Breaking News Events

[*Anya*]

Posted by Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 10:46am 11/23/11
DETENTION
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday 11/29/11!
****************************************
DETENTION
Tags: Carl Levin, detention, indefinite detention, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsay Graham, Mark Udall, National Defense Authorization Act, national security, NDAA, Ron Paul

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Greyson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times
November 28, 2011

Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.By EDWARD WYATT

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, announced last month, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.

The ruling could throw the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it.

That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages. The S.E.C.’s policy — “hallowed by history, but not by reason,” Judge Rakoff wrote — creates substantial potential for abuse, the judge said, because “it asks the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.”

The S.E.C. did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the judge’s decision, which was released Monday morning. A Citigroup spokesman said the company was studying the decision and had no immediate comment.

Citigroup was charged with negligence in its selling to customers a billion-dollar mortgage securities fund, known as Class V Funding III. The S.E.C. alleged that Citigroup picked the securities to be included in the fund without telling investors, claiming that the securities were being chosen by an independent entity. Citigroup then bet against the investments because it believed that they would lose value, the S.E.C. said.

Investors lost $700 million in the fund, according to the S.E.C., while Citigroup gained about $160 million in profits.

The settlement established none of those allegations as fact, thereby making it impossible for the court to properly judge whether the settlement meets the required standard of being fair, adequate and in the public interest.

“An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous,” Judge Rakoff wrote in the case, S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets. “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.”

The S.E.C. in particular, he added, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.”

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2011/1...ml?_r=1&emc=na

Fantastic!

<--- big fan of index investing for a reason...many reasons, actually

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

Posted by Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 10:46am 11/23/11
DETENTION
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday 11/29/11!
****************************************
DETENTION
Tags: Carl Levin, detention, indefinite detention, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsay Graham, Mark Udall, National Defense Authorization Act, national security, NDAA, Ron Paul

This is just insane!!! WRITE, CALL, FAX!!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I agree with the notion that reporting on our private life as long as it is between consentual adults is out of bounds. I also can understand why such stories get media attention. If most of these hypocrites did not go around discussing and making laws to criminalize the lives of others, maybe there would not be such a backlash when they are exposed in some of their sexual and romantic liaisons.
__________________________________________________ _____________



Woman Claims She Had 13-Year Affair With Herman Cain
Campaign lawyer says the report is out of bounds, Cain won't comment.

By Josh Voorhees | Posted Monday, Nov. 28, 2011, at 5:36 PM ET

An Atlanta woman is claiming that she had a 13-year-long extramarital affair with Herman Cain.

"It was pretty simple," the woman, Ginger White, told Atlanta's FOX 5 in an exclusive interview that is set to be broadcast Monday evening. "It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship."


FOX 5 published excerpts of the interview shortly after 5 p.m. The full story is set to air on the station's 6 p.m. broadcast.

The reporter who conducted the interview, Dale Russell, began promoting his scoop on his Facebook page Monday afternoon, claiming in the online promo that Cain "denies an affair, but not a relationship." In a statement to the news channel later, however, Cain's lawyer did not deny that alleged affair occurred, instead suggesting that the issue was a private matter and that it was out of bounds in terms of what the media should be focused on.


"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life," Cain lawyer Lin Wood said in a statement to FOX 5. "The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door."


Wood added that Cain "has no obligation" to discuss the latest accusations publicly and that "he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media."

Wood's response to the latest story that threatens to derail Cain's already embattled White House bid is markedly different from the campaign's handling of the previous allegations of sexual harassment against Cain that surfaced at the end of October. Cain's team initially denied that entire story before later offering an evolving response that eventually conceded that the details of the original Politico report were correct.

Here is Wood's full statement to FOX 5:

"Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate. "Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

"Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media."


http://http://slatest.slate.com/post...letter_slatest

It is the hypocracy that makes me angry. All of the family values BS and they are having extra-marital affairs. But, I'm sure like, Newt, Herman has received forgiveness by God..... ARGH!!

principled position ??? Really.

[Kobi]

This will be hotly debated in higher education. Interesting but certainly not unique ethical dilemma.
-------------------------------------------------------


Ga. counseling student in court over view on gays

By Greg Bluestein and Dorie Turner

Associated Press / November 29, 2011


ATLANTA—An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student's First Amendment rights were violated when professors at a Georgia university sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights.

Augusta State University put Jennifer Keeton on academic probation for saying it would be hard for her to work with gay clients, and threatened to expel her unless she attended events like Augusta's gay pride parade, Keeton's attorney Jeff Shafer told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"She was told, `You don't have to believe it. You just have to say you do,'" Shafer said.

Augusta State University countered that the counseling program would risk its accreditation if it didn't hold Keeton to a code of ethics. The school has a duty to require students to counsel all segments of the community, including those who are gay or transgender, it said in court papers.

Keeton told other students that she was interested in practicing conversion therapy -- where a therapist tries to "cure" a person from being homosexual -- after graduation, said Cristina Correia with the state Attorney General's office. Correia said Keeton also told her professors she would tell any clients who said they were gay that homosexuality is morally wrong.

University faculty were concerned that Keeton was scheduled to practice counseling in middle and high schools as part of her degree program and could possibly harm young students with her views, Correia said.

"The university has a responsibility when putting students in a practicum and graduating them," Correia said. "When you have that kind of evidence, the faculty could not, under their ethical standards, put that student in a clinical setting without further remediation."

Keeton, who said she's a devout Christian "committed to the truth of the Bible," enrolled in the school's counselor education program in fall 2009 and soon began discussing her views that sexual behavior is a personal choice and that gender identity isn't subject to change.

Faculty members were alarmed after she wrote in a term paper that it would be hard with her to work with gay clients. The school told her that her language was unethical according to guidelines from the American Counseling Association, and she was put on probation and warned she could be expelled.

She was asked in May 2010 to agree to a remediation plan that would require her to attend sensitivity training, read counseling journals and mix with gays at events like the city's gay pride parade.

Keeton refused to comply with the plan, which she said in court papers would require her to "tell clients wanting to hear it that homosexual sex is moral."

She filed a federal lawsuit claiming the school wanted to expel her because she "holds Christian ethical convictions" on human sexuality and gender identity. A judge rejected her challenge, leading to Tuesday's court arguments.

Attorneys for both sides declined comment after the hearing because the case is under a gag order by the court.

The case has drawn national attention from religious groups and gay rights advocates.

Keeton's lawsuit was brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group that that presses faith-based cases in court nationwide. It argues that the First Amendment protects Keeton's rights to share her beliefs about gays with others.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, the national gay rights law firm, took the opposing side. They argued that counselors shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation and should avoid imposing their values on clients.

http://www.boston.com/news/education...--+Latest+news

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This will be hotly debated in higher education. Interesting but certainly not unique ethical dilemma.
-------------------------------------------------------


Ga. counseling student in court over view on gays

By Greg Bluestein and Dorie Turner

Associated Press / November 29, 2011


ATLANTA—An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student's First Amendment rights were violated when professors at a Georgia university sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights.

Augusta State University put Jennifer Keeton on academic probation for saying it would be hard for her to work with gay clients, and threatened to expel her unless she attended events like Augusta's gay pride parade, Keeton's attorney Jeff Shafer told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"She was told, `You don't have to believe it. You just have to say you do,'" Shafer said.

Augusta State University countered that the counseling program would risk its accreditation if it didn't hold Keeton to a code of ethics. The school has a duty to require students to counsel all segments of the community, including those who are gay or transgender, it said in court papers.

Keeton told other students that she was interested in practicing conversion therapy -- where a therapist tries to "cure" a person from being homosexual -- after graduation, said Cristina Correia with the state Attorney General's office. Correia said Keeton also told her professors she would tell any clients who said they were gay that homosexuality is morally wrong.

University faculty were concerned that Keeton was scheduled to practice counseling in middle and high schools as part of her degree program and could possibly harm young students with her views, Correia said.

"The university has a responsibility when putting students in a practicum and graduating them," Correia said. "When you have that kind of evidence, the faculty could not, under their ethical standards, put that student in a clinical setting without further remediation."

Keeton, who said she's a devout Christian "committed to the truth of the Bible," enrolled in the school's counselor education program in fall 2009 and soon began discussing her views that sexual behavior is a personal choice and that gender identity isn't subject to change.

Faculty members were alarmed after she wrote in a term paper that it would be hard with her to work with gay clients. The school told her that her language was unethical according to guidelines from the American Counseling Association, and she was put on probation and warned she could be expelled.

She was asked in May 2010 to agree to a remediation plan that would require her to attend sensitivity training, read counseling journals and mix with gays at events like the city's gay pride parade.

Keeton refused to comply with the plan, which she said in court papers would require her to "tell clients wanting to hear it that homosexual sex is moral."

She filed a federal lawsuit claiming the school wanted to expel her because she "holds Christian ethical convictions" on human sexuality and gender identity. A judge rejected her challenge, leading to Tuesday's court arguments.

Attorneys for both sides declined comment after the hearing because the case is under a gag order by the court.

The case has drawn national attention from religious groups and gay rights advocates.

Keeton's lawsuit was brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group that that presses faith-based cases in court nationwide. It argues that the First Amendment protects Keeton's rights to share her beliefs about gays with others.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, the national gay rights law firm, took the opposing side. They argued that counselors shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation and should avoid imposing their values on clients.

http://www.boston.com/news/education...--+Latest+news

The problem for this woman is that she wants to counsel students in school (I am assuming, as the article states it is a school counseling degree).

She should consider getting a Master's in Counseling/Master's in Divinity at a Christian college and then do outpatient "Christian Counseling". Her dilemma would then be solved. How she thought that she could go to a secular school and have the school not see this as being an issue is beyond me. Clearly she did though, or she would have hidden her feelings.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The problem for this woman is that she wants to counsel students in school (I am assuming, as the article states it is a school counseling degree).

She should consider getting a Master's in Counseling/Master's in Divinity at a Christian college and then do outpatient "Christian Counseling". Her dilemma would then be solved. How she thought that she could go to a secular school and have the school not see this as being an issue is beyond me. Clearly she did though, or she would have hidden her feelings.

She is trying to fuse church with state. Typical.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

The problem for this woman is that she wants to counsel students in school (I am assuming, as the article states it is a school counseling degree).

She should consider getting a Master's in Counseling/Master's in Divinity at a Christian college and then do outpatient "Christian Counseling". Her dilemma would then be solved. How she thought that she could go to a secular school and have the school not see this as being an issue is beyond me. Clearly she did though, or she would have hidden her feelings.

Thank God she did, too. Otherwise, she would have fucked up a lot of kids.

[SoNotHer]

Atrazine in US Drinking Water Found Widespread

Atrazine is a widely used herbicide. Its use is controversial due to widespread contamination in drinking water and its associations with birth defects and menstrual problems when consumed by humans at concentrations below government standards. Although it has been banned in the European Union, it is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. An international team of researchers has reviewed the evidence linking exposure to atrazine — an herbicide widely used in the U.S. and more than 60 other nations — to reproductive problems in animals. The team found consistent patterns of reproductive dysfunction in amphibians, fish, reptiles and mammals exposed to the chemical. The researchers looked at studies linking atrazine exposure to abnormal androgen (male hormone) levels in fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and studies that found a common association between exposure to the herbicide and the feminization of male gonads in many animals.

Atrazine is used to stop pre- and post-emergence broadleaf and grassy weeds in major crops. The compound is both effective and inexpensive, and thus is well-suited to production systems with very narrow profit margins, as is often the case with maize.



Its effect on yields has been estimated from 6% to 1%, with 3-4% being the conclusion of one review. In another study looking at combined data from 236 university corn field trials from 1986—2005, atrazine treatments showed an average of 5.7 bushels more per acre than alternative herbicide treatments.

Atrazine was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of its persistent groundwater contamination. In the United States, however, atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides, with 76 million pounds of it applied each year, in spite of the restriction that used to be imposed. Its endocrine disruptor effects, possible carcinogenic effect, and epidemiological connection to low sperm levels in men has led several researchers to call for banning it in the US.

Beasley’s lab was one of the first to find that male frogs exposed to atrazine in the wild were more likely to have both male and female gonadal tissue than frogs living in an atrazine-free environment. And in a 2010 study, Tyrone Hayes, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley and lead author of the review, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that atrazine exposure in frogs was associated with genetic males becoming females and functioning as females, Beasley said.

The new review describes the disruptions of hormone function and sexual development reported in studies of mammals, frogs, fish, reptiles and human cells exposed to the herbicide. The studies found that atrazine exposure can change the expression of genes involved in hormone signaling, interfere with metamorphosis, inhibit key enzymes that control estrogen and androgen production, skew the sex ratio of wild and laboratory animals (toward female) and otherwise disrupt the normal reproductive development and functioning of males and females.

"One of the things that became clear in writing this paper is that atrazine works through a number of different mechanisms," Hayes said. "It’s been shown that it increases production of (the stress hormone) cortisol. It’s been shown that it inhibits key enzymes in steroid hormone production while increasing others. It’s been shown that it somehow prevents androgen from binding to its receptor."

There also are studies that show no effects — or different effects — in animals exposed to atrazine, Beasley said. "But the studies are not all the same. There are different species, different times of exposure, different stages of development and different strains within a species." All in all, he said, the evidence that atrazine harms animals, particularly amphibians and other creatures that encounter it in the water, is compelling.

For further information: http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/112...alBeasley.html

Photo: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/dwb/contaminants/SOCs.htm

[betenoire]

200 Pound 3rd Grader Put In Foster Care

The mother of an obese 8-year-old Ohio boy is denying that she is to blame for her son's weight of more than 200 pounds, which officials cited as a reason for putting him into foster care.

The case became public over the weekend after media in Cleveland reported on it. According to various accounts, the mother, whose identity has been kept private, lost custody of her son in October after case workers in Cuyahoga County said she was not doing enough to control his dangerously high weight.

He should weigh about 60 pounds, based on his height and his age, government workers said.

"This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody," said Mary Louise Madigan of the county's Department of Children and Family Services. She said county workers had been aware of the problem for more than a year and had been working with the mother in hopes of bringing down the boy's weight.

"We have worked very hard with this family for 20 months before it got to this point," the agency's administrator, Patricia Rideout, said Monday, the Associated Press reported, adding that a judge approved the decision to put the boy into foster care.

Maybe I'm an asshole, but I agree with this 100%. 20 months is a long time, that's nearly 2 years. If in 20 months of working with social workers the family wasn't able to get a handle on this - they never were going to. And apparently since going in to foster care (in October) the kid HAS lost some weight.

For a frame of reference to make clear how big of a deal it is for a 3rd Grade child to weigh 200 pounds: I am 34 years old, a grown woman. I also happen to be considered "obese". And I don't even weigh as much as that 8 year old does. Think about that. If fat Brandy the adult weighs less than 200 pounds - just how much medical trouble IS this 200 pound child in?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by betenoire

200 Pound 3rd Grader Put In Foster Care



Maybe I'm an asshole, but I agree with this 100%. 20 months is a long time, that's nearly 2 years. If in 20 months of working with social workers the family wasn't able to get a handle on this - they never were going to. And apparently since going in to foster care (in October) the kid HAS lost some weight.

For a frame of reference to make clear how big of a deal it is for a 3rd Grade child to weigh 200 pounds: I am 34 years old, a grown woman. I also happen to be considered "obese". And I don't even weigh as much as that 8 year old does. Think about that. If fat Brandy the adult weighs less than 200 pounds - just how much medical trouble IS this 200 pound child in?

When I read this initially I also thought that this was a good thing. But then I thought more about it and I'm on the fence. Imagine what this kind of thing will be like. Fat kids around the country can now, in addition to all the other bull shit they have to deal with, add worrying about losing their family. I can't imagine there really is a plethora of foster parents that are going to take in one child so the fat kid will end up in some kind of group home with a few to a bunch of other kids. Nice experience I'm sure. I can hear the other kids now. Your so fat even your own parents don't want you.

Parents of chubby kids can use this as a threat as well. You better stop eating or the state will come and take you and put you in fat jail. I can't even imagine how many eating disorders overweight kids will face as adults as a direct result of this kind of fear.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

Posted by Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 10:46am 11/23/11
DETENTION
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday 11/29/11!
****************************************
DETENTION
Tags: Carl Levin, detention, indefinite detention, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsay Graham, Mark Udall, National Defense Authorization Act, national security, NDAA, Ron Paul

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


As horrible as this bill sounds, given the strife in the world, it makes sense as a preemptive control strategy. Economics and political bullcrap have lead to rioting and disruptive behavior worldwide. It's only a matter of time before it hits the states with a passion.

Amazing how those in control manage to find ways to guard that control, even if it means going against our very constitution.

George Orwell was just a few decades off eh?

[SoNotHer]

Orwell was a few decades off, if that. And by the way, we're doing it to ourselves and focusing as usual on the sensationalized effects and not the real causes - causes like our dependence on the use of chemicals and herbicdes like Bisphenol A and atrazine - two things I have posted about here.

Originally Posted by Kobi

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


As horrible as this bill sounds, given the strife in the world, it makes sense as a preemptive control strategy. Economics and political bullcrap have lead to rioting and disruptive behavior worldwide. It's only a matter of time before it hits the states with a passion.

Amazing how those in control manage to find ways to guard that control, even if it means going against our very constitution.

George Orwell was just a few decades off eh?

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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


As horrible as this bill sounds, given the strife in the world, it makes sense as a preemptive control strategy. Economics and political bullcrap have lead to rioting and disruptive behavior worldwide. It's only a matter of time before it hits the states with a passion.

Amazing how those in control manage to find ways to guard that control, even if it means going against our very constitution.

George Orwell was just a few decades off eh?

It makes sense only until they are knocking-breaking down- my door and hauling my ass to Gitmo or some equivalent, for being a lesbian or whatever else that makes me different; the next time a Republican is in power.

They won't need a reason with this bill...

[LeftWriteFemme]

Two Lesbians Raised A Baby



http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians...Fvcmz.facebook

[SoNotHer]

I'm taking a moment today to think of the beautiful souls I've known and lost. I'm grateful for their presence in my life and grateful to the activists, researchers, families and fighters who never forgot and never stopped fighting.

30 years ago the Task Force hired the first lobbyist in the nation to focus on AIDS issues. The Task Force ran the first toll-free AIDS hotline in the world early in the epidemic. In 1984, we secured the first federal funding for community-based AIDS service organizations. Today, the Task Force continues to push the federal government as we have for 30 years to ensure that community AIDS service organizations have the funding they so desperately need. We are pleased that the CDC recently granted 34 community organizations $55 million to be spent over the next five years to increase HIV prevention services for those most at risk, including young men of color, transgender youth, and their partners.

But that is not nearly enough. We must also put an end to the discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS, who are disproportionately transgender women, gay and bisexual men, and people of color.

Results from our National Transgender Discrimination Survey showed that transgender individuals have a rate of HIV/AIDS that is more than FOUR times higher than the general population. And, tragically, the survey also found that 1 in 4 transgender African Americans live with HIV/AIDS.

Discrimination and lack of education is the reason for this tragedy.

You can help to end discrimination against people living with HIV by urging your member of Congress to co-sponsor the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act which addresses the unfair use of criminal and civil laws against those who test positive for HIV. Today, 34 states have laws that criminalize transmission of HIV. It’s time to repeal these harmful laws that demonize people with HIV. Call 202-684-2468 today and tell your representative that this bill needs their support.

We honor and stand with those who have dedicated their lives to the fight against HIV/AIDS. We mourn everyone we have lost in the past three decades and we vow to continue working toward the end of HIV/AIDS. This World AIDS Day, join us in supporting the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act to reduce the stigma and fear of living with HIV. Take action now – call 202.684.2468.

[RiverBoi]

The federal Food and Drug Administration and a leading doctor are refuting claims by television show host Dr. Mehmet Oz that trace amounts of arsenic in many apple juice products pose a health risk.
Oz said on his show on Tuesday that testing by a New Jersey lab has found what he claims are concerning levels of arsenic in many juices.
However, the FDA says the lab methods were not appropriate and that its own tests show much lower arsenic levels. The agency warned the show's producers in advance that their testing was misleading.
Dr. Richard Besser, former acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also scolded Oz Thursday on ABC's Good Morning America show for scaring consumers with what Besser called an "extremely irresponsible" report.


I don't understand why the manufacturers don't have a machine to remove the core of the apples prior to processing. This would solve the issue totally. I am assuming that the arsenic is all from the seeds, yes?

[*Anya*]

The November 17 Capitol Alert issued by the Sacramento Bee reports that one initiative would "repeal Senate Bill 48 mandating Gay Lesbian Bisexual & Transexual history, leaving in place new requirements that students learn about the role of disabled individuals and members of different cultural and ethnic groups."

The other would let parents opt out of GLBT presentations.

[sanee66]

http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians...3Tujw.facebook


if this was my kid i would be soooo damn proud!!!

[Hollylane]

Obama signs law legalizing horse slaughter in the US