Breaking News Events

[AtLast]

Yes, this concerns me. What concerns me more is the lack of knowledge of most in the US that we are just not a financial island and that we absolutely could be affected negatively by what happens inside the Euro Zone. Then again, look at the lack of knowledge overall of basic US history among our citizens as well as even more ignorance about global interconnectedness and its effect upon us. Ignorance is bliss.

[SoNotHer]

Obama Makes It Official: Suspected Terrorists Can Be Indefinitely Detained Without a Trial

Despite having once threatened to veto the bill due to controversial language about the treatment of suspected terrorists, the president signed the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on Saturday. Barack Obama did not keep his lingering concerns about aspects of the bill law a secret, however. In justifying his decision to sign NDAA into law, Obama said in a statement, "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed." He continued, "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." (We've pasted the full statement at the bottom of this post.) While the president recently used his signing of the payroll tax cut extension as a photo op -- see above -- he seemed almost ashamed of this signature. Of the controversial detention provisions, Obama concludes, "My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office."

The decision will inevitably become fodder for criticism as Obama ramps up his 2012 reelection campaign. This is the same bill that Ron Paul recently compared to the Patriot Act but with more dire implications. "When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured," Paul said earlier this week. "The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly." Happy New Year?



Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

From -

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...t-trial/46818/

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at aestes@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.

[Cin]

Vampire Squid Watch: 4 Scary Economic Trends for 2012
Top economic thinkers explain why 2012 will be a year of continued – and escalating – predation by financiers.

Having been seen to twitch – ever so slightly – in the 2011 tidal wave of global protests, the vampire squid is stirring in its evil lair. Reports of sucking noises and new tentacles sprouting in every direction tell us that the global financial monster is poised to steal yet more wealth and resources from the public in the coming year. Top economic thinkers have shared their forecasts with AlterNet, and the focus is clear: 2012 will be a year of continued – and escalating – predation by financiers. Their influence over political, financial, and economic activity is likely to grow – along with potential for harm.

1. Back-door Bailout of the Eurozone

Would you like more of your hard-earned money to flow to fatcats? Wish granted! Attorney Walker Todd, who spent two decades in the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland, names the back-door bailout of the eurozone banking system by our very own Federal Reserve as the top economic story of the upcoming year – or, at least one of the most outrageous. In a nutshell, the Fed is helping European banks by opening up the short-term ‘emergency’ lending pipeline, which means that U.S. taxpayers are indirectly bailing out private European capitalists. This is being done through a bit of financial hocus pocus called “swaps” – essentially the trading of dollars for euros. Such a maneuver allows the Fed to prop up European banks while claiming that it is not 'technically' directly lending. In other words, swaps are an attempt to hide the truth from the public.

As Gerald O’Driscoll put it in the Wall Street Journal: “This Byzantine financial arrangement could hardly be better designed to confuse observers, and it has largely succeeded on this side of the Atlantic, where press coverage has been light.” O'Driscoll observes that the Fed has no authority to bail out European banks and warns of what economists call “moral hazard” – the nasty habit of banks to engage in even riskier behavior when they get bailed out.

Why is this happening? Well, because the squid is strangling morality, democracy, and the rule of law. We pay, they play. “This is an attempt by our own governing elites to maintain a false vision of how the world works, or how ‘we’ think it should work,” Todd told AlterNet. “This comes at the expense of many people who never will go to Europe, who know no European bankers, and who have no European bank accounts.”

You may not know a European banker, but you can be sure that one is just now raising a glass of bubbly in your honor. After all, you paid for it.

2. Record-breaking Political Finance

What does corporate dough buy? Newspapers and elections and presidents, oh my!

Thomas Ferguson of the University of Massachusetts, Boston and the Institute for New Economic Thinking suggested that next year’s very biggest stories could well be about corporate money influencing politics. He told AlterNet he saw a real possibility that a serious third party candidate for president might emerge; if one does, it will be bankrolled from the right while promoted in public as representing the political “center.” And it will also be designed to give corporate America many of the policies it has long sought, such a trimming Social Security and eviscerating the social safety net. "People are going to be astonished at how lethal the combination of secret money and corporate mass media will be to the public’s interest," said Ferguson.

Ferguson was confident that the 2012 elections would break all records for political finance, but he did add a sobering qualification. He thought there was an outside chance that the world economic slowdown would provoke really serious unrest in China or Europe on a scale that would put American developments in the shade.

3. Executive Pay Explosion

Since the Great Recession of 2008-2009, the prime beneficiaries of the sluggish recovery have been…you guessed it!....top corporate executives. And it looks like the good times will keep rolling – for them. William Lazonick, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, predicts an escalation of the harmful practice of corporate stock buybacks, which produces the explosion in executive pay.

As Lazonick explained to AlterNet, corporate honchos have enjoyed a windfall as they have cashed in their stock options in a generally rising stock market. This kind of thing does absolutely zilch for the economy. But here’s what it does do: spending on buybacks makes executives rich and results in manipulative boosts to stock prices in the short-term at the cost of investments in innovation and job creation. “Look for buybacks to continue to increase in 2012, perhaps surpassing the record $600 billion done by S&P 500 companies in 2007,” predicted Lazonick.

What to do? Maybe it’s time for Congress to confront the reality of that predatory monster, the financialized business corporation. Lazonick suggests that a ban on buybacks (which is already in the purview of the Securities Exchange Act) would be a good start. Unfortunately this idea is at odds with prediction #2.

4. Pathological Corporate Leadership

Jamie Dimon never seems to seize an opportunity to keep his mouth shut. JP Morgan's CEO, who happens to be the highest-paid chief executive officer among the six biggest U.S. banks, has consequently regaled us with his worldview, in which bank regulations are “anti-American” and ordinary folks have no right to be mad at rich people. He has become the poster-boy for Wall Street greed and has earned the especial ire of the Occupy movement, which recently marched to his digs on Park Avenue to offer to help him pack his bags and go wreak havoc somewhere else. In his universe, defrauding investors, spreading lies to manipulate markets, and foreclosing on military families are all part of a good day’s work.

Dimon is a particularly nasty customer, but he is part of a new breed of sociopathic financiers. And his kind of distorted ‘vision’ has harmed the country’s prospects and created a gap in America between the richest and the poorest that puts us in close range of Rwanda and Serbia.

When those at the top of the corporate pyramid are this tone-deaf and lacking in any sense of public responsibility, we are in treacherous waters.

“The biggest danger to America is that the people in the financial sector and corporate leadership convey no awareness of what is needed to create a coherent and prosperous society,” economist Rob Johnson, head of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, told AlterNet. “Leadership is not simply about how much money one makes.”

Many dollars. Very little sense. Ultimately, hoarding everything at the top is not sustainable, and bankers like Dimon will end up destroying the very society that makes their enormous wealth possible. If we let them.

And that, Reader, is what's on the horizon. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, if you want a happy ending, see a Disney movie.

[Cin]

Well apparently it wasn't the fear mongering of those in power that led to the Patriot Act and beyond. It wasn't the ever vigilant power elite recognizing an amazing opportunity to not just take away our freedoms and rights, but to have us willingly and most cheerfully surrender them in exchange for a lie of safety and security. Nope. Apparently the Patriot Act and all the undermining of the principles of liberty that followed was a direct result of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Who knew?

Ron Paul Believes Segregation-Ending Civil Rights Act "Destroyed Privacy"
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...ed_privacy%22/

This guy is like some kind of disease. But what is even scarier is that the right, the moneyed right, is made up of people who, at least privately, share these kinds of ideas. And they have too much money to go away.

[LeftWriteFemme]

Spain’s Just-Former PM Calls Gay Marriage His Proudest Achievement



http://www.queerty.com/spains-just-f...ment-20111228/

[UofMfan]

I guess it is true what they say about Alabama. ~ HuffPo

[Hollylane]

A FB share from Ivan Ivonavich:

As long term freelance writer for Xtra, in the form of my column, I have been troubled by the paper's handling of the pronoun use of Elisha Lim (they prefer the they pronoun, and Xtra resisted) and the Lexi Sanfino name discussion that has been happening just recently. Just last month, I received a letter myself from a student at a college in New York State whose PROFESSOR had assigned their entire class extra grades for hunting down my legal name. I know how fucked this stuff feels for my own life and heart. Here is my buddy Rae's statement. Please read it, think about it and share it if it moves you.

Rae Spoon Tumblr - Instead Of An Interview With Xtra

[Kobi]

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Just 15 years old, Sahar Gul has become the bruised and bloodied face of women's rights in Afghanistan. The teenage bride's eyes were swollen nearly shut as she was wheeled into the hospital seven months after her arranged marriage. Black scabs crusted her fingertips where her nails used to be.

According to officials in northeastern Baghlan province, Gul's in-laws kept her in a basement for six months, ripped her fingernails out, tortured her with hot irons and broke her fingers — all in an attempt to force her into prostitution. Police freed her after her uncle called authorities.

The horrific images, captured by television news cameras last week, transfixed Afghanistan and set off a storm of condemnation. President Hamid Karzai set up a commission to investigate, and his health minister visited her bedside. Police arrested her in-laws, who denied abusing her. A warrant was issued for her husband, who serves in the Afghan army.

The case highlights both the problems and the progress of women 10 years after the Taliban's fall. Gul's egregious wounds and underage wedlock are a reminder that girls and women still suffer shocking abuse. But the public outrage and the government's response to it also show that the country is slowly changing.

"Let's break the dead silence on women's plight," read the title of an editorial Wednesday in the Afghanistan Times.

Despite guaranteed rights and progressive new laws, Afghanistan still ranks as the world's sixth-worst country for women's equality in the U.N. Development Program's annual Gender Inequality Index. Nevertheless, Afghan advocates say attitudes have subtly shifted over the years, in part thanks to the dozens of women's groups that have sprung up.

Fawzia Kofi, a lawmaker and head of the women's affairs commission in the Afghan parliament, says the outcry over a case like Gul's probably would not have happened just a few years ago because of deep cultural taboos against airing private family conflicts and acknowledging sexual abuse — such as forcing a woman into prostitution.

"I think there is now a sense of awareness about women's rights. People seem to be changing and seem to be talking about it," Kofi said.

Ending abuse of women is a huge challenge in a patriarchal society where traditional practices include child marriage, giving girls away to settle debts or pay for their relatives' crimes and so-called honor killings in which girls seen as disgracing their families are murdered by their relatives.

And some women activists worry that their hard-won political rights may erode as foreign troops withdraw and Karzai's government seeks to negotiate with the Taliban to end their insurgency. Women's rights, they fear, may be the first to go in any deal with the hardline Islamic militants.

"I'm afraid we won't have all this anymore if the Taliban are allowed back into society," said Sima Natiq, a longtime activist.

Freedoms for women are one of the most visible — and symbolic — changes in Afghanistan since 2001 U.S.-led campaign that toppled the Taliban regime. Aside from their support for al-Qaida leaders, the Taliban are probably most notorious for their harsh treatment of women under their severe interpretation of Islamic law.

For five years, the regime banned women from working and going to school, or even leaving home without a male relative. In public, all women were forced wear a head-to-toe burqa veil, which covers even the face with a mesh panel. Violators were publicly flogged or executed. Freeing women from such draconian laws lent a moral air to the Afghan war.

As U.S. troops begin to draw down, activists say Afghanistan is unmistakably a better place to be born female than a decade ago.

In parliament, 27 percent of lawmakers are female, mostly because the constitution reserves 68 seats for women. More than 3 million girls are in schools, making up 40 percent of the elementary school population, according to the education ministry. A survey last year indicated that women dying in childbirth had dropped by nearly two-thirds to below 500 per 100,000 live births since 2005, although that is still one of the world's highest rates.

Still, for every improvement, there are other signs of women's continued misery. The U.N. says more than half of Afghanistan's female prison population is made up of women sentenced by local courts for fleeing their marriages — the charge is often phrased as "intent to commit adultery," even though that's not a crime under Afghan law. And the U.N. women's agency UNIFEM estimates that half of all girls are forced to marry under age 15, even though the legal marriage age is 16.

"There's very good standards on paper. There's very active women's networks," said Georgette Gagnon, the U.N.'s human rights director in Afghanistan. "A lot has been done, but there is still a long way to go."

A U.N. report in November also found that a 2009 law passed to protect Afghan women from violence was rarely enforced. For the 12-month period ending in March 2011, prosecutors filed indictments in 155 cases, only 7 percent of all 2,299 crimes reported. And activists say those complaints are a small fraction of the true level of abuse.

Part of the problem is the ingrained attitudes of police and courts that cause them to turn a blind eye or even send women back to their abusers, said Latifa Sultani, coordinator for women's protection with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

"Some local officials still believe women shouldn't have rights," Sultani said.

Last month, Karzai pardoned a 19-year-old woman who was imprisoned after she was raped and impregnated by a cousin. A local court sentenced her to 12 years in prison for having sex out of wedlock, a crime in Afghanistan. The judge told her she could get out of prison if she agreed to marry her alleged rapist, but she refused and gave birth to her daughter in prison.

Passing laws that protect women is one thing, enforcing them is another. Women's groups are pressing Karzai to do more, but most acknowledge that with the central government so weak, the real battle will be fought in individual police stations, courtrooms and prosecutors' offices. Not least will be persuading Afghans to change their views.

That's why the gruesome story of Sahar Gul's imprisonment and torture is seen by some activists as an opportunity for the government to recommit publicly to women's rights. They say are encouraged that Karzai felt compelled by the outcry to become involved.

"This is a sign of progress in a way," Kofi said. "This is just a small example. We have hundreds of thousands of women like Sahar Gul who are victims of violence, but their voices are not heard."

For now, Gul remains in a Kabul hospital, where she transferred from a local hospital in Baghlan province. An Afghan official said this week that she will be sent to India for further medical treatment. It's unclear where she will go when she returns to Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/hope-afghan-ou...195905756.html

[Kobi]

KABUL (Reuters) - Being a feminist in Afghanistan isn't always easy, even for a man. Kabul university student Ferdous Samim has had trouble persuading even his own mother that the work he does pushing for women's rights is worthwhile.

"Part of the problem in Afghanistan is that most women think like men," said Samim over tea in the garden of a Kabul cafe.

"I don't have a sister, but I'm sure if I did, and she tried to go outside the house, my mother would be asking where she was going, what she was doing, why she was going out."

A member of the male advocacy wing of activist group YoungWomen4Change, he is part of a small but critical group of male activists helping Afghan women fight for a better life.

His modest goal for the next two decades -- that women should be able to walk in Afghanistan's streets and markets without harassment -- is a reminder of the scale of the challenge women still face.

Forced marriage is still rife, rape victims have been jailed for "forced adultery," and a woman is more likely to die in childbirth in Afghanistan than anywhere else on earth.

And many of the men with power to change how women are treated -- from mullahs to tribal elders -- are not willing to listen to female activists.

Men have played an important role in feminist movements around the world, but the segregation of much of Afghan society makes their role particularly important.

Ahmad Nader Nadery, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) commissioner, said opening doors for female campaigners is one of the most important things he does.

"Once we open the door to the mullahs, we engage them in discussion, we break the ice," he says. "Then our female trainers come and they also speak. But we start first."

CLOSED FAMILIES, HIDDEN PAIN

Afghanistan is still recovering from the strict social conservatism of the Taliban, whose hardline laws during their 1996-2001 rule marginalized women, stripping them of the right to work, study or move freely.

Many independent agencies say women are still subject to widespread discrimination and oppression.

Nadery says powerful men often fail to take into account the impact of their decisions on women's lives.

This is particularly a problem in cases related to forced or abusive marriages, or when women are given in marriage to settle disputes -- a practice known as "baad."

"Families are very closed," Nadery said. "Once a woman enters another family, her story will never get out. Most of those elders, those decision makers, don't know the suffering she goes through."

The AIHRC works with elders, runs workshops, and produces documentaries and dramas to illustrate how damaging baad and other abusive traditions can be. The men they target are often shocked by what they learn, Nadery says.

Nonetheless, changing minds remains an uphill battle. "It is a long process of work with them," says Nadery, who credits his feminism to coming from a family of strong women.

Legislation does exist to protect women but activists say it is often disregarded by courts, and in some areas officials are intimidated or bribed into ignoring women's pleas for help.

Across town from the AIHRC, in a small, busy office filled with teetering piles of paper, veteran civil rights campaigner Lal Gul is another male feminist, working for change through his Afghanistan Human Rights Organization.

He helped build up the number of female lawyers available to defend gender-specific cases; about a quarter of the 1,200 defense lawyers on the independent bar register are now women.

"Through our defense lawyers, we are registering the cases of women, providing legal aid to them, and protecting their rights, especially in human rights abuse cases like rape cases, forced marriage, divorce, domestic violence," Gul says.

The bearded, avuncular Gul became involved in civil rights after an experience more common for women than men -- forced marriage. He was engaged at the age of seven and married, while he was away, a decade later.

FAMILY PRESSURE

Activists admit that despite their work, change will be hard. Conservative values can be so strict that women who fail to conform are persecuted by their own families.

And campaigners struggle against a widely held assumption that those agitating for women's rights are pushing an anti-Islamic, or anti-Afghan, agenda.

Samim says fighting for women's rights is not only compatible with his religion and nationality, but part of it.

"I believe in order for me to be a good Afghan or a good Muslim, I must be a good human and respect everyone's rights," he says.

Working in activists' favor is a widespread hunger for a better life. In rural Herat, a bearded, turbaned elder says he is mobilizing nearby villages to encourage women's education in a bid to cut the western region's abysmal maternal death rate.

In Kabul, the capital's young professionals say they need women's input to rebuild the Afghan economy after three decades of war.

"We can't develop Afghanistan without the participation of women," says Farhad Ahmad of law firm Alexander, Safi & Associates International.

"We should be encouraging women in politics, in social life, in economic life, in every aspect of life."


http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-men-cru...095628971.html

[MsTinkerbelly]

Binational San Francisco couple will not be split up by deportation
By Jacob Combs

Good news from the San Francisco Chronicle today:

Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk, a bi-national, married gay couple who have lived most of the 19 years of their relationship in San Francisco’s Castro district, today won a two year stay against the threat of deportation, thanks to the personal intervention of their representative, House leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat who represents parts of San Francisco, also provided assistance.

[...]

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a letter to Makk today saying he has been granted “deferred action” on his case for two years. The letter said the action is “an exercise of prosecutorial discretion” that allows the agency not to pursue deportation for a specific period. Makk met multiple conditions of the agency’s new guidelines for immigration agents to prioritize deportation cases, including family ties, status as a primary caregiver, lack of criminal record and his long period of legal residence under a series of visas that eventually expired.

Although it’s great to hear that couples like Bradford and Anthony are being spared from separation, cases like theirs show just how important it is to repeal DOMA, either legislatively or in the courts. Couples who are legally married in their home state and have resided there for almost 20 years should never have to worry about being split up because of their immigration status

[LeftWriteFemme]

Tennessee Anti-Bullying Law Change Could Allow Students To Speak Out Against Gays For Religious Reasons: Report



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1183915.html

[LeftWriteFemme]

Chris Gregoire, Washington Governor, Announces Support For Gay Marriage Bill




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...id=maing-grid7

[LeftWriteFemme]

George Michael Has Some Choice Words For The People Who Prayed For His Death

Did you know that while I was fighting for my life in Austria, there were a bunch of those lovely American ‘Christian’ organizations, who call themselves ‘Christians for a Moral America,’ who were actually taking the time to pray for me to die. How very sweet of them, considering how busy they must be on the whole. Now don’t get me wrong, I know for a fact that many devout Christians, such as the ones I work, rest, and play with on a daily basis, are truly wonderful, kindhearted men and women who take the best parts of that religion and live admirable, generous and loving lives. But in my opinion, and I think made evident by those who prayed for my death, there are others who use their twisted interpretations of ancient scriptures as a pathetic excuse to be totally fucked-up cock-sucking bastards.
And not in a good way!”

[UofMfan]

New Girl Scout Cookie: Savannah Smiles Celebrates Girl Scouts' 100th Year ~ HuffPost


I'll need to get my hands on a box of these.

[Sassy]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

New Girl Scout Cookie: Savannah Smiles Celebrates Girl Scouts' 100th Year ~ HuffPost


I'll need to get my hands on a box of these.

Yum! Thanks for sharing Can't wait for cookie season. *big grin*

[Julien]

I find this completely over the top. The Catholic church once again telling LGBT people that their privacy is the church's business.



http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#...ogram-gay.wfsb

[Cin]

The U.S. loves SOPA so much they want every country to have one just like it. The U.S. has for years been bullying countries into passing stringent internet copyright and patent laws. If countries don't comply they are added to the Special 301 Report that is used to intimidate them with political pressure and potential trade sanctions.

It amazes me that of all the things to get your panties in a twist about, internet copyright law is the big issue to the U.S. Not coercing countries surrounding human rights violations or violence against women or disturbing environmental practices. Not bullying countries into protecting the world's oceans or a million other issues, nope the U.S. will use it's might, it's right to straighten out copyright and patent law on the internet. Gee I wonder who benefits from moves like that.

The latest country to be taken to task is Spain. Considering that newly departed Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero feels that the ruling he’s most proud of from his nearly eight years in office is the passage of full marriage rights for his gay and lesbian countrymen, Spain might be able to show the U.S. a thing or two about doing the right thing.

Here are articles about the U.S.'s crusade to take internet censorship global:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._blocking_law/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/1...spain-proposed
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/0...uasion-special

[UofMfan]

Kristy McNichol Officially Comes Out to Help Bullied Kids.


About time!

[Cin]

Corporate Profits Up. Taxes Not.
Laura Flanders on January 6, 2012 - 5:51pm ET

Is there a prize for denial in economics reporting? If so, the competition this week was tighter than an Iowa caucus…

Runner-up prize has got to go to the cheer-peddlers covering the December jobs report. The private sector added 212,000 jobs in December; the official unemployment rate is down to 8.5 percent. Take that, you preachers of double-dip recession doom, say the cheer-peddlers, the horizon’s looking bright.

Reliably, Dean Baker has a grasp on reality: “At this pace, we would not get back to pre-recession levels of unemployment until 2027.” Baker points out that a quarter of the (very similar) gains made this time last year came from one industry—couriers—and by this time last year, all of those couriers newly hired in December were once again out of work. Even on their face, the numbers aren’t that good. Government jobs took a beating—falling by 12,000 (280,000 over the year); 5.6 million workers continue to be unemployed for twenty-seven weeks or longer, with devastating impact on their job prospects.

The prize for denial this week, though, has to go to coverage of a Bureau of Economic Analysis report on corporate taxes. The Wall Street Journal headline was classically upbeat: “U.S. Tax Haul Trails Profit Surge.” That’s one way of putting it. In a nutshell: corporate profits rose to a record high ($1.97 trillion) in the third quarter of 2011, while corporate income tax payments did not. Corporate taxes were under $200 billion in November, well below the pre-crisis $380 billion and still far below what the government’s counting on—$332 billion for 2012.

Why corporate receipts have grown so slowly is “really puzzling,” one economist tells reporter David Reilly. Dutifully puzzled, Reilly trudges through all the possible explanations—globalization, tax breaks, bookkeeping technicalities—until he concludes, you’ve just gotta have hope: “Eventually, as the economy regains ground, breaks like accelerated depreciation expire and companies burn through things like deferred tax assets, actual taxes paid should increase. But it may be a painful wait until they do.” (Painful, because of course, government will shrink spending and squeeze more out of the rest of us to make up for the corporate freeloaders.)

There’s no reason to agree with Reilly that change is in the works. Corporate tax payments haven’t shrunk by accident over the last year or two. It’s not a matter of “Honey, I shrunk corporate tax!” Corporate income taxes have been on a planned slide for half a century: 26.4 percent of federal revenues in 1950; by 2007 they had fallen to 14.4 percent. In 2011, individual income taxes were $1.09 trillion, compared with $181 billion in corporate taxes.

Why? Oh why could that possibly be? Maybe it has something to do with who owns Capitol Hill.Ask Senator Dick Durbin if you forget.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165502...fits-taxes-not

[Cin]

24 States Enacted 92 Abortion Restrictions In 2011

Lawmakers across the nation pursued a record number of reproductive health and rights-related provisions in 2011. Here's a rundown of the worst.

January 8, 2012 |

Lawmakers across the nation pursued a record number of reproductive health and rights-related provisions in 2011, a new report from the Guttmacher Institute finds, enacting 135 measures in 36 states — “an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009.” Sixty-eight percent of the provisions — 92 in 24 states — restricted access to abortion services:



Here is a sampling of 2011 in abortion law:

– Bans: The most high-profile state-level abortion debate of 2011 took place in Mississippi, where voters rejected the ballot initiative that would have legally defined a human embryo as a person “from the moment of fertilization,” setting the stage to ban all abortions and, potentially, most hormonal contraceptive methods in the state. Meanwhile, five states (AL, ID, IN, KS and OK) enacted provisions to ban abortion at or beyond 20 weeks’ gestation.

– Waiting Periods: Three states adopted waiting period requirements for a woman seeking an abortion. In the most egregious of the waiting-period provisions, a new South Dakota law would have required a woman to obtain pre-abortion counseling in person at the abortion facility at least 72 hours prior to the procedure; it would also have required her to visit a state-approved crisis pregnancy center during that 72-hour interval.

– Ultrasound: Five states adopted provisions mandating that a woman obtain an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. The two most stringent provisions were adopted in North Carolina and Texas and were immediately enjoined by federal district courts. Both of these restrictions would have required the provider to show and describe the image to the woman.

– Insurance Coverage: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah adopted provisions prohibiting all insurance policies in the state from covering abortion except in cases of life endangerment; they all permit individuals to purchase additional coverage at their own expense. These new restrictions bring to eight the number of states limiting abortion coverage in all private insurance plans.

– Clinic Regulations: Four states enacted provisions directing the state department of health to issue regulations governing facilities and physicians’ offices that provide abortion services. A new provision in Virginia requires a facility providing at least five abortions per month to meet the requirements for a hospital in the state. New requirements in Kansas, Pennsylvania and Utah direct the health agency to develop standards for abortion providers.

Nine states also passed laws making it harder to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas reduced funding for family planning programs, with the Lone Star State reducing its reproductive health budget by as much as 66 percent. Indiana, Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina Texas and Wisconsin, meanwhile, “moved to disqualify or otherwise bar certain types of providers from the receipt of family planning funds” and “New Hampshire decided not to renew its contract through which the Planned Parenthood affiliate in the state received Title X funds.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/153689...tions_in_2011/