How Islamist gangs use internet to track, torture and kill Iraqi gays Iraqi militias infiltrate internet gay chatrooms to hunt their quarry – and hundreds are feared to be victims


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...dered-militias

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shot-baby.html

This is an awful story (teenager shoots baby when mom refuses to hand over purse) and I'm wondering if anybody else is following it.

It just doesn't add up to me. I'm trying to keep track of it to find out if any actual evidence is revealed regarding the named suspect. He has an alibi. As far as I can tell from the news stories, the only thing they have is the eye-witness ID from the mom. Something just feels off about it.

Mississippi state Representative Jessica Upshaw was found dead Sunday morning at the home of another Mississippi politician. Simpson County Sheriff Kenneth Lewis said Upshaw died from a single gunshot wound to the head, though he noted it's too early in the investigation to know if the wound was self-inflicted or if foul play was involved.

First off: WARNING - Both the below linked articles start playing a loud news video without prompting. I recommend turning your volume down if you click on them.

So, the named suspect's mom and aunt were arrested

"The pair is facing felony charges for allegedly providing false statements or writings; concealing facts or fraudulent documents in matters of government."

But, the daughter of the woman whose baby was shot is questioning her story

The daughter of Sherry West, Ashley Glassey, said she does not want to falsely accuse anyone but she wants the truth.

Glassey, 21, lives in New Jersey and said her mother lost custody of her when she was 8. She said she has forgiven her mom and has spoken to her every day since Thursday's shooting but said some of her mother's responses have her concerned.

Glassey said she started to have her doubts after receiving a phone call from her mother telling her that her brother, Antonio Santiago, had been killed. She claims the night of the shooting her mother asked, "How soon do you think life insurance policy will send me a check?"

Glassey tells First Coast News she hopes her suspicions are wrong but based on conversations with her mother she's not sure. Glassey described their discussions by saying her mother is crying one minute and then sounds fine the next.

"I spoke with the detectives and investigators and the evidence leads to many witnesses, not just me," said Sherry West, mother of the 13-month-old that was killed last Thursday morning.

Glassey says her mother is bipolar and has schizophrenic tendencies. She believes her mother is on medication but could not tell me any prescriptions specifically.

"She changed her story she told me the baby was shot first and then she told me she was shot first," said Glassey.

Sherry West maintains her story.

"They shot my baby in the head and I had to watch him die and I want that boy to die."

Glassey said she has contacted the Brunswick Police Department and no one has called her back. First Coast News contacted police to ask why, buy have yet to receive a response.

Police have not suggested that Sherry West is a suspect in this case.

Two teens are currently facing the murder charges

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gree...er?INTCMP=SRCH


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...th-not-in-vain

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/27...-lucy-meadows/

Anyone following the Lucy Meadows story?

It's no surprise that the columnist who wrote so disparagingly about Lucy writes for the well known homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic/nimby-type reactionary Daily Wail (Mail).

How many more need to die in turmoil?

Courting Cowardice

As the arguments unfurled in Tuesday’s case on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court justices sounded more and more cranky.

Things were moving too fast for them.

How could the nine, cloistered behind velvety rose curtains, marble pillars and archaic customs, possibly assess the potential effects of gay marriage? They’re not psychics, after all.

“Same-sex marriage is very new,” Justice Samuel Alito whinged, noting that “it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing.” If the standard is that marriage always has to be “a good thing,” would heterosexuals pass?

“But you want us to step in and render a decision,” Alito continued, “based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future.”

Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy grumbled about “uncharted waters,” and the fuddy-duddies seemed to be looking for excuses not to make a sweeping ruling. Their questions reflected a unanimous craven impulse: How do we get out of this? This court is plenty bold imposing bad decisions on the country, like anointing W. president or allowing unlimited money to flow covertly into campaigns. But given a chance to make a bold decision putting them on the right, and popular, side of history, they squirm.

“Same-sex couples have every other right,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, sounding inane for a big brain. “It’s just about the label in this case.” He continued, “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

Donald Verrilli Jr., the U.S. solicitor general arguing on the side of same-sex marriage, told the justices, “There is a cost to waiting.” He recalled that the argument by opponents of interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 was to delay because “the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world.”

The wisdom of the Warren court is reflected two miles away, where a biracial child is faring pretty well in his second term in the Oval Office.

The American Academy of Pediatrics last week announced its support for same-sex marriage, citing evidence that children of gays and lesbians do better when the couples marry. It may take another case, even another court, to legitimize same-sex marriage nationally, but the country has moved on. An ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 81 percent of Americans under 30 approve of gay marriage. Every time you blink, another lawmaker comes out of the closet on supporting the issue.

Charles Cooper, the lawyer for the proponents of Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, was tied in knots, failing to articulate any harm that could come from gay marriage and admitting that no other form of discrimination against gay people was justified. His argument, that marriage should be reserved for those who procreate, is ludicrous. Sonia Sotomayor was married and didn’t have kids. Clarence and Ginny Thomas did not have kids. Chief Justice Roberts’s two kids are adopted. Should their marriages have been banned? What about George and Martha Washington? They only procreated a country.

As Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out to Cooper, “Couples that aren’t gay but can’t have children get married all the time.”

Justice Elena Kagan wondered if Cooper thought couples over the age of 55 wanting to get married should be refused licenses. Straining to amuse, Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in: “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage — you know, ‘Are you fertile or are you not fertile?’ ”

Scalia didn’t elaborate on his comment in December at Princeton: “If we cannot have moral feeling against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?”

Cooper replied that a 55-year-old man would still be fertile, which was a non sequitur, given that he hails marriage as a bulwark against “irresponsible procreative conduct outside of marriage.”

He said that California should “hit the pause button” while “the experiment” of gay marriage matures. And he urged that we not refocus “the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults.” Did he miss the last few Me Decades?

The fusty legal discussion inside was a vivid contrast with the lusty rally outside. There were some offensive signs directed at gays, but the vibrant crowd was overwhelmingly pro same-sex marriage. One woman summed it up nicely in a placard reading “Gays have the right to be as miserable as I make my husband.”

The only emotional moment in court was when Justice Kennedy brought up the possible “legal injury” to 40,000 children in California who live with same-sex parents. “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” he told Cooper. “The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

While Justice Alito can’t see into the future, most Americans can. If this court doesn’t reject bigotry, history will reject this court.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/op..._20130327&_r=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92Q15D20130327


NBC "Today" show's Jenna Wolfe expecting baby with gay partner

Scary!!!
 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/health...html?hpt=hp_t2

Who can you trust! Geez!

Transgendered man Thomas Beatie Cannot Get Divorce In Arizona Yahoo News Today!
 

Judge rejects divorce for transgender pregnant man
By PAUL DAVENPORT and FELICIA FONSECA | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago
Email
Share234
Print
PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona judge on Friday refused to grant a divorce for a transgender Arizona man who gave birth to three children after beginning to change his sex from female.
Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach ruled that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages prevents Thomas Beatie's 9-year union from being recognized as valid.
Thomas Beatie was born a woman and later underwent a double-mastectomy, and began testosterone hormone therapy and psychological treatment to become a man, but he retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.
Gerlach said he had no jurisdiction to approve a divorce because there's insufficient evidence that Beatie was a man when he married Nancy Beatie in Hawaii. He said the Beaties never provided records to fully explain what Thomas Beatie actually had done and not done to become a man.
"The decision here is not based on the conclusion that this case involves a same-sex marriage merely because one of the parties is a transsexual male, but instead, the decision is compelled by the fact that the parties failed to prove that (Thomas Beatie) was a transsexual male when they were issued their marriage license," he wrote in Friday's ruling.
A spokesman for Beatie, Ryan Gordon, said the judge's comments came as a shock and that Beatie plans to appeal the ruling. He said Beatie legally was married as a man and never was required to disclose that he retained female reproductive organs when applying for and being granted a new birth certificate in Hawaii as a man. He said Beatie halted testosterone treatments so that he could give birth to his children.
"It's unfortunate that the judge out here doesn't recognize marriage in another state," Gordon said.
Beatie is eager to end his marriage, but the couple's divorce plans stalled last summer when Gerlach said he was unable to find legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth.
Gerlach's ruling didn't address whether Arizona law allows a person who was born female to marry another female after undergoing a sex change operation.
A separate ruling issued Friday by Gerlach sets guidelines on how the Beaties will co-parent their three children and grants them joint authority in making legal decisions. Thomas Beatie is required to pay nearly $240 a month to Nancy Beatie for child support, but she won't get alimony because the marriage was declared invalid.
Nancy Beatie's attorney, David Higgins, praised Gerlach for the thoroughness of the decision on the marriage, although it wasn't the one she had hoped for.
"He still sees a same-sex marriage, but he gave us all the rulings that we're asking for as far as the children," Higgins said.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which isn't involved in the Beatie divorce case, has said courts have declared marriages involving a transgender person invalid in a handful of cases across the country, but that those cases had different factual and legal issues than those in the Beatie case.
Thomas Beatie, known as "The Pregnant Man," was born Tracy Lehuanani Lagondino in Oahu, Hawaii. He began testosterone treatments in 1997 and underwent double mastectomy and chest reconstruction surgery in 2002. He changed his Hawaii driver's license to say he was a man and had a Hawaiian court approve his name change to Thomas.
Gerlach's ruling noted that Thomas Beatie halted the testosterone treatments and that he didn't provide documentation for any additional non-surgical efforts.
Thomas Beatie married his partner Nancy in early 2003 in Honolulu and became pregnant because Nancy was unable to have children. Thomas Beatie conceived with donated sperm and gave birth to children who are now 4, 3 and 2 years old. The couple eventually moved to Arizona.
Beatie has garnered a range of media attention, making the rounds on talk shows such as Larry King and Oprah Winfrey and winning a spot on Barbara Walters' list of "10 Most Fascinating People" in 2008, alongside President Barack Obama, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and swimmer Michael Phelps. He also published a book, "Labor Of Love: The Story of One Man's Extraordinary Pregnancy," the cover displaying an image of a shirtless Thomas sporting facial hair and holding a hand over his bare pregnant belly.
___
Fonseca reported from Flagstaff, Ariz. Associated Press Writer Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix contributed to this report.

Remember Thomas Beatie?
 

I remember after Thomas Beatie did the Oprah interview there was much discussion in this community about our thoughts about the "Pregnant Man." I was not terribly kind in my thoughts and comments. I thought a lot about the privacy of the yet unborn child, and in my mind Beatie's decision to do the Oprah interview reeked of "I see a book in this somewhere." My sense was that Beatie was motivated by financial gain in his decison to come out with his story.

I will never know if my insticts were correct about Beatie. But here is what I do know. After Beatie came out with his story, many states and some countries made the requirments to become a man legally, much more restrictive. Now it took more than T shots and psychological counselling. Now to become a male legally, it also required a surgery. (For the record, years before Beatie in the media I had a hystorectomy. For me I felt it was the first step to take in my transition.)

I met quite a few Transmen who could not finacially afford a surgery such at top surgery or a hystorectomy to meet these new surgical requirements to transtion.

For better or for worse, Beaties actions and decisions are not done in a vacum where there has been no impact on the fate of many others. In all fairness it is not only Beatie's actions and decisions that can impact a great deal of people, it really is a possibility for many of us to have the same or similar impacts.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Judge Rejects Divorce for Transgender Pregnant Man

By PAUL DAVENPORT and FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press
PHOENIX March 29, 2013 (AP)


Gerlach said he had no jurisdiction to approve a divorce because there's insufficient evidence that Beatie was a man when he married Nancy Beatie in Hawaii. He said the Beaties never provided records to fully explain what Thomas Beatie actually had done and not done to become a man.

"The decision here is not based on the conclusion that this case involves a same-sex marriage merely because one of the parties is a transsexual male, but instead, the decision is compelled by the fact that the parties failed to prove that (Thomas Beatie) was a transsexual male when they were issued their marriage license," he wrote in Friday's ruling.

Beatie is eager to end his marriage, but the couple's divorce plans stalled last summer when Gerlach said he was unable to find legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth.

Gerlach's ruling didn't address whether Arizona law allows a person who was born female to marry another female after undergoing a sex change operation.

A separate ruling issued Friday by Gerlach sets guidelines on how the Beaties will co-parent their three children and grants them joint authority in making legal decisions. Thomas Beatie is required to pay nearly $240 a month to Nancy Beatie for child support, but she won't get alimony because the marriage was declared invalid.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/j...t-man-18840262

As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester
 

TAYLORSVILLE, N.C. — Sheri Farley walks with a limp. The only job she could hold would be one where she does not have to stand or sit longer than 20 minutes, otherwise pain screams down her spine and up her legs.

For about five years, Ms. Farley, 45, stood alongside about a dozen other workers, spray gun in hand, gluing together foam cushions for chairs and couches sold under brand names like Broyhill, Ralph Lauren and Thomasville. Fumes from the glue formed a yellowish fog inside the plant, and Ms. Farley’s doctors say that breathing them in eventually ate away at her nerve endings, resulting in what she and her co-workers call “dead foot.”

A chemical she handled — known as n-propyl bromide, or nPB — is also used by tens of thousands of workers in auto body shops, dry cleaners and high-tech electronics manufacturing plants across the nation. Medical researchers, government officials and even chemical companies that once manufactured nPB have warned for over a decade that it causes neurological damage and infertility when inhaled at low levels over long periods, but its use has grown 15-fold in the past six years.

Such hazards demonstrate the difficulty, despite decades of effort, of ensuring that Americans can breathe clean air on the job. Even as worker after worker fell ill, records from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration show that managers at Royale Comfort Seating, where Ms. Farley was employed, repeatedly exposed gluers to nPB levels that exceeded levels federal officials considered safe, failed to provide respirators and turned off fans meant to vent fumes.

But the story of the rise of nPB and the decline of Ms. Farley’s health is much more than the tale of one company, or another chapter in the national debate over the need for more, or fewer, government regulations. Instead, it is a parable about the law of unintended consequences.

It shows how an Environmental Protection Agency program meant to prevent the use of harmful chemicals fostered the proliferation of one, and how a hard-fought victory by OSHA in controlling one source of deadly fumes led workers to be exposed to something worse — a phenomenon familiar enough to be lamented in government parlance as “regrettable substitution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/us...anted=all&_r=0

Finally!
 

This is an interesting article. I do think that it is wrong in a lot of respects, though. IF the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA completely, rather then just partially striking it down, then the portion of the Constitution that states that each state has to respect each other's laws and rulings, should come into effect. That would force states that do not allow same sex marriages to take place, to recognize a same sex marriage that has taken place in a state that allows that, if that couple moves to the first state. I would think so, anyhow. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-politics.html

The day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died
 

It was 45 years ago today that civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis. The world has changed greatly since 1968, but King’s message survives intact.

King was in Tennessee to help support a sanitation workers’ strike. At the age of 39, King was already an internationally known figure. Starting with the Montgomery boycott in 1955, King had led a series of nonviolent protests against discrimination.

When King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, at the time he was the youngest Peace Prize winner ever, at the age of 35.

His acceptance speech in Norway included the famous statement, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.” King also donated his prize money of $54,123 to the civil rights movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/day-dr-martin-...102031289.html

.......while waiting for the Supreme Court to render a decision......
 

What's next after Rutgers fires coach over abuse?
 

By TOM CANAVAN
AP Sports Writer

April 04, 2013

PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Once the video went viral, Mike Rice's coaching days at Rutgers were over.

Now the question is whether anyone else will lose their jobs - including the athletic director who in December suspended and fined Rice for the abusive behavior, and the university president who signed off on it.

Rice was fired Wednesday, one day after a video surfaced of him hitting, shoving and berating his players with anti-gay slurs. The taunts were especially troubling behavior at Rutgers, where freshman student Tyler Clementi killed himself in 2010 after his roommate used a webcam to spy on him kissing another man in his dorm.

It also came at an especially embarrassing time for the NCAA, with the country focused on the Final Four basketball tournament this weekend.

Athletic Director Tim Pernetti was given a copy of the tape by a former employee in November and, after an independent investigator was hired to review it, Rice was suspended for three games, fined $75,000 and ordered to attend anger management classes. University President Robert Barchi agreed to the penalty.

Pernetti initially said Tuesday he and Barchi viewed the video in December. The president issued a statement Wednesday, saying he didn't see it until Tuesday and then moved to fire the 44-year-old coach for repeated abusive conduct. Through a school spokesman, Pernetti backed up his president and said Barchi did not view the video until this week.

"Yesterday, I personally reviewed the video evidence, which shows a chronic and pervasive pattern of disturbing behavior," Barchi said in a statement. "I have now reached the conclusion that Coach Rice cannot continue to serve effectively in a position that demands the highest levels of leadership, responsibility and public accountability. He cannot continue to coach at Rutgers University."

Later Wednesday, 13 faculty members posted a letter on the internet to the school's trustees and Board of Governors demanding the resignation of Barchi. It says his handling of the "homophobic and misogynist abuse" was inexcusable.

The video shows numerous clips of Rice at practice during his three years at the school firing basketballs at players, hitting them in the back, legs, feet and shoulders. It also shows him grabbing players by their jerseys and yanking them around the court. Rice can also be heard yelling obscenities and using gay slurs.

Several college coaches said they had never seen anything like the Rutgers video and it broke a cardinal rule: Never put your hands on a player.

"Don't tell me that's the old way. That's the wrong way," said John Thompson Jr., the Hall of Famer who led Georgetown to the 1984 national title. Thompson, the father of current Hoyas coach John Thompson III, called the images "child abuse."

UConn women's coach Geno Auriemma, winner of seven national titles, said "there is no line that could be drawn that would make that behavior acceptable."

The most famous case of a coach accused of abusing a player is the one involving Bob Knight of Indiana. The university put him on a zero-tolerance policy in 2000 after an investigation into a former player's allegations that the coach had choked him during a practice. When a student alleged that Knight grabbed him later that year, Knight was fired. Knight, who now works for ESPN, couldn't be reached Wednesday.

The Rice video drew outrage on campus and all the way to the capital in Trenton, with lawmakers and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie supporting the firing at the state's flagship public university.

This was a regrettable episode for the university, but I completely support the decision to remove Coach Rice," Christie said in a statement. "It was the right and necessary action to take in light of the conduct displayed on the videotape.

"Parents entrust their sons to the Rutgers athletic department and the men's basketball program at an incredibly formative period of their lives. The way these young men were treated by the head coach was completely unacceptable and violates the trust those parents put in Rutgers University. All of the student-athletes entrusted to our care deserve much better."

Clementi's family applauded the firing in a statement issued by the foundation named after their son.

"All students require safe environments to learn and reach their full potential, and Coach Rice's conduct has no place on a campus that is devoted to learning and fostering a sense of community," it said. "We know Rutgers is such a place, and, like all colleges and universities, it must not tolerate that kind of behavior."

State lawmakers want explanations from both Pernetti and Barchi on the initial decision not to fire Rice.

Pernetti took responsibility for trying to rehabilitate Rice instead of firing him.

"Dismissal and corrective action were debated in December and I thought it was in the best interest of everyone to rehabilitate, but I was wrong. Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community," he said.

Rice, who helped Robert Morris to two NCAA tournament appearances, was one of the hot coaching candidates in the spring of 2010. But he wasn't able to push Rutgers into the upper echelon of the Big East Conference, and went 44-51. Rice was 16-38 in the Big East, after going 73-31 in three seasons at Robert Morris. The Scarlet

Knights went 15-16 this season and 5-13 in the league.

The firing means Rutgers has now seen its last four coaches dismissed for poor decisions and controversy, rather than simply wins and losses.

Rice was Pernetti's first major hire after getting the AD's job.

Pernetti, who has a year left on his contract, said his decision to only suspend Rice was made in part because the coach was remorseful.

The videotape was given to Pernetti by former director of player development, Eric Murdock, who was hired by Rice in 2010. The two had a falling out over Murdock's appearances at a camp, and Pernetti said Murdock's contract was not renewed for last season.

Murdock, who said he was fired, compiled the video after losing his job.

Pernetti said about 60 percent of the incidents happened in Rice's first season.


http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...0409864/0/NEWS

Hillary Clinton: Helping Women Isn’t Just a ‘Nice’ Thing to Do
 

Women in the World Summit .... transcript of her remarkable keynote speech.

When one thinks about this annual conference it really is intended to, and I believe has, focused attention on the global challenges facing women from equal rights and education, to human slavery, literacy, the power of the media and technology to affect change in women’s futures and so much else. I know that this is an occasion as well as for so many friends and colleagues to come together and take stock for where we stand and what more needs to be done in advancing the great unfinished business of the 21st century—advancing rights and opportunities for women and girls.

Now this is unfinished around the world, where too many women are still treated at best as second-class citizens, at worst as some kind of subhuman species. Those of you who were there last night saw that remarkable film that interviewed men primarily in Pakistan, talking very honestly about their intention to continue to control the women in their lives and their reach. But the business is still unfinished here at home in the United States, we have come so far together but there’s still work to be done.

Now, I have always believed that women are not victims, we are agents of change, we are drivers of progress, we are makers of peace—all we need is a fighting chance.

And that firm faith in the untapped potential of women at home and around the world has been at the heart of my work my entire life, from college and law school, from Arkansas to the White House to the Senate. And when I became Secretary of State, I was determined to weave this perspective even deeper into the fabric of American foreign policy.

But I knew to do that, I couldn’t just preach to the usual choir. We had to reach out, not only to men, in solidarity and recruitment, but to religious communities, to every partner we could find. We had to make the case to the whole world that creating opportunities for women and girls advances security and prosperity for everyone. So we relied on the empirical research that shows that when women participate in the economy, everyone benefits. When women participate in peace-making and peace-keeping, we are all safer and more secure. And when women participate in politics of their nations they can make a difference.

But as strong a case as we’ve made, too many otherwise thoughtful people continue to see the fortunes of women and girls as somehow separate from society at large. They nod, they smile and then they relegate these issues once again to the sidelines. I have seen it over and over again, I have been kidded about it I have been ribbed, I have been challenged in boardrooms and official offices across the world.

But fighting to give women and girls a fighting chance isn’t a nice thing to-do. It isn’t some luxury that we get to when we have time on our hands to spend. This is a core imperative for every human being in every society. If we do not continue the campaign for women’s rights and opportunities, the world we want to live, the country we all love and cherish, will not be what it should be.

It is no coincidence that so many of the countries that threaten regional and global peace are the very places where women and girls are deprived of dignity and opportunity. Think of the young women from northern Mali to Afghanistan whose schools have been destroyed. Or of the girls across Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia who have been condemned to child marriage. Or of the refugees of the conflicts from eastern Congo to Syria who endure rape and deprivation as a weapon of war.

It is no coincidence that so many of the countries where the rule of law and democracy are struggling to take root are the same places where women and girls cannot participate as full and equal citizens. Like in Egypt, where women stood on the front lines of the revolution but are now being denied their seats at the table and face a rising tide of sexual violence.

It is no coincidence that so many of the countries making the leap from poverty to prosperity are places now grappling with how to empower women. I think it is one of the unanswered questions of the rest of this century to whether countries, like China and India, can sustain their growth and emerge as true global economic powers. Much of that depends on what happens to women and girls.

None of these are coincidences. Instead, they demonstrate—and your presence here confirms—that we are meeting at a remarkable moment of confluence.

Because in countries and communities across the globe where for generations violence against women has gone unchecked, opportunity and dignity virtually unknown, there is a powerful new current of grassroots activism stirring, galvanized by events too outrageous to ignore and enabled by new technologies that give women and girls voices like never before. That’s why we need to seize this moment. But we need to be thoughtful and smart and savvy about what this moment really offers to us.

Now many of us have been working and advocating and fighting for women and girls for more decades than we care to remember. And I think we can be and should proud of all that we’ve achieved. Conferences like this one have been part of that progress. But let’s recognize much of our advocacy is still rooted in a 20th century, top-down frame. The world is changing beneath our feet and it is past time to embrace a 21st century approach to advancing the rights and opportunities of women and girls at home and across the globe.

Think about it. You know, technology, from satellite television to cell phones from Twitter to Tumblr, is helping bring abuses out of the shadows and into the center of global consciousness, Think of that woman in a blue bra beaten in Tahrir Square, think about that 6-year old girl in Afghanistan about to be sold into marriage to settle a family debt.

Just as importantly, technological changes are helping inspire, organize, and empower grassroots action. I have seen this and that is where progress is coming from and that’s where our support is needed. We have a tremendous stake in the outcome of these metrics.

Today, more than ever, we see clearly that the fate of women and girls around the world is tied up with the greatest security and economic challenges of our time.

Consider Pakistan, a proud country with a rich history that recently marked a milestone in its democratic development when a civilian government completed its full term for the very first time. And it is no secret that Pakistan is plagued by many ills: violent extremism, sectarian conflict, poverty, energy shortages, corruption, weak democratic institutions. It is a combustible mix. And more than 30,000 Pakistanis have been killed by terrorists in the last decade.

The repression of women in Pakistan exacerbates all of these problems.

More than 5 million children do not attend school—and two-thirds of them are girls. The Taliban insurgency has made the situation even worse.

As Malala has said and reminded us: “We live in the 21st century. How can we be deprived from education?” She went on to say, “I have the right to play. I have the right to sing. I have the right to talk. I have the right to go to market. I have the right to speak up.”

How many of us here today would have that kind of courage? The Taliban recognized this young girl, 14-year at the time, as a serious threat. You know what? They were right— she was a threat. Extremism thrives amid ignorance and anger, intimidation and cowardice. As Malala said, “If this new generation is not given pens, they will be given guns.”

But the Taliban miscalculated. They thought if they silenced Malala, and thank god they didn’t, that not only she, but her cause would die. Instead, they inspired millions of Pakistanis to finally say, “Enough is enough.” You heard it directly from those two brave young Pakistani women yesterday. And they are not alone. People marched in the streets and signed petitions demanding that every Pakistani child—girls as well as boys—have the opportunity to attend school. And that in itself was a rebuke to the extremists and their ideology.

I’m well aware that improving life for Pakistan’s women is not a panacea. But it’s impossible to imagine making real progress on the country’s other problems—especially violent extremism—without tapping the talents and addressing the needs of Pakistan’s women, including reducing corruption, ending the culture of impunity, expanding access to education, to credit, to all the tools that give a woman or a man make the most of their life’s dreams. None of this will be easy or quick. But the grassroots response to Malala’s shooting gives us hope for the future.

Again and again we have seen women drive peace and progress. In Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant women like Inez McCormick came together to demand an end to the Troubles and helped usher in the Good Friday Accords. In Liberia, women marched and protested until the country’s warlords agreed to end their civil war, they prayed the devil back to hell, and they twice elected Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as the first woman president in Africa. An organization called Sisters Against Violent Extremism now connects women in more than a dozen countries who have risked their lives to tell terrorists that they are not welcome in their communities.

So the next time you hear someone say that the fate of women and girls is not a core national security issue, it’s not one of those hard issues that really smart people deal with, remind them: The extremists understand the stakes of this struggle. They know that when women are liberated, so are entire societies. We must understand this too. And not only understand it, but act on it.

And the struggles do not end. Struggles do not end when countries attempt the transition to democracy. we’ve seen that very clearly the last few years.

Many millions including many of us were inspired and encouraged by the way women and men worked together during the revolutions in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. But we know that all over the world when the dust settles, too often women’s gains are lot to better organized, more powerful forces of oppression.

We see seeing women largely shut out of decision-making. We see women activists believe they are being targeted by organized campaigns of violence and intimidation.

But still, many brave activists, women and men alike, continue to advocate for equality and dignity for all Egyptians, Tunisians, and Libyans. They know the only way to realize the promise of the Arab Spring is with and through the full participation of half the population.

Now what is true in politics is also true economics.

In the years ahead, a number of rapidly developing nations are poised to reshape the global economy, lift many millions out of poverty and into the middle class. This will be good for them and good for us—it will create vast new markets and trading partners.

But no country can achieve its full economic potential when women are left out or left behind… a fact underscored day after day and most recently to me a tragedy in India.

Concerning the young 23-year-old woman, brutally beaten and raped on a Delhi bus last December she was from a poor farming family, but like so many women and men she wanted to climb that economic ladder. She had aspirations for her life. She studied all day to become a physical therapist, then went to work at call centers in the evening, she sleep two hours a night. President Mukherjeeof described her as a “symbol of all that New India strives to be.”

But if her life embodied the aspirations of a rising nation, her death and her murder, pointed to the many challenges still holding it back. The culture of rape is tied up with a broader set of problems: official corruption, illiteracy, inadequate education, laws and traditions, customs, culture, that prevent women from being seen as equal human beings. And in addition, in many places, India and China being the leaders, in skewed gender balance with many more men than women, which contributes to human trafficking, child marriage, and other abuses that dehumanize women and corrode society.

So millions of Indians took to the streets in 2011, they protested corruption. In 2012, came the Delhi gang rape, and the two causes merged. Demands for stronger measures against rape were joined by calls for better policing and more responsive governance, for an India that could protect all its citizens and deliver the opportunities they deserve. Some have called that the “Indian Spring.”

Because, as the protesters understood, India will rise or fall with its women. Its had a tradition of strong women leaders, but those women leaders like women leaders around the world like those who become presidents or prime ministers or foreign ministers or heads of corporations cannot be seen as tokens that give everyone else in society the chance to say we’ve taken care of our women. So any country that wants to rise economically and improve productivity needs to open the doors.

Latin America and the Caribbean have steadily increased women’s participation in the labor market since the 1990s, they now account for more than half of all workers. The World Bank estimates that extreme poverty in the region has decreased by 30 percent as a result.

(continued in next post)

Clinton speech....part 2
 

Here in the United States, American women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs forty years ago to nearly 48 percent today. And the productivity gains attributable to this increase account for more than $3.5 trillion in GDP growth over those four decades. Similarly, fast-growing Asian economies could boost their per capita incomes by as much as 14 percent by 2020 if they brought more women into the workforce.

Laws and traditions that hold back women, hold back entire societies, creating more opportunities for women and girls will grow economies and spread prosperity. When I first began talking about this using rape data from the World Bank and private sector analyses there were doubters who couldn’t quite put the pieces together. But that debate is over. Opening the doors to one’s economy for woman will make a difference.

Now, I want to conclude where I began, with the unfinished business we face here at home. The challenges and opportunities I’ve outlined today are not just for the people of the developing world. America must face this too if we want to continue leading the world.

Traveling the globe these last four years reaffirmed and deepened my pride in our country and the ideals we represent. But it also challenged me to think about who we are and the values we are supposed to be living here at home in order to represent abroad After all, our global leadership for peace and prosperity, for freedom and equality, is not a birthright. It must be earned by every generation.

And yes, we now have American women at high levels of business, academia, and government—you name it. But, as we’ve seen in recent months, we’re still asking age-old questions about how to make women’s way in male-dominated fields, how to balance the demands of work and family. The Economist magazine recently published what it called a “glass-ceiling index” ranking countries based on factors like opportunities for women in the workplace and equal pay. The United States was not even in the top 10. Worse, recent studies have found that, on average, women live shorter lives in America than in any other major industrialized country.

Think about it for a minute. We are the richest and most powerful country in the world. Yet many American women today are living shorter lives than their mothers, especially those with the least education. That is a historic reversal that rivals the decline in life expectancy for Russian men after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Now there is no single explanation for why this is happening. Prescription drug overdoses have spiked: obesity, smoking, lack of health insurance, intractable poverty. But the fact is that for too many American women, opportunity and the dream of upward mobility—the American Dream— remains elusive.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to be. I think of the extraordinary sacrifices my mother made to survive her own difficult childhood, to give me not only life, but opportunity along with love and inspiration. And I’m very proud of my own daughter and I look at all these young women I’m privileged to work with or know through Chelsea and it’s hard to imagine turning the clock back on them. But in places throughout America large and small the clock is turning back.

So, we have work to do. Renewing America’s vitality at home and strengthening our leadership abroad will take the energy and talents of all our people, women and men.

If America is going to lead, we need to learn from the women of the world who have blazed new paths and developed new solutions, on everything from economic development to education to environmental protection.

If America is going to lead, we need to catch up with so much of the rest of the world and finally ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women.

If America is going to lead, we need to stand by the women of Afghanistan after our combat troops come home, we need to speak up for all the women working to realize the promise of the Arab Spring, and do more to save the lives of the hundreds of thousands of mothers who die every year during childbirth from preventable causes and so much more.

If America is going to lead, we need to stand by the women of Afghanistan after our combat troops come home, we need to speak up for all the women working to realize the promise of the Arab Spring, and do more to save the lives of the hundreds of thousands of mothers who die every year during childbirth from preventable causes and so much more.

But that’s not all.

Because if America is going to lead we expect ourselves to lead, we need to empower women here at home to participate fully in our economy and our society, we need to make equal pay a reality, we need to extending family and medical leave benefits to more workers and make them paid, we need to encourage more women and girls to pursue careers in math and science.

We need to invest in our people so they can live up to their own God-given potential.

That’s how America will lead in the world.

So let’s learn from the wisdom of every mother and father all over the world who teaches their daughters that there is no limit on how big she can dream and how much she can achieve.

This truly is the unfinished business of the 21st century. And It is the work we are all called to do. I look forward to being to be your partner in all the days and years ahead. Lets keep fighting for opportunity and dignity, let’s keep fighting for freedom and equality, let's keep fighting for full participation. And let's keep telling the world over and over again that yes, women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights once and for all.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President, I'm voting to elect her, on the basis of that speech, her work as Secretary of State, and all that she has seen and experienced, living with 'Slick Willie' Clinton.

The kid from who's the boss got engaged to his partner and they plan to move the California "once prop 8 is overturned." http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/0...l-tabares.html

Not big news but I just like seeing another person I grew up watching be happy and gay :) Alyssa Milano had so much potential but I'll take what I can get.

ding, dong...
 

Baroness Thatcher has died

...ironically Thatcherism is alive and well in the UK today.

She doesn't intrigue me, she repulses me; much like Ann Coulter repulses me.

I can't watch all the "tributes" to her life today.

The fact that she was the first (and only) woman to rise to the post of PM doesn't impress me, not after having lived with/amidst the consequences of her "reign".

She was not a good leader and not a good person.

She was especially classist and homophobic.

But she was a mother and a grandmother and I am sorry for their loss, I hope she was kind and loving to them.

Do you mean the first and only in The UK? Because NZ has had two women PMs (the second one, Helen Clark, was elected, the first one, Jenny Shipley (a Thatcher wannabe), wasn't).

I hope she was good to her family, because she wasn't good to the average person from The UK from what we saw in NZ.

Yes, I'm sorry, the first and only woman to rise to the post of Prime Minister in the UK.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission: Privacy & Marketing
 

Stopping Unsolicited Mail, Phone Calls, and Email


This may not be "Breaking News" but it could be new and useful information to you. I recieved this from an emailist that I subscribe to from the FTC. Hope it can help.



http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles...alls-and-email

I think this editorial in the Guardian is quite a good and fair summary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cher-editorial


Her Homophobia

I agree almost all politicians of her era were also homophobic, especially the gay ones. But Margaret Thatcher, as leader of her party and PM of the UK, instituted laws that made the LGBT community second class citizens, it enshrined that status in to law. Read up on Section 28 (also known as clause 28), it took 15 years to undo that piece of pernicious legislation, alone. I didn't live in the UK during her leadership, but I did work alongside my peers to undo Section 28.

Do I hold her to a higher standard because she's a woman - in regards to her homophobia? No. I hold Bill Clinton to the same high standard and I find him just as lacking. His decision to sign DOMA and DADT, nearly 10 years later, were equally damaging and we continue to try to undo that here.

Her Classism

snip/

"I don't know much about her leadership except as I mentioned as to the economics of Friedman who advocated breaking unions, making people disappear, selling off the infrastructure which threw millions of people out of work all over the world etc. "

She did all of that and then some, including supporting the Pinochet government who did a great job of making people disappear.

She did her very best to institute Friedman's economic philosophies/strategies, actually a much better than Ronald Reagan did.

She created the economic hole the UK is still digging out of.

She decimated the National Health Service, and all other socialized services. She created economic chasms between "classes"; chasms that were deeper than had existed before (and that's sayin' something). She divided and destroyed communities. She did irreparable damage to the most vulnerable sections of the population. People suffered and people died because of her policies: the elderly, the working poor, unionized workers, children...and that was just at home.

I'm going to quote Ken Loach (the film director) who summed up some of the "highlights" of Margaret Thatcher's career today:

"Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class. Her victories were aided by the politically corrupt leaders of the Labour Party and of many Trades Unions. It is because of policies begun by her that we are in this mess today. Other prime ministers have followed her path, notably Tony Blair. She was the organ grinder, he was the monkey. Remember she called Mandela a terrorist and took tea with the torturer and murderer Pinochet.

How should we honour her? Let’s privatise her funeral. Put it out to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It’s what she would have wanted."

Women in Politics

To the question of whether "we" hold female politicians to a higher standard, my answer is: maybe.

Maybe, I do.

I certainly hold members of this community (the B-F community, the Queer community) to a higher standard. I believe that you and I, and everyone here, should be "better": smarter, kinder, more compassionate; better educated, more self-aware, more philanthropic, more politically active.

I hold women (regardless of their profession) to the same set of elevated standards.

I believe that because we come from a place of oppression and silencing, because we must overcome the hurdles and challenges (both internal and external) that arise from being "less than", because we must work harder and longer to rise the ranks; because we must be louder and bolder to be heard; I believe we must be better listeners, better managers, better politicians - -- better human beings in whatever realm we live and work.

So yes, I do expect more, from myself and from all of you.
And yes, with that expectation comes disappointment, sometimes.

Regardless, my feelings about Margaret Thatcher have nothing to do with her gender.

In fact, to me, her gender is only notable because she was the first woman to rise to that position of power in the UK. But her gender became secondary to her legacy. And her legacy is not one I am proud of.

And the people who are extolling their admiration for MargaretBloodyThatcher because she was a "strong woman" are driving me 'round the bend because they are correlating "strong woman" with "good leader". And the truth is she was not a good leader. Not by anyone's standards (except the most conservative).

Edited to add a link:

A piece entitled "Not all socialists want to dance on Margaret Thatcher's grave" written last year, it reflects much of what I wish people knew and understood about her legacy. And for the record, I don't want to dance on her grave either. I don't find joy in celebrating anyone's death. Not even Maggie Thatcher's. Or Bin Ladens. Or W.'s when it comes to that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...n-8143089.html

Here is a piece from political activist Peter Tatchell:

http://www.petertatchell.net/politic...-heartless.htm

snip/

“Margaret Thatcher was an extraordinary woman but she was extraordinary for mostly the wrong reasons. So many of her policies were wrong and heartless. Nevertheless, I don’t rejoice in her death. I commiserate, as I do with the death of any person. In contrast, she showed no empathy for the victims of her harsh, ruthless policy decisions,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

“Thatcher initiated policies that paved the way for the current economic crisis: the decimation of Britain’s manufacturing base, the get-rich-quick business mentality, the promotion of the free market and the poorly regulated banking sector. This led to imbalances in the economy. The financial sector gained undue influence, with few checks and balances. These distortions were exacerbated by Blair and Brown but Thatcher began the train of events that led to the present economic meltdown.

“In 1988, the Thatcher government legislated Britain’s first new anti-gay law in 100 years: Section 28. At the 1987 Conservative party conference she mocked people who defended the right to be gay, insinuating that there was no such right. During her rule, arrests and convictions for consenting same-sex behaviour rocketed, as did queer bashing violence and murder. Gay men were widely demonised and scapegoated for the AIDS pandemic and Thatcher did nothing to challenge this vilification.

“To her credit, she shattered the sexist glass ceiling in politics and got to the top in a man’s world. However, on becoming Prime Minister she did little for the rights of women. She was a macho, testosterone-fuelled right-wing politician.

“Her political agenda was almost entirely divisive and destructive, including mass unemployment and urban decay. She emasculated local government and boosted police powers to the detriment of civil liberties. The striking miners and their families were ruthlessly crushed on her orders. She oversaw the use of police state methods. Baton-wielding police struck down peaceful miners. People travelling to support the strikers were pre-emptively arrested. Protesting miners at Orgreave were framed on false police evidence."

And another summation of the highlights of Thatcher's career

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium…

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation

As a social scientist, I am as concerned not only with what people do but why they do it. Thatcher fascinates me because she is the embodiment of Friedman economics. She demonstrated how economic beliefs can permeate every aspect of life and influence every policy decision.

What is unique in the Thatcher situation is she was a non-military leader of a nation implementing these beliefs. Prior "Friedman social experiments" came in countries where the USA overthrew the existing government, installed a military regime, and orchestrated Friedmanomics. The results were consistent. The rich became filthy rich, the poor became filthy poor, and it all fell apart pretty damn fast.

History repeats itself. The tea party, the GOP, and even some democrats are thinking in Friedmanomics. This is not new stuff. It has been slowly and steadily creeping in the consciousness of the country since before Nixon.

Check out this perspective on Thatcher and take a look at why she did the things she did. Sound familiar?

-----------------------------------
LONDON (AP) - Love her or loathe her, one thing's beyond dispute: Margaret Thatcher transformed Britain.

The Iron Lady who ruled for 11 remarkable years imposed her will on a fractious, rundown nation - breaking the unions, triumphing in a far-off war, and selling off state industries at a record pace. She left behind a leaner government and more prosperous nation by the time a mutiny ousted her from No. 10 Downing Street.

For admirers, Thatcher was a savior who rescued Britain from ruin and laid the groundwork for an extraordinary economic renaissance. For critics, she was a heartless tyrant who ushered in an era of greed that kicked the weak out onto the streets and let the rich become filthy rich.

"Let us not kid ourselves, she was a very divisive figure," said Bernard Ingham, Thatcher's press secretary for her entire term. "She was a real toughie. She was a patriot with a great love for this country, and she raised the standing of Britain abroad."

Thatcher was the first - and still only - female prime minister in Britain's history. But she often found feminists tiresome and was not above using her handbag as a prop to underline her swagger and power. A grocer's daughter, she rose to the top of Britain's snobbish hierarchy the hard way, and envisioned a classless society that rewarded hard work and determination.

She was a trailblazer who at first believed trailblazing impossible: Thatcher told the Liverpool Daily Post in 1974 that she did not think a woman would serve as party leader or prime minister during her lifetime.

But once in power, she never showed an ounce of doubt.

Like her close friend and political ally Ronald Reagan, Thatcher seemed motivated by an unshakable belief that free markets would build a better country than reliance on a strong, central government. Another thing she shared with the American president: a tendency to reduce problems to their basics, choose a path, and follow it to the end, no matter what the opposition.

She formed a deep attachment to the man she called "Ronnie" - some spoke of it as a schoolgirl crush. Still, she would not back down when she disagreed with him on important matters, even though the United States was the richer and vastly stronger partner in the so-called "special relationship."

Thatcher was at her brashest when Britain was challenged. When Argentina's military junta seized the remote Falklands Islands from Britain in 1982, she did not hesitate even though her senior military advisers said it might not be feasible to reclaim the islands.

She simply would not allow Britain to be pushed around, particularly by military dictators, said Ingham, who recalls the Falklands War as the tensest period of Thatcher's three terms in power. When diplomacy failed, she dispatched a military task force that accomplished her goal, despite the naysayers.

"That required enormous leadership," Ingham said. "This was a formidable undertaking, this was a risk with a capital R-I-S-K, and she demonstrated her leadership by saying she would give the military their marching orders and let them get on with it."

In deciding on war, Thatcher overruled Foreign Office specialists who warned her about the dangers of striking back. She was infuriated by warnings about the dangers to British citizens in Argentina and the difficulty of getting support from the U.N. Security Council.

"When you are at war you cannot allow the difficulties to dominate your thinking: you have to set out with an iron will to overcome them," she said in her memoir, "Downing Street Years." "And anyway what was the alternative? That a common or garden dictator should rule over the queen's subjects and prevail by fraud and violence? Not while I was prime minister."

The relatively quick triumph of British forces revived Thatcher's political fortunes, which had been faltering along with the British economy. She won an overwhelming victory in 1983, tripling her majority in the House of Commons.

She trusted her gut instinct, famously concluding early on that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev represented a clear break in the Soviet tradition of autocratic rulers. She pronounced that the West could "do business" with him, a position that influenced Reagan's vital dealings with Gorbachev in the twilight of the Soviet era.

It was heady stuff for a woman who had little training in foreign affairs whe n she triumphed over a weak field of indecisive Conservative Party candidates to take over the party leadership in 1975 and ultimately run as the party's candidate for prime minister.

She profited from the enormous crisis facing the Labour Party government led by Harold Wilson and later James Callaghan. Britain was near economic collapse, its currency propped up by the International Monetary Fund, and its once defiant spirit seemingly broken.

The sagging Labour government had no Parliamentary majority after 1977, and the next year it suffered through a "winter of discontent" with widespread strikes disrupting vital public services, including hospital care and even gravedigging. The government's effort to hold the line on inflation led to chaos in the streets.

Britain seemed adrift, no longer a credible world power, falling from second- to third-tier status.

It was then, Thatcher wrote in her memoirs, that she came to the unshakable, almost mystical belief that only she could save Britain. She cited a deep "inner conviction" that this would be her role.

Events seemed to be moving her way when she led the Conservative Party to victory in 1979 with a commitment to reduce the state's role and champion private enterprise.

She was underestimated at first - by her own party, by the media, later by foreign adversaries. But they all soon learned to respect her. Thatcher's "Iron Lady" nickname was coined by Soviet journalists, a grudging testament to her ferocious will and determination.

Thatcher set about upending decades of liberal doctrine, successfully challenging Britain's welfare state and socialist traditions, in the process becoming the reviled bete noire of the country's leftwing intelligentsia.

She is perhaps best remembered for her hardline position during the pivotal strike in 1984 and 1985 when she faced down coal miners in an ultimately successful bid to break the power of Britain's unions. It w as a reshaping of the British economic and political landscape that endures to this day.

It is for this that she is revered by free-market conservatives, who say the restructuring of the economy led to a boom that made London the rival of New York as a global financial center. The left demonized her as an implacably hostile union buster, with stone-cold indifference to the poor. But her economic philosophy eventually crossed party lines: Tony Blair led a revamped Labour Party to victory by adopting some of her ideas.

Thatcher's personality, like that of so many of her contemporaries, was shaped in part by the traumatic events during her childhood. When World War II broke out, her hometown was one of the early targets for Luftwaffe bombs. Her belief in the need to stand up to aggressors was rooted in the failure of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's attempt to appease Adolf Hitler rather than confront him.

Thatcher said she learned much about the world simply by studying her father's business. She grew up in the family's apartment just above the shop.

"Before I read a line from the great liberal economists, I knew from my father's accounts that the free market was like a vast sensitive nervous system, responding to events and signals all over the world to meet the ever-changing needs of peoples in different countries, from different classes, of different religions, with a kind of benign indifference to their status," she wrote in her memoirs.

"The economic history of Britain for the next 40 years confirmed and amplified almost every item of my father's practical economics. In effect, I had been equipped at an early age with the ideal mental outlook and tools of analysis for reconstructing an economy ravaged by state socialism."

Margaret Thatcher first won election to Parliament in 1959, representing Finchley in north London. She climbed the Conservative Party ladder quickly, joining the Cabinet as education secretary in 1970.

In that post, she earned the unwanted nickname "Thatcher the milk snatcher" because of her reduction of school milk programs. It was a taste of battles to come.

As prime minister, she sold off one state industry after another: British Telecom, British Gas, Rolls-Royce, British Airways, British Coal, British Steel, the water companies and the electricity distribution system among them. She was proud of her government's role in privatizing some public housing, turning tenants into homeowners.

She ruffled feathers simply by being herself. She had faith - sometimes blind faith - in the clarity of her vision and little use for those of a more cautious mien. Success in the Falklands War set the stage for a pivotal fight with the National Union of Miners, which began a 51-week strike in March 1984 to oppose the government's plans to close a number of mines.

The miners battled police on picket lines but couldn't beat Thatcher, and returned to work without gaining any concessions.

Thatcher won a third term in another landslide in 1987, but may have become overconfident.

She trampled over cautionary advice from her own ministers in 1989 and 1990 by imposing a hugely controversial "community charge" tax that was quickly dubbed a "poll tax" by opponents. It was designed to move Britain away from a property tax and instead imposed a flat rate tax on every adult except for retirees and people who were registered unemployed.

That decision may have been a sign that hubris was undermining Thatcher's political acumen. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in London and other cities, leading to some of the worst riots in the British capital for more than a century.

The shocking sight of Trafalgar Square turned into a smoldering battleground on March 31, 1990, helped convince many Conservative figures that Thatcher had stayed too long.

"How could a leader who was wise make 13 million people pay a tax they had never paid before? It just showed that she was no longer thinking in a rational way," one of her junior ministers, David Mellor, said in a BBC documentary.

For Conservatives in Parliament, it was a question of survival. They feared vengeful voters would turn them out of office at the next election, and for many that fear trumped any gratitude they might have felt for their longtime leader.

Eight months after the riots, Thatcher was gone, struggling to hold back tears as she left Downing Street after being ousted by her own party.

It was a bitter end for Thatcher's active political career - her family said she felt a keen sense of betrayal even years later.

In 1992, she was appointed in the House of Lords, taking the title Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.

Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."

Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette

I do not celebrate her death because I do not care if she is alive or dead. I grieve all of the harm, crueltly and starvation she inflicted on her own country because of her tory politics and greed.

I personally know people who are scarred from their families suffering in poverty in their youth because of her. Neglectful, cruel, greedy leader with no concern and launguishing in her own comfort.

NEVER FORGET.

Her and Regan should be put in a glass box, arms around each other to rot in public and a list of all their human rights crimes listed underneath.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...ger-dies-at-70

The passing of Annette Funicello...

This news is so saddening to me. :( I grew up with the Mousketeers and loved her Skippy commercials... well, and the Beach Blanket Bingo movies!! I have been wondering where she was when the first bit of news about her multiple sclerosis came out in the 80s and there was no more news on her.

Awwww.... rest easy Annette. - My sister was named after you... but you know this now. :flowers:

100 Amazing Trans Americans You Should Know

The inaugural Trans 100 List celebrates groundbreaking work being done by trans people across the country.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/100-amazing-trans-americans-you-should-know?sub=2135553_1056531

WATCH: Elizabeth Taylor’s Grandson Continues Fight Against HIV/AIDS

http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws....01-360x370.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/watch-elizabe...EFt4s0MIC0X.99

3 teens arrested for assault after girl's suicide
 

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Eight days after allegedly being sexually battered while passed out at a party, and then humiliated by online photos of the assault, 15-year-old Audrie Pott posted on Facebook that her life was ruined, "worst day ever," and hanged herself.

For the next eight months, her family struggled to figure out what happened to their soccer loving, artistic, horse crazy daughter, whose gentle smile, long dark hair and shining eyes did not bely a struggling soul.

And then on Thursday, seven months after the tragedy, a Northern California sheriff's office arrested three 16-year-old boys on charges of sexual battery.

"The family has been trying to understand why their loving daughter would have taken her life at such a young age and to make sure that those responsible would be held accountable," said family attorney Robert Allard.

"After an extensive investigation that we have conducted on behalf of the family, there is no doubt in our minds that the victim, then only 15 years old, was savagely assaulted by her fellow high school students while she lay on a bed completely unconscious."

Allard said students used cell phones to share photos of the attack, and that the images went viral.

Santa Clara County Sheriff's Lt. Jose Cardoza said it arrested two of the teens at Saratoga High School and the third, a former Saratoga High student, at Christopher High School in Gilroy on Thursday. The names of the suspects were not released because they are minors.

Cardoza said the suspects were booked into juvenile hall and face two felonies and one misdemeanor each, all related to sexual battery that allegedly occurred at a Saratoga house party.

The lieutenant said the arrests were the result of information gathered by his agency's Saratoga High School resource officers. He said the investigation is ongoing, and Los Gatos police also continue looking into the girl's September suicide.

The Associated Press does not, as a rule, identify victims of sexual assault. But in this case, Pott's family wanted her name and case known, Allard said. The family also provided a photo to the AP.

The girl's family members did not comment and have requested privacy until a planned news conference Tuesday. Her father and step-mother Lawrence and Lisa Pott, along with her mother Sheila Pott, have started the Audrie Pott Foundation (audriepottfoundation.com) to provide music and art scholarships and offer youth counseling and support.

The foundation website alludes to the teen's struggles, but until now neither law enforcement, school officials nor family have discussed the sexual battery.

"She was compassionate about life, her friends, her family, and would never do anything to harm anyone," the site says. "She was in the process of developing the ability to cope with the cruelty of this world but had not quite figured it all out.

"Ultimately, she had not yet acquired the antibiotics to deal with the challenges present for teens in today's society."

The Pott family is not alone.

In Canada on Thursday, authorities said they are looking further into the case of a teenage girl who hanged herself Sunday after an alleged rape and months of bullying. A photo said to be of the 2011 assault on 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons was shared online.

No charges initially were filed against four teenage boys being investigated. But after an outcry, Nova Scotia's justice minister appointed four government departments to look into Parsons' case.

Sweden introduces new gender neural pronoun
 

http://jezebel.com/sweden-introduces-new-gender-neutral-pronoun-makes-bei-472492079

/snip from the Jezebel article:

"But the ever-progressive nation of Sweden has introduced a new gender-neutral pronoun—hen (neither the masculine han nor the feminine hon)—into its official National Encyclopedia. It's a heartening step in broadening the concept of gender and giving institutional validation to those for whom gender is more complicated than the stiff old male/female dichotomy."

Keep your eyes on the sky tonight, after 8pm.
 

http://www.accuweather.com/en/featur...tic_1/10107004

snip/

A solar flare that occurred around 2 a.m. Thursday morning may create a spectacular display of northern lights Saturday evening.

The flare is also expected to cause vibrant northern lights from the Arctic as far south as New York, the Dakotas, Washington and Michigan, with a smaller possibility of it going into Pennsylvania and Iowa, even Kansas. The lights are currently estimated for 8 p.m. EDT Saturday arrival, with a possible deviation of up to seven hours. If the radiation hits much after dark settles on the East Coast the lights may be missed and will instead only be visible for the West.

Viewing conditions will be best in the mid-Atlantic, specifically for parts of Pennsylvania and the Delmarva. Most of the country will have poor to fair views as a result of cloud cover, with areas further south not experiencing the aurora at all. A pocket of fair conditions sits over parts of Oregon into Washington and southern Idaho. A swath of partly cloudy conditions will also spread over a section of the Ohio Valley for parts of Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. Ohio will experience fair to good viewing conditions. For the rest of the country conditions will be poor.

maps included in the link

I'm quite excited!!!