five.

"I think it's been disastrous," said Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, of the Obama administration's education policy. "It's as if these politicians have just bought into a very regressive educational context, and it's similar to the conversation we had about education at the turn of the last century, where blacks and immigrants were sort of pushed into a very narrow education caste. While there are phrases like 'college and career ready,' none of the policies have really done that."

Public and charter schools often serve the same population, but a disproportionate number of troubled students leave charters. An investigation by Catalyst Magazine and Chicago public radio station WBEZ found that 1 in 11 charter school students will transfer out or be expelled from a charter.

Funding for public schools comes from local property taxes, leaving low-income areas working with fewer resources initially, and critics of the policy say that it has only taken more money away from public schools. In Chicago, the money that goes to the publicly subsidized charter sector is an estimated $300 million in public funds each year, reported the Chicago Reader.

Most crucially for many urban students, says Lewis, is that a school with high teacher turnover or routine standardized testing doesn't help the other challenges they may face.

"What research tells us is needed for children that have much more challenging lives is that they need smaller class sizes, they need concentrated time for free play, for safety, for the creative part of the school lives. They need things that allow children to express their wonder and the world and to be a part of it."

[Cin]

Rahm Emanuel

Though it is not an explicit policy prescription, Chicago's new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has also come from the White House and hit Chicago's urban, low-income community hard through the city budget and changes to the parade ordinance that he has instituted in the first six months of his term.

The budget will shut down half of the city's 12 mental health clinics, lay off more than one-fifth of public library staff, privatize all seven of the city's neighborhood health clinics and cut funding for overnight outreach crews to bring homeless people to shelters ahead of what is expected to be one of Chicago's worst winters.

The changes to the parade ordinance would increase fines and require $1 million liability insurance for protesters, as well as mandate a much larger police presence for protests.

Long, speaking at a protest against the ordinance change, said, "I am greatly concerned that the proposal will regress our citizens to leave simple rights: leaving the most vulnerable citizens no redress to speak in defense of whatever misfortunates involve them."

A member of the Jane Addams Senior Caucus, a protest group focusing on senior rights, Long continued, "I need assurance that I'll be able to advocate for myself and other seniors."

Whether the primarily negative perception that Emanuel has amassed in his first six months in office will be a hindrance to Obama's re-election campaign remains to be seen, but Maritere Gomez, with Chicago's Occupy el Barrio, says that she sees Emanuel's policies as connected to Obama's.

"I think both of them have been ruling the country with an iron first, to be politically cliche," said Gomez. "What Obama has done to the immigrant community is harsh and cold-hearted, which is pretty much consistent with what Rahm is doing in Chicago. He doesn't waste time in disguising what he is doing to hurt democracy, freedom of speech, all of the critical rights."

Gomez, 24, is an undocumented student living on Chicago's Southwest side and working minimum wage jobs to help support her family. "I can't vote, and now I can't even protest," said Gomez, whose Occupy group focuses on the city's Hispanic communities.

Obama 2012

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else - like education and medical research, a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.
- State of the Union Speech, January 2012

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, income inequality was a key component of Obama's speech. He touched on an unfair taxing system, the importance of helping young, undocumented people fulfill their dreams and the importance of an affordable higher education.

But he was telling this to a country that had already seen his administration extend the Bush tax breaks and fail to pass the DREAM Act, which would have offered a path to legalization for young immigrants, and that is in the midst of a growing student debt bubble.

Neither the White House nor the Obama for America campaign replied to multiple requests for comment.

Long is now an activist on senior rights, but says she still remembers clearly when she had to move to the back of the bus because she was "colored."

She plans to vote for the first African-American president a second time in the coming election. "I am pleased with our president, but I know this: the president can't go any further than he is allowed to go," said Long. "We live in a controlled society, by Wall Street and the rich and powerful, one percenters they are called."

But not everyone is ready to forgive Obama in time for the next election. Occupy, the newest political force, is likely to take a more critical position.

"The immigrant community is definitely and thoroughly disappointed in Obama. If anything, there are more broken up homes because of deportation, more tension in the workplace because of E-Verify," said Gomez. "There really is no hope, and I really hope that we come out and Occupy."

Arun Gupta, an independent journalist who has traveled to occupations around the country, says he has seen a mixed consciousness with regard to the coming Obama campaign.

"Obama's 2008 campaign was built on deception. He came into office with a huge mandate for change and a once-in-a-lifetime Democratic super-majority. Instead, we got the third George W. Bush term," said Gupta.

"So it's heartening to see that people realize electoral politics, on their own, don't result in progressive change.... People do not want the Occupy movement to become a left-wing tea party, and there are forces that are trying to push it in that direction."

"Like I always say, the Democratic Party is the graveyard of social movement."
http://www.truth-out.org/obamas-urban-policy-and-low-income-communities/1328042445

[Toughy]

The Chicago 2012 budget was passed unanimously by the City Council....the vote was 50-0. Yes there are 50 aldermen elected from the 50 wards of Chicago....the thought of 50 members on any city council makes me want to run away screaming............I am entirely shocked all 50 could ever agree on a budget

On November 16, 2011, the City Council unanimously approved the 2012 Budget for Chicago. We heard your voice loud and clear throughout this entire process as we worked to fill a $635.7 million budget gap. More than 3,100 of you posted more than 10,000 ideas and comments on this site, generating 62,000 votes. At public town hall meetings, we took many your questions live and answered more than 400 online. We reviewed your letters, emails, Facebook comments and tweets. Working together, we created an honest budget.

http://www.chicagobudget.org/

[Cin]

The Biggest Risk to the Economy in 2012, and What’s the Economy For Anyway?
by Robert Reich

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few days ago, said the “critical risks” facing the American economy this year were a worsening of Europe’s chronic sovereign debt crisis and a rise in tensions with Iran that could stoke global oil prices.

What about jobs and wages here at home?

As the Commerce Department reported Friday, the U.S. economy grew 2.8 percent between October and December – the fastest pace in 18 months and the first time growth exceeded 2 percent all year. Many bigger American companies have been reporting strong profits in recent months. GE and Lockheed Martin closed the year with record order backlogs.

Yet the percent of working-age Americans in jobs isn’t much different than what it was three years ago. Yes, America now produces more than it did when the recession began. But it does so with 6 million fewer workers.

Average after-tax incomes adjusted for inflation are moving up a bit. (They increased at an annual rate of .8 percent in the last three months of 2011 after falling 1.9 percent in prior three-month period. For all of 2011, incomes fell .1 percent.)

But beware averages. Shaquille O’Neal and I have an average height of six feet. Exclude Mitt Romney’s $20 million last year — along with everyone else securely in the top 1 percent — and the incomes of most Americans are continuing to slip.

Consumer spending picked up slightly in the fourth quarter mainly because consumers drew down their savings. Obviously, this can’t last.

Meanwhile, government is spending less on schools, roads, bridges, parks, defense, and social services. Government spending at all levels dropped at an annual rate of 4.6 percent in the last quarter – and that’s likely to continue.

Some economists worry this drop is a drag on the economy. But it also means fewer public goods available to all Americans regardless of income.

Congress still hasn’t decided whether to renew the temporary payroll tax cut and extend unemployment benefits past February. If it doesn’t, expect another 1 percent slice off GDP growth this year.

Tim Geithner is surely correct that the European debt crisis and Iran pose risks to the American economy in 2012. But they aren’t the biggest risk. The biggest risk is right here at home – that most Americans will continue to languish.

All of which raises a basic question: Who or what is the economy for? Surely not just for a few at the top, and not just big corporations and their CEOs. Nor can the success of the economy be measured by how fast the GDP is growing, or how high the Dow Jones Industrial Average is rising, or whether average incomes are turning upward.

The crisis of American capitalism marks the triumph of consumers and investors over workers and citizens. And since most of us occupy all four roles – even though the lion’s share of consuming and investing is done by the wealthy – the real crisis centers on the increasing efficiency by which all of us as consumers and investors can get great deals, and our declining capacity to be heard as workers and citizens.

Modern technologies allow us to shop in real time, often worldwide, for the lowest prices, highest quality, and best returns. Through the Internet and advanced software we can now get relevant information instantaneously, compare deals, and move our money at the speed of electronic impulses. We can buy goods over the Internet that are delivered right to our homes. Never before in history have consumers and investors been so empowered.

Yet these great deals increasingly come at the expense of our own and our compatriots’ jobs and wages, and widening inequality. The goods we want or the returns we seek can often be produced more efficiently elsewhere around the world by companies offering lower pay, fewer benefits, and inferior working conditions.

They also come at the expense of our Main Streets – the hubs of our communities – when we get the great deals through the Internet or at big-box retailers that scan the world for great deals on our behalf.

Some great deals have devastating environmental consequences. Technology allows us to efficiently buy low-priced items from poor nations with scant environmental standards, sometimes made in factories that spill toxic chemicals into water supplies or pollutants into the air. We shop for great deals in cars that spew carbon into the air and for airline tickets in jet planes that do even worse.

Other great deals offend common decency. We may get a great price or high return because a producer has cut costs by hiring children in South Asia or Africa who work twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Or by subjecting people to death-defying working conditions.

As workers or as citizens most of us would not intentionally choose these outcomes but as seekers after great deals we are indirectly responsible for them. Companies know that if they fail to offer us the best deals we will take our money elsewhere – which we can do with ever-greater speed and efficiency.

The best means of balancing the demands of consumers and investors against those of workers and citizens has been through democratic institutions that shape and constrain markets.

Laws and rules offer some protection for jobs and wages, communities, and the environment. Although such rules are likely to be costly to us as consumers and investors because they stand in the way of the very best deals, they are intended to approximate what we as members of a society are willing to sacrifice for these other values.

But technologies for getting great deals are outpacing the capacities of democratic institutions to counterbalance them. For one thing, national rules intended to protect workers, communities, and the environment typically extend only to a nation’s borders. Yet technologies for getting great deals enable buyers and investors to transcend borders with increasing ease, at the same time making it harder for nations to monitor or regulate such transactions.

For another, goals other than the best deals are less easily achieved within the confines of a single nation. The most obvious example is the environment, whose fragility is worldwide. In addition, corporations now routinely threaten to move jobs and businesses away from places that impose higher costs on them – and therefore, indirectly, on their consumers and investors – to more “business friendly” jurisdictions. The Internet and software have made companies sufficiently nimble to render such threats credible.

But the biggest problem is that corporate money is undermining democratic institutions in the name of better deals for consumers and investors. Campaign contributions, fleets of well-paid corporate lobbyists, and corporate-financed PR campaigns about public issues are overwhelming the capacities of Congress, state legislatures, regulatory agencies, and the courts to reflect the values of workers and citizens.

As a result, consumers and investors are doing increasingly well but job insecurity is on the rise, inequality is widening, communities are becoming less stable, and climate change is worsening. None of this is sustainable over the long term.

Blame global finance and worldwide corporations all you want. But save some blame for the insatiable consumers and investors inhabiting almost every one of us, who are entirely complicit. And blame our inability as workers and citizens to reclaim our democracy.

[Cin]

Taxing the Rich Won't Help the Poor
by Ted Rall

Reacting to and attempting to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement, President Obama used his 2012 State of the Union address to discuss what he now calls "the defining issue of our time"--the growing gap between rich and poor.

"We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by," Obama said. "Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."

No doubt, the long-term trend toward income inequality is a major flaw of the capitalist system. From 1980 to 2005 more than 80 percent in the gain in Americans' incomes went to the top one percent. This staggering disparity between the haves and have-nots has created a permanent underclass of underemployed, undereducated and alienated people who often turn to crime for survival and social status. Aggregation of wealth into fewer hands has shrunk the size of the U.S. market for consumer goods, prolonging and deepening the depression.

How can we make the system fairer?

Liberals are calling for a more progressive income tax: i.e., raise taxes on the rich. Obama says he'd like to slap a minimum federal income tax of 30 percent on individuals earning more than $1 million a year.

Soaking the rich would obviously be fair. GOP frontrunner/corporate layoff sleazebag Mitt Romney earned $59,500 a day in 2010--and paid half the effective tax rate (13.9 percent) than of a family of four earning $59,500 a year.

Fair, sure. But would it work? Would increasing taxes on the wealthy do much to close the gap between rich and poor--to level the economic playing field?

Probably not.

From FDR through Jimmy Carter it was an article of faith among liberals that higher taxes on the rich would result in lower taxes on the poor and working class. This was because the Republican Party consistently pushed for a balanced budget. Tax income was tied to expenditures, which were more or less fixed--and thus a zero-sum game.

That period from 1933 to 1980 was also the era of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society social and anti-poverty programs, such as Social Security, the G.I. Bill, college grants and welfare. These government handouts helped mitigate hard times, gave life-changing educational opportunities that allowed class mobility, closing the gap between despair and hope for tens of millions of Americans. As the list of social programs grew, so did the tax rate--mostly on the rich. The practical effect was to redistribute income from top to bottom.

Democrats think it still works that way. It doesn't.

The political landscape has shifted dramatically under Reagan, Clinton and the two Bushes. Budget cuts slashed spending on student financial aid, food stamps, Medicaid, school lunch programs, veterans hospitals, and aid to single mothers. The social safety net is shredded. Most federal tax dollars flow directly into the Pentagon and defense contractors such as Halliburton.

As the economy continues to tank, there's only category to cut: social programs. "Eugene Steuerle worked on tax and budget issues in the Reagan Treasury Department and is now with the Urban Institute," NPR reported a year ago. "He says one reason no one talks about preserving the social safety net today is that lawmakers have given themselves little choice but to cut it. They've taken taxes and entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, off the budget-cutting table, so there's not much left."

Meanwhile, effective tax rates on the wealthy have been greatly reduced. Which isn't fair--but not in the way you might think.

Taxes on middle-class families are at their lowest level in 50 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal thinktank.

What's going on?

On the revenue side of the budget equation, the poor and middle-class have received tiny tax cuts. The rich and super rich have gotten huge tax cuts. Everyone is paying less.

On the expense side, social programs have been pretty much destroyed. If you grow up poor there's no way to attend college without going into debt. If you lose your job you'll get 99 weeks of tiny, taxable (thanks to Reagan) unemployment checks before burning through your savings and winding up on the street.

Military spending, on the other hand, has soared, accounting for 54 percent of federal spending.You have to rebuild the safety net. Otherwise higher taxes will swirl down the Pentagon's $800 toilets

In short, we're running up massive deficits in order to finance wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on, and so rich job-killers can pay the lowest tax rates in the developed world.

I'm all for higher taxes on the rich. I'm for abolishing the right to be wealthy. But liberals who think progressive taxation will mitigate or reverse income inequality are trapped in the 1960s, fighting the last (budget) war in a reality that no longer exists. The U.S. government's top priority is invading Muslim countries and bombing their citizens. Without big social programs, invading Muslim countries and bombing their citizens is exactly where every extra taxdollar collected from the likes of Mitt Romney would go.

The only way progressive taxation can address income inequality is if higher taxes on the rich are coupled with an array of new anti-poverty and other social programs designed to put money and new job skills directly into the pockets of the 99 percent of Americans who have seen no improvement in their lives since 1980.

If you're serious about inequality, income redistribution through the tax system is only a start. Whether through stronger unions or worker advocacy through federal agencies, government must require higher minimum wages. Maximum wages, too. A nation that allows its richest citizen to earn ten times more than its poorest would still be horribly unfair--yet it would be a big improvement over today. Shipping jobs overseas must be banned. Most free trade agreements should be torn up. Companies must no longer be allowed to layoff employees before eliminating salaries and benefits for their top-paid managers--CEOs, etc.

And a layoff should mean just that--a layoff. First fired should be first rehired--at equal or greater pay--if and when business improves.

Once a battery of spending programs targeted to the 99 percent is in place--permanent unemployment benefits, subsidized public housing, full college grants, etc.--the tax code ought to be radically revamped. For example, nothing gives the lie to the myth of America as a land of equal opportunity than inheritance. Aristocratic societies pass wealth and status from generation to generation. In a democracy, no one has the right to be born into wealth.

Because everyone deserves an equal chance, the national inheritance tax should be 100 percent. While we're at it, why should people who inherited wealth but have low incomes get off scot-free? Slap the bastards with a European-style tax on wealth as well as the appearance of wealth.

Now you're probably laughing. Even Obama's lame call for taxing the rich--so the U.S. can buy more drone planes--stands no chance of passing the Republican Congress. They're empty words meant for election-year consumption. Taking income inequality seriously? That's so off the table it isn't even funny.

Which is why we shouldn't be looking to corporate machine politicians like Obama for answers.

[SoNotHer]

I appreciate the focus on Chicago and the budget crisis here not unlike the crises other municipalities are facing.


Remembering 1968 as Chicago Prepares for G8

http://c963862.r62.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1968-300x219.jpg

April 27, 1968: some 8,000 peaceful peace marchers walk about a mile to Chicago’s Civic Center where a phalanx of police wade in without provocation, beat dozens bloody and jail scores more who are tear gassed in the Center’s jail cells. Roosevelt University’s President Emeritus, Edward Sparling, led a citizens commission to investigate the incident and found total fault lay with the police and Mayor Richard J. Daley. It was obviously Daley’s forewarning of what would befall demonstrators who might show up for the Democratic National Convention in August. Call it batting practice.

It may have dissuaded some, but many came anyway. Daley fulfilled his promise with violence that stained Chicago’s reputation for decades and changed American politics for the worse. Flash forward 44 years: Mayor Rahm Emanuel gets the G8 and NATO to meet here in late May. The host committee remains highly secretive about the true cost to the city, while some in the business community are fearful. The host committee head is former Richard M. Daley aide, Lori Healey, whose last great fiasco was being second in command on the committee to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Emanuel is much subtler than RJD in his warnings to protestors. As noted earlier, he proposed onerous ordinances boosting fines, authorizing unlimited funds for surveillance equipment and permitting the deputization of others to police the protestors. Some strictures were nearly impossible to comply with. Emanuel backed off a few after some aldermen and media complained—leading some to think he was magnanimous—but nevertheless passed provocative restrictions guaranteed to build in failure and almost automatically criminalize every participant.

My friend Todd Gitlin, the Columbia University author, historian and fellow veteran of 1968, recently summed it up in another publication: “…all applicants for permits (1) must supply at the time of application ‘a description of the size and dimension of any sign, banner or other attention-getting device that is too large to be carried by one person,’ and (2) that they obtain $1 million insurance coverage to ‘indemnify the city against any additional or uncovered third party claims against the city arising out of or caused by the parade, and agree to reimburse the city for any damage to the public way or city property arising out of or caused by the parade.’ (If all that weren’t tragic and farcical enough, it now also becomes mandatory that the applicant submit ‘a list identifying the type and number of all animals that applicant intends to have at the parade.) The minimum fine for a violation jumps to $200; the maximum is $1000 and/or 10 days in jail….

“It is full frontal abuse of the First Amendment,” Gitlin charges. But wait—there’s more: He warns, “…the Feds may end up preempting the city by imposing their own still more stringent national security laws.”

This repressive ordinance was passed with the votes of some of our most progressive aldermen. Maybe they should have read it in the original German before voting “Ja!”

[Gentle Tiger]

Nation’s Largest Cancer Charity Caves To Right Wing Pressure, Ends Relationship With Planned Parenthood (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/31/415821/nations-largest-cancer-charity-caves-to-right-wing-pressure-ends-relationship-with-planned-parenthood/?mobile=nc)

[Kobi]

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - The Indiana state Senate was expected on Wednesday to give final approval to a new law allowing workers at unionized businesses to avoid paying union dues, the last major legislative hurdle to making Indiana the first "right-to-work" state in the nation's manufacturing belt.

No state has approved a right-to-work law since Oklahoma a decade ago, and Indiana is being closely watched nationwide during a presidential election year.

The measure was given preliminary approval by both chambers of the Republican-majority Indiana legislature earlier this month, but the Senate must give final approve to the House version of the bill.

Supporters of right-to-work, led by Indiana's Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, say it is needed to bring business and jobs to the state. Opponents call it "union busting" and say it will lower the wages of workers.

Daniels, who considered running for president last year and gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union message last Tuesday, has made passage of right-to-work one of his priorities for this year.

Indiana would join 22 other states with right-to-work laws, most of them in the South and West. Indiana's action could encourage other states to pass similar laws.

Democrats and their union supporters tried to slow the bill by boycotting the legislature and other delaying tactics, but Republicans supportive of right-to-work control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office.

Organized labor could be a significant issue during the 2012 election year. In addition to the Indiana action, Democrats and unions are hoping to recall Wisconsin's Republican Governor Scott Walker after he championed a new law that severely restricted collective bargaining powers of public sector unions in the state. Ohio turned back similar attempts to curb public sector unions last year, voting in a state referendum against the proposal.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indiana-poised-approve-anti-union-law-140910525.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

Margaret Cho Rightfully Loses Her Shit



http://jezebel.com/5875219/cho-mad-twitter

[Rook]

Creator of 'Soul Train' Don Cornelius , Dead @ 75, apparent Suicide (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/arts/music/don-cornelius-soul-train-creator-is-dead-at-75.html)

[UofMfan]

The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation ~ by Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check, February 1, 2012 - 10:30am (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/31/with-anti-choice-tea-partier-in-charge-komen-says-no-cure-planned-parenthood-cl-0)

[*Anya*]

The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Events Reporting Program

Lo/Ovral-28 (Norgestrel/EthinylEstradiol) Tablets: Recall - Possibility of Inexact Tablet Counts or Out of Sequence Tablets

AUDIENCE: OB/GYN, Healthcare Professionals, Consumers

ISSUE: Pfizer Inc. notified healthcare professionals and consumers that it recalled 14 lots of Lo/Ovral-28 (norgestrel and ethinyl estradiol) Tablets and 14 lots of Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets (generic) for customers in the U.S. market. An investigation by Pfizer found that some blister packs may contain an inexact count of inert or active ingredient tablets and that the tablets may be out of sequence.

As a result of this packaging error, the daily regimen for these oral contraceptives may be incorrect and could leave women without adequate contraception, and at risk for unintended pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: These products are oral contraceptives indicated for the prevention of pregnancy. These products are packaged in blister packs containing 21 tablets of active ingredients and seven tablets of inert ingredients. Correct dosing of this product is important in avoiding the associated risks of an unplanned pregnancy.

RECOMMENDATION: Patients who have the affected product should notify their physician and return the product to the pharmacy. See the Press Release for a list of affected lot numbers.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm
Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
Read the MedWatch safety alert, including a link to the Press Release, at:

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm289803.htm

[Cin]

6 Shocking Ways Capitalism Is Failing Working America
Without a dramatic rethink, our "free-enterprise" system may never again provide enough decent jobs for those who need them.

Capitalism is coming apart at the seams and the middle-class is paying the price. This week’s news alone bombards us with examples of how, absent a dramatic rethink, our "free-enterprise" system may never again provide enough decent jobs for those who need and want them.

1. iSlavery

Apple is arguably the world’s most successful company. Yet most of the 700,000 jobs needed to produce its cherished products are located abroad, especially in China. Why doesn’t Apple manufacture in the United States? Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher writing for the New York Times reveal that Apple is looking for a cheap, “flexible” workforce that can be put to work whenever and wherever it is needed on the company's terms.

One chilling example concerns the manufacture of glass screens for the iPhone to replace plastic screens which are easily scratched. With only weeks to go before the phone’s release in 2007, the late Steve Jobs demanded a switch to glass. But to get that done on time required deploying the pliable workforce of the giant Chinese manufacturing firm, Foxconn:

“They could hire 3,000 people overnight,” said Jennifer Rigoni, who was Apple’s worldwide supply demand manager until 2010, but declined to discuss specifics of her work. “What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”

In mid-2007, after a month of experimentation, Apple’s engineers finally perfected a method for cutting strengthened glass so it could be used in the iPhone’s screen. The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones. Within three months, Apple had sold one million iPhones. Since then, Foxconn has assembled over 200 million more.

Little wonder that Apple just announced that it doubled its already enormous profits over the Christmas holidays. Like the Pharaohs of old, it’s always paid to build great things on the backs of slave labor.

2. The Bain of Our Middle-Class Existence

A day doesn’t go by without suffering through another Mitt Romney defense of his career at Bain Capital, his highly profitable leveraged buy-out firm. Mitt repeatedly tells us that Bain created tens of thousands of jobs at Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, Sports Authority, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Toys 'R' Us.

For a moment let’s put aside the fact that Bain also drove a large number of companies into bankruptcy while loading them up with debt and extracting enormous profits along the way. Instead, let’s focus on the type of jobs that Staples, Domino’s et al. produce for the American middle-class. While these jobs are not as slavish as those sought after by Apple in China, most Bain companies pay so little and have so few benefits that it is impossible to support a middle-class existence from the jobs they create.

Since Romney likes to brag about Staples, we took a closer look at its average hourly pay (as reported on Glassdoor.com). Out of 61 job classifications listed, only three provide starting salaries of $20 or more per hour. The vast majority of those 61 jobs categories have pay scales that begin at $7 and $8 per hour and scale up over time to $13 or $14 an hour. I’d like to see Mitt raise his dog on that.

But wait! There really is some fairness in our economy when it comes to taxes. If you work at Staples and somehow climb your way up to a middle-class salary, you might be paying the same tax rate as Mitt who earns $20 million a year. Then again, since Mitt paid only 13.9% on his 2010 taxes, you might even pay a little more counting all your state and local taxes. (More on how he does it below.)

3. Surprise! Federal Auditors Find Big Pay for Bailed-Out Bankers

While the middle-class suffers, top executives are raking it in yet again, even at the companies bailed out by our tax dollars. You may recall that the Obama administration demanded that executives at the top seven bailed-out firms receive no more than $500,000 a year. Congress complied by passing a law to set up a “special master” to administer the salary cap. Well, this week we discovered that the special master got mastered, according to federal auditors.

Apparently, the bailed-out companies teamed up with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and company to pressure the special master to allow salaries 10 times as high for these failed executives. “Forty-nine people received packages worth $5 million or more from 2009-2011,” according to the auditor’s report. (What the auditor failed to mention is that the law only applies to direct bailout money. It does not cover the big Wall Street firms that took trillions in hidden loans from the Federal Reserve to avoid collapse. Those top bankers earn much more than those at the seven bailed-out firms.)

So what was the excuse for busting the pay cap? Without fatter paychecks, these poor executives would...quit.

Here’s the argument one bailed-out company used to claim a “hardship” exemption so the employee could receive at least $1 million in cash: “This individual is in their early 40s, with two kids in private school, who is now considered cash-poor.” Such people “would not meet their monthly expenses” if the $500,000 a year cap were applied to him. Ouch!

Why not let this executive walk? After all, his or her firm was a failure. It was only saved from destruction because of the generosity of the taxpayer. Where’s that executive going to go anyway, and couldn’t a suitable replacement be found at $500,000 a year?

Just count all the alleged “laws of capitalism” that are broken in this example: 1) the original bailout instead of bankruptcy; 2) the irreplaceable executive in an economy with massive layoffs even in the financial sector; and 3) a financial wage scale having no connection to real value produced (especially since the firm produced negative value and needed to be bailed out).

So while the Apple workers in China get up in the middle of the night from their company dorms to assemble phones, and while Staples workers try to live on $8 an hour, we the taxpayers are supporting financial executives who can’t make ends meet on $500,000 a year?

4. Economically Addicted to War

The news is hot this week with military strife. Iraq is drifting back to civil war. Afghanistan is already there. Iran is threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, and the New York City police got nabbed using an anti-American Muslim training film on 1,400 of its officers. What does this all add up to? Spending trillions on the military and then asking the middle-lass to tighten its belt to make up for deficits.

Since W.W.II pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression, massive military expenditures have been used repeatedly to keep the economy near full-employment. During the Cold War, these expenditures contributed mightily to a new form of state capitalism where public funds were used to subsidize private corporations which supplied the military. Along the way, this process also helped prop up the middle-class in defense industry jobs.

But over the last decade this military Keynesianism got a new wrinkle. The U.S. went to war without paying for it, thereby racking up nearly a trillion dollars in new debt. At the same time an enormous tax cut was handed over to the super-rich which proceeded to spend a good deal of it in the Wall Street casino which then crashed. In total, the unfunded wars, the tax cuts and the economic crash account for the entire deficit problem. Let me repeat, there would be no deficit at all were it not for the Bush tax cuts, the two unfunded wars and the Wall Street crash.

Nevertheless the middle-class must pay. We are told that the real problem is “entitlements,” including public support for healthcare, education, unemployment benefits and Social Security. Therefore we must cut, cut, cut, to pay for military adventurism and the lifestyles of our financial oligarchs.

5. Mitt Slithers Through the “Carried Interest” Loophole

Of course, one of the big news items of the week was Mitt’s tax returns, which revealed that he paid only 13.9 percent in federal taxes instead of the 30-plus percent high-income earners are supposed to pay. Like Warren Buffett, Mr. Romney probably pays a lower tax rate than his secretary at Bain Capital. How does he get away with that?

It’s not just that he has a legion of tax sharpies who know how to hide his money in secret Swiss accounts and in the Grand Cayman Islands. The real culprit is a gigantic tax loophole called “carried interest” that allows private equity moguls and hedge fund honchos to essentially lie about what they do for a living.

You will hear Mitt wax euphoric about how hard he worked at Bain to obtain his riches. What he doesn’t tell you is that he used the carried interest loophole to hide all that hard work from federal taxes. Instead of paying himself an income for the real work he performed (which would be taxed at 35 percent), he hid his income within a slice of the profits so that he could claim it as capital gains (which is taxed at 15 percent). If he worked at a big bank doing exactly the same kind of work and got big stock options as his bonus, he would have to pay 35 percent. But thanks to the largess of Congress, he and billionaires in the private equity and hedge fund rackets pay only 15 percent. And of course, every effort to remove this loophole has been stalled by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

This loophole is the poster child example of how the super-rich enhance their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. And the rest of us do indeed make up the difference either through increased taxes or decreased services.

6. How the Gringrich/Freddie Tryst Distorts History

This week also treated us with the release of Newt’s $600,000 a year consulting contract with Freddie Mac. Did he get paid for influence-peddling or for his prescient historical insights? Who cares? As sordid as his deal may have been, the real damage comes from the analysis of the financial crash that accompanies the story. We hear again and again by all, including the media, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled government housing agencies, caused the financial meltdown.

Not true!

Let’s start with some basic facts about these corporations. They are not government agencies. They are private corporations that have the implicit backing of the government to help provide a massive mortgage market for middle-class Americans (or they were before the crash). The big mistake was allowing these agencies to become for-profit organizations in the first place. But that’s another story.

The widely repeated erroneous analysis claims that Fannie and Freddie caused the crash by underwriting risky housing mortgages. Ron Paul, in particular, blames the Community Reinvestment Act for pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy up “risky” loans that enable underserved minorities in particular to obtain mortgages.

But Paul, who should know better, has it dead wrong. CRA mortgages were standard mortgages and not risky ones. Their default rates are just like other standard mortgages given to Anglo home buyers. CRA, in short, had absolutely nothing to do with Wall Street’s reckless gambling as big banks and hedge funds bought up risky mortgages and sold them in even riskier mortgage-related securities.

Fannie and Freddie also wanted in on that enormously profitable Wall Street derivative game. But they got there very, very late just as the crisis was starting to unfold. These flawed private/government backed agencies didn’t cause what already was fully developed. Instead they were left holding the bag. You can’t blame them for the mess that Wall Street already created.

Who suffers? The middle-class homeowner who is already underwater due to the housing crash, and those who will purchase homes in the future. The drumbeat of attacks on Freddie and Fanny will surely lead to the privatization of those functions, which in turn will drive up the costs of mortgages for the rest of us.

How do we put America back to work?

These recent examples demonstrate yet again that "free-enterprise" on its own can not create enough middle-class jobs. Neither Apple, nor Bain-Staples, nor Wall Street, nor deficit reduction will get us there. By the way, neither will small business.

We need to recognize that modern financialized capitalism is deeply flawed. Without enormous government support, it cannot function. Without enormous government support, there will be no sizable middle-class.

The solution is both simple and difficult for us to accept. We need to use public money to create jobs and decent wages doing the things that need doing!

- We need more education? Then make higher education virtually free as we did at the end of W.W.II.

- We need alternative energy? Then use government funds to perfect the technology as we did with the Manhattan Project to build the A-bomb, and as we did with NASA’s moon shot.

- We need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Then hire a million workers to do it as we did during the Great Depression.

How do we pay for it? By now that should be conceptually easy: Wall Street should pay for the damage it has done. (A financial transaction tax would be a good first step.) And while we’re at it, get rid of the carried interest loophole so that Romney and the rest of his gang pay the same rates as the rest of us.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/153901/6_shocking_ways_capitalism_is_failing_working_amer ica/?page=entire

[UofMfan]

Man Adopts 42 year old Girlfriend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/man-adopts-girlfriend-_n_1247607.html) ~ HuffPo

[Greyson]

Man Adopts 42 year old Girlfriend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/man-adopts-girlfriend-_n_1247607.html) ~ HuffPo



Imagine that. This Palm Beach, Florida heterosexual millionaire can adopt his 42 year old girlfriend to help keep his money from the parents of someone he killed by running a stop sign.

But.......... in Florida, same sex couples are not allowed to adopt a child that needs care, love, financial, support, a family, a parent in his or her life. Why? Queer Phobia. Another sad example of control, fear and hypocrisy.

[Hollylane]

Janet Howell, Virginia State Senator, Attaches Rectal Exam Amendment To Anti-Abortion Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html?ref=mostpopular)

[Hollylane]

Tracey Cooper-Harris, Gay Army Veteran, Sues Over Denial Of Military Benefits (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/tracey-cooper-harris-doma-military-benefits_n_1249755.html)

WASHINGTON — A gay Army veteran and her wife sued the federal government on Wednesday after they were denied military benefits granted to straight spouses.

The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.

The couple's lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in Los Angeles, argues that a federal law and military policy that resulted in the denial of benefits are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

If the couple were straight they would receive about $125 more a month in disability payments as a result of Tracey Cooper-Harris' illness, which has no cure. In addition, Maggie Cooper-Harris would be eligible for approximately $1,200 a month in benefits as a surviving spouse after her wife's death. The pair would also be eligible to be buried together in a veterans' cemetery.

"We're only asking for the same benefits as other married couples. We simply want the same peace of mind that these benefits bring to the families of other disabled veterans," said Tracey Cooper-Harris at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday.

During her military service, Cooper-Harris helped take care of drug and bomb-sniffing dogs. She met her wife, a former teacher, when the two played on opposing rugby teams in California. They now live in Pasadena, Calif.

The military has recently become more tolerant of gay service members. In September it ended its 18-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy and began allowing gay and lesbian service members to serve openly.

But the Pentagon has said that a federal law enacted in 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union between a man and woman prohibits the military from extending benefits to the partners of gay service members, even if they are legally married in certain states. The Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged in a number of court cases, including one by military service members filed in Massachusetts in October. Those service members were suing over a wide range of benefits that married couples receive. The Obama administration has said it will not defend the law in court.

The telephone message seeking comment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia. Tracey and Maggie Cooper-Harris were married in California during a brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal in the state before residents voted to ban it. Marriages performed before the ban are legal, though no new marriages are currently being performed.

The couple is being represented by attorneys from the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization, and the law firm WilmerHale.

[Queerasfck]

Did you hear about the Burmese Python Invasion in Florida??? I wonder if Snow & Grant know.....

Stopping the Burmese Python Invasion (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/howwework/stopping-a-burmese-python-invasion.xml)


http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/30122-37.jpg

[AtLast]

Janet Howell, Virginia State Senator, Attaches Rectal Exam Amendment To Anti-Abortion Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html?ref=mostpopular)

I so loved seeing this on the news- when the state house secretary had to read the amendment to include this out loud while in full session!! The men appeared a little sqeemish....

It didn't pass, but she has introduced something else.

[MsDemeanor]

Janet Howell, Virginia State Senator, Attaches Rectal Exam Amendment To Anti-Abortion Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html?ref=mostpopular)

I love this!!!! In another state - I cant remember which - democrats extended the piss in a cup to get assistance rule to include legislators. If they fail the piss test they lose perks like parking and a laptop and such.

[Cin]

The Right-Wing Zombie Lie About Public Workers That Just Won't Die
...the Congressional Budget Office released a study this week on government employees' earnings that has the Right buzzing – and even some progressive pundits repeating the myth that government workers are “overpaid.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/153992/the_right-wing_zombie_lie_about_public_workers_that_just_won %27t_die/?page=entire




The above lie is the perfect companion piece to this congressional betrayal.
It’s okay to renege on the agreement to cut military spending because federal workers are overpaid anyway and besides we need all the money we can get for our next war (one would imagine with Iran.)

Capitol Hill Scrambles To Save Military Spending After Debt Deal
- Common Dreams staff

Republican leaders in Congress yesterday moved to avert potential cuts in the military budget that were part of a bipartisan budget agreement made last year.

The Hill reports today:

A group of Republican senators introduced legislation Thursday that would wipe out automatic defense cuts by reducing the federal workforce by 5 percent and extending a freeze on federal pay through June 2014.

The GOP senators, led by Arizona’s Jon Kyl and John McCain, wish to prevent $500 billion in automatic defense cuts set to begin in January 2013.

Their bill would eliminate the first year of the cuts by hiring back two workers for every three who leave. It would save $127 billion in all, with $110 billion covering automatic cuts to defense and non-defense spending scheduled for 2013 under last summer’s deal to raise the debt ceiling.

Republicans have zeroed in on the federal workforce as a way to reduce deficits. On Wednesday, the House approved extending a federal pay freeze in a bipartisan vote. Seventy-three Democrats voted with the GOP.

At Talking Points Memo, Brian Buetlers writes this morning:

Republican leaders in Congress have all but reneged on a key agreement they reached with the White House last summer rather than reconsider their unwavering stance against new tax revenue.

Relations between the Obama administration and the congressional GOP were already just about as bad as can be. But even so, this sets a precedent future Congresses and White Houses will remember when partisan mismatches force them to strike deals and govern.

“I’ve got concerns about the sequester,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters Thursday. “I’ve made that pretty clear. And replacing the sequester certainly has value. The defense portion of the sequester, in my view, would clearly hollow our military. The Secretary of Defense has said that, members of Congress have said it. But the question I would pose is, where’s the White House? Where’s the leadership that should be there to ensure that this sequester does not go into effect.”

“Sequester” is budget-speak for across-the-board cuts. But the cuts he’s talking about were part of a deal he recently claimed he’d honor.

[Cin]

What were $28 an hour jobs w benefits have been slashed in half (benefits slashed as well). $14 an hour jobs will not save the middle class. If you increase jobs by cutting one decent job in half and making two jobs out of it, how the fuck is that helpful? This article is interesting in that it does touch on cutting hourly rates for jobs a bit. And so much more. But to me losing good paying jobs and gaining minimum wage jobs or jobs that don't pay enough for one person to afford to live on their own, never mind support a family on, isn't a gain at all. As the government begins to tell us how there are more jobs available let us be mindful of what kind of jobs they are talking about.

Who Really Rescued the Big Three?
The Deal That Saved Detroit and Banned Strikes
by LAURA FLANDERS

President Obama is, as AP puts it, “wearing his decision to rescue General Motors and Chrysler three years ago as a badge of honor” on his reelection campaign. It saved jobs and working communities, brought the US auto industry back from the brink. In January, U.S. auto sales were up eleven percent over a year ago, and a proud president was cooing to the college students of Ann Arbor, Michigan:

“The American auto industry was on the verge of collapse and some politicians were willing to let it just die. We said no… We believe in the workers of this state.”

You’re going to be hearing a lot about the deal that saved Detroit in the next few months, not least because likely opponent Mitt Romney was against it. Then Governor Romney wrote in the fall of 2008 that if the big three auto companies received a bailout “we can kiss the American auto industry goodbye.” Romney bad; Obama good; Big Three back. The Deal with Detroit story is gold dust for Democrats. Reality is a bit more complicated.

For one thing, it was Republican President Bush, not the Democrats’ Barack Obama, who originally decided not to stand by as the auto makers died. The deal saved an industry – US cars are still being made in the US — but it came at such a high price that in many ways it’s a whole new industry. The American auto industry that built middle class lives as well as cars — that one we kissed good-bye, and it may be a while before we see it back again.

To review: in the fall of 2008, President George W Bush announced a $17.billion loan, split into $13.4 billion at once and another $4 billion in February. The billions for Detroit were tied tight with all the string that had not been attached to the trillions simply given away to Wall St. The Treasury never forced the financial industry to hand over majority shareholder control in exchange for access to the Troubled Asset Relief Program. No CEO of AIG or Bank of America or Well Fargo had to shrink a wage or skimp on a pension. (Far from it, the Government Accountability Office found that the “standard agreement between Treasury and the participating institutions does not require that these institutions track or report how they plan to use, or do use, their capital investments.”)

Big bucks for the Big Three, by contrast, came with all sorts of ties – mostly around the neck of the United Auto Workers and their members. When the deal was finally worked out, under Obama’s “Car Tsar” (a man with zero manufacturing experience but oodles of admiration from NY developer Steve Rattner and Lawrence Summers) the worker’s concessions amounted to a slash in all-in labor costs from around $76 per worker-hour in 2006 to just over $50. Abandoning decades of principle, the UAW approved a two-tier wage structure in which new hires start at t$14/hr — roughly half the pay and benefits of more senior line workers. To top things off, Treasury demanded — just one more teeny thing – a strike ban. The pièce de no résistance! Under the government’s agreement with the companies, any strike by workers is grounds for forfeiting the loan.

The timing couldn’t be more poignant. Seventy-five years ago, in the winter of 1936-37, it was a strike at General Motors that won the first victory for the one-year-old UAW, and won for organized labor the respect that made it possible to negotiate for those middle-class auto-makers’ lives. Late on December 30, 1936, autoworkers in Flint occupied a General Motors plant launching a strike that within less than a month, involved 135,000 workers in 35 cities across the country. When the union called for support in early January, 150,000 people showed up at Detroit’s Cadillac Square in a show of solidarity.

The Sit-Down Strike as it came to be known, ended on Feb. 11, 1937 with a defeat for GM, but for forty-four days, the company used ever tactic to end the occupation. (Take courage Occupy Wall St!) In the dead of winter, owners turned off the heat to the occupied plants. Knowing the strikers’ depended on “solidarity kitchens,” they cut off food delivery. When police moved in on one of the plants in Flint in January, workers pelted officers with engine parts and police fired back tear gas and bullets, sending 28 injured workers to the hospital. Women formed an Emergency Women’s Brigade. The next time police threatened to storm the plant gates, they found their way blocked by women locking arms — the indominatble “Rolling Pin Army.”

The battles of 75 years ago forced GM negotiators to recognize the union as the bargaining agent for the workers, and for a while at least, factory owners across the country negotiated in fear of a sit-down. Seventy-five years later Obama and the Democrats are cheerleading the deal that saved Detroit – and did away with the right to strike, at least temporarily. Now US auto sales are on the rise and with unemployment what it is, the companies say there’s a line around the block for those $14/hour entry-level jobs .

“On the plus side we still have US based auto production,” says Ed Ott, former chair of the New York Central Labor Council. What are union rights going to be like going forward? “The unions say we’ll build back up. Let’s hope they’re right.”

A more likely scenario is $14/hour auto jobs are here to stay. If the US wages low enough, they may draw jobs back from where they’ve gone to. As long as no one here is looking to increase taxes on the factory owners, offshore wages right here save employers the trouble and cost of off-shoring. What’s it mean for those workers’ families? Unless their low-wage lives are subsidized by more taxpayer-dollars in the form of free or low cost public services and help they’re in for pretty lean years. UAW President Bob King (praised for his “flexibility” ) is hopeful union strength will build back up. Heaven knows how.

Lucky us. We missed it the first time. Now, it looks as if we get to experience the Gilded age all over again – and in another half century or so, some auto worker may decide to sit down and occupy a factory.

[Hollylane]

Breaking news: Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that it is reversing its decision to ban grants to organizations under politically motivated investigation. The bad news is that it's not clear that it will continue funding Planned Parenthood.1 We'll keep up the pressure until it does.

1. "Komen caved. Or did it?" The Washington Post, February 3, 2012 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/komen-caved-or-did-it/2012/02/03/gIQA9tS9mQ_blog.html)

[DapperButch]

Breaking news: Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that it is reversing its decision to ban grants to organizations under politically motivated investigation. The bad news is that it's not clear that it will continue funding Planned Parenthood.1 We'll keep up the pressure until it does.

1. "Komen caved. Or did it?" The Washington Post, February 3, 2012 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/komen-caved-or-did-it/2012/02/03/gIQA9tS9mQ_blog.html)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/susan-g-komen-planned-parenthood_n_1252651.html?1328286773&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D132483

[Tawse]

4 men sentenced to 4 years for the murder of a South African Lesbian. Some sense of justice from the tragedy...


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/02/world/africa/south-africa-slaying-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Hollylane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/susan-g-komen-planned-parenthood_n_1252651.html?1328286773&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D132483

This is one of those times that word games make me nauseous...I think the question they asked themselves was: "How can we shut down the outcry without making any real promises?"

Sounds like dirty politics to me.

[AtLast]

Interesting... maybe this will tke care of the recall efforts!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061554/-Wisconsin-Gov-Scott-Walker-lawyers-up-before-meeting-with-prosecutors

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has hired two lawyers in advance of a meeting with the Milwaukee County district attorney, whose office is conducting investigation into members of Walker's staff.

Charges have already been made against four Walker staffers and appointees as part of this investigation. Two former aides were charged with using public resources for Republican political campaigns, while the others are accused of, as Giles goat Boy put it:

A Walker appointee, a Walker campaign aide, and a child molester embezzled money that was intended for disabled veterans.Walker claims the upcoming meeting with prosecutors is voluntary. He better hope these chitchats stay that way.


----------------

[Sassy]

One Million Moms to JC Penney: fire Ellen, she's gay (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/one-million-moms-jc-penney-fire-ellen-shes-173429894.html)

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - One Million Moms -- a project of the American Family Association -- is very angry at JC Penney.

No, not because it sells sweater vests (heck, Rick Santorum is a fan of those), but because the Texas-based department store has hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokeswoman.

And DeGeneres is -- cue the scary music -- gay, and open about it.

"Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families," the million (or so) moms write on their website. "DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there."

One Million Moms is asking people to call JC Penney to complain.

With this campaign, One Million Moms, which claims to be "the most powerful tool you have to stand against the immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity the entertainment media is throwing at your children," is going after one of the country's most-beloved television hosts.

The moms want JC Penney "to replace Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson immediately and remain neutral in the culture war."

Fat chance, says the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.

"A vast majority of Americans today support Ellen as well as their LGBT friends and family members," Herndon Graddick, a GLAAD spokesman said in a written statement. "Selecting an out performer who has inspired and entertained millions, is not only a smart business practice, but a reflection of how LGBT Americans today are an integral and valued part of the fabric of our culture."

DeGeneres' daytime talk show has more viewers than the American Family Association has moms. Between January 16 and January 22, "Ellen" averaged 3.38 million viewers -- or 2.38 million more people than the AFA has moms.

American Family Association did not return a request for comment.

(Editing by Chris Michaud)


================


............... And ... now I have even more of an excuse to buy those new boots I want ... at JC Penney ;)

[AtLast]

One Million Moms to JC Penney: fire Ellen, she's gay (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/one-million-moms-jc-penney-fire-ellen-shes-173429894.html)

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - One Million Moms -- a project of the American Family Association -- is very angry at JC Penney.

No, not because it sells sweater vests (heck, Rick Santorum is a fan of those), but because the Texas-based department store has hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokeswoman.

And DeGeneres is -- cue the scary music -- gay, and open about it.

"Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families," the million (or so) moms write on their website. "DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there."

One Million Moms is asking people to call JC Penney to complain.

With this campaign, One Million Moms, which claims to be "the most powerful tool you have to stand against the immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity the entertainment media is throwing at your children," is going after one of the country's most-beloved television hosts.

The moms want JC Penney "to replace Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson immediately and remain neutral in the culture war."

Fat chance, says the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.

"A vast majority of Americans today support Ellen as well as their LGBT friends and family members," Herndon Graddick, a GLAAD spokesman said in a written statement. "Selecting an out performer who has inspired and entertained millions, is not only a smart business practice, but a reflection of how LGBT Americans today are an integral and valued part of the fabric of our culture."

DeGeneres' daytime talk show has more viewers than the American Family Association has moms. Between January 16 and January 22, "Ellen" averaged 3.38 million viewers -- or 2.38 million more people than the AFA has moms.

American Family Association did not return a request for comment.

(Editing by Chris Michaud)


================


............... And ... now I have even more of an excuse to buy those new boots I want ... at JC Penney ;)

Yup! Going to take a look at JCP for some new jeans & T's. Haven't shopped them in awhile, but, hey!!

[SoNotHer]

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Found in 37 U.S. States:
Drug-resistant bacteria can kill more than half of infected patients

By Jason Koebler
January 31, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Half a world away, doctors in India are fighting outbreaks of bacterial infections that are resistant to more than 15 types of antibiotics. But closer to home, a similarly scary bug is making the rounds in intensive care and other long-term units of American hospitals. In at least 37 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, doctors have identified bacteria, including E. coli, that produce Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, or KPC—an enzyme that makes bacteria resistant to most known treatments. It's much more prevalent in America than bacteria that produce NDM-1, the enzyme that has Indian doctors "hell scared," and, according to Alexander Kallen, a medical officer at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the final outcome isn't much different: superbacteria that are hard to kill.

"It's got a slightly different structure than [NDM-1]," he says of KPC. "But the bottom line is they're two different ways to produce bacteria that are resistant to a wide range of antibiotics."

[Hospital Rooms Crawling With Drug-Resistant Germs.]

That's bad news for infected patients—the mortality rate for patients infected with KPC-producing bacteria has been estimated to be as high as 50 percent. Doctors are advised to do their best to keep the bacteria from spreading, which explains why the problem is most prevalent in hospitals and other close-quarter medical units. Infected patients are often isolated. KPC has been seen in a wide range of bacteria, including E. coli, Salmonella, and K. pneumonia, which often affects hospitalized patients. These superbugs are resistant to nearly every weapon doctors can throw at them, including carbapenems, a class of antibiotic that the CDC calls the "last line of defense" against infections that are resistant to other types of antibiotics. There are a couple antibiotics that have been shown to kill these superbugs, but often at great risk to patients. In fact, the FDA has associated the use of these effective antibiotics with an "increased risk of death" in patients with pneumonia.

That leaves many doctors scratching their heads. KPC-bacteria often grow on medical equipment such as catheters and ventilators, so doctors can sometimes remove that equipment or perform surgery to try to eliminate the infection from a patient's body.

[Are Kids Brown-Bagging Bacteria?]

CDC researchers, including Kallen, say that hospitals who haven't been vigilant about isolating patients with KPC-producing bacteria may have missed their chance. According to a paper co-authored by Kallen released last year, "failure to recognize CRE infections when they first occur in a facility has resulted in a missed opportunity to intervene before these organisms are transmitted more widely." The good news is that, at least for now, KPC-producing bacteria generally only infects people who already have compromised immune systems. "It can move into the wider community," says Kallen, "but we haven't seen much of that yet."


jkoebler@usnews.com

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/31/antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-found-in-37-us-states

[LeftWriteFemme]

Virginia Anti-Gay Adoption Rule Passed By State Lawmakers


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/va-gay-adoption-bill-passes-house_n_1253125.html

[Cin]

HOW THE GOP IS RESEGREGATING THE SOUTH (http://www.alternet.org/rights/154002/how_the_gop_is_resegregating_the_south_/)

[MsDemeanor]

One Million Moms to JC Penney: fire Ellen, she's gay (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/one-million-moms-jc-penney-fire-ellen-shes-173429894.html)

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - One Million Moms -- a project of the American Family Association -- is very angry at JC Penney.

No, not because it sells sweater vests (heck, Rick Santorum is a fan of those), but because the Texas-based department store has hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokeswoman.

And DeGeneres is -- cue the scary music -- gay, and open about it.


The folks at JCP have already told the Million Ignorant Homophobic Moms to blow it out their ass - they're sticking with Ellen. I wrote JCP to say thanks and actually got a reply! They are thrilled to have Ellen working with them. Turns out that she's a former JCP associate, too.

[LeftWriteFemme]

One Town's War on Gay Teens

long read....important issue



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

[SoNotHer]

Get Your Organic Chili At the Super Bowl

SustainableBusiness.com News

Football fans at the Super Bowl this weekend will be treated to the first organic foods served at the event. Farm Aid, probably best known for one of its founders, Willie Nelson, is headed to the Super Bowl with its homegrown chili.

Their commitment is to provide a fair price to farmers that produce local or organic food and engage in ecological practices such as grass-fed meat or GMO-free food. They serve the food in compostable or recyclable packaging.

Since 2007, Farm Aid's annual concert has distinguished itself as the first major concert event to serve family farm food in concessions and backstage. More than 100,000 concert goers have eaten this food, including organic hot dogs, local burgers, and farm-fresh corn on the cob. Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp organized the first Farm Aid concert in 1985 to raise awareness about the loss of family farms and to raise funds to keep farm families on their land. Since then, Farm Aid has raised more than $39 million to promote a strong and resilient family farm system of agriculture.

http://www.bluestemprairie.com/.a/6a00d834516a0869e2014e8a747647970d-300wi

[Cin]

Super Bowl political showdown, NFL’s Players Association in opposition to Right to Work legislation (http://www.alternet.org/story/154014/how_the_super_bowl_became_the_center_of_a_politica l_showdown_for_players_and_workers/)

[AtLast]

Super Bowl political showdown, NFL’s Players Association in opposition to Right to Work legislation (http://www.alternet.org/story/154014/how_the_super_bowl_became_the_center_of_a_politica l_showdown_for_players_and_workers/)

http://s0.2mdn.net/viewad/3310987/1-cwa_faa_reauthorization_banner_300x250_WithoutDelt a_em4.jpg

[Lady Pamela]

Josh Powell..husband and suspect of missing Utah woman..Susan Powell

Just took the lives of both his boys and himself. Also injuring a case worker for the boys.
Story below:

http://www.fox13now.com/news/

[Slowpurr]

World Understands Need to Prevent a Nuclear Iran, Barak Says
February 06, 2012, 6:53 AM EST

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-06/world-understands-need-to-prevent-a-nuclear-iran-barak-says.html


Obama Freezes Iranian Government, Central Bank Assets
February 06, 2012, 1:05 PM EST

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-06/obama-freezes-iranian-government-central-bank-assets.html

The Lie Of The Century
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury_text.html

[*Anya*]

From Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry
Megan Brooks

January 30, 2012 — Prenatal and early childhood exposure to the organic solvent tetrachloroethylene (PCE) may raise the risk of certain psychiatric illnesses, particularly bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and schizophrenia, later in life, new research shows.

The population-based, retrospective birth-cohort study showed that children in Cape Cod who were exposed to drinking water contaminated with PCE, which was used to line municipal water pipes, had almost a 2-fold increased risk for bipolar disorder compared with the general population.

The study was published online January 20 in Environmental Health.

Used widely in industry and to dry clean clothes, PCE is a well-known neurotoxin, Ann Aschengrau, ScD, and colleagues from Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts note in their report.

PCE readily crosses the blood-brain barrier and has a high affinity for the lipophilic tissues in the central nervous system. The exact mechanisms for its neurotoxic effects remain unclear but include peroxidation of cell membrane lipids, alterations in the fatty acid profile of the brain, and loss of myelin and interactions with neuronal receptors.

Exposure to PCE has been shown to cause mood changes, anxiety, and depression in people who work with it. To date, the long-term effect of this chemical on children exposed to PCE has been less clear, although there is some evidence that children of people who work in the dry cleaning industry have an increased risk for schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the Boston team studied individuals born between 1969 and 1983 to married women who lived in towns in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, that had vinyl-lined asbestos-cement water pipes.

Dose Response

These pipes were installed by public water companies from the late 1960s through early 1980 to solve alkalinity problems in dead-end sections of their distribution systems. The liner was applied by spraying a mixture of vinyl resin and PCE. More than a decade elapsed before officials discovered that large quantities of PCE were leaching into the public water supplies.

Surveys conducted in 1980 found that drinking water supplies in Cape Cod had PCE levels ranging from 1.5 to 7750 μ/L. Because replacing the pipes was prohibitively expensive, systematic flushing and bleeding were used to reduce levels below 40 μ/L, which was the maximum recommended level at the time. The maximum contaminant level for PCE is now set at 5 μ/L.

The Cape Cod cohort included 1512 individuals. The participants included 831 persons with both prenatal and early childhood exposure to PCE and 547 persons who had not been exposed. Participants provided information on mental illnesses, demographic and medical characteristics, other sources of solvent exposure, and places of residence from the time of their birth through 1990.

PCE exposure from the vinyl-liner water distribution pipes was assessed using water distribution system modeling software that incorporated a leaching and transport algorithm, the authors explain.

The researchers did not see any meaningful increase in the risk for depression with prenatal and childhood PCE exposure (risk ratio [RR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 - 1.4). This finding was "both surprising and maybe reassuring," Dr. Aschengrau told Medscape Medical News, given that earlier research in PCE-exposed adults suggested an increased risk for depressive disorders.

However, the researchers did find that individuals with any exposure during gestation and early childhood were at increased risk for bipolar disorder (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9 - 3.5) and PTSD (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9 - 2.5). Further increases in risk were observed for bipolar disorder (RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3 - 5.6) and PTSD (RR,1.7; 95% CI, 0.9 - 3.2) among persons with the highest exposure levels.

The risk of schizophrenia was also elevated among exposed individuals (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 0.2 - 20.0), but the number of cases was too small to draw reliable conclusions, the authors note.

"Risk Remains Real"

The researchers note, however, that a study published in 2007 in Schizophrenia Research found a 3.4-fold increased risk for schizophrenia (95% CI, 1.3 - 9.2) among the offspring of parents who worked as dry cleaners. Adjusting for confounding factors did not appreciably alter the finding.

Mary Perrin, DrPH, assistant professor of psychiatry and environmental medicine from the New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, worked on that study. Medscape Medical News asked her for her thoughts on the Cape Cod study.

"No one epidemiological study is going to prove anything. You have to build evidence, and my personal opinion is that it's another brick in the wall showing that we really need tighter regulation of these substances in the environment. The animal literature is quite clear on this," said Dr. Perrin.

She added that the Cape Cod study is "methodologically a good study. The authors articulated the limitations of the study, which you can't ignore, and did not overstate the results, which are very interesting."

Dr. Aschengrau and colleagues say the limitations of their study include the possibility of exposure misclassification and a lack of data on water consumption and bathing habits; self-reported mental illness data; and possible residual confounding as a result of missing data on several risk factors for mental illness.

The low response rate is another limitation. It is possible that individuals with mental illnesses preferentially ignored requests to participate, the investigators note. This would have reduced the number of cases in the final sample. However, available evidence suggests that this did not introduce selection bias, the authors say.

Dr. Aschengrau also noted that it is not possible to calculate the exact amount of PCE the participants in the study were exposed to.

"Levels of PCE were recorded as high as 1550 times the currently recommended safe limit. While the water companies flushed the pipes to address this problem, people are still being exposed to PCE in the dry cleaning and textile industries and from consumer products, and so the potential for an increased risk of illness remains real," she said.

Dr. Aschengrau and her colleagues added that independent investigations of similarly exposed populations are needed to corroborate their findings.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Study investigator David Ozonoff, MD, PhD, is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Health. Dr. Ozonoff recused himself from all decisions regarding acceptance and publication of the manuscript. In 1980, he served as a witness in bankruptcy court in a suit against the Johns-Manville Corporation, manufacturers of the vinyl-lined asbestos-cement water pipes. He has also testified in personal injury and property damage cases involving exposure to tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene. Three years ago, Dr. Aschengrau served as a consultant in a personal injury case involving chlorinated solvent contamination. None of the parties in any litigation supported, reviewed, or had knowledge of this study. The other authors of this study have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Environmental Health. 2012;11:2. Published online January 20, 2012. Abstract

Medscape Medical News © 2012 WebMD, LLC
Send comments and news tips to news@medscape.net.

[Kobi]

Thanks Anya. As I live on Cape Cod, this makes me not so happy. I always wondered why they flushed the water lines twice a year but never bothered to ask. They do a lot of weird stuff here.

We also have abnormally high numbers of women with breast cancer on the Upper Cape which has been studied for decades with no specific findings. Translation - no conclusive proof the contamination from Otis Air Force base is affecting the health of people in the area.

Nice place to live but not without its own hazards.

[Lady Pamela]

Update On the Powell children.
I am so outraged over this...If authorities knew this information..why the hell would they allow visits with this man? I personally think they need to be held accountable in some way for that! Not that it will bring them back..But the family tried to stop it. And this may help the next person who endures anything like this.


I can not tell you how many wish they would have gotten ahold of that man..That is why he moved from Utah.


I personally believe he took the kids and did this because they are getting older..They will be able to tell more and he was in the porocess of having to take poligrapgh and sexual tests.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/susan-powell-in-trunk_n_1257483.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D133254

[Lady Pamela]

latest on Powell case..As of tonight

I wish this man would have lived to pay for his crimes is all I am gonna say!


http://www.fox13now.com/news/nationworld/kcpq-fiery-explosion-believed-to-have-killed-josh-powell-and-his-2-young-sons-20120205,0,5978729.story

[AtLast]

Gay marriage ruling Tuesday likely a step toward U.S. Supreme Court

http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19905426?source=rss
By Howard Mintz


hmintz@mercurynews.com

Posted: 02/06/2012 03:38:01 PM PST
Updated: 02/06/2012 09:07:17 PM PST

Feb 6:
California gay wedding ban ruling due Tuesday in Proposition 8 case.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday will hand down its long-awaited ruling on the legality of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

It is likely to be a crucial step toward pushing the gay marriage issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to agree with former San Francisco Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who declared the law unconstitutional in 2010. The court also will consider a move by Proposition 8 backers to set aside Walker's ruling because he did not disclose he was in a long-term same-sex relationship while handling the case.

Here are some of the basic questions surrounding Tuesday's outcome:

Q If the court strikes down Proposition 8, will same-sex couples be allowed to marry immediately in California?

A Little to no chance of that happening right away. The 9th Circuit is likely to put its ruling on hold while the legal battle continues, as there are several more steps before the case is final. In fact, the 9th Circuit refused to allow same-sex marriages to proceed after Walker invalidated Proposition 8 in 2010, putting his decision on hold while the appeal proceeds.

Q What are the basic arguments on both sides of the case?

A Same-sex couples say that Proposition 8 violates their federal equal protection rights, depriving them of the legal right to marry in California, which heterosexual couples have. And they contend there is no social or legal justification for denying those rights, other than a discriminatory intent against gays and lesbians. Gay marriage opponents say there is a state interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, particularly the importance of procreation in heterosexual marriage.

Q Who are the 9th Circuit judges deciding the case?

A While the 9th Circuit is generally considered liberal, the panel is an ideological mix. It includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the nation's most liberal judges, but also Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointee of former President George W. Bush. The third judge is Michael Daly Hawkins, a former Arizona U.S. attorney and appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Q What is the expected outcome in the 9th Circuit?

A Based on arguments in December 2010, the judges appeared inclined to uphold Walker's ruling. Even Smith appeared skeptical of the Proposition 8 attorney's arguments.

Q What is likely to happen after the 9th Circuit rules Tuesday?

A The losing side can ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, a process known as en banc review. A majority of the 9th Circuit's two dozen full-time judges must vote to rehear a case en banc, but this often occurs in high-profile cases where there is disagreement within the court. The losing side has 14 days to ask for such a rehearing. If the 9th Circuit refuses to grant the request, the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q How long will all this take?

A The legal fight over Proposition 8 isn't likely to be concluded anytime soon. If the 9th Circuit rehears the case with an 11-judge panel, that appeal is likely to stretch through this year. And whatever the outcome in the 9th Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain not to get a look at the case before the upcoming presidential election.

Q What would be the impact of a 9th Circuit ruling declaring California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional? Would it legalize gay marriage in all nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit?

A It depends. The court can take a narrower approach and apply its ruling only to California, finding that Proposition 8 violates the rights of same-sex couples because it stripped away a previous right established in a California Supreme Court ruling in 2008 (Proposition 8 wiped that ruling off the books). Or the court can issue a more sweeping ruling that finds any such state ban unconstitutional, which would extend the ruling's reach.

[Greyson]

U.S. 9th Circut Court of Appeals Rules Proposition 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


US Supreme Court here we come!

[LeftWriteFemme]

6THHLfrVVD4

[*Anya*]

U.S. 9th Circut Court of Appeals Rules Proposition 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


US Supreme Court here we come!

The question is, will the Supreme Court uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8?

In ten of the last eleven appointments, the new justice was more conservative than the one replaced.

Current Members

Name Date of Accession Appointed by Title General ideology

Antonin Scalia September 26, 1986 Ronald Reagan Associate Justice conservative

Anthony Kennedy February 18, 1988 Ronald Reagan Associate Justice moderate/swing

Clarence Thomas October 23, 1991 George H. W. Bush Associate Justice
conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg August 10, 1993 Bill Clinton Associate Justice liberal

Stephen Breyer August 3, 1994 Bill Clinton Associate Justice
liberal

John Roberts September 29, 2005 George W. Bush Chief Justice conservative

Samuel Alito January 31, 2006 George W. Bush Associate Justice conservative

Sonia Sotomayor August 6, 2009 Barack Obama Associate Justice liberal

Elena Kagan August 7, 2010 Barack Obama Associate Justice
liberal
******************************

From Huff Post, July 2011:

WASHINGTON — Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.

The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.

[Greyson]

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

[Greyson]

This is an Investigative Journalism piece done by the Washington Post. It is a long read but very informative. It explains in some detail how these earmarks are done within sometimes a very fine line of what is considered to be legal.

The U.S. Congress has less stringent guidelines for earmarks. The Executive Branch and the U.S. Senate also have guidelines and appear to be more successful in keeping the earmarks at a lesser amount in volume which could benefit their family members and/or personal property values.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/capitol-assets-some-legislators-send-millions-to-groups-connected-to-their-relatives/2012/01/10/gIQAyrzdxQ_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/public-projects-private-interests/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/mapping-the-earmarks/

[Toughy]

I thought this was an interesting piece about taxes..........

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax.html?_r=1

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Zuckerberg Tax

By DAVID S. MILLER
Published: February 7, 2012

WHEN Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth. The $5 billion he will receive upon exercising those options will be treated as salary, and Mr. Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion, quite possibly making him the largest taxpayer in history. He is expected to sell enough stock to pay his tax.

But how much income tax will Mr. Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won’t immediately sell? He need not pay any. Instead, he can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That’s what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did. He reportedly borrowed more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares and bought one of the most expensive yachts in the world.

If Mr. Zuckerberg never sells his shares, he can avoid all income tax and then, on his death, pass on his shares to his heirs. When they sell them, they will be taxed only on any appreciation in value since his death. <snip>

[AtLast]

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

In order for same-sex marriage to become the "law of the land" it has to pass the meaning of "supreme law" (Magna Carta) based upon due process. A SC ruling on the Prop 8 case would only apply to the proposition as it applies to the state constitution in CA becuase it was written as only applying to CA.

Both the proposition itself and rulings thus far just don't pass the federal due process test to be considered "supreme law" (law of the land). A key piece in getting a federal due process ruling establishing same-sex marriage as constitutional would be states all having to recognize and uphold these marriages from all other states, for example.

The best way to make same-sex marriage the "law of the land" would be via a federal constitutional amendment- which is exactly how opponents want to stop it! Actually amending the constutution to include specific gender language concerning marriage!

There has to be a case certed and decided by the SC that actually points to or applies to the federal constitutional definition of marriage in order for a law of the land decision. And with the conservative majority of our SC, this could go either way. Frankly, I would much rather have even this decision remain outside of the SC at this point in time.

There are several ways legal scholars look at this in terms of constitionality at the federal level. Some only feel that an actual amendment to the constitution clearlt stating that women and women and men and men can marry will do the trick. Then, there is even some more discussion on applications for transgendered people too because of state by state legality on just birth certificate changes.

I really wish we had the Canadian option here- deemed national law and that's it.!

[Corkey]

In order for same-sex marriage to become the "law of the land" it has to pass the meaning of "supreme law" (Magna Carta) based upon due process. A SC ruling on the Prop 8 case would only apply to the proposition as it applies to the state constitution in CA becuase it was written as only applying to CA.

Both the proposition itself and rulings thus far just don't pass the federal due process test to be considered "supreme law" (law of the land). A key piece in getting a federal due process ruling establishing same-sex marriage as constitutional would be states all having to recognize and uphold these marriages from all other states, for example.

The best way to make same-sex marriage the "law of the land" would be via a federal constitutional amendment- which is exactly how opponents want to stop it! Actually amending the constutution to include specific gender language concerning marriage!

There has to be a case certed and decided by the SC that actually points to or applies to the federal constitutional definition of marriage in order for a law of the land decision. And with the conservative majority of our SC, this could go either way. Frankly, I would much rather have even this decision remain outside of the SC at this point in time.

There are several ways legal scholars look at this in terms of constitionality at the federal level. Some only feel that an actual amendment to the constitution clearlt stating that women and women and men and men can marry will do the trick. Then, there is even some more discussion on applications for transgendered people too because of state by state legality on just birth certificate changes.

I really wish we had the Canadian option here- deemed national law and that's it.!

This is precisely why DOMA has to be repealed. Only if it were to to be brought to the SCOTUS would it then be the "law of the land" because it is a federal action. Congress has to be the area of intent to overturn DOMA.

[AtLast]

This is precisely why DOMA has to be repealed. Only if it were to to be brought to the SCOTUS would it then be the "law of the land" because it is a federal action. Congress has to be the area of intent to overturn DOMA.

Absolutely! We all have some rungs on the federal to climb in order for there to be marriage equality for all. And I mean all. I don't trust what lurks behind state's rights conservatives one bit!

[MissItalianDiva]

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

I had the same question as you and spoke with a friend who is a lawyer and this is the explanation I was given.

Even though it would be a Supreme Court ruling and even though the 9th circuit ruled on this which is more than just California this is still in regards to Prop 8 which is a California issue. Now the the good thing about the Supreme Court ruling is that even though it will not be a set standard it will have a set precedence especially considering the narrow ruling that is anticipated.

[AtLast]

I had the same question as you and spoke with a friend who is a lawyer and this is the explanation I was given.

Even though it would be a Supreme Court ruling and even though the 9th circuit ruled on this which is more than just California this is still in regards to Prop 8 which is a California issue. Now the the good thing about the Supreme Court ruling is that even though it will not be a set standard it will have a set precedence especially considering the narrow ruling that is anticipated.

And it is a good thing that there are more and more precedent setting marriage equality decisions in other states, too. A good body of arguments is being produced for this long battle to a final victory.

[Toughy]

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

[AtLast]

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

I tend to agree with you. A Supreme Court ruling, especially when the conservatives are on a general election rampage, as well as a Court that makes so many 5-4 decisions, may end up kicking us in the butt on this.

DOMA repealed, more ducks in a row with sound legal rulings for marriage equality from more states and our very own queer populations joining forces just feels better to me before a SC ruling right now. Afterall, Prop 8 was initiated and supported by a lot of out of state (mainly LDS backed) millions in CA. Frankly, I want to see Obama re-elected and have an opportunity to appoint another SC justice first. Bader-Ginsburg can't stay on all that much longer.

[Kobi]

I read this stuff and I am just speechless. This makes me ashamed of my profession. This person was obviously not the least bit prepared to protect these kids. And, I cant even deal with the 911 operators bullshit. Sorry I am just pissed about this entire thing.


http://news.yahoo.com/social-workers-911-call-josh-powells-home-184948545.html

[MissItalianDiva]

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

I definitely agree due to the conservative status of the SC but then there is the other part of me that really feels a SC victory is what is needed for this issue to really take proper standing. Plus to have a SC precedence is a pretty good accomplishment for future rulings.

I realize if this goes to SC it could end not in our favor however I think if this was brought to the SC they are pretty limited on their angles to deny. They would have a hard time validating their decision to uphold Prop 8.

[DapperButch]

I read this stuff and I am just speechless. This makes me ashamed of my profession. This person was obviously not the least bit prepared to protect these kids. And, I cant even deal with the 911 operators bullshit. Sorry I am just pissed about this entire thing.


http://news.yahoo.com/social-workers-911-call-josh-powells-home-184948545.html

I think that the error was allowing "supervised visits" in the home. Here they are always in supervised visit centers so that safety issues aren't a concern.

Kobi - I don't see how any amount of training could have prepared a social worker for this. What am I missing here? Also, where you are, is it common to have supervised visits in the home of the person who isn't trusted to be alone with a particular child?

[Kobi]

I think that the error was allowing "supervised visits" in the home. Here they are always in supervised visit centers so that safety issues aren't a concern.

Kobi - I don't see how any amount of training could have prepared a social worker for this. What am I missing here? Also, where you are, is it common to have supervised visits in the home of the person who isn't trusted to be alone with a particular child?



Supervised visits here are always in a controlled place so the parent in question cannot have the time or opportunity to set up a dangerous situation. We both know visits are supervised because the parent in question is a potential danger to those kids.

To me, and this is not hindsight, this had potential disaster written all over it.

It just seems to me serious errors in judgement were made all along the way. The worker on the tape admits the department has this parent on a short leash. Yet, someone allowed a visit in his own home - red flag number 1.

The guy is a person of interest in a murder case, he is a bit of a control freak, he just lost custody of his kids, he has just been ordered to undergo psychosexual evaluation, and he starts verbalizing "they are turning my kids against me". Thats about 6 red flags right there.

This worker doesnt know the address where she is in a case of someone on a short leash? This worker asks 911 what she should do? Hello?

If it were me - I would have been concerned enough, given the history, to, at least, call the local police ahead of time and make them aware the visit was occuring and that their presence in the area would be helpful. Being the safety freak I am, I would actually have asked for the police to accompany me.

I would not have let those kids run ahead of me. The father was in control of the situation, I wouldnt have let those kids a foot from my side until I felt it was safe. My job was to protect them from this man, not be a taxi service to their demise.

You arent missing anything Dapper. I am just pissed off that these kids were in the system and the system failed them. The police knew, the courts knew, CPS knew....and still the father was given the opportunity to kill these kids. And that just fucking disgusts me.

I also know, even if other measures were taken, a determined and desperate man would have found the way to do what he did in spite of whatever safety measures were put in place. And, its possible a lot more people could have been killed.

And I feel bad for everyone involved, especially that social worker. We both know her life will never, ever be the same after this.

I expect something good will come out of this tragedy as everyone looks at what they could have, should have done differently. And, maybe, just maybe, that will save some other kid in the future.

[DapperButch]

Supervised visits here are always in a controlled place so the parent in question cannot have the time or opportunity to set up a dangerous situation. We both know visits are supervised because the parent in question is a potential danger to those kids.

To me, and this is not hindsight, this had potential disaster written all over it.

It just seems to me serious errors in judgement were made all along the way. The worker on the tape admits the department has this parent on a short leash. Yet, someone allowed a visit in his own home - red flag number 1.

The guy is a person of interest in a murder case, he is a bit of a control freak, he just lost custody of his kids, he has just been ordered to undergo psychosexual evaluation, and he starts verbalizing "they are turning my kids against me". Thats about 6 red flags right there.

This worker doesnt know the address where she is in a case of someone on a short leash? This worker asks 911 what she should do? Hello?

If it were me - I would have been concerned enough, given the history, to, at least, call the local police ahead of time and make them aware the visit was occuring and that their presence in the area would be helpful. Being the safety freak I am, I would actually have asked for the police to accompany me.

I would not have let those kids run ahead of me. The father was in control of the situation, I wouldnt have let those kids a foot from my side until I felt it was safe. My job was to protect them from this man, not be a taxi service to their demise.

You arent missing anything Dapper. I am just pissed off that these kids were in the system and the system failed them. The police knew, the courts knew, CPS knew....and still the father was given the opportunity to kill these kids. And that just fucking disgusts me.

I also know, even if other measures were taken, a determined and desperate man would have found the way to do what he did in spite of whatever safety measures were put in place. And, its possible a lot more people could have been killed.

And I feel bad for everyone involved, especially that social worker. We both know her life will never, ever be the same after this.

I expect something good will come out of this tragedy as everyone looks at what they could have, should have done differently. And, maybe, just maybe, that will save some other kid in the future.



Yes, the most insane part was allowing the kids to see him in his home. Unless a trained body guard was sent with the kids, it makes no sense.

[Cin]

Why is the Obama Administration Suddenly Fixated on Stomping Out Medical Pot? Click the link to read the article. (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/154070/why_is_the_obama_administration_suddenly_fixated_o n_stomping_out_medical_pot/?page=entire)

The man who once pledged on the campaign trail that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,” has – since taking the Presidential oaths of office – done virtually everything in his administration’s power to do precisely that. Yet he's taken these steps at the very time that a record number of Americans, including 57 percent of democrats and a whopping 69 percent of self-described liberals, endorse doing just the opposite. Nonetheless, in recent months, the Obama administration – via a virtual alphabet soup of federal agencies – has launched an unprecedented series of attacks against medical cannabis patients, providers, and in some cases even their advocates.

Opinions vary on what is the greatest underlying motivator for the administration’s sudden and severe crackdown on medical marijuana providers and patients. The candidates, in no particular order are:

1.) Pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, to eliminate competition in the marketplace for their own forthcoming, soon-to-be FDA-approved cannabis-based drug.

2.) A Machiavellian attempt on the part of the President and his advisors to appeal to independent, conservative-leaning swing voters during an election year.

3.) Neither President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder are likely to expend even a shred of political capital to halt the efforts of the administration’s more ardent drug warriors.

4.) A desire to preserve America’s longstanding criminalization of cannabis for everyone else. There is little doubt that the rapid rise of the medical marijuana industry and the legal commerce inherent to it is arguably the single biggest threat to federal cannabis prohibition.

In states like California and Colorado, voters have largely become accustomed to the reality that there can be safe, secure, well-run businesses that deliver consistent, reliable, tested cannabis products. They have come to understand that well-regulated cannabis dispensaries can revitalize sagging economies, provide jobs, and contribute taxes to budget-starved localities. Most importantly, the public in these states and others are finally realizing that all the years of scaremongering by the government about what would happen if marijuana were legal, even for sick people, was nothing but hysterical propaganda. As a result, a majority of American voters are now for the first time asking their federal officials: ‘Why we don’t just legalize marijuana for everyone in a similarly responsible manner?’
************************************************** ****************

You know it’s not about me, personally. I’ve been clean and sober for twenty years. So legalize or criminalize whatever drugs you want, it’s not going to affect my life. That said, to me marijuana laws are ridiculous. As with most drug laws, they just make the drug companies richer and allow the government to put more poor people in jail. If you want to cut down on the amount of money spent locking people up, legalize pot. Hell, legalize a few other things while you're at it. I suppose that’s just naïve thinking on my part. Along the lines of since you have like 750 out of every 100,000 people in jail anyway, why not have them work growing food to feed the poor. Free labor to give the poor free food. Nobody makes a profit, people just work while in jail knowing they are feeding the hungry. That would be cool no? I get that I am too naïve and simplistic a thinker, but still. Anyway, the reasons why we keep things the way they are is because somebody, lots of some bodies are making big bucks off of it. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in the status quo, as well as prisons for profit. Now that we have privatized the prison system the more the merrier.


LINK (http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/2011/10-stats-you-should-know-about-our-prison-system/)
“America certainly has a unique stance on crime and punishment. Some actions that would cause the typical American to go to prison for a significant period of time aren’t even considered crimes in most other countries around the world. As a result, we’ve accumulated some interesting, sometimes alarming statistics showing just how crowded we’ve made our prison system. The ones below describe the state of the system, especially compared to the rest of the world, and the social impact of our policies.”

The U.S. has an incarceration rate of 743 per 100,000 people
The U.S. houses a quarter of the world’s prisoners
The U.S. houses more inmates than the top 35 European countries combined
The federal prison population has more than doubled since 1995
Those who have spent time in prison earn 40 percent less annually

[Greyson]

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday....

Earlier this week I had some questions about the recent Prop 8 ruling. Thank you to those who responded and added some clairty. Below is a copy of a piece I read today in Slate. It offers further clarity to the legal strategies employed in the fight for our equality.

__________________________________________________ _____________



Prop 8 vs. DOMA: Which is the better gay-rights case for the Supreme Court?
By Will Oremus
Posted Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012, at 1:03 PM ET
Slate.com

A Losing Proposition

Why gay-rights leaders don’t want their big Prop 8 victory to go to the Supreme Court.

Gay-rights activists celebrated a win in the battle against California's Proposition 8, but many would rather see a different gay-marriage case reach the Supreme Court first
Photograph by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images.

Strange as it may seem in the wake of the street parties celebrating Tuesday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating California’s Proposition 8, there was a time when gay-rights advocates feared this day would come.

Leaders in the movement had spent years crafting what they felt was the perfect challenge to a different law restricting gay rights: the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages. Anti-DOMA suits working their way through the courts in Massachusetts and other states were carefully constructed to serve as the first major test cases of gay-marriage rights at the Supreme Court level. The theory behind those challenges was always that they are bold enough to make a difference, but modest enough to carry the day, even in a court that leans right. All they ask is that the federal government respect states’ marriage laws rather than imposing its own.

The lawsuit challenging Prop 8, filed in 2009 by Ted Olson and David Boies, upset those well-laid plans. It had a more ambitious aim than the anti-DOMA suits, seeking a ruling that would affirm a constitutional right to gay marriage for all.

The fear among the gay-rights establishment has been that the high-octane Prop 8 challenge would reach the Supreme Court first—and that the court would find it too radical, dealing a blow that would set the movement back years. Or, in the best case, that the court would embrace a constitutional right to gay marriage—but the nation’s conservatives would in turn renew their push for a federal marriage amendment, setting off a nasty, drawn-out political fight nationwide.

More recently, marriage-equality advocates like E.J. Graff, a journalist and fellow at Brandeis University, have learned to stop worrying and love the Prop 8 lawsuit. Why? For one thing, the specter of a public backlash is less intimidating because polls now show a majority of Americans supports gay marriage rights. People who have been fighting for gay marriage from the days when it was a fringe issue now perceive that time is on their side: The question is not whether the country will accept same-sex marriage, but when.

Second, Graff and others rightly anticipated that any ruling on Prop 8 by the 9th Circuit would sidestep the grander ambitions of the Boies/Olson challenge and instead take a sufficiently narrow approach to avoid triggering a Supreme Court rebuke. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick explained Tuesday, that’s exactly what happened. While there was plenty of high-flown language in Stephen Reinhardt’s majority opinion striking down Prop 8, the decision itself appeared tailor-made to appeal to the Supreme Court’s swing voter, Anthony Kennedy. Much of the reasoning rested on two opinions that Kennedy himself wrote: Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’ sodomy law, and especially Romer v. Evans, which nullified an anti-gay rights amendment in Colorado on the grounds that the state lacked a rational basis for the law.

All of which leaves gay-rights advocates free to celebrate the Prop 8 decision as a triumph, albeit a limited one. But though movement leaders won’t say it publicly, many are still rooting against Boies and Olson making it to the Supreme Court before the DOMA challenges.

Why? It’s still a risk-reward calculation. The most likely positive outcome, should the 9th Circuit’s Prop 8 decision receive a review from the high court, is that the justices uphold the 9th Circuit’s extremely narrow ruling. While that would be a moral victory for the movement, the practical outcome would be the same as if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case at all: gay Californians would regain the right to marry, with no impact anywhere else in the country, unless states first grant marriage equality rights and then withdraw them.

Yet the Supreme Court is not obliged to follow the 9th Circuit’s logic. It could opt to reopen the larger question of a constitutional right to gay marriage. And if it did, odds are that it would not be in favor of establishing such a right. Not this court, anyway.

The DOMA cases, by contrast, don’t broach the deeper civil rights question. Instead, they frame the question in terms of a different set of rights: states’ rights. The question before the court is whether the federal government overstepped its authority by denying states the right—a right they have always enjoyed—to create their own definitions of marriage. It’s a 10th Amendment argument that Anthony Kennedy could easily get behind, and leaves thorny issues of privacy and fundamental individual rights for another day.

And ironically, given the deliberate modesty of the DOMA challenges, the potential rewards of a DOMA ruling by the Supreme Court now exceed those that could realistically be expected in a Prop 8 ruling. Sure, DOMA has already been weakened by the Obama administration’s announcement last year that its attorneys would no longer defend it in federal court. But it’s still the law and it affects residents of all states with gay marriage laws—not just California—by denying federal recognition of those unions. A DOMA win would be national in scope. And it would keep the federal government on the sidelines as more and more states take their own stands on the issue. Just Wednesday, Washington’s legislature put the state on the verge of becoming the nation’s seventh to recognize same-sex marriages.

Advocates like Evan Wolfson, the father of the same-sex marriage movement, nevertheless insist they’re not losing sleep over the prospect of Prop 8 reaching the high court first. “We can’t control which case, if any, of the current cases is going to get to the Supreme Court, or who might be on the court when it gets there,” Wolfson said. “What we can control is that we do everything in our power to maximize our chances of winning.”

That’s true. Still, he and others who have fought hard to overturn DOMA had to have been at least a little relieved that the 9th Circuit didn’t go out of its way to make a splash with Tuesday’s decision. The most liberal of the country’s federal appeals court, the 9th is also the most frequently overruled by the Supreme Court. (The main DOMA challenges are coming out of the 1st Circuit.) Even David Boies, the more liberal of the two lawyers arguing against Proposition 8, acknowledged in a post-victory conference call that the narrow ruling in California could make the Supreme Court less likely to take the case.

Interestingly, his fellow counselor, Olson—a Republican whom a few conspiracy-minded liberals once suspected of trying to sabotage the gay-marriage cause by fighting Prop 8—wasn’t quite on the same page. The 9th Circuit’s decision, he asserted, “ringingly reaffirmed the right to equality, the fundamental right to marriage and the fact that it cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation or the basis of their sex."

In theory, anyone in the gay rights movement would endorse those sentiments. It’s just that they’re wary of asking Anthony Kennedy if he does too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/02/prop_8_vs_doma_which_is_the_better_gay_rights_case _for_the_supreme_court_.single.html#pagebreak_anch or_2

[Kobi]

HOUSTON—A federal judge's ruling against a Houston mother who says she was fired after asking for a place to pump breast milk has highlighted a question left unanswered by higher courts: Is firing a woman because she wants to pump at work sexual discrimination?

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said it wouldn't be illegal even if Donnicia Venters and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were correct in assuming that Houston Funding, a debt collection agency, fired her because she'd asked to pump breast milk at work. The judge reasoned that lactation was not pregnancy-related and, as a result, "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."

Several other district courts have issued similar statements, but no higher-level appeals court has ruled on the issue, leaving many new mothers in legal limbo, said Carrie Hoffman, a labor lawyer in Dallas. She said President Barack Obama's health care law addresses breast feeding and requires employers to give new mothers a break to nurse, but it doesn't specifically protect women from being fired if they ask to do so.

"The intent was to get nursing mothers back to work but allow them to continue to nurse because of the health benefits associated with nursing," Hoffman said. "But even so, that law doesn't have anything to do with terminating the employee ... it just requires break time. There appears to be a hole."

Either way, the rule -- which went into effect in the past year -- would not apply to Venters.

Her story began in December 2008, when she took maternity leave and gave birth to her now 3-year-old daughter, Shiloh. She kept in close contact with Houston Funding during her roughly 10-week leave, according to cellphone records obtained by the EEOC and written statements by her former supervisors, said Tim Bowne, a senior trial attorney with the EEOC in Houston who helped litigate the case.

At least twice during her leave, Venters told her direct supervisor, Robert Fleming, she wanted to pump milk while on her break at work and asked him to get permission from their boss, Vice President Harry Cagle.

"He was completely fine about it," she said of Fleming. "I never got an answer back and I didn't think anything of it."

Venters, 30, had worked at the company for almost three years, earned a promotion and figured that at worst Cagle might feel uncomfortable and deny her request.

"I didn't think I would get the boot for it," Venters told The Associated Press. "It didn't really make sense to me."

In a signed affidavit provided to the judge, Fleming said that when he told Cagle that Venters wanted to bring a breast pump to work, Cagle responded with a strong "No. Maybe she needs to stay home longer."Continued...

Bowne said Venters told the EEOC that when she told Cagle she wanted to use a breast pump in a back room during breaks at work, his "demeanor changed. He paused for a few seconds and said, `I'm sorry. We've laid you off.'"

The company issued a statement Thursday evening saying it welcomed the court's ruling, denied discriminating against Venters and would comply with new laws protecting women's rights to breast feed in the workplace.

In response to the lawsuit, Houston Funding had argued that Venters was terminated because she failed to keep in good contact with the company and didn't return to work as scheduled. But Fleming said he had spoken to Venters at least weekly during her medical leave, which the EEOC argued was evidence that Houston Funding's excuse for firing Venters -- "job abandonment" -- was simply a "pretext for unlawful discrimination."

Hughes sided with the company in his ruling last week, but he also wrote: "Even if the company's claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the real reason -- she wanted to pump breast milk -- lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.

"She gave birth on Dec. 11, 2009. After that day, she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended. Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination," the judge wrote.

But Hoffman and Bowne said the issue won't be definitively determined unless an appeals court takes up the case. The EEOC has not yet decided whether to appeal Hughes' ruling, Bowne said.

"It's quite likely that we'll seek an appeal, but that decision is made in headquarters," Bowne said, noting that decision would probably be made in April.

Current law clearly protects pregnant women from being fired simply because they are having a child, and many of the arguments made regarding lactation have focused on it being a "pregnancy-related condition." Hoffman believes, however, that attorneys seeking to get stronger protection for new mothers should instead focus on sexual discrimination.

"It's certainly sex-based. Men can't lactate," Hoffman said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/02/09/judge_firing_for_lactation_not_sex_discrimination/?page=1

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A landmark $25 billion settlement with the nation's top mortgage lenders was hailed by government officials Thursday as long-overdue relief for victims of foreclosure abuses. But consumer advocates countered that far too few people will benefit.

The deal will reduce loans for only a fraction of those Americans who owe more than their homes are worth. It will also send checks to others who were improperly foreclosed upon. But the amounts are modest.

It's unclear how much the deal will help struggling homeowners keep their homes or benefit those who have already lost theirs.

About 11 million households are underwater, meaning they owe more than their homes are worth. The settlement would help 1 million of them.

"The total number of dollars is still small compared to the value of the mortgages that are underwater," said Richard Green, director of the University of Southern California's Lusk Center for Real Estate.

Federal and state officials announced that 49 states joined the settlement with five of the nation's biggest lenders. Oklahoma struck a separate deal with the five banks. Government officials are still negotiating with 14 other lenders to join.

The bulk of the money will go to California and Florida, two of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis and the ones with the most underwater homeowners. The two states stand to receive roughly 75 percent of the settlement funds.

Of the five major lenders, Bank of America will pay the most to borrowers: nearly $8.6 billion. Wells Fargo will pay about $4.3 billion, JPMorgan Chase roughly $4.2 billion, Citigroup about $1.8 billion and Ally Financial $200 million. The banks will also pay state and federal governments about $5.5 billion.

The settlement ends a painful chapter of the financial crisis, when home values sank and millions edged toward foreclosure. Many companies processed foreclosures without verifying documents. Some employees signed papers they hadn't read or used fake signatures to speed foreclosures — an action known as robo-signing.

President Barack Obama praised the settlement, saying it will "speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake."

The deal requires the banks to reduce loans for about 1 million households that are at risk of foreclosure. The lenders will also send $2,000 each to about 750,000 Americans who were improperly foreclosed upon from 2008 through 2011. The banks will have three years to fulfill terms of the deal.

The states have agreed not to pursue civil charges over the abuses covered by the settlement. Homeowners can still sue lenders on their own, and federal and state authorities can still pursue criminal charges.

The deal, reached after 16 months of contentious negotiations, is subject to approval by a federal judge. It's the biggest settlement involving a single industry since the $206 billion multistate tobacco deal in 1998.

But for the many people who lost their homes to foreclosure in the past two years, some of them improperly, a check for $2,000 is small consolation.

"Two thousand dollars won't cover my moving costs," said Brian Duncan, who was evicted from his Tempe, Ariz., home last April.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who led the 50-state talks, said the $2,000 checks represent the homeowners' best hope of being reimbursed for any amount. They would have had trouble winning settlements in court because of the time-consuming complexity of litigation, Miller said.

Mike Heid, president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, said the agreement "represents a very important step toward restoring confidence in mortgage servicing and stability in the housing market."

Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities, said the settlement may help the housing market in the long run. That's because it lets banks proceed with millions of foreclosures that have been stalled. Many lenders had refrained from foreclosing on homes as they awaited the settlement.

"We've got a lot of issues to work our way through in the housing market," Vitner said. "What this settlement does is allow that process to get started."

For the banks, the settlement comes mainly as a relief. If each state had sued the lenders and won, the total settlements could have run into the hundreds of billions. And all the lenders have set aside adequate reserves.

"It's really a wash," said Paul Miller, bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "A billion dollars is nothing for these large trillion-dollar banks."

The bulk of the settlement will go toward reducing underwater mortgages and refinancing some of them. But the banks had realized they weren't going to collect the loans and had already written down their value, Miller noted.

The deal requires banks to make foreclosure their last resort. And they can't foreclose on a homeowner who is being considered for a loan modification.

Still, the federal government has a dubious track record of enforcing such rules. The Obama administration's signature foreclosure-prevention program has failed to help more than half of those who have applied to have their mortgage payments lowered permanently. Many have complained that the program is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Critics also note that the settlement will apply only to privately held mortgages and not to those owned by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks own about half of all U.S. mortgages, or roughly 30 million loans. Fannie and Freddie own the other half.

The deal is "another sad example of Wall Street not being held accountable for fraud, perjury and crimes that created the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression," said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, a group that advocates stricter financial regulation. "The math does not add up in a massive 'robo-signing' scandal that is nothing more than systemic criminal conduct."

The settlement also ends a separate investigation into Bank of America and Countrywide for inflating appraisals of loans from 2003 through most of 2009. Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/25b-settlement-reached-over-foreclosure-221050960.html?l=1

[AtLast]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A landmark $25 billion settlement with the nation's top mortgage lenders was hailed by government officials Thursday as long-overdue relief for victims of foreclosure abuses. But consumer advocates countered that far too few people will benefit.

The deal will reduce loans for only a fraction of those Americans who owe more than their homes are worth. It will also send checks to others who were improperly foreclosed upon. But the amounts are modest.

It's unclear how much the deal will help struggling homeowners keep their homes or benefit those who have already lost theirs.

About 11 million households are underwater, meaning they owe more than their homes are worth. The settlement would help 1 million of them.

"The total number of dollars is still small compared to the value of the mortgages that are underwater," said Richard Green, director of the University of Southern California's Lusk Center for Real Estate.

Federal and state officials announced that 49 states joined the settlement with five of the nation's biggest lenders. Oklahoma struck a separate deal with the five banks. Government officials are still negotiating with 14 other lenders to join.

The bulk of the money will go to California and Florida, two of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis and the ones with the most underwater homeowners. The two states stand to receive roughly 75 percent of the settlement funds.

Of the five major lenders, Bank of America will pay the most to borrowers: nearly $8.6 billion. Wells Fargo will pay about $4.3 billion, JPMorgan Chase roughly $4.2 billion, Citigroup about $1.8 billion and Ally Financial $200 million. The banks will also pay state and federal governments about $5.5 billion.

The settlement ends a painful chapter of the financial crisis, when home values sank and millions edged toward foreclosure. Many companies processed foreclosures without verifying documents. Some employees signed papers they hadn't read or used fake signatures to speed foreclosures — an action known as robo-signing.

President Barack Obama praised the settlement, saying it will "speed relief to the hardest-hit homeowners, end some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake."

The deal requires the banks to reduce loans for about 1 million households that are at risk of foreclosure. The lenders will also send $2,000 each to about 750,000 Americans who were improperly foreclosed upon from 2008 through 2011. The banks will have three years to fulfill terms of the deal.

The states have agreed not to pursue civil charges over the abuses covered by the settlement. Homeowners can still sue lenders on their own, and federal and state authorities can still pursue criminal charges.

The deal, reached after 16 months of contentious negotiations, is subject to approval by a federal judge. It's the biggest settlement involving a single industry since the $206 billion multistate tobacco deal in 1998.

But for the many people who lost their homes to foreclosure in the past two years, some of them improperly, a check for $2,000 is small consolation.

"Two thousand dollars won't cover my moving costs," said Brian Duncan, who was evicted from his Tempe, Ariz., home last April.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who led the 50-state talks, said the $2,000 checks represent the homeowners' best hope of being reimbursed for any amount. They would have had trouble winning settlements in court because of the time-consuming complexity of litigation, Miller said.

Mike Heid, president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, said the agreement "represents a very important step toward restoring confidence in mortgage servicing and stability in the housing market."

Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities, said the settlement may help the housing market in the long run. That's because it lets banks proceed with millions of foreclosures that have been stalled. Many lenders had refrained from foreclosing on homes as they awaited the settlement.

"We've got a lot of issues to work our way through in the housing market," Vitner said. "What this settlement does is allow that process to get started."

For the banks, the settlement comes mainly as a relief. If each state had sued the lenders and won, the total settlements could have run into the hundreds of billions. And all the lenders have set aside adequate reserves.

"It's really a wash," said Paul Miller, bank analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "A billion dollars is nothing for these large trillion-dollar banks."

The bulk of the settlement will go toward reducing underwater mortgages and refinancing some of them. But the banks had realized they weren't going to collect the loans and had already written down their value, Miller noted.

The deal requires banks to make foreclosure their last resort. And they can't foreclose on a homeowner who is being considered for a loan modification.

Still, the federal government has a dubious track record of enforcing such rules. The Obama administration's signature foreclosure-prevention program has failed to help more than half of those who have applied to have their mortgage payments lowered permanently. Many have complained that the program is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Critics also note that the settlement will apply only to privately held mortgages and not to those owned by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks own about half of all U.S. mortgages, or roughly 30 million loans. Fannie and Freddie own the other half.

The deal is "another sad example of Wall Street not being held accountable for fraud, perjury and crimes that created the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression," said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, a group that advocates stricter financial regulation. "The math does not add up in a massive 'robo-signing' scandal that is nothing more than systemic criminal conduct."

The settlement also ends a separate investigation into Bank of America and Countrywide for inflating appraisals of loans from 2003 through most of 2009. Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/25b-settlement-reached-over-foreclosure-221050960.html?l=1

Two things that bother me about this-

1) The banks, themselves will be the only parties contacting mortgage holders that will receive relief from this settlement. It really only covers people that are current with house payments (and had only 2 late payments) plus will only lessen and up-side-down mortgage by $20,000 maximum;

2) It does not include provisions for waiving the decreases in credit ratings that occured during the recession that led to so many people hurt by these lending practices in order to qualify for a re-fi that they can manage,

This will only help a very small number of people after yeras of stress & hardship that have finally been able to secure a new job (or be rehired) and begin getting on their feet.

Yes, it will help some and I am happy for them, but, is far too little far too late. Most of the billions profited by these asshats were turned into bundled securities and held outside of the US. They continue to earn mega bucks on these instruments.

Now with banks that will complete foreclosures of those homesowners that will not benefit by this settlement will sell the distressed properties to investors that will make quite a profit as the housing market does recover. And in the interium, they will be in a very lucretive rental market with these properties..

[Greyson]

This commentary speaks to some of the similarities or not between the struggle for civil rights among the Black Community and the LGBTQ Community.

Wade Henderson is African American and I primarily agree with his commentary. I recommend reading the comments submitted by the readers in response to his commentary.

__________________________________________________ _________


Blacks should stand with gays on marriage equality
Gay is not 'the new black,' but we shouldn't let inappropriate rhetoric get in the way of civil rights goals

By Wade Henderson

January 12, 2012



The 400-year advancement of African-Americans from chattel, to sharecroppers, to second-class citizens under Jim Crow, to our current status as emancipated citizens in today's democracy is one of the most powerful and transformative — although incomplete — stories in world history.

The civil rights struggle is far from over for black people. We still have a long path forward to preserve our precious gains and narrow the stubborn educational, employment, housing and criminal justice disparities that hold us back. In order to advance these causes, we'll need to work — as we always have — in coalition with other historically disadvantaged groups, including Latinos, Asian-Americans, working-class whites, Jews, Muslims, people with disabilities — and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Gay and lesbian advocates often invoke the words, spirit and iconic figures of the civil rights movement when making their case for equality. Some of these advocates, such as Bayard Rustin, were both black and gay.

Civil rights must be measured by a single yardstick. So when the government bestows inheritance rights, tax benefits, adoption rights, child custody, power of attorney and other privileges on married individuals — but denies those same basic privileges to gays and lesbians — it is a blunt and injurious denial of equality and family security.

But when white LGBT advocates take these comparisons too far, it can be offensive.

Terms like "gay is the new black" are inherently disrespectful to the black experience in America. These types of misleading slogans obscure the uniqueness of both groups' struggles in an attempt to make a neat and tidy analogy. After all, gays and lesbians were never enslaved or subject to the harsh Jim Crow tactics of oppression, lynching, and intimidation in the way that blacks were.

And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children.

With the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly now under way, African-Americans in Maryland will soon play a pivotal role in the effort to advance equality for gays and lesbians as the legislature considers granting marriage rights to thousands of families and couples in the state.

In Maryland, gays and lesbians are engaging in a fight for their civil rights — for marriage equality. And we must not let rhetoric that seeks to appropriate our experience blind us to a simple fact: that while the journeys of our two communities may be different, our ultimate goals are the same.

Marriage equality is not only a matter of civil rights; it's one of human rights and basic dignity. To deny familial and spousal benefits to millions of gay and lesbian Americans — benefits that are taken as a given for straight Americans — is to undermine the basic family unit that we in the black community have worked so hard to preserve and advance.

We would also hope that, by identifying with our story, white LGBT advocates will become much more engaged in our current and future struggles. So when black youth are struggling in under-resourced schools or rotting away in prisons they shouldn't be in, we will look to the LGBT community to stand with us as we continue our long struggle toward equality.

Measuring civil rights by a single yardstick means just that. We must not let rhetoric that may rub us the wrong way allow us to turn our backs on those who have received so much inspiration from our story.

By correcting this injustice against gays and lesbians, we can continue our long march of progress together. It is only through a stronger and broader coalition that we also advance our collective needs. After all, the civil rights movement still has a lot of unfinished business left to address.

Wade Henderson is president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. He may be contacted at media@civilrights.org.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-marriage-20120112,0,6035118.story#tugs_story_display

[Truly Scrumptious]

On Feb 7, legislators in the Ugandan Parliament reintroduced a controversial bill that would in effect legislate hate against the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community.

The proposed bill, known as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB), would compel families, doctors, and counselors to report on all those suspected of being members of the LGBTI community, and would impose criminal sanctions, possibly even the death penalty, for those who fail to turn in their fellow citizens. Combined with other proposed legislation before the Parliament, like portions of the HIV/AIDS Prevention Control Bill, the AHB would also hinder Uganda's HIV-prevention efforts, contributing to the alarming rise in HIV infection rates.

President Yoweri Museveni's government insists that they do not back the bill and that it was reintroduced by a backbencher, but also says "As Uganda is a constitutional democracy, it is appropriate that if a private member's bill is presented to parliament it be debated".


More here:

Ugandan hate bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-kennedy/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill_b_1267093.html)

[Kobi]

(Reuters) - A Native American Indian tribe sued leading beer makers seeking $500 million in damages and accusing them of knowingly contributing to "crippling" alcoholism rates on one of the nation's largest reservations in South Dakota.

The suit, filed by the Oglala Sioux tribe, alleges the brewers are "engaged in a common enterprise focused on assisting and participating in the illegal importation of alcohol" onto the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where the sale, possession and consumption of alcohol is illegal.

Story (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indian-tribe-files-500-million-suit-against-big-231651581.html)

[princessbelle]

(Reuters) - A Native American Indian tribe sued leading beer makers seeking $500 million in damages and accusing them of knowingly contributing to "crippling" alcoholism rates on one of the nation's largest reservations in South Dakota.

The suit, filed by the Oglala Sioux tribe, alleges the brewers are "engaged in a common enterprise focused on assisting and participating in the illegal importation of alcohol" onto the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where the sale, possession and consumption of alcohol is illegal.

Story (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indian-tribe-files-500-million-suit-against-big-231651581.html)

Thank you so much for posting this Kobi. It reminds me of something that has been on my mind for years.

I'm not sure if we comment in this thread, or if it is just for news so forgive me if this should go elsewhere.

About 10 years ago i took a nursing job assignment on a reservation in Farmington, NM. It was a Navaho reservation and 90 percent of the residents were Native American. I have never in my entire life before or since then seen or been in a place that had more alcohol for sale. I mean it was everywhere. In gas stations even. In Wall-greens...every single store had not just a few things for sale, i'm talking about huge rooms that had been added on that sold everything and anything with alcohol in it.

It was no wonder the hospital that i worked at had three entire floors dedicated to cirrhosis and alcohol rehabilitation. Almost every patient that came through there went into DTs and some docs would even order the alcohol on the drug list so they would not go into DTs or ween off.

It has always bothered me. Now, it was not illegal there as it is in this story, but, my gosh, no wonder so many were alcoholics.

Leads me to two thoughts....supply and demand vs. exploitation of minority groups for the almighty dollar. I believe even the liqueur/beer makers have some responsibility and should take the responsibility when they cram things, literally, down someone or some "people's" throat. It really angers me and it really is upsetting to see something like that.

I just wanted to share that and get anyone's take on it. I'm sure it is not a new thing by far but it is the first time i ever witnessed anything like it and it has bothered me for 10 years.

Just wanted to share.

[Gemme]

Christian Hotel Owners to Pay Damages to Gay Couple (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/10/peter-and-hazelmary-christian-guesthouse-owners-pay-damages_n_1267598.html?ref=travel&ir=Travel&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D134720)

[SoNotHer]

Thank you, Greyson, for your post. I'm proud of Governor O'Malley and my home state for moving forward on this.

O'Malley says California ruling could help push for Maryland's same-sex marriage bill

By Yvonne Wenger, The Baltimore Sun

Gov.Martin O'Malley said a federal court's ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional could buoy his push to legalize the unions in Maryland. O'Malley, a Democrat, said that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Tuesday will impact the debate in Maryland.

"I think there are some who — even given their opposition today — understand that over the long term the principle of equity, of civil rights, will ultimately prevail," O'Malley said. "I think this latest decision out of the 9th Circuit is further evidence of that understanding."

More at -

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-07/news/bs-md-omalley-prop8-20120207_1_marriage-bill-california-ruling-marriage-equality

[dark_crystal]

Does anyone know why the Tea Party is mad about Obama's establishment of the President's Global Development Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/executive-order-establishing-presidents-global-development-council)?

(described as to help protect national security and further American economic, humanitarian, and strategic interests in the world, it is the policy of the Federal Government to promote and elevate development as a core pillar of American power and chart a course for development, diplomacy, and defense to reinforce and complement one another. As stated in the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the successful pursuit of development is essential to advancing our national security objectives: security, prosperity, respect for universal values, and a just and sustainable international order)

I only heard of it b/c my (rabidly Tea Party) aunt had the whitehouse.gov page linked on her facebook with the comment "another chip at our freedoms."

So I googled "President's Global Development Council" "tea party" and found (two identical!!! http://askmarion.wordpress.com/ and http://knowledgecreatespower.blogspot.com/) posts that just say "this is frightening!" with another link to the whitehouse.gov page.

But of the three sources there is no commentary at all on their problem with it....is it because "global development" is possibly a euphemism for "American aid to other countries" and any expenditure of tax dollars is a loss of freedom because taxation in general is anti-freedom?

Or is it just that Obama has done something, period, and anything he does is a "chip at our freedoms"??

[UofMfan]

Whitney Houston Dead: Singer Dies At 48 ~ HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/whitney-houston-dead-sing_n_1270889.html)

[Luv]

RIP Whitney,,listening to it on CNN

[Leigh]

I'm watching it on CNN too ~ I just cannot believe this!

[MsDemeanor]

Does anyone know why the Tea Party is mad about Obama's establishment of the President's Global Development Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/executive-order-establishing-presidents-global-development-council)?



When in doubt, just look for the article on Free Republic or Faux Newz and read the comments section.

freeper madness - http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2845193/posts
faux newz - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/obama-tasks-new-council-with-global-development-strategy/#comment

[AtLast]

RIP Whitney,,listening to it on CNN

So sad. A great loss.

[AtLast]

Yes, the most insane part was allowing the kids to see him in his home. Unless a trained body guard was sent with the kids, it makes no sense.

When I worked in foster care supervised visits were never at the home. The parent came to a visitation site and interacted with their kids and there was always a therapist or social worker in the room for the duration of the visit. Also, other people working in the office were present. Sometimes, when the kids were going to be re-united with a parent within a time frame, visits took place at somewhere like a McDonalds or public park. Again, the entire time was supervised.

I was totally taken back by any such visitation with a parent that was a suspect in the murder of the kid's mother and had just been ordered (week before) to take a polygraph and have a psychiatric evaluation! That is just nuts! The police had also just found child porn on the guys computer and these kids had dropped hints to their grandparents about their mother being in the trunk of a car! What the hell was going on with this judge? I don't think that this guy should have had access (supervised or otherwise0 at this point- certainly not until the evaluations were done and reported to the court.

[SoNotHer]

Virginia school district ponders banning cross-gender dress
By Matthew A. Ward | Reuters – 16 hrs ago

SUFFOLK, Va (Reuters) - A Virginia school district is considering banning cross-gender dressing in a move proponents said aims to protect students from harassment, but which civil liberties and gay rights groups said would amount to an assault on free speech. Board members said they wanted to protect the children in the school district in Suffolk, about 20 miles from Norfolk, from the types of tragedies such as killings and suicides tied to bullying in other parts of the country.

The proposed dress code would prohibit students from wearing clothing "not in keeping with a student's gender" and that "causes a disruption and/or distracts others from the education process or poses a health or safety concern." The board opted to pursue the ban after teachers at one of the district's three high schools said some male students were dressing like girls, prompting complaints from other students, district spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw said.

Board Vice Chairwoman Thelma Hinton, in supporting the ban, cited the killing of a 15-year-old California cross-dressing student by another student in 2008 and the suicide of a 14-year-old gay student last year in New York after online bullying. "When a situation is brought up to me, I'm going to speak out if I have to speak out, and take a stand," Hinton said Thursday at a board meeting, adding that she was more concerned about the safety of the district's 14,000 students than civil rights.

"It has nothing to do with a person's gender -- who they are," Hinton said. "Of course I don't want anyone's rights being violated, but I have done some research." A vote on the issue is expected in March, and a ban would take effect on July 1 if approved, Bradshaw said.

ACLU SAYS BAN IS VAGUE AND DISCRIMINATORY

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia had already called the proposed ban unconstitutionally vague and sexually discriminatory even before Thursday's meeting. After hearing board members offer general support for the ban on Thursday, the state ACLU plans to outline possible legal actions that could follow if it is adopted, Virginia ACLU Executive Director Kent Willis told Reuters.

James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, suggested that district administrators needed education on issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. "If a girl comes to school wearing jeans and a flannel shirt, is that considered cross-gender dressing?" he told Reuters, adding that a misunderstanding of the issues could actually make the students more susceptible to bullying.

"They're calling it cross-dressing, but if that individual was wearing clothes that reflect their gender identity, that's not cross-dressing, that's appropriate gender dressing," he said. Several incidents where relentless verbal assaults and online harassment led to the suicides or murders of gay or lesbian teens over the past few years have led to tougher anti-bullying laws in some states.

New Jersey passed tougher anti-bullying laws after a gay college student killed himself after reportedly being bullied, and New York lawmakers were looking at how to stem the kind of harassment that led to the Buffalo teen's suicide. In Suffolk, school board attorney Wendell Waller said opponents who read the proposed ban as a straight prohibition missed its intent. He also said the district would press ahead with what he described as a "very delicate" balancing act.

"It is not a straight prohibition of anything, unless it ... forms a disruption of the education process," Waller said.

(Editing By Colleen Jenkins, David Bailey and Cynthia Johnston)

http://news.yahoo.com/virginia-school-district-ponders-banning-cross-gender-dress-231015448.html

[DapperButch]

When I worked in foster care supervised visits were never at the home. The parent came to a visitation site and interacted with their kids and there was always a therapist or social worker in the room for the duration of the visit. Also, other people working in the office were present. Sometimes, when the kids were going to be re-united with a parent within a time frame, visits took place at somewhere like a McDonalds or public park. Again, the entire time was supervised.

I was totally taken back by any such visitation with a parent that was a suspect in the murder of the kid's mother and had just been ordered (week before) to take a polygraph and have a psychiatric evaluation! That is just nuts! The police had also just found child porn on the guys computer and these kids had dropped hints to their grandparents about their mother being in the trunk of a car! What the hell was going on with this judge? I don't think that this guy should have had access (supervised or otherwise0 at this point- certainly not until the evaluations were done and reported to the court.

I saw on 20/20 (or Dateline?) the other night that at first the visits were at a supervised visitation center. He progressed to visits in his own home. But yes, I agree with you that it is insane that he was allowed to see them at home with all the questions about him on the table.

As an aside, my understanding is that what they found on his computer was computer generated depictions of incestuous parent/child relations...not real images.

[Gemme]

Whitney Houston Dead: Singer Dies At 48 ~ HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/whitney-houston-dead-sing_n_1270889.html)

So sad! I loved her, pre Bobby.

[Cin]

Study proves Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187)

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence (http://www.alternet.org/story/154082/conservatism_thrives_on_low_intelligence_and_poor_ information/)

Calling Conservatives Stupid, The Daily Mail, in a Dazzling Display of Intellectual Prowess, Bites the Hand that Feeds It (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/daily-mail-calls-rightwingers-stupid)

The Daily Mail Article: Right-Wingers are Less Intelligent than Left-Wingers (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)

[AtLast]

I saw on 20/20 (or Dateline?) the other night that at first the visits were at a supervised visitation center. He progressed to visits in his own home. But yes, I agree with you that it is insane that he was allowed to see them at home with all the questions about him on the table.

As an aside, my understanding is that what they found on his computer was computer generated depictions of incestuous parent/child relations...not real images.

Yes, computer generated. But, I would have a problem with him around the kids due to these- but more so with his father's impact on him.

It is just weird that the visits were not reverted to visitations at a center after the last court date- just as a precaution.

Something that I have also been thinking about (and have seen back when I worked in agencies) is the possibility of race being part of why the justice system was not paying attention to red flags with this guy. He was white, educated, well groomed and had no prior record. He did, however have flat affect (saw his interviews last year on the first dateline episode about him).In fact, my guess is if he were a POC, the psych eval would have been required prior to supervised, on site visits. I have seen this far too many times to not wonder about it- and stats demonstrate how white's are far more often given visitation in the child welfare system.

[DapperButch]

Yes, computer generated. But, I would have a problem with him around the kids due to these- but more so with his father's impact on him.

It is just weird that the visits were not reverted to visitations at a center after the last court date- just as a precaution.

I absolutely agree with you.

Something that I have also been thinking about (and have seen back when I worked in agencies) is the possibility of race being part of why the justice system was not paying attention to red flags with this guy. He was white, educated, well groomed and had no prior record. He did, however have flat affect (saw his interviews last year on the first dateline episode about him).In fact, my guess is if he were a POC, the psych eval would have been required prior to supervised, on site visits. I have seen this far too many times to not wonder about it- and stats demonstrate how white's are far more often given visitation in the child welfare system.

Interesting. Very. I have never worked in the child welfare system, so I have no sense of this. What studies are you referring to? Percentage of POC versus caucasian who had to take psych evals prior to visitation? Or what do you mean when you say caucasians are given visitation more often? I am not asking for a specific study (of course!)

[AtLast]

Interesting. Very. I have never worked in the child welfare system, so I have no sense of this. What studies are you referring to? Percentage of POC versus caucasian who had to take psych evals prior to visitation? Or what do you mean when you say caucasians are given visitation more often? I am not asking for a specific study (of course!)

I remember here in CA, data compiled from CPS records on court decided visitations and the number of POC either getting supervised visitation or getting kids back as compared to caucasians. This was a few years back and conducted after complaints taken by legal aid agencies trying to see if there were differences based upon race. Economic status was a variable considered as well. There was a statistically significant difference found with whites getting kids returned to them and having supervised visitation sooner and more often. I don't know what kinds of data collection or comparisons have been done recently- I didn't stay in the child welfare public system.

I have no idea if this could be applied to the Powell case at all. I was just thinking about what in the world could have happened in this case and also the shuffling between agencies and systems that might have contributed to just how dangerous he was (and the triggers piling up for him) or non-cordination of information within the system. if I remember correctly, this case also began in one state and ended in another (Utah to washington).

Things always seen to fall into outside observer bias or 20-20 hindsight when these things happen, however. So damn difficult to make sense about how things seemed to fall through the cracks and these kids were put into danger.

[Kobi]

When I read about this....the history of Enron and their "unique" business practices designed to maximum profits thru carefully planned, man made shortages comes to mind.

--------------------------------------
Two Congressmen introduced bipartisan legislation to address prescription drug shortages last week. The Drug Shortage Prevention Act would create a ‘Critical Drug List’ that would identify drugs that are susceptible to shortage, and require the FDA to develop a system to notify the public if a medicine is added to the list.

The bill would also require the FDA to inform distributors of an upcoming shortage so they can prevent secondary buyers from trying to collect drugs and sell them on the ‘grey market’ for higher prices. Distributors would also be able to reallocate supplies to delay and ease the effects of a shortage.

This bill marks the latest step in government efforts to respond to drug shortages, following an executive order that President Obama signed last October. Obama directed the FDA to speed up new manufacturing facilities’ reviews and encourage manufacturers to report shortages sooner so that limited drug supplies can be more effectively managed to prevent a drug shortage from becoming a crisis.

And while it is a positive sign that the issue of drug shortages are being taken seriously, these measures are only just a start. Drug shortages have become a growing and critical problem in America. In 2011, there were a record-high 267 new prescription drug shortages. This is 56 more than in 2010, when there were 211, and more than four times greater than the number of medication shortages in 2004, when just 58 drug shortages were reported.

The worsening drug shortage problem impacts patient care, especially in hospitals, as chemotherapy, surgery and care for patients with pain and infections are disrupted as a result of a lack of critical medicines. At least 15 deaths have been blamed on drug shortages in the past year.

The shortages have also delayed clinical trials that compare new, experimental drugs to older ones, and have led to extraordinary price extortion, causing many hospitals to have to pay extremely large markups for limited drugs.

The FDA says the shortages are primarily a result of manufacturing deficiencies that lead to production shutdowns. They are also caused by companies that end production of drugs that have small profit margins, consolidation in the generic drug industry, and not enough supplies of some ingredients.

While a lack of cancer drugs have been one of the most significant drug shortages, shortages have also been reported for drugs used to treat heart disease, central nervous system conditions, infection and pain. The IMS Institute, which provides information services for the health care industry, found that more than 80 percent of the products in short supply are generic, forcing patients looking for substitutes to get the brand-name drug and a higher co-payment.

Unfortunately, not many of the current shortages will be resolved soon, due to several key manufacturers that have had to shut down production because of contamination or other quality problems. Some medicines may only have one other manufacturer, which lacks the the capability to fill the gap immediately or entirely.

We must address the critical issue of drug shortages seriously and immediately in order to be most responsive to the well-being of patients generally and their ability to access life-saving medications as quickly as possible. It is important to address the complex set of manufacturing issues while continuing to encourage a market that promotes accessibility for these products. Health care providers and manufacturers can ascertain alternative treatment more effectively by tackling predicted drug shortage incidences early in the process.

Further, we must address and stop price gouging by secondary wholesalers. This jeopardizes patient safety, as it is impossible to guarantee that the medicines obtained by providers in this way have been handled in a way that maintains product integrity.

The pharmaceutical industry has worked hard to take proactive steps to address this problem thus far. The industry has worked closely with FDA and supply chain partners to address disruptions in availability of medicines as fast as possible. The industry is making continual investments in manufacturing processes to improve quality control, along with investments to constantly improvement technology to prevent future disruptions from happening.

Last month, the pharmaceutical industry introduced the Drug Shortages Resource Center. This site provides information about shortages, offers steps to take if affected by a shortage, provides links to FDA’s shortages page, and additional resources that provide guidance about this issue. This is the most recent example of the industry’s preemptive efforts to ensure the public is aware of any shortages, and offer steps they can take in case of unavailability.

The health care industry is deeply concerned with ensuring that patients have access to medicines. Pharmaceutical companies have demonstrated their commitment to maintaining good manufacturing practices and continuing to work closely and collaboratively with the FDA, providers and patients.

It is imperative that we seek a more thorough understanding of the many circumstances that can lead to a drug shortage as various industry stakeholders try to identify significant ways to help lessen, ease and address this serious problem. We must work together to protect availability and access to medicines.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/02/13/the-drug-shortage-crisis-in-america/2/

[Kobi]

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- McDonald's Corp. said Monday it will require its U.S. pork suppliers to provide plans by May to phase out crates that tightly confine pregnant sows, a move that one animal rights group predicted would have "a seismic impact" on the industry.

The U.S. pork industry generates sales of about $21 billion a year, according to the National Pork Producers Council. McDonald's, with its Sausage McMuffin, McRib sandwich and breakfast platters, is one of the largest U.S. buyers of pork products, consuming about 1 percent of the nation's total production.

The fast food chain announced its decision in a joint statement with the Humane Society of the United States, which hailed it as a major victory in its fight against so-called gestation crates. The animal welfare group has been pushing legislation in several states to outlaw the crates that severely limit animals' movement.

Full Story (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcdonalds-asks-suppliers-stop-using-192329575.html?l=1)

[MsDemeanor]

When I read about this....the history of Enron and their "unique" business practices designed to maximum profits thru carefully planned, man made shortages comes to mind.


I bet you'll never see Viagra on the list....

[*Anya*]

I bet you'll never see Viagra on the list....

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Cin]

The GOP Plan To Give Your Boss "Moral" Control Over Your Health Insurance (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-plan-give-bosses-moral-control-health-insurance)

[Hollylane]

The GOP Plan To Give Your Boss "Moral" Control Over Your Health Insurance (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-plan-give-bosses-moral-control-health-insurance)

)(@#()$*@#)#!!! <-- That is the least violent thing I have to say about these morally objectionable pieces of slime.

[SoNotHer]

)(@#()$*@#)#!!! <-- That is the least violent thing I have to say about these morally objectionable pieces of slime.

I begin to worry that we are now just moving around bad ideas like a nut in a nut-in-shell game.

[Kobi]

The GOP Plan To Give Your Boss "Moral" Control Over Your Health Insurance (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-plan-give-bosses-moral-control-health-insurance)



Moral objection......without even the need for explanation.......now this gives new meaning to "morality is bad for your health and wellbeing".

We need to commission a new study for the search for the errant morality gene in republican hosts.

[SoNotHer]

when people are literary worked to the point of chronic dehydration and kidney failure.


Mystery Disease In Central America Kills Thousands

By FILADELFO ALEMAN and MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN 02/12/12 12:00 AM ET AP

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/497470/thumbs/r-MYSTERY-DISEASE-large570.jpg
CHICHIGALPA, Nicaragua -- Jesus Ignacio Flores started working when he was 16, laboring long hours on construction sites and in the fields of his country's biggest sugar plantation. Three years ago his kidneys started to fail and flooded his body with toxins. He became too weak to work, wracked by cramps, headaches and vomiting.

On Jan. 19 he died on the porch of his house. He was 51. His withered body was dressed by his weeping wife, embraced a final time, then carried in the bed of a pickup truck to a grave on the edge of Chichigalpa, a town in Nicaragua's sugar-growing heartland, where studies have found more than one in four men showing symptoms of chronic kidney disease.

A mysterious epidemic is devastating the Pacific coast of Central America, killing more than 24,000 people in El Salvador and Nicaragua since 2000 and striking thousands of others with chronic kidney disease at rates unseen virtually anywhere else. Scientists say they have received reports of the phenomenon as far north as southern Mexico and as far south as Panama.

Last year it reached the point where El Salvador's health minister, Dr. Maria Isabel Rodriguez, appealed for international help, saying the epidemic was undermining health systems. Wilfredo Ordonez, who has harvested corn, sesame and rice for more than 30 years in the Bajo Lempa region of El Salvador, was hit by the chronic disease when he was 38. Ten years later, he depends on dialysis treatments he administers to himself four times a day.

"This is a disease that comes with no warning, and when they find it, it's too late," Ordonez said as he lay on a hammock on his porch. Many of the victims were manual laborers or worked in sugar cane fields that cover much of the coastal lowlands. Patients, local doctors and activists say they believe the culprit lurks among the agricultural chemicals workers have used for years with virtually none of the protections required in more developed countries. But a growing body of evidence supports a more complicated and counterintuitive hypothesis.

The roots of the epidemic, scientists say, appear to lie in the grueling nature of the work performed by its victims, including construction workers, miners and others who labor hour after hour without enough water in blazing temperatures, pushing their bodies through repeated bouts of extreme dehydration and heat stress for years on end. Many start as young as 10. The punishing routine appears to be a key part of some previously unknown trigger of chronic kidney disease, which is normally caused by diabetes and high-blood pressure, maladies absent in most of the patients in Central America.

"The thing that evidence most strongly points to is this idea of manual labor and not enough hydration," said Daniel Brooks, a professor of epidemiology at Boston University's School of Public Health, who has worked on a series of studies of the kidney disease epidemic. Because hard work and intense heat alone are hardly a phenomenon unique to Central America, some researchers will not rule out manmade factors. But no strong evidence has turned up. "I think that everything points away from pesticides," said Dr. Catharina Wesseling, an occupational and environmental epidemiologist who also is regional director of the Program on Work, Health and Environment in Central America. "It is too multinational; it is too spread out.

"I would place my bet on repeated dehydration, acute attacks everyday. That is my bet, my guess, but nothing is proved." Dr. Richard J. Johnson, a kidney specialist at the University of Colorado, Denver, is working with other researchers investigating the cause of the disease. They too suspect chronic dehydration. "This is a new concept, but there's some evidence supporting it," Johnson said. "There are other ways to damage the kidney. Heavy metals, chemicals, toxins have all been considered, but to date there have been no leading candidates to explain what's going on in Nicaragua ... "As these possibilities get exhausted, recurrent dehydration is moving up on the list."

In Nicaragua, the number of annual deaths from chronic kidney disease more than doubled in a decade, from 466 in 2000 to 1,047 in 2010, according to the Pan American Health Organization, a regional arm of the World Health Organization. In El Salvador, the agency reported a similar jump, from 1,282 in 2000 to 2,181 in 2010. Farther down the coast, in the cane-growing lowlands of northern Costa Rica, there also have been sharp increases in kidney disease, Wesseling said, and the Pan American body's statistics show deaths are on the rise in Panama, although at less dramatic rates. While some of the rising numbers may be due to better record-keeping, scientists have no doubt they are facing something deadly and previously unknown to medicine.

In nations with more developed health systems, the disease that impairs the kidney's ability to cleanse the blood is diagnosed relatively early and treated with dialysis in medical clinics. In Central America, many of the victims treat themselves at home with a cheaper but less efficient form of dialysis, or go without any dialysis at all. At a hospital in the Nicaraguan town of Chinandega, Segundo Zapata Palacios sat motionless in his room, bent over with his head on the bed. "He no longer wants to talk," said his wife, Enma Vanegas. His levels of creatinine, a chemical marker of kidney failure, were 25 times the normal amount. His family told him he was being hospitalized to receive dialysis. In reality, the hope was to ease his pain before his inevitable death, said Carmen Rios, a leader of Nicaragua's Association of Chronic Kidney Disease Patients, a support and advocacy group. "There's already nothing to do," she said. "He was hospitalized on Jan. 23 just waiting to die."

Zapata Palacios passed away on Jan. 26. He was 49.

Working with scientists from Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua, Wesseling tested groups on the coast and compared them with groups who had similar work habits and exposure to pesticide but lived and worked more than 500 meters (1,500 feet) above sea level. Some 30 percent of coastal dwellers had elevated levels of creatinine, strongly suggesting environment rather than agrochemicals was to blame, Brooks, the epidemiologist, said. The study is expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in coming weeks. Brooks and Johnson, the kidney specialist, said they have seen echoes of the Central American phenomenon in reports from hot farming areas in Sri Lanka, Egypt and the Indian east coast. "We don't really know how widespread this is," Brooks said. "This may be an under-recognized epidemic." Jason Glaser, co-founder of a group working to help victims of the epidemic in Nicaragua, said he and colleagues also have begun receiving reports of mysterious kidney disease among sugar cane workers in Australia.

Despite the growing consensus among international experts, Elsy Brizuela, a doctor who works with an El Salvadoran project to treat workers and research the epidemic, discounts the dehydration theory and insists "the common factor is exposure to herbicides and poisons." Nicaragua's highest rates of chronic kidney disease show up around the Ingenio San Antonio, a plant owned by the Pellas Group conglomerate, whose sugar mill processes nearly half the nation's sugar. Flores and Zapata Palacios both worked at the plantation. According to one of Brooks' studies, about eight years ago the factory started providing electrolyte solution and protein cookies to workers who previously brought their own water to work. But the study also found that some workers were cutting sugar cane for as long as 9 1/2 hours a day with virtually no break and little shade in average temperatures of 30 C (87 F).

In 2006, the plantation, owned by one of the country's richest families, received $36.5 million in loans from the International Finance Corp., the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, to buy more land, expand its processing plant and produce more sugar for consumers and ethanol production. In a statement, the IFC said it had examined the social and environmental impacts of its loans as part of a due diligence process and did not identify kidney disease as something related to the sugar plantation's operations. Nonetheless, the statement said, "we are concerned about this disease that affects not only Nicaragua but other countries in the region, and will follow closely any new findings." Ariel Granera, a spokesman for the Pellas' business conglomerate, said that starting as early as 1993 the company had begun taking a wide variety of precautions to avoid heat stress in its workers, from starting their shifts very early in the morning to providing them with many gallons of drinking water per day. Associated Press reporters saw workers bringing water bottles from their homes, which they refilled during the day from large cylinders of water in the buses that bring them to the fields. Glaser, the co-founder of the activist group in Nicaragua, La Isla Foundation, said that nonetheless many worker protections in the region are badly enforced by the companies and government regulators, particularly measures to stop workers with failing kidneys from working in the cane fields owned by the Pellas Group and other companies. Many workers disqualified by tests showing high levels of creatinine go back to work in the fields for subcontractors with less stringent standards, he said. Some use false IDs, or give their IDs to their healthy sons, who then pass the tests and go work in the cane fields, damaging their kidneys. "This is the only job in town," Glaser said. "It's all they're trained to do. It's all they know." The Ingenio San Antonio mill processes cane from more than 24,000 hectares (60,000 acres) of fields, about half directly owned by the mill and most of the rest by independent farmers.

The trade group for Nicaragua's sugar companies said the Boston University study had confirmed that "the agricultural sugar industry in Nicaragua has no responsibility whatsoever for chronic renal insufficiency in Nicaragua" because the research found that "in the current body of scientific knowledge there is no way to establish a direct link between sugar cane cultivation and renal insufficiency." Brooks, the epidemiologist at Boston University, told the AP that the study simply said there was no definitive scientific proof of the cause, but that all possible connections remained open to future research.

In comparison with Nicaragua, where thousands of kidney disease sufferers work for large sugar estates, in El Salvador many of them are independent small farmers. They blame agricultural chemicals and few appear to have significantly changed their work habits in response to the latest research, which has not received significant publicity in El Salvador. In Nicaragua, the dangers are better known, but still, workers need jobs. Zapata Palacios left eight children. Three of them work in the cane fields.

Two already show signs of disease.

[Cin]

Pretty soon we can just turn our taxes straight over to corporations and cut out government as middle man.

In exchange for keeping at least a 90 percent occupancy rate, the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has sent a letter to 48 states offering to manage their prisons for the low price of $250 million per year. Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/14/private-prison-company-offers-to-buy-48-states-prisons/)

[Cin]

Have Bees Become Our Canaries in the Coal Mine? (http://www.alternet.org/food/154039/have_bees_become_canaries_in_the_coal_mine_why_mas sive_bee_dieoffs_may_be_a_warning_about_our_own_he alth/)
Why Massive Bee Dieoffs May Be a Warning About Our Own Health.
What scientists are beginning to understand about the cause of colony collapse could be a message for all of us.

[dykeumentary]

Pretty soon we can just turn our taxes straight over to corporations and cut out government as middle man.

In exchange for keeping at least a 90 percent occupancy rate, the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has sent a letter to 48 states offering to manage their prisons for the low price of $250 million per year. Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/14/private-prison-company-offers-to-buy-48-states-prisons/)

Nightmare.
Doubleplusungood.

[LeftWriteFemme]

Okay, I had not heard of this community before, have any of you??

Eunuch gangs clash, 2 hurt
TNN Jan 13, 2012, 04.18AM IST
Tags:
Vastrapur police|Sonia De
AHMEDABAD: A fight for territorial dominance pitted two eunuch groups against each other in the city on Thursday. Both groups accused each other of trespassing into their jurisdiction. One group has filed a police complaint for physical assault.

According to Vastrapur police, the incident took place at 12.30 pm on Thursday as a group led by Renuka De, 32, a resident of Garibnagar, Behrampura, went to various shops in Vastrapur and began demanding money. When the other group, led by Rafaqat Husain alias Nitu De, a resident of Delhi Chakla, came to know about it, they rushed to the spot in an autorickshaw and started arguing with them.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-13/ahmedabad/30623434_1_eunuchs-sonia-de-s-vastrapur



Definition of Hijra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29

[Gemme]

When I worked in foster care supervised visits were never at the home. The parent came to a visitation site and interacted with their kids and there was always a therapist or social worker in the room for the duration of the visit. Also, other people working in the office were present. Sometimes, when the kids were going to be re-united with a parent within a time frame, visits took place at somewhere like a McDonalds or public park. Again, the entire time was supervised.

I was totally taken back by any such visitation with a parent that was a suspect in the murder of the kid's mother and had just been ordered (week before) to take a polygraph and have a psychiatric evaluation! That is just nuts! The police had also just found child porn on the guys computer and these kids had dropped hints to their grandparents about their mother being in the trunk of a car! What the hell was going on with this judge? I don't think that this guy should have had access (supervised or otherwise0 at this point- certainly not until the evaluations were done and reported to the court.

When I was in the system, that's how they did it too. My parents had to come see me where I was and it was 'semi' supervised. Basically, we stood in the front yard and talked.

I do just have to point one thing out in the name of being accurate. The 'porn' found on his computer was CG and not of 'real' people. So, because of that, it is not categorized as 'child porn'. I think that puts it in a whole different category too, in terms of 'seriousness', although sadly...we're aware of just how serious things were at this point.

I'm really frustrated with how lazy the system's gotten over the years. I realize that it's stretched to capacity but there's GOT to be a better way. Those kids should still be here.

[Hollylane]

FULL DISCLOSURE: It’s not really Adele singing, but a well-timed voice over. Still, we nominate this as share-worthy! Watch:
Adele Serenades Newt Gingrich At The Grammys

pKucBtFwymU

[Lady Pamela]

Very important news we all need to know,
about Social Security


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/social-security-is-failing-even-faster-than-we-thought/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136039

[Cin]

Very important news we all need to know,
about Social Security


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/social-security-is-failing-even-faster-than-we-thought/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136039

I guess it always puzzles me when they say stuff like this. How can they not have our social security? We already paid it. It's not like other people who are working when we retire are going to pay our social security. We already put the money in there.

Social Security Isn't in Crisis We Already Paid For It (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/25/social-security-isnt-in-crisis-we-already-paid-for-it/)

[Corkey]

I guess it always puzzles me when they say stuff like this. How can they not have our social security? We already paid it. It's not like other people who are working when we retire are going to pay our social security. We already put the money in there.

Social Security Isn't in Crisis We Already Paid For It (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/25/social-security-isnt-in-crisis-we-already-paid-for-it/)

If government would stop borrowing from social security and giving tax breaks from social security and make the wealthy pay INTO social security, there would be NO problem whatsoever With social security.

[Cin]

If government would stop borrowing from social security and giving tax breaks from social security and make the wealthy pay INTO social security, there would be NO problem whatsoever With social security.

LOL. Truer words were never spoken.

[Toughy]

What concerns me about Social Security has to do with the payroll tax cuts that have been passed and are up for renewal right now. I hope folks realize that little tax break being given to folks working really is a reduction in the amount the individual is paying into their social security. You are paying less money in and that will affect how much you get when you reach 62 or 65 (at least those are the ages now) and start collecting your SS.

I'm in favor of middle/working class tax breaks but not at our own expense. Raise taxes on the top 1-2% and give us a straight up tax break instead of the 'tax break' scam being played out now.

[DapperButch]

Personally, I think that it is all going to work out in the end. I am not sure how, but I believe it will.

However, with that said, I believe that this article speaks to how important it is that people should not plan on it being there. Work your ass off to put as much money away as you possibly can.

Stats are showing that people are saving more than they have in the very recent past, but certainly not even as much as they saved historically.

Since social security was put in place there has been a steady decline of how much people save for retirement. This, of course, is not surprising.

[Toughy]

I"m speechless

Virginia House, Senate and Governor are all Republican. They are passing a law that requires a transvaginal ultrasound be done on every woman seeking an abortion. And her consent is not required. No exceptions. There is no medical reason to require that procedure be done. They would not even allow an amendment that asks the woman whether or not she consents to the medical procedure.

legally required rape by a health care provider......

[Corkey]

I"m speechless

Virginia House, Senate and Governor are all Republican. They are passing a law that requires a transvaginal ultrasound be done on every woman seeking an abortion. And her consent is not required. No exceptions. There is no medical reason to require that procedure be done. They would not even allow an amendment that asks the woman whether or not she consents to the medical procedure.

legally required rape by a health care provider......

Someone is going to have to sue them.

[Laerkin]

It's completely unacceptable on every level. Women are not human or worthy of control over their bodies to these people. It's disgusting and offensive. I hate living in this (Virginia) state. I cannot wait to get out.

I"m speechless

Virginia House, Senate and Governor are all Republican. They are passing a law that requires a transvaginal ultrasound be done on every woman seeking an abortion. And her consent is not required. No exceptions. There is no medical reason to require that procedure be done. They would not even allow an amendment that asks the woman whether or not she consents to the medical procedure.

legally required rape by a health care provider......

[Toughy]

Rachel Maddow did a segment on her show tonight

[Cin]

state laws on ultrasound and abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf)

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.

HIGHLIGHTS:
11 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.

20 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.

7 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.

9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.

5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

All these states have some ultrasound requirements for abortion according to this document from the Guttmacher Institute:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

[DapperButch]

state laws on ultrasound and abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf)

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.

HIGHLIGHTS:
11 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.

20 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.

7 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.

9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.

5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

All these states have some ultrasound requirements for abortion according to this document from the Guttmacher Institute:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Yes, it seems to me like there has been an increase lately in states requiring the viewing of images and also one recently (can't remember which one), requires the provider to describe the image.

[Nat]

state laws on ultrasound and abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf)

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.

HIGHLIGHTS:
11 states require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.

20 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.

7 states mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.

9 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.

5 states require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image.

All these states have some ultrasound requirements for abortion according to this document from the Guttmacher Institute:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Vaginal ultrasounds in Virginia...

(Requires non-medically-necessary penetration with a phallic-shaped device))

[Toughy]

There are 2 kinds of ultrasound. One requires vaginal penetration with a probe and the other is what most people think of with ultrasound....some gel on your belly and there is no vaginal penetration.

I'm not sure which kind of ultrasound all those other states require.....a non-invasive ultrasound is bad enough, but invasive is just unacceptable.

[Nat]

Virginia Mandates ‘Unwanted Vaginal Penetration’ For The Abortion-Curious (http://wonkette.com/463639/virginia-mandates-%E2%80%98unwanted-vaginal-penetration%E2%80%99-for-abortion-curious-women)

Virginia is actually talking about the kind of ultrasound that involves a dildo-type sonic boom-generator penetrating the vagina, in a sort of, well, completely non-optional fashion

[Cin]

There are 2 kinds of ultrasound. One requires vaginal penetration with a probe and the other is what most people think of with ultrasound....some gel on your belly and there is no vaginal penetration.

I'm not sure which kind of ultrasound all those other states require.....a non-invasive ultrasound is bad enough, but invasive is just unacceptable.

It's not the easiest information to obtain, but at the very least Texas and Oklahoma require transvaginal ultrasounds if it will supply a clearer picture and of course it always will. That is the rub. Up to 12 weeks, when most abortions occur, it always will provide a clearer image.

Oklahoma

"April 21, 2010 |

The Oklahoma Senate passed five abortion bills Monday night, which opponents have said will severely limit a woman's ability to get an abortion and would entail some of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country.

One of the bills would force a woman to get an ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion and be shown the image and given a detailed explanation of it, even if she wishes otherwise. A vaginal probe would be used if it would provide a clearer image of the fetus"

Texas
May 2011
Not only is this law an insult to women in Texas, a close reading of the Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011, suggests that the new law may also constitute a sexual assault upon women, which is a second-degree felony. Since 88 percent of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy transvaginal probes are necessary. Because the fetus is so small at this stage, traditional ultrasounds performed through the abdominal wall, "jelly on the belly," often cannot produce a clear image. Therefore, a transvaginal probe is most often necessary, especially up to 10 weeks to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The probe is inserted into the vagina, sending sound waves to reflect off body structures to produce an image of the fetus. Under this new law, a woman's vagina will be penetrated without an opportunity for her to refuse due to coercion from the so-called "public servants" who passed and signed this bill into law.

[Cin]

Senate Wants to Force the Unemployed to Work For Free (http://http://www.alternet.org/story/154117/senate_republicans_want_to_force_the_unemployed_to _work_for_free/)

Along with efforts to drug-test the unemployed and deny benefits to those without high school diplomas, Republicans now want to make "volunteer" work a requirement.

20 hours looking for work and then 20 hours volunteering for free...

A law requiring them to spend 20 hours a week looking for work is nothing but an insult to people who are already searching desperately; making it a requirement would likely add a reporting burden that would either detract from their search or force them to spend time beyond their active job searching.

Forcing them to spend 20 hours a week "volunteering" additionally takes time people need for the very hard work of keeping their heads above water on limited means. And of course, creating an involuntary volunteer workforce is no kind of incentive to job-creation—why would any organization being provided free labor by the government ever create a job?

The are basically two reasons for measures like this. First,

"This proposal is very much about 'welfarizing' federal unemployment insurance benefits," said George Wentworth, a senior staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group. Wentworth noted that the bill borrows language from the 1996 welfare law.

That is, it reframes unemployment insurance as something other than an insurance program that exists for all of us and that we work for.

Second, such measures simply punish and stigmatize people for being jobless at a time when there simply are not jobs in the economy for them. Because Republicans are mean-spirited like that.

[Cin]

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/02/15-0

A Whole Lotta Crazy: Sacred Sperm, Guns at Work, Public Hangings and Other News of the Weird and Awful

by Abby Zimet

We dunno: Is there more crazy out there than ever? Maybe it's just that the latest - a Maine law letting you bring your gun to work and an Iowa bishop calling on believers to "violently oppose" contraception as "the devil" - were the proverbial straws. Forthwith, a look at a bunch of bizarro news in no particular order of awfulness. Spilled sperm to no lunch to public hangings to many fetuses: It's A Wonderful Life.

In New Hampshire, GOP legislators want to save the economy by eliminating lunch breaks for (very likely) dawdling workers.

In North Carolina, Republican Rep. Larry Pittman wants to deter crime by reinstating public hangings, especially for “abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers.”

In Missouri, GOP Rep. Vicky Hartzler, "a big believer in visuals," wants anti-choice activists to post pictures of aborted fetuses in college dorms.

Then again, Oklahoma GOP State Sen. Ralph Shortey wants a law to ensure that aborted human fetuses are NOT used for "enhancing flavor" in manufacturing food.

In New York, meanwhile, Fox News is worried about another "nightmare" - overpaid hotel maids. And Rick Santorum is worried the famously-anti-religion Obama administration is "on the path" to guillotining Christians.

In Arizona, GOP legislators want to ban swearing by teachers in classrooms or anywhere else on school property, and ban any profanity in any book or other material used in the classroom, which means good-bye to a whole mess of great literature from Catcher in the Rye to pretty much all of Shakespeare.

In Mississippi, patriots want to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America just to make sure who it belongs to.

And in Oklahoma, where proponents of the “personhood” movement are trying to ban abortion, contraception and in vitro fertilization to protect "all the rights, privileges, and immunities (of) the unborn child," State Sen. Constance Johnson tacked on a provision ruling that "any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child" - thus outlawing oral sex, anal sex, masturbation and pulling out.

Tricky footnote: Two of these pieces of legislation were in fact offered as a joke. For now, there's still a Gulf of Mexico and you can still do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your home. For now. Most alarming part of the footnote: It's nigh-on impossible to discern them from the rest.

[Kobi]

I"m speechless

Virginia House, Senate and Governor are all Republican. They are passing a law that requires a transvaginal ultrasound be done on every woman seeking an abortion. And her consent is not required. No exceptions. There is no medical reason to require that procedure be done. They would not even allow an amendment that asks the woman whether or not she consents to the medical procedure.

legally required rape by a health care provider......



I understand the new laws being proposed and enacted are designed by those pro-life people looking for ways to undermine a woman's right to an abortion. I understand their mind set is something along the lines of ....if only women saw the fetus as a living thing, they would change their minds. And an ultrasound, whether abdominal or transvaginal, is their feeble attempt to do this.

I also understand these idiotic requirements are meant to make the process more cumbersome and distasteful for both the woman seeking an abortion and the person providing the service.

The laws are meant and written to make an ultrasound as a required prerequisite for an abortion. They require not only the test but a visual and verbal description of the results. They require one to have the test in order to proceed with the procedure. If one doesnt consent to the requirements to have the procedure, the procedure, technically, would not be legally able to be performed.

I find it reprehensible for someone to use the law and the health care system to impose their morality and religious beliefs on another. It is one thing to have tests required prior to a procedure as a safety/precaution measure, and quite another to have them required as a morality check.

On the other hand, I also find it disturbing to see people call this "legal rape by a health care professional". It might be the word "rape" that is bothering me. Rape, to me, is a violent act of power. In this context, it brings up visions of women being tied down to gurneys while a transvaginal probe is being forcibly inserted into them. This vision stirs up the emotions but it is not what any law I have read says or implies.

To me, the laws have removed the woman's right to opt out of an ultrasound and the related explanations. It is saying, in order to do this procedure, this is what we are required to do by law. If you agree, we can proceed. If you do not, we cannot.

This is not the same as "legalizing rape by a health care professional". Nor is it the same as saying women do not have to consent. Doing any procedure for any reason without consent is assault and battery.

The Virginia law requires: a doctor to determine the gestational age and listen for a heartbeat. Not a heck of a lot of ways to do this and still be compliant with the law. The Virginia law also seeks to legislate a fertilized egg as a personhood with rights. Thats an entirely different matter.

As reprehensible as these laws may be, it is imperative, I think, to maintain a level head in the entire matter. These constant, repetitve legislative abuses to "legalize" their version of morality, whether it be in reproductive rights or gay marriage or anything else, are increasing at an alarming rate in the strangest of ways. It needs to be dealt with.

Do we have any info on what is being done to challenge these abuses of legislative power?

[genghisfawn]

So our Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews (also one of those Tories in favour of scrapping the long-gun registry) tabled Bill C-30 earlier this week. Essentially it would give government agencies and law enforcement to tap people's internet and telecommunications without a warrant, which would maybe catch 1% of the bad guys and annoy 99% of everyone else.

What say you? Wouldn't that just... ugh, annoy you?

#TellVicEverything is taking flight on Twitter, and because I don't have Twitter, I e-mailed Mr Toews all about my day, what I plan to do with the rest of it and what sites I visited online.

http://www.globalnews.ca/tell+vic+toews/6442582391/story.html (What Would You Tell Vic Toews?)

A little bit of navel-gazing is fun now and then, and I flatter myself to think that some things I said may quirk that snowy-white 'stache of his into a little smile. My day has been good. I hope his is, as well, and that his inbox doesn't fill up too fast.

[Cin]

I understand the new laws being proposed and enacted are designed by those pro-life people looking for ways to undermine a woman's right to an abortion. I understand their mind set is something along the lines of ....if only women saw the fetus as a living thing, they would change their minds. And an ultrasound, whether abdominal or transvaginal, is their feeble attempt to do this.

I also understand these idiotic requirements are meant to make the process more cumbersome and distasteful for both the woman seeking an abortion and the person providing the service.

The laws are meant and written to make an ultrasound as a required prerequisite for an abortion. They require not only the test but a visual and verbal description of the results. They require one to have the test in order to proceed with the procedure. If one doesnt consent to the requirements to have the procedure, the procedure, technically, would not be legally able to be performed.

I find it reprehensible for someone to use the law and the health care system to impose their morality and religious beliefs on another. It is one thing to have tests required prior to a procedure as a safety/precaution measure, and quite another to have them required as a morality check.

On the other hand, I also find it disturbing to see people call this "legal rape by a health care professional". It might be the word "rape" that is bothering me. Rape, to me, is a violent act of power. In this context, it brings up visions of women being tied down to gurneys while a transvaginal probe is being forcibly inserted into them. This vision stirs up the emotions but it is not what any law I have read says or implies.

To me, the laws have removed the woman's right to opt out of an ultrasound and the related explanations. It is saying, in order to do this procedure, this is what we are required to do by law. If you agree, we can proceed. If you do not, we cannot.

This is not the same as "legalizing rape by a health care professional". Nor is it the same as saying women do not have to consent. Doing any procedure for any reason without consent is assault and battery.

The Virginia law requires: a doctor to determine the gestational age and listen for a heartbeat. Not a heck of a lot of ways to do this and still be compliant with the law. The Virginia law also seeks to legislate a fertilized egg as a personhood with rights. Thats an entirely different matter.

As reprehensible as these laws may be, it is imperative, I think, to maintain a level head in the entire matter. These constant, repetitve legislative abuses to "legalize" their version of morality, whether it be in reproductive rights or gay marriage or anything else, are increasing at an alarming rate in the strangest of ways. It needs to be dealt with.

Do we have any info on what is being done to challenge these abuses of legislative power?


Well, yes, I see what you are saying. As of yet, the law does not require that a woman be tied down and vaginally probed. So it is not rape. But saying she has a choice is somewhat illusionary. To me the lack of a real option makes it an emotionally violent act of power against a woman by her government.

Realistically speaking the choice has been removed. Yes, a woman can opt out but it is not as simple as saying a woman really has a choice. It’s not like making a decision to have an abortion is something so frivolous and inconsequential that a woman will just decide against it because the law has made it too emotionally traumatic to go through with. It’s not like she’s going to say “oh well if I have to have a vaginal ultrasound accompanied by a visual and verbal description of the fetus forget it. The reasons I chose to go through with this procedure are so trivial that I’ll just give birth instead.” That is a highly unlikely scenario. So really there is no choice. Just more emotional pain during an already difficult time. Not to mention the extra financial burden.

That said I really do agree that we need to keep a level head and focus on the constant and repetitive attacks against individual freedoms that are being consistently perpetrated. A woman’s right to control her own body has been under heavy attack for several years now. The passing of the law in Virginia did not happen in a vacuum. The climate has been carefully cultivated as state after state has passed laws restricting abortion. The ultimate goal is clear.

[DapperButch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/teacher-sent-cards-inmate_n_1282396.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136368

I am starting to think that colleges and universities should start requiring psychological testing for all students applying for admission to an education program.

[Okiebug61]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/teacher-sent-cards-inmate_n_1282396.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136368

I am starting to think that colleges and universities should start requiring psychological testing for all students applying for admission to an education program.


I take offense to you generalizing all teachers with your headline

What's WRONG with Teachers nowadays.

My partner is a teacher and a damn fine one. I personally think you owe teachers an apology.

[Corkey]

The use of all is in reference to students, not teachers.

[Greyson]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/teacher-sent-cards-inmate_n_1282396.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136368

I am starting to think that colleges and universities should start requiring psychological testing for all students applying for admission to an education program.

Dapper, did you mean to say teachers? Or, maybe you did mean students, and teachers? I personally don't think you were attempting to disparage all teachers by suggessting psychological testing. I think any profession that works with children, under 18 should be psychologically evaluated every few years.

This would not be exclusive to teachers. It could also include counselors, coaches, childcare. Maybe I am putting to much stock in psychological evaluation. It does seem that with the advent of the internet and supporting technology the public in general is made aware of so many of the crimes committed against kids.

[Okiebug61]

The use of all is in reference to students, not teachers.

I am starting to think that colleges and universities should start requiring psychological testing for all students applying for admission to an education program.
__________________
-Dapper

No it's about educators.

[Corkey]

I am starting to think that colleges and universities should start requiring psychological testing for all students applying for admission to an education program.
__________________
-Dapper

No it's about educators.

What is your point? Students will become teachers? Lets start at students and then we won't have to worry so much about teachers. I think every teacher should be vetted, and find nothing offensive in that statement. I prefer children not be subjected to teachers who would abuse them.

[Okiebug61]

I'm going to make one final statement and then I'm leaving this thread.

I am totally pissed off that anyone would suggest there needs to be any psychological testing for teachers or any other profession.

Do you all not recall how horrible it was for our community when we were considered to be crazy my the medical profession.

I'm done. I'm pissed and I am totally hurt that anyone in this community would dare to suggest something of this nature.

[Kobi]

Well, yes, I see what you are saying. As of yet, the law does not require that a woman be tied down and vaginally probed. So it is not rape. But saying she has a choice is somewhat illusionary. To me the lack of a real option makes it an emotionally violent act of power against a woman by her government.

Realistically speaking the choice has been removed. Yes, a woman can opt out but it is not as simple as saying a woman really has a choice. It’s not like making a decision to have an abortion is something so frivolous and inconsequential that a woman will just decide against it because the law has made it too emotionally traumatic to go through with. It’s not like she’s going to say “oh well if I have to have a vaginal ultrasound accompanied by a visual and verbal description of the fetus forget it. The reasons I chose to go through with this procedure are so trivial that I’ll just give birth instead.” That is a highly unlikely scenario. So really there is no choice. Just more emotional pain during an already difficult time. Not to mention the extra financial burden.

That said I really do agree that we need to keep a level head and focus on the constant and repetitive attacks against individual freedoms that are being consistently perpetrated. A woman’s right to control her own body has been under heavy attack for several years now. The passing of the law in Virginia did not happen in a vacuum. The climate has been carefully cultivated as state after state has passed laws restricting abortion. The ultimate goal is clear.


Tick, we actually agree here in all aspects. The exception may be in how we are each using the word "choice".

The object of these types of legistative abuses, seeing they cannot outright ban abortions, is to make the process of getting one more complicated, more expensive, more traumatic, more cumbersome. The agenda is very clear, the methodology is very sneaky and repulsive, the logic is just irrational.

Having said that, however, I am waiting for the next step. If this follows a reasonable course, within their warped mental processes, it stands to reason women might next be facing something like..... aborted fetuses will no longer consider "medical waste". I apologize for the insensitivity of that statement but it is a viable reality. It would then follow that women could then be required to bury the fetus. It sucks, but there is a game plan here that needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

Back to choice. It might be a semantics thing. If I were to have any type surgery tomorrow, at my age, I would be required to have an ekg and blood work as a minimum before the procedure. If I refused to have it done, the procedure would be cancelled. That is the process. One could say, I should have the choice but I dont. If I want the procedure, this is the crap that goes along with it. It is, unfortunately, a take it or leave it proposition.

Requiring a transvaginal ultrasound is no different but you have to take the emotion out of it. The procedure is still available but to get it, here are the hoops you have to jump through. It stinks, it sucks, but we seldom get to choose the process in anything.

I am less concerned with "choice" per se than I am with the "game plan" of whomever is behind this growing need to spur unevolvement in this country. That game plan is becoming more and more dangerous to women. I really think we need to keep our eye on the forest and not so much on the individual trees.

I dont know the answer here but coming from the age of social movments, I find it very concerning that we have a lot of media reports showing how our freedoms are being usurped but very little on how we are fighting back. Why is that?

[Corkey]

Wow, as a law enforcement officer I was subjected to vetting and tons of psychological testing, I know of lots of other professions this is done as well. I fail to see the offense. With the news of teachers molesting students, of forcing students to participate in nefarious situations I would think you would have the children's best interests in mind instead of being offended. My bad.

[Greyson]

I'm going to make one final statement and then I'm leaving this thread.

I am totally pissed off that anyone would suggest there needs to be any psychological testing for teachers or any other profession.

Do you all not recall how horrible it was for our community when we were considered to be crazy my the medical profession.

I'm done. I'm pissed and I am totally hurt that anyone in this community would dare to suggest something of this nature.

I am sorry you took it personally. I am open to suggesstions as to how we start weeding out the people in any profession that may not be fit, safe to work with or around children. I do know I can read daily about children being abused physcially, mentally, emotionally by clergy, teachers, parents, other kids the list seems endless.

As for the LGBTQ marked as crazy by the medical profession, I remember, yes. I don't think being LGBTQ makes one crazy. You may be crazy but it is not a given because you are LGBTQ.

[UofMfan]

From MoveOn.org

Today, an all male ‘witness’ panel was allowed to speak at the GOP’s hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to employees. When Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke was presented to testify on behalf of the Minority, she was shown the door. She would have been the only female voice speaking on behalf of the millions of women who support access to birth control. Here is the basis of her testimony, had she been allowed to speak.


RCPU0Qsv9wM

[DapperButch]

I'm going to make one final statement and then I'm leaving this thread.

I am totally pissed off that anyone would suggest there needs to be any psychological testing for teachers or any other profession.

Do you all not recall how horrible it was for our community when we were considered to be crazy my the medical profession.

I'm done. I'm pissed and I am totally hurt that anyone in this community would dare to suggest something of this nature.

Okie,

I am sorry if you found it offensive. I guess you really thought I was serious, rather than it just me throwing out some frustration of the seemingly constant poor choices teachers have been making lately?

I actually don't think that all students should have to do psychological testing prior to admission to an education major. Plus, most education majors come into freshman year already in the major, so it would be at their own expense as high school seniors to get tested. Obviously, we would have a much lower rate of students applying, which would not be a good thing.

I personally am a therapist (licensed clinical social worker), and I would welcome any kind of testing for admission to a graduate program. However, I do think that the professors do a pretty good job at weeding out the people with obvious personality disorders and such. They just discharge them from the program.

Also, I support the idea of all social workers (and all other therapists) having to pay for psychological testing after graduation in order to receive their license. That is actually an excellent idea (thanks, Greyson)! I would put out some money to ensure that there are only good, mentally healthy therapists working with both children and adults.

[DapperButch]

I think any profession that works with children, under 18 should be psychologically evaluated every few years.



All you really need is one psychological evaluation to see if someone fits the characteristics of someone who would not be the best influence on children. Repetition wouldn't make a difference.

Since I am not a psychologist (only psychologists can do psychological testing), I can not say this with authority, but I do not think that there is any psychological testing that would weed out pedophilia.

[Greyson]

All you really need is one psychological evaluation to see if someone fits the characteristics of someone who would not be the best influence on children. Repetition wouldn't make a difference.

Since I am not a psychologist (only psychologists can do psychological testing), I can not say this with authority, but I do not think that there is any psychological testing that would weed out pedophilia.


I am not a psychologist either. Not even close. Urban Planner does not make me an expert in this field. As far as repetition, I thought every few years may help because sometimes it does seem like people can become troubled a few years later. I don't think blanced mental health is a given for a life time.

I do appreciate your participation in the threads Dapper. For the most part, I have found you to be fair minded and informed. I also can understand the reaction of OkieBug and I also know too many childrend are being harmed daily in "plain sight." Anyway, I have said my thoughts on this one.

[DapperButch]

All you really need is one psychological evaluation to see if someone fits the characteristics of someone who would not be the best influence on children. Repetition wouldn't make a difference.



I am not a psychologist either. Not even close. Urban Planner does not make me an expert in this field. As far as repetition, I thought every few years may help because sometimes it does seem like people can become troubled a few years later. I don't think blanced mental health is a given for a life time.



Absolutely. I wasn't referring to shifting mental health disorders (like mood disorders, for example), I was referring specifically to what I highlighted above. I am referring to people who would have extremely poor judgement, antisocial traits, etc., that could effect them making good choices for children. For example, the person in the article has the children write to her boyfriend who is an inmate in prison who had child porn and weapons charges on him. That shows very poor judgement. I would suggest that if she continued as a teacher, she would continue to make poor choices such as the above. This is about "who" she is as a person.

I am not referring to things like depression, for example, which could change year to year. Having a teacher who is depressed isn't harmful to children.

Make sense?

Corkey, brought up a good example of a profession that does psychological testing for this purpose. Police officers. They test for things like antisocial traits. People who are mildly-severely socialpathic apply to become police officers. They like to feel they have power over others (not such a good trait for a police officer who already is handed a lot of power). Police officers also need to be able to control their anger and have good judgement. They screen for these things and then recommend whether or not the police department should consider hiring the person. If the person had depression, for example, the psychologist may recommend treatment to the person, but it wouldn't preclude them from being a good police officer.

[Toughy]

EXCUSE ME................

inserting any object in the vagina or anus of a women without her consent IS RAPE. PERIOD.

inserting any object in a vagina under coercion (which is what requiring it to get an abortion) IS RAPE

to suggest otherwise is utter bullshit and smacks of the patriarchy.....

and I'm outta here or I will get timed out again.......

[Nat]

EXCUSE ME................

inserting any object in the vagina or anus of a women without her consent IS RAPE. PERIOD.

inserting any object in a vagina under coercion (which is what requiring it to get an abortion) IS RAPE

to suggest otherwise is utter bullshit and smacks of the patriarchy.....



I agree. I had to have one of these ultrasounds back in 2004 and felt incredibly violated by the process, even though I knew it was medically necessary. For a government to force/coerce women to be vaginally probed with a phallic ultrasound wand for no reasonable medical purpose is government-mandated sexual assault.

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/143/038/106/106038143_732.JPG

[Corkey]

I can't with good conscious say it is anything more than state sanctioned rape. This is what happens when men are in charge of women's health issues, and That needs to change.

[*Anya*]

Give me a break. It is just putting up one more obstacle to deter women from having an abortion.

They must sit for hours thinking up new and more innovative ways to discourage women from having abortions and to hound women into carrying an unwanted fetus to term.

I don't call them the right-to-lifers.

To me, the appropriate name is the forced-child-bearing faction.

Chip, chip, chip-little by little, state by state; a woman's right to control her own goddamn body is being taken away.

Welcome to America. Circa 2012.

[Kobi]

What is happening to women via these misguided elected officials is nothing short of disgusting. We seem to all agree on this.

I have a harder time calling the new requirements a rape thing tho. I do see it as a terrible mind fuck morality thing. I do see it as a power gone wonky in service to certain beliefs thing. I do see it as an imposition and a means of a deterrent.

Rape? I cant see that. I cant see the professionals now charged with this requirement as being anything but sensitive to the fact that this is intrusive, unnecessary, and a moral rather than a medical thing. I cant see these professionals being anything but kind and gentle in explaining this to women just as they would explain any other aspect of the process. I cant see them being anything but gentle in doing the actual procedure itself.

I have had one. In my experience it was less uncomfortable than a regular gyn exam. Spectulums are not fun things especially in male hands. If you use a regular dildo device or have sex with a penis.....same thing, same shape, only longer.

I also have in the back of my mind that to do the actual abortion, they have to stick scary looking instruments up the same canal and into the uterus itself.

Consent is something you give to a procedure which includes a process. If you dont consent, I have a hard time envisioning anymore forcing the issue. No consent, no procedure.

So, what am I missing here? Are we reacting to the fucked up requirement being imposed? Are we reacting to the shape of the instrument? I really feel like I am missing something here.

[Corkey]

What is happening to women via these misguided elected officials is nothing short of disgusting. We seem to all agree on this.

I have a harder time calling the new requirements a rape thing tho. I do see it as a terrible mind fuck morality thing. I do see it as a power gone wonky in service to certain beliefs thing. I do see it as an imposition and a means of a deterrent.

Rape? I cant see that. I cant see the professionals now charged with this requirement as being anything but sensitive to the fact that this is intrusive, unnecessary, and a moral rather than a medical thing. I cant see these professionals being anything but kind and gentle in explaining this to women just as they would explain any other aspect of the process. I cant see them being anything but gentle in doing the actual procedure itself.

I have had one. In my experience it was less uncomfortable than a regular gyn exam. Spectulums are not fun things especially in male hands. If you use a regular dildo device or have sex with a penis.....same thing, same shape, only longer.

I also have in the back of my mind that to do the actual abortion, they have to stick scary looking instruments up the same canal and into the uterus itself.

Consent is something you give to a procedure which includes a process. If you dont consent, I have a hard time envisioning anymore forcing the issue. No consent, no procedure.

So, what am I missing here? Are we reacting to the fucked up requirement being imposed? Are we reacting to the shape of the instrument? I really feel like I am missing something here.





Denying a woman her right to have an abortion and calling it anything other than power over a woman's body and then telling her if she wants her rights she must have this unwanted non medically needed procedure, is rape. I don't care if it looks like a cuddly panda bear it is intrusive and non consensual.

[MsTinkerbelly]

EXCUSE ME................

inserting any object in the vagina or anus of a women without her consent IS RAPE. PERIOD.

inserting any object in a vagina under coercion (which is what requiring it to get an abortion) IS RAPE

to suggest otherwise is utter bullshit and smacks of the patriarchy.....

and I'm outta here or I will get timed out again.......

I am in full agreement, and we all have to stand up and fight this! First this, then what? What else will we give them the right to decide? How else will we let them rape us? What will we let them take from us? OMG people, stop being nice, stop being politically correct when it matters! Yell and scream about thebrights we will lose, or the hoops we have to go through to have control over our own bodies!

[SoNotHer]

Taking a break from regularly scheduled news programming for this message -


http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lys3ga5RIP1r4k1z9o1_500.jpg

[SoNotHer]

House passes Keystone bill, Senate action uncertain
Reuters By Roberta Rampton | Reuters – 3 hrs ago

The Keystone Oil Pipeline is pictured under construction in North Dakota in this undated photograph released on January 18, 2012.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SIHv3IwAj.KFGNzonlHTsA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMDA7cT04NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-02-17T020608Z_1_BTRE81G05UM00_RTROPTP_2_KEYSTONE-DECISION.JPG

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives passed an energy bill on Thursday that would wrest control of a permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline away from President Barack Obama, who has put the project on hold. The bill, part of a broader House Republican effort to fund highways and infrastructure projects, would also expand offshore oil drilling and open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

While approval of the Keystone measure by the House was widely expected, what happens with a similar proposal in the Democratic-controlled Senate is not yet clear. Senate leaders were still negotiating on Thursday whether to allow a vote on Keystone as part of debate on a highway funding legislation, said Senator John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota who has been a key advocate for the $7 billion Canada-to-Texas project.

"I think on the merits we're going to get it done. I don't know when. I hope in the highway bill, but if not, we'll stick with it," Hoeven told Reuters.

Hoeven developed legislation that would see Congress grant TransCanada a permit for the project, and filed the bill as an amendment to the highway funding package.

PUMP PRICES SURGE

Republicans have seized upon the Canadian oil pipeline as a way to criticize Obama for his job creation and energy policies in the 2012 election race.

After massive protests from environmental groups, Obama last month said the pipeline needed more environmental review for the portion running through Nebraska, where the state government had rejected an initial proposed route. Republicans said the project would create thousands of jobs. Environmental groups, who want to kill the project because they argue Canada's oil sands produce too much pollution, also say the numbers are inflated. Republicans have seized on surging gasoline prices as another way to make their case for Keystone.

In the long term, increasing oil supply from North America would help improve energy security and moderate volatility in gasoline prices, Hoeven said.

"I think we need to approve the Keystone XL project because that brings oil to us from our closest friend and ally rather than the Middle East," Hoeven said. The pipeline will also carry oil from Hoeven's home state of North Dakota, where production has surged but infrastructure has failed to keep pace.

STEEP CLIMB

Even if the Keystone legislation makes it to the Senate floor for a vote, getting it passed will be difficult. There are currently 47 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and they would need to find at least 13 Democrats to agree to move it forward. The Senate and House would also need to agree on a highway bill, which could be difficult given major differences in size and scope between their proposed packages. And the bill would still need to have Obama's approval to become law. Obama has already threatened to veto the House package, due in part to the Keystone provision.

[Cin]

What is happening to women via these misguided elected officials is nothing short of disgusting. We seem to all agree on this.

I have a harder time calling the new requirements a rape thing tho. I do see it as a terrible mind fuck morality thing. I do see it as a power gone wonky in service to certain beliefs thing. I do see it as an imposition and a means of a deterrent.

Rape? I cant see that. I cant see the professionals now charged with this requirement as being anything but sensitive to the fact that this is intrusive, unnecessary, and a moral rather than a medical thing. I cant see these professionals being anything but kind and gentle in explaining this to women just as they would explain any other aspect of the process. I cant see them being anything but gentle in doing the actual procedure itself.

I have had one. In my experience it was less uncomfortable than a regular gyn exam. Spectulums are not fun things especially in male hands. If you use a regular dildo device or have sex with a penis.....same thing, same shape, only longer.

I also have in the back of my mind that to do the actual abortion, they have to stick scary looking instruments up the same canal and into the uterus itself.

Consent is something you give to a procedure which includes a process. If you dont consent, I have a hard time envisioning anymore forcing the issue. No consent, no procedure.

So, what am I missing here? Are we reacting to the fucked up requirement being imposed? Are we reacting to the shape of the instrument? I really feel like I am missing something here.

I also doubt that the medical professionals forced to meet these requirements will be less than kind and gentle. But personally I don’t think that’s the point. Nor is it the point that the actual abortion requires a procedure, most likely vacuum aspiration, and that will necessitate something inserted in the vagina. Just because one thing has to go up someone’s vagina does not mean it’s a free for all and let’s just see how many things we can force her to have to put up there. Consent is something you give to a procedure that includes a process developed using medical reasoning. That is the point. You may as well add the requirement of forcing the woman to dress in 17th century garb and wear a scarlet letter on her chest. Perhaps she could be required to wear this for nine months. It is about as medically necessary as a vaginal ultrasound. Or really any ultrasound.

The fact that choice is illusionary is where the consent thing falls apart. A woman really has no other option but to do whatever is required no matter how ludicrous. So to me it is not the shape of the instrument, nor is it that it is to be inserted in one’s vagina, although I think this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. To me it is that there is no option for real consent here.

For you it is the word rape in this context that is problematic. And it also seems that you see a woman as still having a choice here. I could give you the rape thing in its most literal sense, I suppose, although I still see it as state sanctioned vaginal violation. But consent is most definitely non existent. To say one still has the choice to consent or not is to misunderstand the meaning of choice. And to totally miss the predicament of a woman who wants or needs an abortion and the urgency as well as the time sensitive nature of the decision a woman has to make. And technically if you remove any real choice, it's a form of coercion. I imagine coercing someone into letting you insert something into her vagina skirts uncomfortably close to rape. So I understand the feeling that it is rape. But I don't think the whole focus needs to be on this. In fact I think it may be counterproductive to focus exclusively on vaginal ultrasounds.

So I do agree that it is not only this vaginal ultrasound that is the issue. It is all the prerequisites being added to make abortion more and more difficult and costly. And since the U.S. Supreme Court, with Roe vs. Wade, declared a pregnant woman is entitled to have an abortion until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy without any interference by the state, this crap violates federal law. That needs to be the focus. Because those in control of the state, while screaming about the horrors of second and third trimester abortions, are focusing all their power on interfering with first trimester abortions. If you are saying that then I agree. Because it seems to me that it is very feasible that what you described with pregnancy tissue not being classified as medical waste would easily be the state’s next move. Women could soon be required to take home the results of their vacuum aspiration and pay for a burial or a cremation. That would certainly make the cost of an abortion out of reach for many.

We can’t afford to be separated over semantics. We need to unite against this very real threat to women’s rights. We need to look no further than Komen’s move against Planned Parenthood to understand the far reaching depth and seriousness of the coordinated forces unified against the contraceptive rights of women. So I do agree that the focus needs to be on stopping this continued chipping away at a woman’s right to control her body. I don’t care what you chose to call it. Call it rape or call it state sanctioned insanity but call it over. It needs to stop now.

[Hollylane]

I think my admiration meter just tipped right off of the "You ROCK!!!" end of the scale... Thank you Miss Tick.

[Truly Scrumptious]

I recently read a book (fiction) called When She Woke, by Hillary Jordan. It takes place mid-21st century, when the line between church and state has been dissolved. Roe v Wade has been overturned, and women who have abortions are guilty of murder. Criminals have their skin color genetically altered to reflect the class of their crimes for the duration of their sentences, and murderers are turned bright red. Probably the most disturbing thing about the book is how easy it is to imagine it becoming reality.

I have never had an abortion, so I am not going to claim to understand the feelings around it, though obviously I can assume I understand them. I am, however, a survivor of sexual abuse, and I am intimately acquainted with the feelings surrounding it. I also know I can’t be the only one reading this thread who is a survivor, so I guess my question to the other survivors is, do you believe this can be called rape?

I don’t. I can see why some people do, I can see that it’s coercion, I can see that it’s force, but for some reason, the word just doesn’t sit well with me. Somehow (for me) it seems to diminish the word rape, somehow (for me) it takes away some of the horror, somehow (for me) it allows a tiny bit of minimalization, and (for me) that can never happen.

I have also had the displeasure of enduring 2 transvaginal ultrasounds. Were they pleasant? Not one bit. Were they necessary? Turns out they were. Would I want to have another one? I’d rather have a root canal. Would I have one if medically necessary? Yes.

The point here is that a transvaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary prior to having an abortion, I believe we all agree on that. The point here is that our rights are being taken away one by one, I believe we can agree on that as well. But while we argue over what to call it, an all male panel of witnesses speaks at a congressional hearing on contraception coverage. While we argue over semantics and choose our opposite corners, our choices are being stripped away. And while we argue, Kobi’s point about the next steps goes largely unanswered, but strikes a deep chord of fear for me because it doesn’t seem so far fetched to imagine a woman being told she is responsible for the burial of the fetus.

It doesn’t even seem so impossible to imagine her being genetically altered so that her skin is bright red.

[UofMfan]

<snip>...
We can’t afford to be separated over semantics. We need to unite against this very real threat to women’s rights. We need to look no further than Komen’s move against Planned Parenthood to understand the far reaching depth and seriousness of the coordinated forces unified against the contraceptive rights of women. So I do agree that the focus needs to be on stopping this continued chipping away at a woman’s right to control her body. I don’t care what you chose to call it. Call it rape or call it state sanctioned insanity but call it over. It needs to stop now.


Exactly!

Conservatives have launched a war against women, all women, every woman, and as such, we must band together and fight the fight of our lives.

[Cin]

I think my admiration meter just tipped right off of the "You ROCK!!!" end of the scale... Thank you Miss Tick.

I had trouble getting my toque over my swelled head this morning. But thank you it was worth it.

[Greyson]

I found an attachment in my email this morning about Missing Women and all of the information came from this site. I scanned through the site and found a plethora of information.

You might be able to find this all on Huffington Post but I like the detail this site provides. FYI, I am a life long member of the Democratic Party and my politics are moderate.

My horse in most races is to get you to at least think about the various issues, vote, advocate, donate resources to the cause of your choice, do something.


Woman prevented from testifying at 2.16.12 House Oversight Committee Hearing addressing the Obama decision to require employers/insurers to provide contreceptive coverage.



Virginia's New State Law forcing women seeking an abortion to be "Vaginally Probed."



Major Donor to the Santorum campaign advises "Gals" to put an aspirin between their legs for a contreceptive.



1994 Congressional Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization being being held hostage by every Senate Rupublican Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why? Protesting protections for LGBTQ, Immigrants and Native Americans.



Kansas considering immigration measures similar to Arizona, Mississippi and Alabama.


http://thinkprogress.org/

[MsTinkerbelly]

Miss Tick,

You said everything my post was meant to convey but got lost in the passion of "OMG are you fucking kidding me!" Thank goodness there are people like you who can focus on the bottom line, and can put it out there in a calm and rational manner. (f)

[Kobi]

I also doubt that the medical professionals forced to meet these requirements will be less than kind and gentle. But personally I don’t think that’s the point. Nor is it the point that the actual abortion requires a procedure, most likely vacuum aspiration, and that will necessitate something inserted in the vagina. Just because one thing has to go up someone’s vagina does not mean it’s a free for all and let’s just see how many things we can force her to have to put up there. Consent is something you give to a procedure that includes a process developed using medical reasoning. That is the point. You may as well add the requirement of forcing the woman to dress in 17th century garb and wear a scarlet letter on her chest. Perhaps she could be required to wear this for nine months. It is about as medically necessary as a vaginal ultrasound. Or really any ultrasound.

The fact that choice is illusionary is where the consent thing falls apart. A woman really has no other option but to do whatever is required no matter how ludicrous. So to me it is not the shape of the instrument, nor is it that it is to be inserted in one’s vagina, although I think this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. To me it is that there is no option for real consent here.

For you it is the word rape in this context that is problematic. And it also seems that you see a woman as still having a choice here. I could give you the rape thing in its most literal sense, I suppose, although I still see it as state sanctioned vaginal violation. But consent is most definitely non existent. To say one still has the choice to consent or not is to misunderstand the meaning of choice. And to totally miss the predicament of a woman who wants or needs an abortion and the urgency as well as the time sensitive nature of the decision a woman has to make. And technically if you remove any real choice, it's a form of coercion. I imagine coercing someone into letting you insert something into her vagina skirts uncomfortably close to rape. So I understand the feeling that it is rape. But I don't think the whole focus needs to be on this. In fact I think it may be counterproductive to focus exclusively on vaginal ultrasounds.

So I do agree that it is not only this vaginal ultrasound that is the issue. It is all the prerequisites being added to make abortion more and more difficult and costly. And since the U.S. Supreme Court, with Roe vs. Wade, declared a pregnant woman is entitled to have an abortion until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy without any interference by the state, this crap violates federal law. That needs to be the focus. Because those in control of the state, while screaming about the horrors of second and third trimester abortions, are focusing all their power on interfering with first trimester abortions. If you are saying that then I agree. Because it seems to me that it is very feasible that what you described with pregnancy tissue not being classified as medical waste would easily be the state’s next move. Women could soon be required to take home the results of their vacuum aspiration and pay for a burial or a cremation. That would certainly make the cost of an abortion out of reach for many.

We can’t afford to be separated over semantics. We need to unite against this very real threat to women’s rights. We need to look no further than Komen’s move against Planned Parenthood to understand the far reaching depth and seriousness of the coordinated forces unified against the contraceptive rights of women. So I do agree that the focus needs to be on stopping this continued chipping away at a woman’s right to control her body. I don’t care what you chose to call it. Call it rape or call it state sanctioned insanity but call it over. It needs to stop now.


Again we agree on most everything.

I look at processes. And, to me, in a process, the words we use to define something have both a very powerful impact on how we define something as well as an influence on the behavior which follows.

What I see happening here is a systematic, deliberate, organized force determined to impose their multifaceted moral agenda on other people using the very process that is in place to protect this from happening.

That, to me, is the forest we had better not lose sight of.

What is happening to women reproductive rights is a tree in that forest. As a tree, what is happening is absolutely horrible. What is more horrible is one state managed to get these restrictions imposed. Other states have followed and added more idiocy to the requirements as they went.

This assault on the reproductive rights of women, is a very complex social, emotional, political, theological, legal, legislative, psychological, sociological (and probably more) process to undo evolution in service to the beliefs and wishes of a certain group of elected officials who feel they can impose their morality on an unsuspecting public by abusing the power that was entrusted to them.

How does simplifying all that to the word "rape" or even "consent" help us? Does it even define the problem? Can holes be poked in the rationale for using these words simply by invoking a different train of thought and focus? Is it going to get us where we need to go? Or is it going to hamper us?

The idiots who are doing this shit, I think, are very much counting on us getting lost in the trees of what they are doing. The more they can get us to focus on the trees, the more we lose sight of the bigger picture. And, their attacks are multi faceted - atacks on women per se, attacks on the right of women to control their own bodies, attacks on womens intelligence, blatant sexism in the words of those in and running for office, the rights of queers, the rights of the poor, the rights of POC, immigration - they are hitting every single area where rights have been established. And they are seeking to dismantle them, little by little, using the legislative and legal process. And, they are doing one hell of a job.

We can use rape, a very emotionally laden word. The word, itself, makes some angry and that anger can be motivating. To some, the word envokes fear and fearful people turn inward. The word rape also creates a divide between women and men. One word can affect millions so differently.

To me, how we define a problem or frame it is crucial. The words we use in doing this can influence the direction of our thinking and actions, and the reactions we evoke in others, both positive and negative.

We can define it as a legislative process that legalizes rape of women by medical professionals. To me, that takes the process off the idiotis who are doing this and turns the focus on the people who are stuck having to enforce the law. This in turn sets up an adversarial thing between patient and caregiver.

We can define the problem as a gross error in judgement in electing the people we did. Here the strategy might be to look at who did we elect and why? What were they saying that intrigued us enough to vote for them while ignoring other aspects of their message that we should have paid attention to? How can we rethink our voting strategies to get these idiots out of office? How would we evaluate the best way to decide who we should vote for?

We could just say we need to fight this! Yeah we do! Fight what? If you havent defined it, how do you fight it?

To me, this is big, big, huge shit. It is about cause and effect. Women not being allowed to testisfy at a contraception hearing? Really? Vaginal probes before abortion? Cuz women are too stupid to know what they are doing and need to be force fed reality? Aspirin as a contraception? How sexist and demeaning. Gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals. Come again? More states jumping of the immigration wagon. Uh huh. Work requirements for the unemployed - so what if there are no damn jobs, we need to get their lazy asses moving - yes Sheldon that was sarcasm.

I dont want to downplay what is happening to the trees in the forest. The trees are a symptom of a much bigger problem. I am fearful if we get caught up in just the trees, the forest is going to come crashing down on our heads.

And, to me, the words we use matter, a lot.

[dark_crystal]

I have never had an abortion, so I am not going to claim to understand the feelings around it, though obviously I can assume I understand them. I am, however, a survivor of sexual abuse, and I am intimately acquainted with the feelings surrounding it. I also know I can’t be the only one reading this thread who is a survivor

i am a rape survivor

my question to the other survivors is, do you believe this can be called rape?

no

I can see that it’s coercion, I can see that it’s force, but for some reason, the word just doesn’t sit well with me. Somehow (for me) it seems to diminish the word rape, somehow (for me) it takes away some of the horror, somehow (for me) it allows a tiny bit of minimalization, and (for me) that can never happen.

exactly


for example- i was taken to the emergency room after a car accident b/c i reported neck pain.

once you do this, you are not allowed to move.

before doing x-rays, they had to know whether i was pregnant.

i told them i was a lesbian and could not possibly be pregnant.

They said "lots of women say that and then turn out to be pregnant"

since i wasn't allowed to move, plus i was menstruating, they had to catheterize me to get a urine sample to check for a pregnancy that could not exist

catheterization HURTS LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER

it was painful, traumatic, invasive, and uneccesary...

but when i compare it with being abducted from a parking lot and drivien into the wooods for a stranger's sick thrills


not so much

[*Anya*]

I am not going to split hairs here or debate over words. What is going on is a systematic assault on the rights of women to control their own bodies and their own destiny.

I have had an abortion. I have never written those words anywhere, nor have I ever admitted it to a soul that knows me.

The very last time I ever had sex with a biological male was in 1978. I would call it date rape. I did want to have sex with him at first and wanted to put my diaphragm in but he would not allow me to do so. He did hold me down against my will and I became pregnant. This was after finally getting off of welfare after 5-years, working full-time and raising two small children with no child support. It was impossible for me to have that baby.

I knew it was the only choice for me. I called a clinic, spoke to a counselor for 5-minutes, was asked if I was sure, had an exam, pregnancy test and the date for the procedure set. I coughed up the $225 it cost, took a taxi, was sedated, had it, took a taxi home and dealt with the aftermath by myself.

Would it have felt like another rape to be forced to undergo a phallic-probe ultrasound before I could have the procedure? I seriously doubt it but why in the fuck should anyone have to experience it to undergo a legal medical procedure for any reason at all besides hoping somehow the woman changes her mind and decides not to have the abortion?

All of us should care about this systematic dismantling of a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body! LGBTQ's are raped and assaulted-it is not just a straight woman's problem-it is a problem for all of us and for our daughters as well.

[dark_crystal]

Miranda Lambert Is Chris Brown's #1 Enemy (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/miranda-lambert-is-chris-browns-1-enemy?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed)

Country singer Miranda Lambert has become the most outspoken celebrity about Chris Brown's Grammy win. Go Miranda!

[Kobi]

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — In a case closely watched by civil rights activists, an Iowa judge will soon decide whether to grant thousands of black employees and job applicants monetary damages for hiring practices used by Iowa state government that they say have disadvantaged them.

Experts say the case is the largest class-action lawsuit of its kind against an entire state government's civil service system, and tests a legal theory that social science and statistics alone can prove widespread discrimination.

The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests in Iowa, a state that is 91 percent white. Instead, their lawyers argue that managers subconsciously favored whites across state government, leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got interviewed, hired and promoted.



Implicit bias. Fascinating strategy. If it works, the implications are astounding.

http://news.yahoo.com/denied-jobs-blacks-iowa-test-bias-theory-080416196.html

[Lady Pamela]

I am posting because this pissed me off
I know it isn't normal news but all the same needs to be looked at

It upsets me that the elderly are treated so poor and have become a throw away generagtion in so many eyes.

In other countries and some states, this would NEVER happen.

These people deserve respct and protection. They brought us to where we have come so far. They struggled to get us to where we are at.
And more and more we are seeing stuff like this.

People who have influence and a voice need to speak up. It is our duty to do so.

In my opinion that is.
We as well as the media should shame those doing it. Step up to help where we can. And places that can assist should.

Sorry for ranting but it pissed me off.

Having worked in the medical field and a long time with elderly, I have seen my share.

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/02/17/98-year-olds-birthday-surprise-eviction-notice-from-her-son/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136614#comments


.

[Vlasta]

I am posting because this pissed me off
I know it isn't normal news but all the same needs to be looked at

It upsets me that the elderly are treated so poor and have become a throw away generagtion in so many eyes.

In other countries and some states, this would NEVER happen.

These people deserve respct and protection. They brought us to where we have come so far. They struggled to get us to where we are at.
And more and more we are seeing stuff like this.

People who have influence and a voice need to speak up. It is our duty to do so.
you are absolutely right to be angry and vent out here . It's the shame how elderly people are being treated in this country . I myself being in the medical field experienced so many situations when I was disgusted . Just vent here it's safe . I personally understand and I hope so others . I hope things get better for you .


In my opinion that is.
We as well as the media should shame those doing it. Step up to help where we can. And places that can assist should.

Sorry for ranting but it pissed me off.

Having worked in the medical field and a long time with elderly, I have seen my share.


.you are absolutely right to be angry and vent out here . It's the shame how elderly people are being treated in this country . I myself being in the medical field experienced so many situations when I was disgusted . Just vent here it's safe . I personally understand and I hope so others . I hope things get better for you .

Hence , I have to add it's not just here in America , but many other countries.

Vent , Vent and Vent here are people to understand .

[Nat]

I also know I can’t be the only one reading this thread who is a survivor, so I guess my question to the other survivors is, do you believe this can be called rape?

I don’t. I can see why some people do, I can see that it’s coercion, I can see that it’s force, but for some reason, the word just doesn’t sit well with me. Somehow (for me) it seems to diminish the word rape, somehow (for me) it takes away some of the horror, somehow (for me) it allows a tiny bit of minimalization, and (for me) that can never happen.

I have also had the displeasure of enduring 2 transvaginal ultrasounds. Were they pleasant? Not one bit. Were they necessary? Turns out they were. Would I want to have another one? I’d rather have a root canal. Would I have one if medically necessary? Yes.

I'm a survivor. I don't have an issue with the use of the word "rape" in this context. It seems to me that women are being very intentionally punished with vaginal penetration for seeking medical services.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/17/virginia-ultrasound-bill-will-turn-doctors-into-criminals-under-law-says-delegate

[Cin]

I'm a survivor. I don't have an issue with the use of the word "rape" in this context. It seems to me that women are being very intentionally punished with vaginal penetration for seeking medical services.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/17/virginia-ultrasound-bill-will-turn-doctors-into-criminals-under-law-says-delegate

I do see this as state sanctioned, or perhaps more accurately state mandated rape. However, what concerns me most is that beyond transvaginal ultrasounds there is a plethora of laws and bills being passed and proposed whose sole purpose is to weaken and ultimately eradicate the reproductive rights of women.

To narrowly focus on this one bill is, to me, short sighted when the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Roe vs. Wade pretty much makes all the bills the various states have been passing regarding abortion unlawful.

The Supreme Court decision is very clear “FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.” The state has no right to interfere in this at all, in any way, with the exception of making sure the physician is licensed in the particular state where the abortion is to take place. The decision of the woman's physician as to what is necessary is final.

Not until the second trimester is the state allowed to promote its interest but even then it is only in regards to the health of the mother. It is not until the third trimester that the state can promote its interest in the potentiality of human life. It seems to me these states who have passed laws placing restrictions on abortion in the first trimester are not operating within federal law. So I wonder why is this not the approach being taken?

[Cin]

Oklahoma moves toward making an embryo a legal person.

Considering the overwhelming rejection of the "personhood" concept -- that a fertilized embryo is a full person under the law -- by the voting public of several states, including Colorado (twice) and even Mississippi, you'd think the extremists behind this movement would finally see it as futile. But some speculate that their end-game is to get such an abortion ban passed so that it ends up being challenged legally, and thus challenging Roe, which would stand on shaky legs given the makeup the Supreme Court.

Now they've found a potentially far more successful way to get these measures made into law: find states with extremist GOP legislatures, and let them pass there. Case in point: Oklahoma, where a personhood bill may become state law very soon after passing both legislative chambers.

Reuters reported on Thursday, February 16:
The Republican-controlled state Senate voted 34-8 to pass the "Personhood Act" which defines the word person under state law to include unborn children from the moment of conception.

The measure now goes to the state House where pro-life Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than a 2-1 margin.

Oklahoma's Republican Governor Mary Fallin, who signed every anti-abortion bill sent to her last year, did not issue a reaction...

The consequences of passing "personhood" are obviously manifold, which explains: by defining "conception" as the start of personhood, such measures threaten the legal standing of everything from in vitro fertilization to the morning-after pill to miscarriages to many kinds of birth control -- and this particular bill has no rape or incest exceptions.

In a less legal sense, it pathologizes women who struggle with fertility (are their bodies murderers?), and contrary to its name, makes them into less than full persons. If this bill gets signed into law, it will be the first genuine personhood law that goes into effect.


Iowa considers a bill making abortion a felony punishable by 10 years in jail.

During the first wave of the "war on women" in 2011, Iowa banned most abortions after 20 weeks. But now a new bill is up to vote thanks to one of the most extreme members of that state's elected Tea Party officials, and it's one of the most draconian yet -- a full-on ban that scrubs out all references to abortion in Iowa law and sends everyone involved in providing abortions off to jail.
The bill:
would eliminate all mentions in Iowa law to allowing abortions, such as references to parental notification when pregnant teens seek abortions and in regard to health insurance coverage.

The bill would amend the code to make feticide -- performing or causing an abortion -- a Class A felony at any time during a pregnancy, not only after the second trimester. A Class A felony is punishable by up to 10 years and fine of no more than $10,000.

Kansas considers letting doctors lie to patients seeking abortions.

The entire year for reproductive rights in Kansas has been extremely rough. Last summer, the state came perilously close to shutting down the three remaining abortion providers in the state; a move that would have effectively banned abortion in Kansas, even though abortion is legal in the United States. The proposed law would have required abortion providers to conform to ridiculous standards for things like room temperature and the size of janitorial closets (not a joke).

Those plans may have been thwarted, but now state lawmakers are considering several new pieces of anti-abortion legislation that are even broader and more nefarious. Planned Parenthood of Kansas spokesperson Sarah Gillooly called one of the bills "the largest and most sweeping overhaul we've seen to date," which is saying something in Kansas. Worse yet, most lawmakers only learned of that bill's existence six days before the legislation went up for debate last week, giving the impression that Republicans were trying to ram the legislation through.

Supported by anti-choice groups like Kansans for Life and Republican lawmakers including Rep. Lance Kinzer, the recent legislation includes a dizzying array of abortion restrictions. Among them, via the HuffingtonPost and the Kansas City Star:

· Women would be required to undergo a sonogram and listen to the fetal heartbeat before receiving an abortion.

· Physicians would be exempted from malpractice lawsuits if they withheld information that could prevent an abortion. In other words, a physician could choose not to tell a woman something important about her own health if the doctor thought the woman might seek an abortion because of that information. If the woman then suffered health problems, she would have no legal recourse. (Though it is little consolation, her family could still sue the doctor if she died.)

· Abortion providers would be required to inform women of a link between abortion and breast cancer and reproductive health problems -- links that have been widely discredited over many years by the medical establishment.

· Providers would be required to inform women that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, another widely discredited myth anti-choicers have been propagating for years.

· Physicians would no longer be eligible for tax credits and exemptions for abortion-related insurance, drugs and expenses.

· Groups that perform abortions would be banned from providing sexual education materials for teenagers in schools.

The above examples make it clear that the GOP is continuing to throw anti-women measures against the wall to see what sticks -- and thus attempting a piecemeal chiseling away of women's bodily autonomy. The result is that even if the more extreme provisions go by the wayside, women's rights continue to be siphoned off. Even more insidiously, what we have is an attack from all sides with a very clear aim, which Melissa Harris-Perry described chillingly last year:

Women who can't control their fertility will be unable to compete for degrees or jobs with their male counterparts. Likewise, without affordable childcare women would be less likely to work outside the home. And without basic rights to organize, women teachers, nurses and other public sector workers would be compelled to accept lower wages and harsher working conditions, shoving many women out of the workforce altogether.

In other words, this isn't just a war on women's bodies, but on women's participation in the public sphere.

Full Story Here (http://www.alternet.org/activism/154197/4_states_where_right-wingers_are_promoting_shocking_measures_to_keep_wo men_barefoot_and_pregnant/?page=entire)

[Cin]

Instead of Being Disgusted by Poverty, We are Disgusted by Poor People Themselves
Empathy has crashed. No more cruel to be kind. We must simply be cruel.
by Suzanne Moore

She is there whenever I go the shops. Every time I think she can't get any more skeletal, she manages it. Wild eyes staring in different directions, she must have been pretty once. I try not to look, for she is often aggressive. Sometimes, though, she is in my face and asking me to go into the shop, from which she has been banned, to buy her something. A scratchcard. She feels lucky. "Maybe some food?" I suggest pointlessly, but food is not what she craves. Food is not crack. Or luck. She has already lost every lottery going.

An addict is the author of their own misfortune. Her poverty is self-inflicted. All these hopeless people: where do they all come from? It is, of course, possible never to really see them, as their distress is so distressing. Who needs it? Poverty, we are often told, is not "actual", because people have TVs. This gradual erosion of empathy is the triumph of an economic climate in which everyone, addicted or not, is personally responsible for their own lack of achievement. Poor people are not simply people like us, but with less money: they are an entirely different species. Their poverty is a personal failing. They have let themselves go. This now applies not just to individuals but to entire countries. Look at the Greeks! What were they thinking with their pensions and minimum wage? That they were like us? Out of the flames, they are now told to rise, phoenix–like, by a rich political elite. Perhaps they can grow money on trees?

Meanwhile, in the US, as this week's shocking Panorama showed, people are living in tents or underground in drains. These ugly people, with ulcers, hernias and bad teeth, are the flipside of the American dream. Trees twist through abandoned civic buildings and factories, while the Republican candidates, an ID parade of Grecian 2000 suspects, bang on about tax cuts for the 1% who own a fifth of America's wealth. To see the Grapes of Wrath recast among post-apocalyptic cityscapes is scary. Huge cognitive dissonance is required to cheerlead for the rich while 47 million citizens live in conditions close to those in the developing world.

This contradiction is also one of the few things we in the UK are good at producing. I heard a radio interview recently with a depressed young man with three A-levels (yes, in properly Govian subjects) who had been unemployed for three years. The response of listeners was that he was lazy and should try harder. Samuel Beckett's "fail better" comes to mind. Understanding what three years of unemployment does to a young person does not produce a job, any more than the scratchcard will change a crackhead's life. But pure condemnation is divisive. This fear and loathing of those at the bottom is deeply disturbing.

Three years ago I was on a panel with Vince Cable at The Convention of Modern Liberty, when Cable was still reckoned a seer for predicting the recession. He said then that the financial crisis would mean civil liberties would be trampled on. But what stuck in my mind was a sentence he mumbled about the pre-conditions for fascism arising. Scaremongering? The emotional pre-condition is absolutely this punitive attitude to the weak and poor.

Our disgust at the poor is tempered only by our sentimentality about children. They are innocent. We feel charitable. Not enough, perhaps, as a Save the Children report tells us that one in four children in developing countries are too malnourished to grow properly. Still, malnourishment isn't starvation, just as anyone who has a mobile phone isn't properly hard-up. Difficult to stomach maybe, but isn't all this the fault of the countries they live in?

At what point, though, can we no longer avoid the poor, our own and the global poor? Or, indeed, avoid the concept that frightens the left as much as the right: redistribution, of wealth, resources, labor, working hours. Whither the left? Busy pretending that there is a way round this, a lot of the time.

The idea that ultimately the poor must help themselves as social mobility grinds to a halt is illogical; it is based on a faith for which there is scant evidence. Yet it is the one thing that has genuinely "trickled down" from the wealthy, so that many people without much themselves continue to despise those who are on a lower rung.

The answer to poverty, you see, lies with the poor themselves, be they drain-dwellers, Greeks, disabled people, or unemployed youth. We will give them bailouts, maybe charity, and lectures on becoming more entrepreneurial. The economy of empathy has crashed, and this putsch is insidious and individualized. No more cruel to be kind. We must be simply cruel.

The argument that there is enough to go round is now a fairytale, like winning the lottery. Poverty is not a sign of collective failure but individual immorality. The psychic coup of neo-liberal thinking is just this: instead of being disgusted by poverty, we are disgusted by poor people themselves. This disgust is a growth industry. We lay this moral bankruptcy at the feet of the poor as we tell ourselves we are better than that.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/16-3

[Kobi]

BOISE, Idaho—Republican lawmakers in a handful of states are opening another front in the war against President Obama's health care overhaul, seizing on the hot-button issue of birth control with bills that would allow insurance companies to ignore new federal rules requiring them to cover contraception.

Measures introduced recently in Idaho, Missouri and Arizona would go beyond religious nonprofits and expand exemptions to secular insurers or businesses that object to covering contraception, abortion and sterilization.

"In its present state, the health care bill is an affront to my religious freedoms," said Idaho Republican Rep. Carlos Bilbao, who is sponsoring the bill.

The ACLU counters, saying such bills discriminate against women.

"Each time more entities are allowed to deny contraceptive coverage, the religious beliefs of some are imposed on others, and gender equality is undermined," said Monica Hopkins, the ACLU's Idaho director.

The bills echo a separate proposal in Congress sponsored by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, allowing insurance plans to opt out of the requirement on contraception coverage if they have moral objections.

The measures are a direct challenge to a recent Obama administration decision that seeks to guarantee employees of religion-affiliated institutions reproductive health coverage, which includes contraception.

The controversy erupted nationally this year when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups protested a new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.

Their opposition led Obama to modify the rule with changes that shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies, a solution that did little to satisfy the opposition and led to the statehouse challenges.

The bills, proposed by Republican lawmakers in conservative states, stand fair chances of passing.

As the issue shifts battlefields from Washington, D.C., to state capitols, it offers conservative lawmakers an opportunity to make it more difficult to obtain contraceptives they oppose on moral grounds.

Also, it provides another opportunity for opponents of "Obamacare" to renew the fight they see as a test of states' rights.

Idaho was the first state to pass a law requiring its attorney general to sue over the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Arizona also joined the 27-state constitutional challenge that's pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Missouri, some Republican officials have filed a lawsuit separately.

Americans "confront unprecedented government threats to their religious freedom, in particular from the federal government's newly enacted mandates relating to health insurance," said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian nonprofit.

Planned Parenthood opposes the measures, arguing that they seek to meddle in essential women's health care that's helped reduce infant and maternal mortality.

"We're going to work to make sure women have access to this benefit no matter where they work," said Rachel Sussman, a Planned Parenthood senior policy analyst. "Only a few states are moving forward with this, and we think they're going to soon find out it's bad politics ... and it's bad health care."

Sussman said it's too early to say whether her group would file a legal challenge to these measures, should they pass, because they conflict with a federal law.

Ron Johnson, executive director of Catholic Charities Conference in Arizona, said at a hearing recently that passing the state law would give Arizona standing to sue the federal government over the regulation.

But constitutional scholar David Gray Adler, who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research, says that should the measures pass, states will likely struggle to assert their laws over the federal rule.

"If the federal program provides that women can have access to contraceptives through insurance programs, states will be required to uphold the federal law. That's the implication of the supremacy clause -- federal laws trump state laws."

The U.S. Justice Department could sue to block the laws should they pass, he said. "Historically, the federal government has gone to court to compel states to follow federal law."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/02/17/opposition_strikes_at_obamacare_on_birth_control/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news------

[Cin]

Truthout's editor and columnist William Rivers Pitt's letter to his mother on her birthday. It's too long to post the whole thing but here is a tiny excerpt I found particularly well said. It is newsworthy in that it he covers a lot of things that are happening in the news and provides lots of links so I figured it would fit here. I really think it is worth a read.

To My Mother (http://www.truth-out.org/my-mother/1329443930)
I know you pride yourself on being up on current events - it must be in the genes - but I wanted to make sure you are fully up to speed on what The Bastards have been up to lately, because they have been busy in a way I have never actually seen before in my life. Every part of what has been happening in American politics of late is entirely familiar, the stuff of old nightmares, but I have never experienced such a barrage of unrestrained hatred, filth and nonsense to compare with this. It's as if The Bastards took 100 years worth of anti-woman sentiment, condensed it into a dense nugget of hate-crack, and hit the pipe. Hard.

[Truly Scrumptious]

Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, and it’s been reauthorized without a hitch twice since then. Now that it’s up for reauthorization again, however, Senate Republicans have suddenly decided to use it as part of an anti-gay and anti-immigrant crusade. Every single Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against reauthorization, with Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) taking the lead against the bill:

The objections, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, are not over the VAWA as a whole, but over a few new provisions in the reauthorization — specifically, protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.

Story here:

Grassley holds domestic violence victims hostage (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/15/425816/grassley-takes-straight-domestic-violence-victims-hostage-to-lash-out-at-gay-victims-and-immigrants/)

[Kobi]

I do see this as state sanctioned, or perhaps more accurately state mandated rape. However, what concerns me most is that beyond transvaginal ultrasounds there is a plethora of laws and bills being passed and proposed whose sole purpose is to weaken and ultimately eradicate the reproductive rights of women.

To narrowly focus on this one bill is, to me, short sighted when the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Roe vs. Wade pretty much makes all the bills the various states have been passing regarding abortion unlawful.

The Supreme Court decision is very clear “FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.” The state has no right to interfere in this at all, in any way, with the exception of making sure the physician is licensed in the particular state where the abortion is to take place. The decision of the woman's physician as to what is necessary is final.

Not until the second trimester is the state allowed to promote its interest but even then it is only in regards to the health of the mother. It is not until the third trimester that the state can promote its interest in the potentiality of human life. It seems to me these states who have passed laws placing restrictions on abortion in the first trimester are not operating within federal law. So I wonder why is this not the approach being taken?



So I wonder why is this not the approach being taken?


Excellent question! I presume there are many different answers and a collaboration of perspectives is needed to sought the entire thing out.

My thinking based on what I am seeing is this is occuring because the GOP, especially the tea party folk, have changed strategies. And, the strategy is so simple, it is fucking brilliant and very scary.

What the GOP appears to have done is multifold. They have:

1. They have the coagulated power on the state level to push a moral agenda. We elected them. We elected a lot of them. They now have the power to push their agenda. The power was tested, the power is holding, the power is forging ahead.

What is simpler than to become the majority that makes the rules?

2. Learned to not attack the top of a ladder but to start at the bottom rung and work their way up i.e. cant attack Roe vs Wade but they can push the issue making the abortion process more burdensome on a state level.

3. They have added states rights vs federal rights into their moral agenda. And they are forging ahead, I think, to force the issue for a showdown with a President they consider to be beatable and a Congress that is sympathetic to their cause.

4. They are taking a very sexist path by focusing on issues essential to women. Why would you do that? Well lets see....if you think women are weak and stupid thus an easy target, it's a reason to go that route. If you think women have gotten to big for the common good, you might want to take that route. If you think women were made to be barefoot and pregnant and need to be shown the way back to where they belong, this is a good way to do it. If you think your rights and privileges as a man have been unfairly compromised, makes sense to go after those you believe have wronged you.

5. There is, to me, an inherent, implicit, racism thing going on as well between a POC president and a white GOP. Exploring it could take pages. I think it suffices to say, white privilege is rearing its head in a different way.

What is essential is to look at not only what is happening but in what context did it happen.

1.We had an unhappy country burdened with debt and an economic meltdown of historic proportions. People were hurting and angry.

2. People wanted "change". Understandable. Problem is, we didnt define the type of "change" we wanted. We just wanted something different that would restore all we had lost. Kind of, be careful what you ask for cuz you just might get it. We definately have change but not necessarily what people were envisioning.

3. We elected the first POC and the Tea Party got their foot in the door at a time of great upheavel in this country. Again, this could go on for pages.

I am sure there are many more things that were and are going on that are just not coming to mind. The point is, this didnt happen in a vacuum. Circumstances were such that this power struggle was easily created. It is also an election year. It is reasonable to expect the power struggle to escalate. There is a lot at risk for all sides. And, voters are notorious unpredictable and unaware of what is going on around them.

Just to touch on the Virginia law being conceived as stated mandated rape. I understand your rationale. At a different point in time, I might even have seen it similarly. Nowadays, I try to see things from more than one perspective so I dont get locked into a certain mind set. So, let me ask you this:

Appearing on the FBI website, the new definition of rape says: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

So, if we are saying the requirement of a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion is state mandated rape, arent we also saying the ultrasound tech performing the test is a rapist? Are you comfortable with saying someone just doing the requirements of their job is a rapist?

[Cin]

So, if we are saying the requirement of a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion is state mandated rape, arent we also saying the ultrasound tech performing the test is a rapist? Are you comfortable with saying someone just doing the requirements of their job is a rapist?


No, I am not comfortable saying the techs performing the requirements of their job are rapists. I'm just not comfortable saying that. They perform transvaginal ultrasounds all the time. IT is not rape. In my opinion the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the politicians passing these laws, as well as the state mandating this procedure be done for no medical reason. So to me those are the people responsible for rape.

However, I am saying that it is not a requirement of the tech's job to perform these ultrasounds. It's not the tech's or the physician's job to follow any other laws put into play by various states regarding first trimester abortions. I am saying by law it cannot be a requirement of their job. I am saying that it is against federal law. I am saying that at some point you take responsibility for the orders you follow.
This is the law of the land-

“FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.”

No other law is valid. People have to stand up and do the right thing. I think the moral choice is clear. However, I don't think anyone will agonize over this. I might be wrong, but it seems that physicians and techs are just falling in line and complying with whatever the state mandates. And when it comes to choosing their job or their beliefs, well jobs are not easy to come by so who can judge? Yet I believe what needs to happen is for physicians and techs to challenge these laws as unconstitutional.

[Toughy]

So, if we are saying the requirement of a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion is state mandated rape, arent we also saying the ultrasound tech performing the test is a rapist? Are you comfortable with saying someone just doing the requirements of their job is a rapist?


Yes I am because they are rapists. The techs can say no I will not do this.

What does the AMA have to say about this? What about all the other health care professional organizations. What does the Nurses Associations have to say about this. What about radiologists and the techs organizations?

The health care field actually has an obligation to say no to this. Their silence over the years has been unbelievable and it goes back decades. I think there are only a few (less than 5) medical schools that even teach abortion procedures. GYNs can graduate and get licensed and not know how to do abortions. It's shameful.

And you have Rick Santorum saying states have the right to outlaw contraception...yes make use of contraception a criminal act.

Something like 28 states have laws on the books mandating free contraception for women. These laws were made law in republican controlled states. It was all good until Obama wanted to mandate free contraception.

Somehow I am reminded of the book Backlash by Susan Faludi.

[Kobi]

Tick, I think or trust you know I pick your brain on stuff like this cuz we both tend to pull things apart to see how they work so to speak. Seems we need to get past our initial knee jerk emotional reactions in order to be very clear on what exactly we are facing. The only way, to me, to do that is to keep poking at it, look at it from different perspective and different angles, to keep bouncing thoughts and ideas off one another so we can expand the depth of all that is part of any issue.




No, I am not comfortable saying the techs performing the requirements of their job are rapists. I'm just not comfortable saying that. They perform transvaginal ultrasounds all the time. IT is not rape. In my opinion the rape falls squarely on the shoulders of the politicians passing these laws, as well as the state mandating this procedure be done for no medical reason. So to me those are the people responsible for rape.



Appearing on the FBI website, the new definition of rape says: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Seems the definition of rape requires very explicitly defined "penetration". The one doing the actual "penetrating" by definition is the tech not the law makers.

If penetration wasnt so clearly defined as a specific act/action, my head might have more wiggle room here.

I think there is a very appropriate, specific word to call this. I'm just not sure rape is it.

It is illegal and unconstitutional. We agree.




However, I am saying that it is not a requirement of the tech's job to perform these ultrasounds. It's not the tech's or the physician's job to follow any other laws put into play by various states regarding first trimester abortions. I am saying by law it cannot be a requirement of their job. I am saying that it is against federal law. I am saying that at some point you take responsibility for the orders you follow.
This is the law of the land-

“FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.”

No other law is valid. People have to stand up and do the right thing. I think the moral choice is clear. However, I don't think anyone will agonize over this. I might be wrong, but it seems that physicians and techs are just falling in line and complying with whatever the state mandates. And when it comes to choosing their job or their beliefs, well jobs are not easy to come by so who can judge? Yet I believe what needs to happen is for physicians and techs to challenge these laws as unconstitutional.



By law you are saying people shouldnt be put in this position and they shouldnt. But, they are. Federal law vs state law vs common people just trying to do their jobs. It sucks.

Yes, we all need to step up and do the right thing....as we see it. Now, here is the dilemma I see and another example of the absolute brilliance of the GOP strategy.

If I was a tech or an MD who performed abortions in these states, I would have, conceivably, an ethical dilemma. I have no idea what my legal options would be i.e. restraining or, stay order etc. But, lets presume I dont have a way to hold off enforcing the law.

As a health care professional, I would have a choice. I can abide by the law or I can deliberately break the law or I could challenge the law....for a small fortune.

If I abide by the law, I might have my own ethical dilemma to wrestle with every single time I did a procedure.

If I deliberately broke the law, as idiotic as it is, I am now opening myself up to criminal prosecution. I am now facing criminal charges, legal fees, possible loss of my license to practice, and jail time. Not only am I, personally and my family, in a quandry now, everyone I employ and I serve are also likely in limbo land as well. So, how does my decision to live my conscience affect those around me?

If I am a tech employed by someone who insists we go by the letter of the law, I can refuse and in refusing, I might myself unemployed. Will I choose to take responsibility for what I feel is right even when it means my job, my income, my health insurance, my home, my way of life etc? What a freakin horrible position to be put in.

If I own a facility that does abortions, for the sake of my business, my employees, and my ethics I may STOP doing abortions altogether. Bingo!

If I am someplace like Planned Parenthood, I could foresee many many millions of dollars being spent to defend myself in court for one reason or another as a result of this. Might I be put in the position of having to weigh the costs of performing abortions vs the costs of other services we provide?
Bingo 2!

I might even decide to shutdown my practice in a hostile state and move it someplace more accepting. What happens to those I used to serve if the service isnt available anymore? Bingo 3!

I am not even going to address the blame the victim shit that is bound to happen i.e. the "if women only did this or that or didnt do this or that" we wouldnt even have an abortion issue to deal with.

What a fucking brilliant strategy. Brilliant.

How do you counteract this? Good question.

[Corkey]

I have trouble with the whole "it's my job" thing. It is as though to have a job in this field one has to put their better judgement on hold to follow some of this law. Um no one doesn't, the Hippocratic oath says first do no harm. So which is more important to a health care professional? Secondly who is going to enforce this "law"? Just how much time will one get for disobeying this "law"? Who will go to jail for this?
I'm with MissTick on this one SCOTUS has said that they will not revisit Roe V. Wade, so it remains the law of the land, therefore trumping state law. Like I said earlier, someone is going to have to sue these states.

[Cin]

Appearing on the FBI website, the new definition of rape says: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Seems the definition of rape requires very explicitly defined "penetration". The one doing the actual "penetrating" by definition is the tech not the law makers.

If penetration wasnt so clearly defined as a specific act/action, my head might have more wiggle room here.

Well speaking of wiggle room, it appears to me that the supreme court decision regarding first trimester abortion is ever so clearly defined and there doesn’t appear to be any wiggle room at all. Yet, they’re doing the wiggle coast to coast in every state in the union. So I don’t have any qualms doing a little wiggle of my own and laying the blame for the state mandated rape squarely at the feet of the politicians and the state.

By law you are saying people shouldnt be put in this position and they shouldnt. But, they are. Federal law vs state law vs common people just trying to do their jobs. It sucks.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be put in the position. I’m saying they can't legally be put in this position.

Yes, we all need to step up and do the right thing....as we see it. Now, here is the dilemma I see and another example of the absolute brilliance of the GOP strategy.

If I was a tech or an MD who performed abortions in these states, I would have, conceivably, an ethical dilemma. I have no idea what my legal options would be i.e. restraining or, stay order etc. But, lets presume I dont have a way to hold off enforcing the law.

As a health care professional, I would have a choice. I can abide by the law or I can deliberately break the law or I could challenge the law....for a small fortune.

Well, that’s my dilemma. Why would they have no way to hold off enforcing an unlawful law? It should be a no brainer. No one should be deliberately breaking federal laws.

If I abide by the law, I might have my own ethical dilemma to wrestle with every single time I did a procedure.

Well, see that’s the thing. You would not be abiding by the law. The federal law is clear, no state interference in first trimester abortions.

If I deliberately broke the law, as idiotic as it is, I am now opening myself up to criminal prosecution. I am now facing criminal charges, legal fees, possible loss of my license to practice, and jail time. Not only am I, personally and my family, in a quandry now, everyone I employ and I serve are also likely in limbo land as well. So, how does my decision to live my conscience affect those around me?

Again, you would be deliberately breaking federal law if you do what the state is asking.

If I am a tech employed by someone who insists we go by the letter of the law, I can refuse and in refusing, I might myself unemployed. Will I choose to take responsibility for what I feel is right even when it means my job, my income, my health insurance, my home, my way of life etc? What a freakin horrible position to be put in.

Again if you follow the letter of the law you must refuse.

If I own a facility that does abortions, for the sake of my business, my employees, and my ethics I may STOP doing abortions altogether. Bingo!

If I am someplace like Planned Parenthood, I could foresee many many millions of dollars being spent to defend myself in court for one reason or another as a result of this. Might I be put in the position of having to weigh the costs of performing abortions vs the costs of other services we provide?
Bingo 2!

I might even decide to shutdown my practice in a hostile state and move it someplace more accepting. What happens to those I used to serve if the service isnt available anymore? Bingo 3!

I am not even going to address the blame the victim shit that is bound to happen i.e. the "if women only did this or that or didnt do this or that" we wouldnt even have an abortion issue to deal with.

What a fucking brilliant strategy. Brilliant.

How do you counteract this? Good question.


Well it’s only a brilliant strategy if people do not stand up against it. It is illegal. And if everyone, physicians, techs, facilities, everyone involved in women’s reproductive services, stands up together and cries foul, then it wouldn’t stand a chance of working. But if most accept this then ya, it’ll work. But really it’s not that brilliant, they only win if we roll over and decide to lose.

[Kobi]

Well speaking of wiggle room, it appears to me that the supreme court decision regarding first trimester abortion is ever so clearly defined and there doesn’t appear to be any wiggle room at all. Yet, they’re doing the wiggle coast to coast in every state in the union. So I don’t have any qualms doing a little wiggle of my own and laying the blame for the state mandated rape squarely at the feet of the politicians and the state.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be put in the position. I’m saying they can't legally be put in this position.

Well, that’s my dilemma. Why would they have no way to hold off enforcing an unlawful law? It should be a no brainer. No one should be deliberately breaking federal laws.

Well, see that’s the thing. You would not be abiding by the law. The federal law is clear, no state interference in first trimester abortions.

Again, you would be deliberately breaking federal law if you do what the state is asking.

Again if you follow the letter of the law you must refuse.

Well it’s only a brilliant strategy if people do not stand up against it. It is illegal. And if everyone, physicians, techs, facilities, everyone involved in women’s reproductive services, stands up together and cries foul, then it wouldn’t stand a chance of working. But if most accept this then ya, it’ll work. But really it’s not that brilliant, they only win if we roll over and decide to lose.


Tick, I'm telling ya, I love your brain. All excellent points. Now, if you remember a post you made a couple of pages back r.e. info from the Guttmacher Institute:

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion.

Mid 1990's? Thats 17 years of fuckery so far. Lots of fuckery and who is responding to this? I dunno yet.

Toughy has raised excellent points as well. What are the professions affected by this doing in response? I dunno yet.

To not clutter up the breaking news thread anymore, I will make a separate thread for this in the "in the news" category.

The more I read and learn, the more this is really pissing me off. This is crucial shit for women. So, I hope some other curious folks who like to delve into things join me in the "Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights" thread.

[Lady Pamela]

A wonderful and incredible piece of news.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/peter-skyllberg-swedish-man-survives-two-months-in-snow-covered-car_n_1287586.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-nb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D136921



.

[Toughy]

you gotta love Rick Santorum.....notice the town in Georgia Santorum was when he made these remarks

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9T0K2D80%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&page=1


Santorum questions Obama's 'world view,' not faith
By STEVE PEOPLES Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:16 PM EST

CUMMING, Ga. (AP) — Rick Santorum on Sunday condemned what he called President Barack Obama's world view that "elevates the Earth above man," discouraging increased use of natural resources.

The GOP presidential candidate also slammed Obama's health care overhaul for requiring insurers to pay for prenatal tests that, Santorum said, will encourage more abortions. <snip>

[Nat]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/santorum-prenatal-testing/index.html

The government shouldn't make health care providers fully cover prenatal tests like amniocentesis, which can determine the possibility of Down syndrome or other fetal problems, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday.

Santorum, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, told the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday that amniocentesis "more often than not" results in abortion.

"People have the right to do it, but to have the government force people to provide it free, to me, is a bit loaded," he said.

....

[Corkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/trip-ifactory-nightline-gets-unprecedented-glimpse-inside-apples-001926196--abc-news.html

iPod factory report tonight on Nightline

[Cin]

Outrage: Congress Gives States the Go-Ahead to Drug Test for Unemployment Benefits (and Stick Taxpayers With the Bill)
As part of a deal to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits through 2012, Congress will allow states to drug test people applying for those benefits.

As part of a deal approved Friday to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits through 2012, Congress has given its okay to allow states to drug test people applying for those benefits. The move, initially opposed by Democrats, came after the Democratic leadership bowed to Republican pressure in its eagerness to get the bill passed.

Republicans had initially called for drug testing for everybody seeking unemployment benefits, but Democrats balked before backtracking and agreeing to allow testing for those who lost their jobs because of drug use and those applying for jobs in industries where drug testing is prevalent.

It's worth noting that people fired from their jobs for drug use are fired "for cause" and not laid off for lack of work, and thus are ineligible for unemployment benefits anyway. But the provision allowing for drug testing in industries where it is common could expose hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to drug tests before they could receive unemployment checks. None of those workers was laid off because of drug use.

The deal effectively moves the burden of drug testing from employers, who freely decide whether they think testing has more benefits than costs, to state governments and their taxpayers -- at least in those states that decide to use the new tool. Drug testing is also more likely to be imposed on lower skilled workers than on white collar workers because those sectors are where drug testing is most prevalent now.

Democratic lawmakers downplayed the extent of drug testing about to be foisted on laid-off workers, while Republicans said they would be widespread. The bill requires the Labor Department to draft regulations to determine who will be subjected to drug testing. Those subject to drug testing will be those unemployed workers "for whom suitable work as defined under the state law is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor," a Democratic staffer explained to the Huffington Post.

"I think it's a small percentage," Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), ranking Democratic in the House committee overseeing unemployment insurance, told the Post.

But Republicans cited employer surveys to argue that drug testing would be widespread, with one survey reporting that 84% of employers required drug tests for new hires.

"That's total nonsense," said Levin. "No way 80%."

But while Democrats and Republicans quibbled over how many jobless workers would be forced to endure the intrusive and humiliating ritual, the Drug Policy Alliance was clear and concise in its opposition to the move.

"This policy is a terrible one-two punch to the gut for thousands of struggling Americans," said Bill Piper, the group's national affairs director. "Congress has paired a generous taxpayer subsidy for corporations that drug test with a slap in the face for those struggling to find work, feed their families and keep their homes. The American people have a right to be upset over being forced to subsidize the violation of their civil liberties, when they try to access a program that they pay for with every paycheck. Drug testing is expensive and ineffective, and distracts from evidence-based policies that actually reduce the problems associated with drug use and misuse."

[Cin]

Why is the ACLU Helping the Richest Americans Buy Our Elections (http://www.alternet.org/rights/154184/why_is_the_aclu_helping_the_richest_americans_buy_ our_elections?page=1)

[Cin]

Indiana Lawmaker Accuses Girl Scouts Of Pushing ‘Pro-Abortion’ Agenda, ‘Homosexual Lifestyles’

A Republican lawmaker in Indiana was the only state House member to “refuse to sign a resolution honoring the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts that lawmakers approved last week,” claiming that the “radicalized organization” supports abortions and the homosexual agenda. In a letter obtained by The Journal-Gazette of Fort Wayne on Monday, Rep. Bob Morris (R) informed colleagues that “he did some research on the Internet and found allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, allow transgender females to join and encourage sex.” From the letter:

I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing. The Girl Scouts of America and their worldwide partner, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood. [...]

Nonetheless, abundant evidence proves that the agenda of Planned Parenthood includes sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts, which is quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood instructional series and pamphlets are part of the core curriculum at GSA training seminars. Denver Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley of Denver last year warned parents that “membership in the Girl Scouts could carry the danger of making their daughters more receptive to the pro-abortion agenda.”

A Girl Scouts of America training program last year used the Planned Parenthood sex education pamphlet “Happy, Healthy, and Hot.” The pamphlet instructs young girls not to think of sex as “just about vaginal or anal intercourse.” “There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” it states. Although individual Girl Scout troops are not forced to follow this curriculum, many do. Liberal progressive troop-leaders will indoctrinate the girls in their troop according to the principles of Planned Parenthood, making Bishop Conley’s warning true.

Morris also said the fact that first lady Michelle Obama is honorary president “should give each of us reason to pause before our individual and collective endorsement of the organization” and criticized the group for accepting “Boys who decide to claim a ‘transgender’ or cross-dressing life-style.”

Indiana Republicans are keeping their distance from Morris and his allegations. Rep. Kathy Richardson (R) spoke in support of the resolution last week and told the Journal-Gazette, “I guess he’s entitled to his opinion…They are out selling cookies – not sex and abortions.” House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) said he hasn’t read the letter or “investigated [the Girl Scouts] closely.”

[SoNotHer]

Texas Drought of 2011 Killed Millions of Urban Trees

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2012/20120220_houstontrees.jpg

COLLEGE STATION, Texas, February 20, 2012 (ENS) - At least 5.6 million trees that once shaded homes, streets and parks in communities across Texas now are dead as a result of last year's drought. These dead trees represent as much as 10 percent of the total number of trees that make up the state's urban forest. Texas Forest Service urban foresters calculated their loss over the past month as they surveyed tree mortality in cities and towns across the state.

"This estimate is preliminary because trees are continuing to die from the drought," said Pete Smith, Texas Forest Service staff forester and lead researcher. "This means we may be significantly undercounting the number of trees that ultimately will succumb to the drought," said Smith. "That number may not be known until the end of 2012, if ever."
Dead trees in Houston's Memorial Park, January 2012 (Photo courtesy Texas Forest Service)

After one of the driest years on record, many shade trees went into dormancy as early as August 2011, dropping their leaves and branches in a "desperate act of self-preservation," the Texas Forest Service says. Pine trees with normally thick, green crowns turned red with dead needles while foliage on cedar trees turned brown. Much like the drought, tree mortality is not uniform across Texas and can vary from one yard to another.

The study conducted by Texas Forest Service, a member of The Texas A&M University System, focuses on tree mortality in the urban forest. The trees that line streets, shade homes and grow in local parks are all considered to be part of the urban forest. To determine how many urban trees have been lost to the drought, foresters studied satellite imagery taken before and during the drought, counting both live and dead trees in randomly selected plots on both public and private land. All cities and towns in Texas were included in the study with the exception of the Trans Pecos region, where tree mortality was determined to be a result of a February 2011 cold snap; not the drought.

The Texas Forest Service says that because the drought-killed trees are in populated areas, many threaten public safety and will need to be removed at an estimated total cost of $560 million. The estimated loss of economic and environmental benefits once provided by these dead trees is roughly $280 million per year. When alive, they cut heating and cooling bills, cleaned the air and water and increased property values.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2012/2012-02-20-091.html

[SoNotHer]

30,000-Year-Old Flower Brought Back to Life by Russian Scientists
By Melissa Knowles | Trending Now – 1 hr 48 mins ago

http://rt.com/files/news/oldest-flower-silene-reanimate-837/regenerated-sylene-plant-stenophylla.n.jpg

An Ice Age flower has come back to life. How exactly did that happen? Well, a team of Russian scientists discovered a burrow that contained fruit and seeds left in the Siberian permafrost by a squirrel that buried them about 30,000 years ago. Remnants of the Silene stenophylla blossom were found perfectly preserved, and in an experiment to extract the seeds, the scientists pioneered a new way to resurrect the plant. For thousands of years, the flower was fully encased in ice, and no water was able to get to it. The storage chambers that the squirrels created were filled with hay and animal fur to protect their treasure. Stanislav Gubin, one scientist working with the discovery, called it a "natural cryobank." The blossom with its white flowers looks similar to its modern-day version, which also grows in the same region as its predecessor. The burrows, which were found 125 feet below the surface, also contained bones of wooly mammoths, deer, and bison. So in addition to bringing the flower back to life, scientists hope to find preserved animal tissue that may one day lead to another breakthrough--wooly mammoths roaming the earth again. People on social media are saying these discoveries are eerily similar to the "Jurassic Park" movie franchise in which a mosquito trapped in amber led to the resurrection of dinosaurs. One person tweeted, "awesome."

Does it just grind your gears when someone one-ups you? That may be how the Russian scientists mentioned in the previous article may be feeling. American and Chinese scientists have made a remarkable discovery, too. They have found a nearly 300 million-year-old forest. It was found buried under a coal mine in Wuda, China, and it had been perfectly maintained under a thick layer of volcanic ash. University of Pennsylvania paleobotanist Hermann Pfefferkorn compares the discovery to the lost Roman city of Pompeii. Pompeii was completely covered in volcanic ash for more than 1,700 years from an eruption at Mount Vesuvius until it was accidentally discovered. This newly found Permian forest dates to when the first mammals, turtles, and some dinosaurs inhabited the earth. Scientists are comparing the find to a time capsule that preserved entire trees and plants exactly as they were at the time of the volcanic eruption. This has allowed scientists to digitally re-create what the 10,000-square-foot forest would have looked like. The scientists have been able to identify six different groups of trees, including some as tall as 80 feet and even a few that are now extinct.


http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/ancientseeds.jpg


From -

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/30-000-old-flower-brought-back-life-russian-171513010.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

Minister Appeals Censure for Performing Same-Sex Marriages



http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/02/17/Minister_Appeals_Censure_for_Performing_Same_Sex_M arriages/

[Corkey]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479256-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backs-away-from-ultrasound-bill


McDonnell backs away from transvaginal ultrasound. Still invasive law.

[Corkey]

LAMBDA LEGAL:BREAKING: A federal court has found the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Lambda Legal's case on behalf of Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Soon]

LAMBDA LEGAL:BREAKING: A federal court has found the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Lambda Legal's case on behalf of Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here's the ruling.

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/golsinkidomarlg.pdf

[LeftWriteFemme]

Susana Martinez, New Mexico Governor, Loses A Hairstylist Over Gay Marriage Stance

Sometimes it's the little things!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/susana-martinez-new-mexico_n_1293384.html

[Toughy]

Susana Martinez, New Mexico Governor, Loses A Hairstylist Over Gay Marriage Stance

Sometimes it's the little things!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/susana-martinez-new-mexico_n_1293384.html

LMAO........she is a piece of work for sure.....maybe this will start something...

[CherylNYC]

First All African American, Female Flight Crew on a Commercial Airline:

First all African American Female Crew of a Commercial Airliner - YouTube


P.S. I'm a recidivist Luddite. If this doesn't work, will someone please fix the link? Many thanks.

[LeftWriteFemme]

Changing Hearts

Maryland Republican: Meeting gay couples left me 'changed person'


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-maryland-gay-marriage-republican-supporter-20120223%2c0%2c3727286.story?track=rss

[*Anya*]

February 17, 2012 — Strong social support may help protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth against suicidal thoughts, new research suggests.

The first longitudinal prospective study to examine factors predictive of suicidal ideation and self-harm in this vulnerable, high-risk population indicates that support from friends and family may offer the greatest protection.

"Our research shows how critical it is for these young people to have social support and for schools to have programs to reduce bullying," senior author Brian Mustanski, PhD, a clinical psychologist and associate professor of medical social sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, said in a release.

"I think it really informs us as to what sort of avenues we can take to help reduce suicide in gay youth," he told Medscape Medical News.

The study is published in the March issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Suicide More Common in Gay Youth

Suicide is the third-leading cause of death among adolescents. However, LGBT youth are at least twice as likely to attempt suicide as their heterosexual counterparts. Contemplating suicide is a precursor of suicide attempts, prior research shows.

Understanding the risk factors for suicidal ideation is "crucial for improving prevention and treatment strategies," the authors write.

The investigators examined suicide risk factors such as depression and feelings of hopelessness in a general adolescent population along with a variety of LGBT-specific risk factors such as gay-specific victimization and gender nonconformity.

The study followed an ethnically diverse cohort of 246 Chicago-area LGBT youth aged 16 to 20 years at baseline for 2.5 years. The study population was not randomized. Participants self-identified their sexual orientation; they were recruited from a variety of sources, including flyers distributed in LGBT-identified neighborhoods and group listservs. Each participant completed a baseline interview, then 4 follow-up interviews were conducted 6 months apart.

Researchers chose to focus on suicidal ideation and self-harm as the main outcome measures, rather than suicide attempts, because different people mean different things by the phrase "suicide attempt," Dr. Mustanski said.

"By focusing specifically on these precursors that we can define much more clearly, it really gives us a much better window into what the risk and protective factors are," he said.

Self-Harm Risk

At baseline, participants were asked whether they had ever attempted suicide. They were also asked about their level of gender nonconformity, impulsivity, and sensation seeking.

During follow-up interviews, participants were asked about suicidal ideation, feelings of hopelessness, self-harm, bullying due to their sexual orientation, and level of support from family and friends.

Hierarchic linear modeling was used to examine between-person differences and within-person changes in suicidal ideation and self-harm over time.

Results showed that a history of attempted suicide (P = .05), impulsivity (P = .01), prospective LGBT victimization (P = .03), and low social support (P = .02) were all associated with an increased risk for suicidal ideation.

Prior suicide attempts (P < .01), sensation seeking (P = .04), female gender (P < .01), childhood gender nonconformity (P < .01), prospective hopelessness (P < .01), and victimization (P < .01) were all associated with greater self-harm.

On average, each experience of LGBT victimization was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk for self-harm behavior.

"Well Done"

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Anthony D’Augelli, PhD, a clinical and community psychologist and professor of human development and family studies at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pennsylvania, described the study as "extremely well done."

"There are a few longitudinal studies of this population, but none that have studied the issue of suicidality over time, so it makes it quite distinctive in that sense," said Dr. D'Augelli.

"Being LGBT as a young person is extremely stressful...the need for support is pretty intense," he added.

The other message for mental health professionals, said Dr. D'Augelli, is not to be judgmental and to use gender-neutral language when engaging with LGBT patients.

The authors and Dr. D'Augelli have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Am J Prev Med. 2012;42:221-228. Full article

Medscape Medical News © 2012 WebMD, LLC
Send comments and news tips to news@medscape.net.

[Sassy]

How your cat is making you crazy (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/8873/)

"Jaroslav Flegr is no kook. And yet, for years, he suspected his mind had been taken over by parasites that had invaded his brain. So the prolific biologist took his science-fiction hunch into the lab. What he’s now discovering will startle you. Could tiny organisms carried by house cats be creeping into our brains, causing everything from car wrecks to schizophrenia?"

........ :|


OK, I just thought it was odd and an interesting read... well, that, and the voices told me to share it ;)

[Cin]

BONUS: Should the Supreme Court decide corporations can be sued perhaps that will keep them at home increasing the job market in the US


Supreme Court to decide if corporations can be sued for human rights abuses
James Vicini
Reuters US Online Report Top News

Feb 24, 2012 18:12 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court will weigh next week whether corporations can be sued in the United States for suspected complicity in human rights abuses abroad, in a case being closely watched by businesses concerned about long and costly litigation.

The high court on Tuesday will consider the reach of a 1789 U.S. law that had been largely dormant until 1980, when human rights lawyers started using it, at first to sue foreign government officials. Then, over the next 20 years, the lawyers used the law to target multinational corporations.

The case before the court pits the Obama administration and human rights advocates against large companies and foreign governments over allegations that Royal Dutch Shell Plc helped Nigeria crush oil exploration protests in the 1990s.

Administration attorneys and lawyers for the plaintiffs contend corporations can be held accountable in U.S. courts for committing or assisting foreign governments in torture, executions or other human rights abuses.

Attorneys for corporations argue that only individuals, such as company employees or managers involved in the abuse, can be sued, a position adopted by a U.S. appeals court in New York. Other courts ruled corporations can be held liable.

The justices will hear an appeal by a group of Nigerians who argue they should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit accusing Shell of aiding the Nigerian government in human rights violations between 1992 and 1995.

California attorney Paul Hoffman, who will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs, said corporations, under the 1789 law, were permissible defendants and that corporate civil liability was a general principle of international law.

"Businesses involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious human rights violations deserve no exemption from tort liability," he said in a brief filed with the court.

NO EXEMPTION FOR GENOCIDE

The Obama administration supported the corporate liability argument, as did international human rights organizations and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Representing Shell at the arguments, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford Law School in California, said U.S. and international law do not allow corporate liability for the alleged offenses. She said the post-World War Two Nuremberg tribunals covered prosecutions of individuals, not corporations.

She warned of the consequences of allowing such lawsuits.

"Even a meritless ... suit against a corporation can take years to resolve," she said in a brief, adding that corporations may reduce their operations in less-developed nations where such abuses tend to arise.

The British, Dutch and German governments supported Shell and said it violates international law to apply a U.S. law from more than 200 years ago to acts that take place in other countries and have no connection to the United States.

Also backing Shell are various multinational corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobby. Robin Conrad, head of the group's legal arm, said that if the Supreme Court upholds corporate liability, "the global business community will face yet another wave of frivolous and expensive litigation."

In the past two decades, more than 120 lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against 59 corporations for alleged wrongful acts in 60 foreign countries, lawyers in the case said.

Many of the lawsuits have been unsuccessful, though there have been a handful of settlements, the lawyers said. Many of the cases, having dragged on for years, are still pending.

Among the cases: Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001; Firestone tire company was accused of using child labor in Liberia; and Ford Motor Co and other firms were accused of aiding South Africa's apartheid system.

The Alien Tort Statute from 1789 states that U.S. courts shall have jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit "by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

In its first substantive look at the law in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled it can be used for certain well-established international law violations, but did not determine who may be held liable.

A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June.

The Supreme Court case is Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, No. 10-1491.

(Reporting By James Vicini; editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Todd Eastham)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Top News

[CherylNYC]

BONUS: Should the Supreme Court decide corporations can be sued perhaps that will keep them at home increasing the job market in the US


Supreme Court to decide if corporations can be sued for human rights abuses
James Vicini
Reuters US Online Report Top News

Feb 24, 2012 18:12 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court will weigh next week whether corporations can be sued in the United States for suspected complicity in human rights abuses abroad, in a case being closely watched by businesses concerned about long and costly litigation.

The high court on Tuesday will consider the reach of a 1789 U.S. law that had been largely dormant until 1980, when human rights lawyers started using it, at first to sue foreign government officials. Then, over the next 20 years, the lawyers used the law to target multinational corporations.

The case before the court pits the Obama administration and human rights advocates against large companies and foreign governments over allegations that Royal Dutch Shell Plc helped Nigeria crush oil exploration protests in the 1990s.

Administration attorneys and lawyers for the plaintiffs contend corporations can be held accountable in U.S. courts for committing or assisting foreign governments in torture, executions or other human rights abuses.

Attorneys for corporations argue that only individuals, such as company employees or managers involved in the abuse, can be sued, a position adopted by a U.S. appeals court in New York. Other courts ruled corporations can be held liable.

The justices will hear an appeal by a group of Nigerians who argue they should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit accusing Shell of aiding the Nigerian government in human rights violations between 1992 and 1995.

California attorney Paul Hoffman, who will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs, said corporations, under the 1789 law, were permissible defendants and that corporate civil liability was a general principle of international law.

"Businesses involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious human rights violations deserve no exemption from tort liability," he said in a brief filed with the court.

NO EXEMPTION FOR GENOCIDE

The Obama administration supported the corporate liability argument, as did international human rights organizations and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Representing Shell at the arguments, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford Law School in California, said U.S. and international law do not allow corporate liability for the alleged offenses. She said the post-World War Two Nuremberg tribunals covered prosecutions of individuals, not corporations.

She warned of the consequences of allowing such lawsuits.

"Even a meritless ... suit against a corporation can take years to resolve," she said in a brief, adding that corporations may reduce their operations in less-developed nations where such abuses tend to arise.

The British, Dutch and German governments supported Shell and said it violates international law to apply a U.S. law from more than 200 years ago to acts that take place in other countries and have no connection to the United States.

Also backing Shell are various multinational corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobby. Robin Conrad, head of the group's legal arm, said that if the Supreme Court upholds corporate liability, "the global business community will face yet another wave of frivolous and expensive litigation."

In the past two decades, more than 120 lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against 59 corporations for alleged wrongful acts in 60 foreign countries, lawyers in the case said.

Many of the lawsuits have been unsuccessful, though there have been a handful of settlements, the lawyers said. Many of the cases, having dragged on for years, are still pending.

Among the cases: Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001; Firestone tire company was accused of using child labor in Liberia; and Ford Motor Co and other firms were accused of aiding South Africa's apartheid system.

The Alien Tort Statute from 1789 states that U.S. courts shall have jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit "by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

In its first substantive look at the law in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled it can be used for certain well-established international law violations, but did not determine who may be held liable.

A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June.

The Supreme Court case is Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, No. 10-1491.

(Reporting By James Vicini; editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Todd Eastham)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Top News

I was so deeply disturbed when Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmentalist working on behalf of the people of Ogoni-land, was framed and executed at the behest of Shell in the 1990s. I must be naive because I thought at the time that the Nigerian government just couldn't go through with it.

So, corporations are people, and therefore shouldn't be denied 'free speech' in the form of unlimited campaign donations. It stands to reason that if corporations are people with a right to free speech, then they must also be responsible, and sue-able, for human rights abuses, just as I would. I wish I thought I could expect reason from the current SCOTUS.

[LeftWriteFemme]

http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ADVOCATE/NEWS/2011/2011-01/2011-01-03/indianax390.jpg


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/02/23/Indiana_Lawmakers_Working_Hard_to_Trash_Gay_Licens e_Plate/

[LeftWriteFemme]

Bully Documentary Given R Rating, Can't Be Shown in Schools


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/02/24/Bully_Doc_Given_R_Rating_Cant_Be_Shown_in_Schools/

[LeftWriteFemme]

two perspectives on Santorum....he makes me want to throw up....




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/us/politics/santorum-makes-case-for-religion-in-public-sphere.html?_r=2&hpw

[LeftWriteFemme]

Father Marcel Guarnizo, Maryland Priest, Denies Communion To Lesbian Parishioner At Her Mother's Funeral


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/maryland-priest-communion-lesbian-denial-_n_1304910.html?ref=gay-voices

[Cin]

It's a very long (but fabulous) article so I only posted the introduction and the conclusion. I will add the link here in case anyone is interested in reading the entire article: http://www.truth-out.org/dangerous-pedagogy-age-casino-capitalism-and-religious-fundamentalism/1330459170

Dangerous Pedagogy in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Religious Fundamentalism
Wednesday 29 February 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis

Introduction

All over the world, the forces of neoliberalism are on the march, dismantling the historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the welfare state, defining profit-making and market freedoms as the essence of democracy while diminishing civil liberties as part of the alleged "war" against terrorism. Secure in its dystopian vision that there are no alternatives to a market society, free-market fundamentalism eliminates issues of contingency, struggle and social agency by celebrating the inevitability of economic laws in which the ethical ideal of intervening in the world gives way to the idea that we "have no choice but to adapt both our hopes and our abilities to the new global market."[1] Coupled with an ever-expanding culture of fear, market freedoms seem securely grounded in a defense of national security and the institutions of finance capital. Under such circumstances, a neoliberal model now bears down on American society, threatening to turn it into an authoritarian state. The script is now familiar: there is no such thing as the common good; market values become the template for shaping all aspects of society; the free, possessive individual has no obligations to anything other than his or her self-interest; profit-making is the essence of democracy; the government, and particularly the welfare state, is the arch-enemy of freedom; private interests trump public values; consumerism is the essence of citizenship; privatization is the essence of freedom; law and order is the new language for mobilizing shared fears rather than shared responsibilities; war is the new organizing principle for organizing society and the economy; theocracy now becomes the legitimating code for punishing women, young people, the elderly, and those groups marginalized by class, race and ethnicity when religious moralism is needed to shore up the war against all social order.[2]

Given this current crisis, educators need a new political and pedagogical language for addressing the changing contexts and issues facing a world in which capital draws upon an unprecedented convergence of resources - financial, cultural, political, economic, scientific, military and technological - to exercise powerful and diverse forms of control. If educators and others are to counter global capitalism’s increased ability to separate the traditional nation-state-based space of politics from the transnational reach of power, it is crucial to develop educational approaches that reject a collapse of the distinction between market liberties and civil liberties, a market economy and a market society. This suggests developing forms of critical pedagogy capable of challenging neoliberalism and other anti-democratic traditions, such as the emerging religious fundamentalism in the United States, while resurrecting a radical democratic project that provides the basis for imagining a life beyond the "dream world" of capitalism. Under such circumstances, education becomes more than testing, an obsession with accountability schemes, zero-tolerance policies and a site for simply training students for the workforce. At stake here is recognizing the power of education in creating the formative culture necessary to both challenge the various threats being mobilized against the very idea of justice and democracy while also fighting for those public spheres and formative cultures that offer alternative modes of identity, social relations and politics.

The search for a new politics and a new critical language that crosses a range of theoretical divides must reinvigorate the relationship between democracy, ethics, and political agency by expanding the meaning of the pedagogical as a political practice while at the same time making the political more pedagogical. In the first instance, it is crucial to recognize that pedagogy has less to do with the language of technique and methodology than it does with issues of politics and power. Pedagogy is a moral and political practice that is always implicated in power relations and must be understood as a cultural politics that offers both a particular version and vision of civic life, the future, and how we might construct representations of ourselves, others, and our physical and social environment. As Roger Simon observes:

As an introduction to, preparation for, and legitimation of particular forms of social life, education always presupposes a vision of the future. In this respect a curriculum and its supporting pedagogy are a version of our own dreams for ourselves, our children, and our communities. But such dreams are never neutral; they are always someone's dreams and to the degree that they are implicated in organizing the future for others they always have a moral and political dimension. It is in this respect that any discussion of pedagogy must begin with a discussion of educational practice as a form of cultural politics, as a particular way in which a sense of identity, place, worth, and above all value is - informed by practices which organize knowledge and meaning.[3]

An oppositional cultural politics can take many forms, but given the current assault by neoliberalism on all aspects of democratic public life, it seems imperative that educators revitalize the struggles to create conditions in which learning would be linked to social change in a wide variety of social sites, and pedagogy would take on the task of regenerating both a renewed sense of social and political agency and a critical subversion of dominant power itself. Making the political more pedagogical rests on the assumption that education takes place a variety of sites outside of the school. Under such circumstances, agency becomes the site through which power is not transcended but reworked, replayed and restaged in productive ways. Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not only about power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, "has to do with political judgements and value choices,"[4] indicating that questions of civic education and critical pedagogy (learning how to become a skilled citizen) are central to the struggle over political agency and democracy. In this instance, critical pedagogy emphasizes critical reflexivity, bridging the gap between learning and everyday life, understanding the connection between power and knowledge, and extending democratic rights and identities by using the resources of history. However, among many educators and social theorists, there is a widespread refusal to recognize that this form of education is not only the foundation for expanding and enabling political agency, but also that it takes place across a wide variety of public spheres mediated through the very force of culture itself.

One of the central tasks of any viable critical pedagogy would be to make visible alternative models of radical democratic relations in a wide variety of sites. These spaces can make the pedagogical more political by raising fundamental questions such as: what is the relationship between social justice and the distribution of public resources and goods? What are the conditions, knowledge and skills that are a prerequisite for civic literacy, political agency and social change? What kinds of identities, desires and social relations are being produced and legitimated in diverse sites of teaching and learning? How might the latter prepare or undermine the ability of students to be self-reflective, exercise judgment, engage in critical dialogues, and assume some responsibility for addressing the challenges to democracy at a national and global level? At the very least, such a project involves understanding and critically engaging dominant public transcripts and values within a broader set of historical and institutional contexts. Making the political more pedagogical in this instance suggests producing modes of knowledge and social practices in a variety of sites that not only affirm oppositional thinking, dissent and cultural work, but also offer opportunities to mobilize instances of collective outrage and collective action. Such mobilization opposes glaring material inequities and the growing cynical belief that today's culture of investment and finance makes it impossible to address many of the major social problems facing both the United States and the larger world. Most importantly, such work points to the link between civic education, critical pedagogy and modes of oppositional political agency that are pivotal to creating a politics that promotes democratic values, relations, autonomy and social change. Hints of such a politics is already evident in the various approaches the Occupy movement has taken in reclaiming the discourse of democracy and in collectively challenging the values and practices of finance capital. Borrowing a line from Rachel Donadio, the Occupy movement protesters are raising questions about "what happens to democracy when banks become more powerful than political institutions?"[5] What kind of education does it take, both in and out of schools, to recognize the dissolution of democracy and the emergence of an authoritarian state?

In taking up these questions and the challenges they pose, critical pedagogy proposes that education is a form of political intervention in the world and is capable of creating the possibilities for social transformation. Rather than viewing teaching as technical practice, pedagogy, in the broadest critical sense, is premised on the assumption that learning is not about processing received knowledge, but actually transforming knowledge as part of a more expansive struggle for individual rights and social justice. This implies that any viable notion of pedagogy and resistance should illustrate how knowledge, values, desire and social relations are always implicated in relations of power, and how such an understanding can be used pedagogically and politically by students to further expand and deepen the imperatives of economic and political democracy. The fundamental challenge facing educators within the current age of neoliberalism, militarism and religious fundamentalism is to provide the conditions for students to address how knowledge is related to the power of both self-definition and social agency. In part, this means providing students with the skills, knowledge and authority they need to inquire and act upon what it means to live in a substantive democracy, to recognize anti-democratic forms of power, and to fight deeply rooted injustices in a society and world founded on systemic economic, racial and gendered inequalities.



Conclusion

In the current historical conjuncture, the concept of the social and the common good is being refigured and displaced as a constitutive category for making democracy operational and political agency the condition for social transformation. The notions of the social and the public are not being erased as much as they are being reconstructed under circumstances in which public forums for serious debate, including public education, are being eroded. Within the ongoing logic of neoliberalism, teaching and learning are removed from the discourse of democracy and civic culture - defined as a purely private affair. How else to explain Rick Santorum's rants against higher education, the elites, and that old phantom, the liberal media. Divorced from the imperatives of a democratic society, pedagogy is reduced to a matter of taste, individual choice, home schooling and job training. Pedagogy as a mode of witnessing, a public engagement in which students learn to be attentive and responsible to the memories and narratives of others, disappears within a corporate-driven notion of learning in which the logic of market devalues the opportunity for students to make connections with others through social relations which foster a mix of compassion, ethics and hope. The crisis of the social is further amplified by the withdrawal of the state as a guardian of the public trust and its growing lack of investment in those sectors of social life that promote the public good. With the Supreme Court ruling that now makes vouchers constitutional, a deeply conservative government once again will be given full reign to renege on the responsibility of government to provide every child with an education that affirms public life, embraces the need for critical citizens and supports the truism that political agency is central to the possibility of democratic life.

The greatest threat to our children does not come from lowered standards, the absence of privatized choice schemes or the lack of rigid testing measures. On the contrary, it comes from a society that refuses to view children as a social investment, that consigns 16.3 million children to live in poverty, reduces critical learning to massive testing programs, promotes policies that eliminate most crucial health and public services, and defines masculinity through the degrading celebration of a gun culture, extreme sports and the spectacles of violence that permeate corporate-controlled media industries. Students are not at risk because of the absence of market incentives in the schools; they are at risk because, as a country, we support an iniquitous class-based system of funding education and, more recently, are intent on completely destroying it precisely because it is public. Children and young adults are under siege in both public and higher education because far too many of these institutions have become breeding grounds for commercialism, racism, social intolerance, sexism, homophobia and consumerism, spurred on by the right-wing discourse of the Republican Party, corporations, conservative think tanks and a weak mainstream media. We live in a society in which a culture of punishment and intolerance has replaced a culture of social responsibility and compassion. Within such a climate of harsh discipline and disdain, it is easier for states such as California to set aside more financial resources to build prisons than to support higher education. Within this context, the project(s) of critical pedagogy need to be taken up both within and outside of public and higher education. Pedagogy is not a practice that only takes place in schools; it is also a public mode of teaching, that is, a public pedagogical practice largely defined within a range of cultural apparatuses extending from television networks to print media to the Internet. As a central element of a broad-based cultural politics, critical pedagogy, in its various forms, when linked to the ongoing project of democratization, can provide opportunities for educators and other cultural workers to redefine and transform the connections among language, desire, meaning, everyday life, and material relations of power as part of a broader social movement to reclaim the promise and possibilities of a democratic public life. Pedagogy is dangerous not only because it provides the intellectual capacities and ethical norms for students to fight against poverty, ecological destruction and the dismantling of the social state, but also because it holds the potential for instilling in students a profound desire for a "real democracy based on relationships of equality and freedom."[22] Given the current economic crisis, the growing authoritarian populism, the rise of religious dogmatism, the emergence of a failed state, and a politics largely controlled by the bankers and corporations, critical pedagogy becomes symptomatic of not only something precious that has been lost under a regime of casino capitalism, but also of a project and practice that needs to be reclaimed, reconfigured and made foundational to any viable notion of politics.

[Tommi]

6t2AVHSYj9s

dZF5CeopcAY

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_gay_marine_life_kiss_nt_120227_wblog.jpg

Homecoming Photo of Gay Marine Kissing Boyfriend Goes Viral

A photo of a Marine kissing his boyfriend upon returning home from a tour of duty is going viral with more than 15,000 likes and 3,000 comments on Facebook. The photo, which shows Marine Brandon Morgan locked in a romantic embrace with his boyfriend was initially posted on the Facebook page Gay Marines, where it was met with a great deal of enthusiasm.

“You made my day! Thank you for your service and congratulations on your love. This is what we’ve been fighting for,” one commenter wrote

“I am glad that you are safe at home and with the person you love. Thank you for your service to this great country of ours. Be happy and stay safe,” wrote another

But not all responses were as supportive. One commenter called the photo ”a damn shame,” and another posted simply “yuck.”

Brandon Morgan, upon finding out about his sudden Internet fame, released the following statement via his Facebook page:

“To everyone who has responded in a positive way, my partner and I want to say thank you. … Can’t believe how many shares and likes we have gotten on this. We didn’t do this to get famous, or something like that. We did this cause after 3 deployments and four years knowing each other, we finally told each other how we felt. As for the haters, let em hate. … To quote Kat Williams, everyone needs haters, so let them hate.

“We are the happiest we have ever been, and as for the whole PDA and kissing slash hugging in uniform … it was a homecoming, if the Sergeants Major, Captains, Majors, and Colonels around us didn’t care … then why do you care what these random people have to say? In summation, thank you for your love and support. I received a lot of friend requests off this. I don’t just accept requests so if your request was because of this post, message me and let me know. Goodnight all, and Semper Fi.”

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act, which allowed for gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, was signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 22, 2010, and was fully implemented on Sept. 20, 2011. It overturned the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which had banned openly gay, lesbian or bisexual people from serving in the military since Dec. 21, 1993.

[Morgan]

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere, but to be honest this is really damn scarey....

NROVNZsAyQQ&feature=g-logo&context=G20eaa40FOAAAAAAAAAA

[Cin]

Medical marijuana patient denied liver transplant: It’s too late for me

A man who was refused a liver transplant by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles because he used medical marijuana to cope with his symptoms is hoping his story will change the transplant policies of hospitals around the country.

“Now I just accept it, I deal with it, and I take it one day at a time,” Norman B. Smith told Reason TV. “I realize that the chance of Cedars changing their mind is a long shot. But if I can effect a change, so be it. It is probably too late for me, but I hope it makes it easier for the next guy.”

Smith was diagnosed with inoperable liver cancer in 2009. His oncologist at Cedars-Sinai, Dr. Steven Miles, approved of his medical marijuana use as a means to deal with the effects of chemotherapy and pain from an unrelated back surgery.

In September 2010, Smith became eligible for a liver transplant, but after testing positive for marijuana in February he was removed from the transplant list due to non-compliance with the hospital’s substance abuse contract. Smith was within two months of receiving a transplant before he was de-listed.

“Marijuana is considered substance abuse,” Peggy Stewart, a clinical social worker with UCLA’s transplant program, explained. “The legality of it is really not an issue.”

The hospital said that using marijuana put transplant patients at risk of infection from aspergillus, a mold found in marijuana. But the dispensary Smith gets his marijuana from tests its product for aspergillus and other contaminants in compliance with FDA guidelines.

“It’s safer than the spinach and lettuce that you eat,” Smith said.

Stephanie Sherer of Americans for Safe Access told Reason TV the issue was not an isolated incident. In 2008, a medical marijuana patient from Seattle died after being denied a liver transplant by the University of Washington Medical Center. Less than a year later, another medical marijuana patient from Big Island died at Hilo Hospital after being denied a liver transplant.

[UofMfan]

Andrew Breitbart Dead: Conservative Blogger Dies Suddenly At 43 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-blogger-dies_n_1312944.html)

[Cin]

Wall Street's Secret Spy Center Run For the 1% BY the NYPD (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/06/wall-streets-secret-spy-center-run-for-the-1-by-nypd/)

[Corkey]

Blunt amendment goes down 51-48

[Cin]

Andrew Breitbart Dead: Conservative Blogger Dies Suddenly At 43 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-blogger-dies_n_1312944.html)

After Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts died in 2009, Breitbart tweeted, "Rest in Chappaquiddick" and called him "a special pile of human excrement."

Gee, Mr. Breitbart seemed like such a nice guy. What a loss. And at a time when the conservatives seem to be running short of people who say the nicest things about others.

Case in point:Rush Limbaugh Calls Sandra Fluke, the Woman Denied the Opportunity to Speak at Contraception Hearing, a Slut and a Prostitute. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html?ref=mostpopular)

[Cin]

How Empires Fall. An interview with Jonathan Schell, author of "The Unconquerable World," on how non-violence can topple the greatest of empires. (http://www.alternet.org/world/154363/how_empires_fall_%28including_the_american_one%29/)

[LeftWriteFemme]

Female bonobos 'advertise' homosexual bonds

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58696000/jpg/_58696059_pair.jpg


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17117661

[UofMfan]

Do you all remember when the Dixie Chicks dared criticized then President Bush and they were called UN-American? And to add insult to injury, they were right in their criticism. Then that entire campaign against them, their songs not being played on the radio, etc?

Below is just the latest example of the foul and disgusting stuff being thrown at President Obama. There are many more, perhaps a new thread is in order.

My question is, why aren't the same people, or heck anyone, calling them UN-Americans?

This man is not only claiming the President is not American, now he has the balls to imply FRAUD?

Are you fucking kidding me? Am I the only one sick of this?


Joe Arpaio, Prominent Sheriff, Unveils Results Of Investigation Into Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-investigation-obama-birth-certificate_n_1315022.html)

[~ocean]

the biggest mouths u ruusaly non voters and in this case. unamerican. I am compaigning for obama ..ignoarnce remains undigestable.

[Andrea]

Do you all remember when the Dixie Chicks dared criticized then President Bush and they were called UN-American? And to add insult to injury, they were right in their criticism. Then that entire campaign against them, their songs not being played on the radio, etc?

Below is just the latest example of the foul and disgusting stuff being thrown at President Obama. There are many more, perhaps a new thread is in order.

My question is, why aren't the same people, or heck anyone, calling them UN-Americans?

This man is not only claiming the President is not American, now he has the balls to imply FRAUD?

Are you fucking kidding me? Am I the only one sick of this?


Joe Arpaio, Prominent Sheriff, Unveils Results Of Investigation Into Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-investigation-obama-birth-certificate_n_1315022.html)

My first thought when I saw this article was "still?".

People, just get over it!!

[Cin]

Do you all remember when the Dixie Chicks dared criticized then President Bush and they were called UN-American? And to add insult to injury, they were right in their criticism. Then that entire campaign against them, their songs not being played on the radio, etc?

Below is just the latest example of the foul and disgusting stuff being thrown at President Obama. There are many more, perhaps a new thread is in order.

My question is, why aren't the same people, or heck anyone, calling them UN-Americans?

This man is not only claiming the President is not American, now he has the balls to imply FRAUD?

Are you fucking kidding me? Am I the only one sick of this?


Joe Arpaio, Prominent Sheriff, Unveils Results Of Investigation Into Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-investigation-obama-birth-certificate_n_1315022.html)
Well, I'm certainly sick of it, so no, you're not the only one.

The people who attacked the Dixie Chicks are not calling birthers unamerican cause that particular rhetoric doesn't fit their purpose. And probably because they are one and the same.

Why are the liberals not calling unamerican? Good question. Probably for the same reason liberals have conceded morality to the conservatives and the religious right. Regardless of the fact that they are neither moral or right.

Why does no one make the distinction between private morality and public morality? Why does no one point out how it is not morally superior to clap and cheer when a man without insurance dies or to boo a gay man serving in the military. It is not moral to publicly call a woman who wants to speak on contraceptives a slut and a prostitute. It is not morally superior to pervert the truth, yet the radical right does this on a daily basis. The truth is so twisted and warped it is unrecognizable when spoken by these people of god. Why does no one call them on their lack of ethics and morality. Since when does god advocate his followers practice relentless cruelty and a spectacularly astounding lack of compassion and good will. When I read the words of these fanatics, these so called religious god fearing folk I think about this sign
http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1330212003_6209348934ccf5e3159a.jpg_64 0x479_310x220

[Cin]

Blue States Are the Providers - Red States Are the Parasites (http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Face_Facts%3A_Blue_Sta tes_Are_the_Providers%2C_Red_States_Are_the_Parasi tes/)
with a map with the ratio of benefits received to taxes paid by state

[Cin]

This man is not only claiming the President is not American, now he has the balls to imply FRAUD?

Are you fucking kidding me? Am I the only one sick of this?


Joe Arpaio, Prominent Sheriff, Unveils Results Of Investigation Into Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/joe-arpaio-investigation-obama-birth-certificate_n_1315022.html)

Just thinking maybe the people who elected this sheriff would be better served if he used his cold case posse to investigate the more than 400 sex-crimes cases that were either inadequately investigated or weren't investigated at all

[LeftWriteFemme]

Graduate hands back Oxford degree over Christian Concern conference



http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/01/graduate-hands-back-oxford-degree-over-christian-concern-conference/

[Cin]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Do you all remember when the Dixie Chicks dared criticized then President Bush and they were called UN-American? And to add insult to injury, they were right in their criticism. Then that entire campaign against them, their songs not being played on the radio, etc?

Below is just the latest example of the foul and disgusting stuff being thrown at President Obama. There are many more, perhaps a new thread is in order.

My question is, why aren't the same people, or heck anyone, calling them UN-Americans?


I was thinking about what you said here. It is true most of the foul disgusting stuff being thrown period comes from the conservative camp. I was also thinking about the death of Breitbart and the things I wanted to say about him but didn't. And then I thought about the vile and disgusting ways many on the right treat the deaths of those they don't agree with or dislike, even going so far as to picket their funerals. Then I came across this article on the Daily Kos:

My condolences to Andrew Breitbart's family on the news of his unexpected and untimely death this morning. He devoted his life to making that of others a living hell, so I think he would expect some of the incredibly vile things being said about his death.

That being said, I won't participate in the little schadenfreude fest, as I don't like speaking ill of the deceased. Remember how you felt when conservatives rejoiced over the death of Ted Kennedy...although Breitbart was nowhere in the same universe as Ted Kennedy, he was still a pretty big icon to conservatives. Don't get even, get moral.

On virtually every count our views were 100% polar opposite, but that makes him my political opponent, and I don't wish harm or ill on my political opponents like he did his. I advise you to take a page out of Shirley Sherrod's book of class, a woman who had every right to hate Mr. Breitbart.

I will say that I wish he'd had a chance to calm down and learn to live life less angrily than he did, but he made his choices and died seemingly doing what he loved the most: arguing. He seemed to have had his demons that haunted him on a daily basis.

May you rest in the peace you couldn't make with yourself in life, Andrew.

And may the rest of us find the civility Breitbart couldn't.

Maybe it's just as simple as liberals and progressives are just kinder, more compassionate, morally superior people.

Hopefully nice guys won't finish last.

[MsDemeanor]

Sandra Fluke Receives Call From Obama After Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-obama-rush-limbaugh_n_1316631.html

[UofMfan]

Rush Limbaugh Advertisers Pulls Commercials In Wake Of Sandra Fluke 'Slut' Firestorm (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-sleep-train-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1315900.html)

[MsDemeanor]

More encouraging news from an advertiser http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070330/-Look-what-I-just-got-from-the-president-of-Carbonite-Rush-sponsor-?via=siderec

[UofMfan]

Send a message to Rush Limbaugh's advertisers: Tell them it's time to stop supporting his anti-woman hate speech.

Click here (http://leftaction.com/action/boycott-rush) and sign the petition.

[Toughy]

Then I came across this article on the Daily Kos:

My condolences to Andrew Breitbart's family on the news of his unexpected and untimely death this morning. He devoted his life to making that of others a living hell, so I think he would expect some of the incredibly vile things being said about his death.

That being said, I won't participate in the little schadenfreude fest, as I don't like speaking ill of the deceased. Remember how you felt when conservatives rejoiced over the death of Ted Kennedy...although Breitbart was nowhere in the same universe as Ted Kennedy, he was still a pretty big icon to conservatives. Don't get even, get moral.

On virtually every count our views were 100% polar opposite, but that makes him my political opponent, and I don't wish harm or ill on my political opponents like he did his. I advise you to take a page out of Shirley Sherrod's book of class, a woman who had every right to hate Mr. Breitbart.

I will say that I wish he'd had a chance to calm down and learn to live life less angrily than he did, but he made his choices and died seemingly doing what he loved the most: arguing. He seemed to have had his demons that haunted him on a daily basis.

May you rest in the peace you couldn't make with yourself in life, Andrew.

And may the rest of us find the civility Breitbart couldn't.


Seems to me there is plenty of 'speaking ill of the deceased' in this article....

Since when does god advocate his followers practice relentless cruelty and a spectacularly astounding lack of compassion and good will.

Have you read the Old Testament?

[Cin]

Seems to me there is plenty of 'speaking ill of the deceased' in this article....

Considering he's talking about someone who spoke so ill of the dead as to tweet upon hearing of Ted Kennedy's death that he was "a special pile of human excrement" , I think it was quite restrained.

Have you read the Old Testament?

If I were god I would fire (either literally or figuratively depending on how god rolls) whoever got me hooked up with the bible. Then I'd get a PR firm to help me separate myself from that disturbing piece of literature.

[Cin]

Since Cebull initiated the misconduct review himself, I don't imagine he has much to concern himself over. Besides he plans to send the president a formal apology. That should cover it.


Federal Judge's Racist Email May Have Violated US Ethics Code
Richard Cebull's offensive email disparaging President Obama appears to run afoul of rules for federal judges.

—By Mark Follman

A racist email sent around by Richard Cebull, the chief US district court judge in Montana, not only showed blatant disrespect for the president of the United States but also may have broken federal ethics rules. Cebull, who was appointed to the court by George W. Bush in 2001 and became chief judge in 2008, appears to have violated the US Code of Judicial Conduct on at least one count with his behavior, legal experts say.

Cebull sent the nasty email about President Obama on February 20 to six of his "old buddies," as he put it. The subject line read: "A MOM'S MEMORY." He used his official court email account, according to the Great Falls Tribune, which first exposed the email on Wednesday. "Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these," he wrote, "but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine." The enclosed "joke"—suggesting that the racially mixed president is the spawn of a dog—read:

"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'

"His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

Cebull denies he's a racist, and says that the email wasn't intended to be public. But on Wednesday he admitted publicly that the email was both racist and motivated by partisan politics. "The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan," he said. "I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. I sent it out because it's anti-Obama."
"Cebull's circulation of such a disgusting message makes one wonder if he is competent to serve as a judge."

The US Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge "should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary are preserved." It also says that a judge "should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities"—which applies to both professional and personal conduct. With regard to politics, it says judges "should refrain from partisan political activity" and "should not publicly endorse or oppose a partisan political organization or candidate."

Where to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate speech by judges is a complicated matter, says Jeffrey M. Shaman, a judicial-ethics expert at DePaul University College of Law. But there seems to be little doubt that Cebull crossed over the line. "Offensive, racist speech such as this clearly diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and therefore should be considered a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct," Shaman told me. "Judge Cebull ought to know better, and his circulation of such a disgusting message makes one wonder if he is competent to serve as a judge."

What might the consequences be for Cebull?

"While I certainly see why this type of joke raises serious and legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that it warrants punishment beyond the current (and justified) public criticism," wrote George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley on Thursday. "The judge is claiming that he thought he was sending this to a handful of friends. It would be akin to a bad joke at a party being repeated later."

Turley notes that in 2009 a judicial council cleared Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th US Circuit Court of wrongdoing after an investigation into sexually explicit materials (involving farm animals) found on the judge's personal website. But the council did officially find that Kozinski had acted with "carelessness" and was "judicially imprudent."

In Cebull's case, Turley concedes that the Montana judge clearly failed to adhere to a tenet of the Code of Judicial Ethics, that a judge "must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen."

Shaman sees a serious offense. "It is very difficult to predict what sanctions a reviewing authority will apply in any given case," he says. "But I certainly think that at least a reprimand is appropriate here."

Update, 3 p.m. PST: AP reported that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will carry out a judicial misconduct review. The complaint process apparently was initiated by Cebull himself, who says he also plans to send President Obama a formal apology.

[Cin]

10 Worst Moments of Disrespect Towards President Obama (http://politic365.com/2012/01/27/the-10-worst-moments-of-disrespect-towards-president-obama/)

http://politic365.com/wp-content/themes/P365-Theme/timthumb.php?src=http://politic365.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/01/ap_obama_jan_brewer_lt_120125_wblog.jpg&w=300&zc=1&q=70

"I would not disrespect the president" claims Brewer (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/26/brewer-i-would-not-disrespect-the-president/)

[Tommi]

Dear Supporter of Equality:

American Foundation for Equal Rights is presenting a Streaming Webcast of the play ’8′ LIVE tonight at 7:45pm (pre-show AT 7:30pm) With Brad Pitt as Judge Walker. http://www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights

The play, written by Dustin Lance Black and directed by Rob Reiner, is an account of the Federal District Court trial to overturn Proposition 8, based on transcripts of the trial as well as interviews.

Brad Pitt is the newest addition to the cast, which already includes George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Christine Lahti, Jamie Lee Curtis, Matthew Morrison, Matt Bomer, Kevin Bacon, Jane Lynch, John C. Reilly, Campbell Brown, Chris Colfer, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Cleve Jones, Rory O’Malley, George Takei, Yeardley Smith, Vanessa Garcia, Jansen Panatierre, James Pickens, Jr. and Bridger Zadina.

Streaming webcast starts 7:45pm (pre-show at 7:30pm) tonight, Saturday here: www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights

Or

www.afer.com

Detailed story at: ual http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/03/01/breaking-afer-webcasting-8-live-this-saturday-with-brad-pitt-as-judge-walker/
__._,_.___
Enjoy!

Live on YouTube or on www.afer.com

VISIT THE OFFICIAL “8” WEBSITE HERE: www.8theplay.com

WATCH SATURDAY’S PERFORMANCE LIVE HERE AT 7:45 P.M. PST: www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights

Link is here ~~Detailed story at: ual http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/03/01/breaking-afer-webcasting-8-live-this-saturday-with-brad-pitt-as-judge-walker/
AFER Webcasting the play "8" account of Federal court trial to overturn Prop 8] LIVE, tonight, Saturday at 7:45pm, with pre-show at 7:30pm

[UofMfan]

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j269/translator08/MichaelMooreTweet.jpg


Seriously!

[MsDemeanor]

Here's a great PSA that aired during the Sunday Bruins/Rangers game http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070969/-National-Hockey-League-says-to-LGBT-youth-You-can-play-?via=siderec

[LeftWriteFemme]

Santorum and the Sexual Revolution


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/blow-santorum-and-the-sexual-revolution.html?_r=1&hp

[UofMfan]

A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show (http://news.yahoo.com/7th-advertiser-pulls-limbaughs-show-194641280.html)