Breaking News Events - Page 83

DapperButch · 11-24-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I am surprised, yet glad that it is being charged as a hate crime. Cutting an Amish man's beard is akin to being raped, or worse (per CNN last night). The fact that it is being charged as a hate crime tells me that the police really get this. I'm impressed by that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLast

I agree- hate crimes take many forms. And given the right combination of personality disorder or mental health issues, any group could be targeted for worse such as being beaten or killed.

Thanks, AtLast.

Just to clarify...

What I meant to say is that CNN last night indicated that to the Amish having their beard cut is a violation that cuts to their very core, in the same way that a severe trauma (such as rape), does for people. That wasn't a direct quote from an Amish person, however.

I believe that in the link John Shaft posted an Amish man was quoted as saying that he would rather be beaten black and blue than have his beard cut.

Being aware of the above is why this case has created some anger in me and a lot of empathy for the victims.

AtLast · 11-24-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Thanks, AtLast.

Just to clarify...

What I meant to say is that CNN last night indicated that to the Amish having their beard cut is a violation that cuts to their very core, in the same way that a severe trauma (such as rape), does for people. That wasn't a direct quote from an Amish person, however.

I believe that in the link John Shaft posted an Amish man was quoted as saying that he would rather be beaten black and blue than have his beard cut.

Being aware of the above is why this case has created some anger in me and a lot of empathy for the victims.

I see- and what you were thinking.

AtLast · 11-25-2011, 11:55 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Black Friday mayhem: Shootings, pepper spray

Greyson · 11-25-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLast

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Black Friday mayhem: Shootings, pepper spray

I made the mistake of trying to do this "Black Friday" thing. Never again. People were in some sort of shopping frenzie. I did make it from the line outside into the store, then stood in another two separate lines inside the store.

I watched people cutting lines, sending other members of their posse, crew to strategic areas of the store using cell phones and some just literally yelling across the aisles. One family was using the old "Marco, Pollo" yell. That was the tame stuff.

To those who have the grit for Black Friday, happy hunting. Next year, I will stay in a nice warm place and continue to eat left overs and hang out with the TV, books and loved ones.

P.S. I finally told myself, Why are you here? Is it worth it? NO. I left the store with nothing.

SoNotHer · 11-25-2011, 01:30 PM

Yeah, ATLast, wtf indeed. Today is my -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Black Friday mayhem: Shootings, pepper spray[/QUOTE]

DapperButch · 11-25-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyson

I made the mistake of trying to do this "Black Friday" thing. Never again. People were in some sort of shopping frenzie. I did make it from the line outside into the store, then stood in another two separate lines inside the store.

I watched people cutting lines, sending other members of their posse, crew to strategic areas of the store using cell phones and some just literally yelling across the aisles. One family was using the old "Marco, Pollo" yell. That was the tame stuff.

To those who have the grit for Black Friday, happy hunting. Next year, I will stay in a nice warm place and continue to eat left overs and hang out with the TV, books and loved ones.

P.S. I finally told myself, Why are you here? Is it worth it? NO. I left the store with nothing.

I had never been a Black Friday shopper. Over the last 6 or so years I have done it, I would guess, 3 times (for partner's kids electronics). I enjoyed it. All of those times it was for only a few specific items and I never had a problem in any of the stores (Kmart one year, Best Buy one year, and Target another year...this was before Target did their donation bullshit). Anyway, each time it was kind of fun to stand outside in the cold and talk with people. I was bummed last year when my girlfriend's son did want a large ticket item, so there was no reason to go (same thing this year and she is away, anyway).

My experience was a relatively orderly crowd. People walked quickly, but no one jumped link and/or pushed past each other going into the store. Two of those times the stores handed out numbers for the big items, so you were assured the item prior to going into the store, so that probably helped. On the other hand, not everyone was there for those items, yet people were still calm. Guess I have been lucky.

Greyson · 11-27-2011, 11:41 AM

Dapper, thanks for telling us about your experience. I was at a Target Store. I went to try and purchase a T.V. Not one of the TV's that is big enough to cover an entire wall. I was looking for a 32 - 40 inch.

There were two people in the final line in front of me that were very decent. They were also first time Black Friday folks. All of us ended up leaving. There were people who had the Tickets to buy big screen TVs and they were going up and down the line trying to sell the tickets.

I guess it is a mixed bag. It just felt very tense. There were two police cars parked out in front with their lights on, people who came late were blocked off from even being able to get into the line that was wrapped around the store.

Here in the SF East Bay in another city there was an attempted robbery of a family walking back to their car with their purchase made at a Walmart. One person was seriously injured, he was shot, one suspect got away, another did not. Maybe it seemed more crazy because of the economic times we now live in.

One more story, not Black Friday stuff but over this holiday weekend. Julie and I went to Trader Joe's to buy some groceries on Saturday. That store is usally a zoo but people are civil. Anyway, outside of the a few feet away stood a woman holding a sign that she had children and needed to feed them. The woman could not speak very good english and one of her daughters, about 8 years old stood there with her. It was heart breaking to see. I was heartened to see many people giving her money in a respectful way and showing human compassion and kindness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I had never been a Black Friday shopper. Over the last 6 or so years I have done it, I would guess, 3 times (for partner's kids electronics). I enjoyed it. All of those times it was for only a few specific items and I never had a problem in any of the stores (Kmart one year, Best Buy one year, and Target another year...this was before Target did their donation bullshit). Anyway, each time it was kind of fun to stand outside in the cold and talk with people. I was bummed last year when my girlfriend's son did want a large ticket item, so there was no reason to go (same thing this year and she is away, anyway).

My experience was a relatively orderly crowd. People walked quickly, but no one jumped link and/or pushed past each other going into the store. Two of those times the stores handed out numbers for the big items, so you were assured the item prior to going into the store, so that probably helped. On the other hand, not everyone was there for those items, yet people were still calm. Guess I have been lucky.

SoNotHer · 11-27-2011, 12:41 PM

Interesting experiences, Greyson. I'm sure it does feel tense now as we sift through these times of former expectations and present realities.

I hope you and Julie had a good holiday. SNH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyson

Dapper, thanks for telling us about your experience. I was at a Target Store. I went to try and purchase a T.V. Not one of the TV's that is big enough to cover an entire wall. I was looking for a 32 - 40 inch.

There were two people in the final line in front of me that were very decent. They were also first time Black Friday folks. All of us ended up leaving. There were people who had the Tickets to buy big screen TVs and they were going up and down the line trying to sell the tickets.

I guess it is a mixed bag. It just felt very tense. There were two police cars parked out in front with their lights on, people who came late were blocked off from even being able to get into the line that was wrapped around the store.

Here in the SF East Bay in another city there was an attempted robbery of a family walking back to their car with their purchase made at a Walmart. One person was seriously injured, he was shot, one suspect got away, another did not. Maybe it seemed more crazy because of the economic times we now live in.

One more story, not Black Friday stuff but over this holiday weekend. Julie and I went to Trader Joe's to buy some groceries on Saturday. That store is usally a zoo but people are civil. Anyway, outside of the a few feet away stood a woman holding a sign that she had children and needed to feed them. The woman could not speak very good english and one of her daughters, about 8 years old stood there with her. It was heart breaking to see. I was heartened to see many people giving her money in a respectful way and showing human compassion and kindness.

SoNotHer · 11-27-2011, 05:32 PM

http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/43617

Mexican farmers suffer worst drought in 70 years

Photo shows the sun setting over a dry patch of land in Parras de La Fuente in the state of Coahuila November 24, 2011. Credit: REUTERS/Stringer

Mexico is being battered its worst drought in seven decades, which has devastated farm life and is expected to continue into next year. The lack of rainfall has affected almost 70 percent of the country and northern states like Coahuila, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas have suffered the most acute water shortage.

Due to the drought and a cold snap at the start of the year, the government has cut its forecast for corn production two times in 2011. It now expects a harvest of 20 million tonnes compared to a previous estimate of 23 million. Crops that cover tens of thousands of acres have been lost this year and roughly 450,000 cattle have died in arid pastures. Crucial dams, typically full at this time of year, are at 30 to 40 percent of capacity.

"This is very serious," Ignacio Rivera, an official at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, told Reuters. "Statistics on precipitation in the country show us that this year has been the driest in the last 70 years." The country has total arable land of 22 million hectares (54.4 million acres) that can be tilled over two planting seasons while the national cattle herd last year was just over 32.6 million.

Mexico is one of the world's five top corn producers and the government expects output to recover to 25 million tonnes in 2012, aided by reorganization of the cultivated areas. Rivera said that of the 8.1 million hectares of farmland insured by the government against natural disaster, some 600,000 claims have been lodged to recover losses on 3.8 million hectares. The Mexican government has so far set aside some 1.6 billion pesos ($113 million) to cover the losses.

Forecasts do not signal any near-term relief, but rather more losses ahead as the winter season brings damaging frost. "It's a troubling situation, and is more worrisome because the rainy season is over... the hope is that by June it starts to rain," said Felipe Arreguin, deputy director of the National Water Commission (Conagua).

Article continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AO18Q20111126

AtLast · 11-28-2011, 04:55 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1039016/-Penn-State-victim-bullied-out-of-school
Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:32 AM PST.

Penn State victim bullied out of school
Penn State football needs to go. Maybe all college football needs to go. I like a good football game, but there comes a point where we have to draw the line. According to Pennlive.com, Alleged Jerry Sandusky victim leaves school because of bullying, counselor says:

Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren’t providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno’s firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.

The name-calling and verbal threats were just too much, he said.

The mighty Penn State football program apparently requires the bullying of children to keep its sacred coach in place. Oh, I know, neither Penn State nor the high school sent out a memo, but there was no need. This shit happens because the high school tolerates it and because the weak leadership at Penn State has either done nothing or at least not enough, in the way as working with the high schools of the victims, to help repair the damage caused by their cover up and enabling of the Sandusky crimes.

Anyone who has ever been bullied as a child knows what kind of fear is involved in this situation. The only choice for this child was to withdraw from the school.

I should point out that there was evidence in the grand jury report that witnesses were subjected to what appeared to be pressure and tampering (phone calls by the Sandusky family at odd times, patrolling by Jerry Sandusky in a parking lot, apparently looking for a janitor who'd seen him abusing a child).

A wretched performance by the "adults" in this situation, who are far more concerned about a few wealthy old men and their posts than they are about the children of the commonwealth.

.

SoNotHer · 11-28-2011, 10:33 AM

Atlast, have you seen the news on Bernie Fine, assistant basketball coach at Syracuse?

http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/...on-allegations

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLast

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1039016/-Penn-State-victim-bullied-out-of-school
Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:32 AM PST.

Penn State victim bullied out of school
Penn State football needs to go. Maybe all college football needs to go. I like a good football game, but there comes a point where we have to draw the line. According to Pennlive.com, Alleged Jerry Sandusky victim leaves school because of bullying, counselor says:

Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday.
Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren’t providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno’s firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend.

The name-calling and verbal threats were just too much, he said.

The mighty Penn State football program apparently requires the bullying of children to keep its sacred coach in place. Oh, I know, neither Penn State nor the high school sent out a memo, but there was no need. This shit happens because the high school tolerates it and because the weak leadership at Penn State has either done nothing or at least not enough, in the way as working with the high schools of the victims, to help repair the damage caused by their cover up and enabling of the Sandusky crimes.

Anyone who has ever been bullied as a child knows what kind of fear is involved in this situation. The only choice for this child was to withdraw from the school.

I should point out that there was evidence in the grand jury report that witnesses were subjected to what appeared to be pressure and tampering (phone calls by the Sandusky family at odd times, patrolling by Jerry Sandusky in a parking lot, apparently looking for a janitor who'd seen him abusing a child).

A wretched performance by the "adults" in this situation, who are far more concerned about a few wealthy old men and their posts than they are about the children of the commonwealth.

.

LeftWriteFemme · 11-28-2011, 11:41 AM

Barney Frank, one of the most prominent out gay politicians, announced his intentions to retire.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=873342&f=e

BOSTON - Representative Barney Frank, the liberal firebrand who has served in the House of Representatives for 30 years, has decided not to seek re-election in 2012.

Mr. Frank, 71, will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. in Newton, Mass., to discuss the decision, according to his office.

Mr. Frank faced his most competitive re-election contest in decades last year, when Sean Bielat, a Republican and former Marine, put him on the defensive. But Mr. Frank still won a 16th term by about 10 percentage points.

His Fourth District falls mostly in southern Massachusetts but also includes the famously liberal Boston suburbs of Newton and Brookline. Under a new redistricting plan that Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, signed into law last week, Mr. Frank's district would have lost the heavily Democratic city of New Bedford and gained some more conservative towns.

In February, Mr. Frank announced that he would seek re-election in 2012.

Mr. Frank served as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until Republicans won control of the chamber this year; he remains the ranking Democrat. He co-wrote the Dodd-Frank law overhauling financial regulation; the other author, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, left the Senate last year.

Possible Democratic contenders for Mr. Frank's seat include Setti Warren, the mayor of Newton, and Alan Khazei, who lives in Brookline and co-founded a national service program. Both men dropped out of the Democratic primary race for the United States Senate this fall after Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and consumer advocate, joined the field.

Although Mr. Frank's district is perceived as heavily Democratic, Senator Scott P. Brown, a Republican, narrowly carried the district in the January 2010 special election for Edward M. Kennedy's longtime seat.

Greyson · 11-28-2011, 12:45 PM

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

atomiczombie · 11-28-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

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

Right on that's awesome. Hooray for small victories!

AtLast · 11-28-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Atlast, have you seen the news on Bernie Fine, assistant basketball coach at Syracuse?

http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/...on-allegations

There needs to be a BIG clean-up of college sports programs. I think we are going to see many more cases about many schools. Look at the statistics about child sexual abuse and these specific kinds of abusers. These programs and the money and politics in them are fertile grounds for this abuse. The abuser has a double layer of protection with others not wanting to take a program down.

And what the hell is wrong with Fine's wife? Although, more of this kind of keeping quiet will be exposed, I think, including administrations of these schools.

*Anya* · 11-28-2011, 02:33 PM

POSTED IN Civil Rights Law (portion of analysis posted here)
November 28, 2011 written by VIKRAM DAVID AMAR AND ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

The California Supreme Court Rules that Prop. 8’s Proponents Have Standing to Defend the Initiative: What Does That Mean in the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court?

The week before last, the California Supreme court held that the official sponsors/proponents of Proposition 8 (Prop. 8) have the authority to defend the initiative in state court on behalf of the voters who passed Prop. 8, now that elected representatives have declined to defend the measure against challenge.

This ruling makes it considerably more likely that the same-sex-marriage controversy will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court sooner rather than later. If the California case does reach the high Court, however, it is still quite unclear, as we explain below, whether the Court will rule on the merits—or instead dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds.

A Summary of the Prop. 8 Litigation Thus Far
Prop. 8, an initiative amending California’s constitution to ban gay/lesbian marriage, was enacted in 2008. In 2009, same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses filed suit in federal court in San Francisco against California officials, alleging that Prop. 8 violated privacy and equality rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After trial, Judge Walker struck down Prop. 8, ruling that it does indeed violate the federal Constitution. The proponents of Prop. 8 (but not the Governor or the Attorney General) then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At that point, the Ninth Circuit posed a question that had not been adequately analyzed theretofore: Does the dispute present a real “case or controversy” that federal courts are permitted to resolve, given that the only defenders of the measure in court are unelected private proponents? In legal terms, the question is whether the initiative proponents have “standing” under the federal Constitution to defend in federal court.

To decide this question, the Ninth Circuit asked for input from the California Supreme court. Using a process known as “certification,” the Ninth Circuit asked the California Justices whether, at least as a matter of California law, initiative proponents enjoy some special capacity to represent the state’s electorate when public officials decline to defend a law adopted through direct democracy.

On November 17, the California Supreme court unanimously said “yes”—for Prop. 8 and for all other initiatives, proponents can defend when public officials won’t. The essential reasoning was straightforward; it would not make sense for elected officials to have the power to let an initiative die for lack of a defense, when the initiative device itself is supposed to be a check on elected officials. Because elected officials may resent an initiative that has circumvented their roles or limited their power, voters have a “legitimate concern” that such officials will sometime fail to undertake a legal defense of initiatives “with vigor” or with “the objectives and interests of [] voters paramount in mind.”

In addition to answering this state-law question, the court—in a somewhat unusual and ambitious move—also rendered its view that proponents should have standing to defend initiatives in federal court (where the Prop. 8 litigation is taking place) as well as state court. The California Justices acknowledged that standing in federal court is a matter not of state law, but rather federal law, and thus one for the federal courts ultimately to decide.
But the California court offered its own reading of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and indicated its belief that to the extent the U.S. Supreme Court has been skeptical of initiative-proponent standing in federal court in the past, that was only (or largely) because, in the states involved in prior cases, state law did not authorize proponents to represent the state, whereas in California proponents are authorized to do so.

With this input, the Ninth Circuit will now decide whether the Prop. 8 proponents enjoy standing in federal court. It is likely the Ninth Circuit will answer that question in the affirmative, given the signals it sent in crafting the questions it certified. That means the Ninth Circuit panel will likely address Prop. 8 on the merits.

Then if—as is very possible, given the ideological makeup of the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel—the panel affirms Judge Walker’s ruling and strikes down Prop. 8 (holding that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and if the Ninth Circuit does not revisit the case as a whole (en banc), the U.S. Supreme Court may have no choice but to take up the dispute.

After all, under such a scenario, same-sex marriage would be a federal constitutional right West of the Rockies, but nowhere else. Lack of uniformity as to the scope of such a major federal right could not be tolerated for long.

In this regard, it is worth noting that many analysts believe that the Justices in DC use manipulable standing rules to regulate their docket and avoid tackling substantive issues when they want matters to percolate more in the lower courts—and in society—before a final resolution is reached.

We won’t know how any of this will play out for quite a while. The Ninth Circuit could be expected to issue its ruling sometime in 2012, but it’s hard to see the Supreme Court getting involved until late 2012 or (more likely) 2013, at the earliest.

Greyson · 11-28-2011, 05:40 PM

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

Corkey · 11-28-2011, 08:15 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-m...out-trial.html

So much for the Constitution.

Toughy · 11-28-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corkey

http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-m...out-trial.html

So much for the Constitution.

we lost the Bill of Rights with 'The Patriot Act'. More nails in the coffin

Vlasta · 11-28-2011, 11:42 PM

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's daughter, whose defection to the West during the Cold War embarrassed the ruling communists and made her a best-selling author, has died. She was 85.

Lana Peters — who was known internationally by her previous name, Svetlana Alliluyeva — died of colon cancer Nov. 22 in Wisconsin, where she lived off and on after becoming a U.S. citizen, Richland County Coroner Mary Turner said Monday.

Her defection in 1967 — which she said was partly motivated by the poor treatment of her late husband, Brijesh Singh, by Soviet authorities — caused an international furor and was a public relations coup for the U.S. But Peters, who left behind two children, said her identity involved more than just switching from one side to the other in the Cold War. She even moved back to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, only to return to the U.S. more than a year later.

When she left the Soviet Union in 1966 for India, she planned to leave the ashes of her late third husband, an Indian citizen, and return. Instead, she walked unannounced into the U.S. embassy in New Delhi and asked for political asylum. After a brief stay in Switzerland, she flew to the U.S.

Peters carried with her a memoir she had written in 1963 about her life in Russia. "Twenty Letters to a Friend" was published within months of her arrival in the U.S. and became a best-seller.

Upon her arrival in New York City in 1967, the 41-year-old said: "I have come here to seek the self-expression that has been denied me for so long in Russia." She said she had come to doubt the communism she was taught growing up and believed there weren't capitalists or communists, just good and bad human beings. She had also found religion and believed "it was impossible to exist without God in one's heart."

In the book, she recalled her father, who died in 1953 after ruling the nation for 29 years, as a distant and paranoid man.

"He was a very simple man. Very rude. Very cruel," Peters told the Wisconsin State Journal in a rare interview in 2010. "There was nothing in him that was complicated. He was very simple with us. He loved me and he wanted me to be with him and become an educated Marxist."

Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin denounced Peters as a "morally unstable" and "sick person."

"I switched camps from the Marxists to the capitalists," she recalled in a 2007 interview for the documentary "Svetlana About Svetlana." But she said her identity was far more complex than that and never completely understood.

"People say, 'Stalin's daughter, Stalin's daughter,' meaning I'm supposed to walk around with a rifle and shoot the Americans. Or they say, 'No, she came here. She is an American citizen.' That means I'm with a bomb against the others. No, I'm neither one. I'm somewhere in between. That 'somewhere in between' they can't understand."

Peters' defection came at a high personal cost. She left two children behind in Russia — Josef and Yekaterina — from previous marriages. Both were upset by her departure, and she was never close to either again.

Raised by a nanny with whom she grew close after her mother's death in 1932, Peters was Stalin's only daughter. She had two brothers, Vasili and Jacob. Jacob was captured by the Nazis in 1941 and died in a concentration camp. Vasili died an alcoholic at age 40.

Peters graduated from Moscow University in 1949, worked as a teacher and translator and traveled in Moscow's literary circles before leaving the Soviet Union. She was married four times — the last time to William Wesley Peters, an apprentice of Frank Lloyd Wright. They were married from 1970 to 1973 and had one daughter.

Peters wrote three more books, including "Only One Year," an autobiography published in 1969.

Her father's legacy appeared to haunt her throughout her life, though she tried to live outside of the shadow of her father. She denounced his policies, which included sending millions into labor camps, but often said other Communist Party leaders shared the blame.

"I wish people could see what I've seen," Lana Parshina, who interviewed Peters for "Svetlana About Svetlana," said Monday. "She was very gracious and she was a great hostess. She was sensitive and could quote poetry and talk about various subjects. She was interested in what was going on in the world."

Charles E. Townsend, who was on faculty at Princeton University's Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures when Peters arrived in Princeton in 1967, said she wasn't very politically active.

"She was very pleasant," Townsend said. "Unassuming would be the word for her."

After living in Britain for two years, Peters returned to the Soviet Union with Olga in 1984 at age 58, saying she wanted to be reunited with her children. Her Soviet citizenship was restored, and she denounced her time in the U.S. and Britain, saying she never really had freedom. But more than a year later, she asked for and was given permission to leave after feuding with relatives. She returned to the U.S. and vowed never to go back to Russia.

She went into seclusion in the last decades of her life. Her survivors include her daughter Olga, who now goes by Chrese Evans and lives in Portland, Ore. A son, Josef, died in 2008 at age 63 in Moscow, according to media reports in Russia. Yekaterina (born in 1950), who goes by Katya, is a scientist who studies an active volcano in eastern Siberia.

Evans said in an email that her mother died at a Richland Center nursing home surrounded by loved ones, but she declined to comment further. "Please respect my privacy during this sad time," she said.

Tom Stafford, owner of the funeral home in Richland Center, Wis., handling the arrangements, said no services were planned at this time, though one might be scheduled later.

___

Associated Press writer Ryan J. Foley, in Iowa City, Iowa, and Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

11-25-2011, 11:55 AM	#1643
AtLast Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Woman Preferred Pronoun?: HER - SHE Relationship Status: Relating Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird Posts: 5,408 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 11,826 Thanked 10,830 Times in 3,200 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	WTF? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ Black Friday mayhem: Shootings, pepper spray

11-28-2011, 04:55 AM	#1650
AtLast Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Woman Preferred Pronoun?: HER - SHE Relationship Status: Relating Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird Posts: 5,408 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 11,826 Thanked 10,830 Times in 3,200 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	Makes me sick. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1039016/-Penn-State-victim-bullied-out-of-school Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:32 AM PST. Penn State victim bullied out of school Penn State football needs to go. Maybe all college football needs to go. I like a good football game, but there comes a point where we have to draw the line. According to Pennlive.com, Alleged Jerry Sandusky victim leaves school because of bullying, counselor says: Victim One, the first known alleged victim of abuse by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, had to leave his school in the middle of his senior year because of bullying, his counselor said Sunday. Officials at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County weren’t providing guidance for fellow students, who were reacting badly about Joe Paterno’s firing and blaming the 17-year-old, said Mike Gillum, the psychologist helping his family. Those officials were unavailable for comment this weekend. The name-calling and verbal threats were just too much, he said. The mighty Penn State football program apparently requires the bullying of children to keep its sacred coach in place. Oh, I know, neither Penn State nor the high school sent out a memo, but there was no need. This shit happens because the high school tolerates it and because the weak leadership at Penn State has either done nothing or at least not enough, in the way as working with the high schools of the victims, to help repair the damage caused by their cover up and enabling of the Sandusky crimes. Anyone who has ever been bullied as a child knows what kind of fear is involved in this situation. The only choice for this child was to withdraw from the school. I should point out that there was evidence in the grand jury report that witnesses were subjected to what appeared to be pressure and tampering (phone calls by the Sandusky family at odd times, patrolling by Jerry Sandusky in a parking lot, apparently looking for a janitor who'd seen him abusing a child). A wretched performance by the "adults" in this situation, who are far more concerned about a few wealthy old men and their posts than they are about the children of the commonwealth. .

11-28-2011, 11:41 AM	#1652
LeftWriteFemme Practically Lives Here How Do You Identify?: Daddy's good girl Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jersey Posts: 16,642 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,529 Thanked 12,321 Times in 5,198 Posts Rep Power: 21474867	Barney Frank, one of the most prominent out gay politicians, announced his intentions to retire. http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=873342&f=e BOSTON - Representative Barney Frank, the liberal firebrand who has served in the House of Representatives for 30 years, has decided not to seek re-election in 2012. Mr. Frank, 71, will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. in Newton, Mass., to discuss the decision, according to his office. Mr. Frank faced his most competitive re-election contest in decades last year, when Sean Bielat, a Republican and former Marine, put him on the defensive. But Mr. Frank still won a 16th term by about 10 percentage points. His Fourth District falls mostly in southern Massachusetts but also includes the famously liberal Boston suburbs of Newton and Brookline. Under a new redistricting plan that Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, signed into law last week, Mr. Frank's district would have lost the heavily Democratic city of New Bedford and gained some more conservative towns. In February, Mr. Frank announced that he would seek re-election in 2012. Mr. Frank served as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until Republicans won control of the chamber this year; he remains the ranking Democrat. He co-wrote the Dodd-Frank law overhauling financial regulation; the other author, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, left the Senate last year. Possible Democratic contenders for Mr. Frank's seat include Setti Warren, the mayor of Newton, and Alan Khazei, who lives in Brookline and co-founded a national service program. Both men dropped out of the Democratic primary race for the United States Senate this fall after Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and consumer advocate, joined the field. Although Mr. Frank's district is perceived as heavily Democratic, Senator Scott P. Brown, a Republican, narrowly carried the district in the January 2010 special election for Edward M. Kennedy's longtime seat. __________________ Clicking on these dragon eggs will take you to my new erotic novella: Dragon Bait .........Hope you enjoy it! ________________________________________________ Please take a look at my work Click on flashing smilie to see my website To look at my Daddy/girl erotica book Click on pompom girl to see Elbows on the Table, Palms Flat

11-28-2011, 12:45 PM	#1653
Greyson Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Transmasculine/Non-Binary Preferred Pronoun?: Hy (Pronounced He) Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 6,589 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 21,132 Thanked 8,165 Times in 2,007 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	Thank you Judge Jed S. Rakoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 __________________ Sometimes you don't realize your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness. - Susan Gale

11-28-2011, 02:33 PM	#1656
Anya Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Lesbian non-stone femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, her Relationship Status: Committed to being good to myself Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: West Coast Posts: 8,258 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 39,306 Thanked 40,791 Times in 7,290 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	JUSTIA.COM: CA Supreme Court and Prop 8 POSTED IN Civil Rights Law (portion of analysis posted here) November 28, 2011 written by VIKRAM DAVID AMAR AND ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN The California Supreme Court Rules that Prop. 8’s Proponents Have Standing to Defend the Initiative: What Does That Mean in the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court? The week before last, the California Supreme court held that the official sponsors/proponents of Proposition 8 (Prop. 8) have the authority to defend the initiative in state court on behalf of the voters who passed Prop. 8, now that elected representatives have declined to defend the measure against challenge. This ruling makes it considerably more likely that the same-sex-marriage controversy will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court sooner rather than later. If the California case does reach the high Court, however, it is still quite unclear, as we explain below, whether the Court will rule on the merits—or instead dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds. A Summary of the Prop. 8 Litigation Thus Far Prop. 8, an initiative amending California’s constitution to ban gay/lesbian marriage, was enacted in 2008. In 2009, same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses filed suit in federal court in San Francisco against California officials, alleging that Prop. 8 violated privacy and equality rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After trial, Judge Walker struck down Prop. 8, ruling that it does indeed violate the federal Constitution. The proponents of Prop. 8 (but not the Governor or the Attorney General) then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At that point, the Ninth Circuit posed a question that had not been adequately analyzed theretofore: Does the dispute present a real “case or controversy” that federal courts are permitted to resolve, given that the only defenders of the measure in court are unelected private proponents? In legal terms, the question is whether the initiative proponents have “standing” under the federal Constitution to defend in federal court. To decide this question, the Ninth Circuit asked for input from the California Supreme court. Using a process known as “certification,” the Ninth Circuit asked the California Justices whether, at least as a matter of California law, initiative proponents enjoy some special capacity to represent the state’s electorate when public officials decline to defend a law adopted through direct democracy. On November 17, the California Supreme court unanimously said “yes”—for Prop. 8 and for all other initiatives, proponents can defend when public officials won’t. The essential reasoning was straightforward; it would not make sense for elected officials to have the power to let an initiative die for lack of a defense, when the initiative device itself is supposed to be a check on elected officials. Because elected officials may resent an initiative that has circumvented their roles or limited their power, voters have a “legitimate concern” that such officials will sometime fail to undertake a legal defense of initiatives “with vigor” or with “the objectives and interests of [] voters paramount in mind.” In addition to answering this state-law question, the court—in a somewhat unusual and ambitious move—also rendered its view that proponents should have standing to defend initiatives in federal court (where the Prop. 8 litigation is taking place) as well as state court. The California Justices acknowledged that standing in federal court is a matter not of state law, but rather federal law, and thus one for the federal courts ultimately to decide. But the California court offered its own reading of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and indicated its belief that to the extent the U.S. Supreme Court has been skeptical of initiative-proponent standing in federal court in the past, that was only (or largely) because, in the states involved in prior cases, state law did not authorize proponents to represent the state, whereas in California proponents are authorized to do so. With this input, the Ninth Circuit will now decide whether the Prop. 8 proponents enjoy standing in federal court. It is likely the Ninth Circuit will answer that question in the affirmative, given the signals it sent in crafting the questions it certified. That means the Ninth Circuit panel will likely address Prop. 8 on the merits. Then if—as is very possible, given the ideological makeup of the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel—the panel affirms Judge Walker’s ruling and strikes down Prop. 8 (holding that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and if the Ninth Circuit does not revisit the case as a whole (en banc), the U.S. Supreme Court may have no choice but to take up the dispute. After all, under such a scenario, same-sex marriage would be a federal constitutional right West of the Rockies, but nowhere else. Lack of uniformity as to the scope of such a major federal right could not be tolerated for long. In this regard, it is worth noting that many analysts believe that the Justices in DC use manipulable standing rules to regulate their docket and avoid tackling substantive issues when they want matters to percolate more in the lower courts—and in society—before a final resolution is reached. We won’t know how any of this will play out for quite a while. The Ninth Circuit could be expected to issue its ruling sometime in 2012, but it’s hard to see the Supreme Court getting involved until late 2012 or (more likely) 2013, at the earliest. __________________ ~Anya~ Democracy Dies in Darkness ~Washington Post "...I'm deeply concerned by recently adopted policies which punish children for their parents’ actions ... The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable." UN Human Rights commissioner

11-25-2011, 01:30 PM	#1645
SoNotHer Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Professional Sandbagger and Jenga Zumba Instructor Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: In the master control room of my world domination dreams Posts: 2,811 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 6,587 Thanked 4,736 Times in 1,409 Posts Rep Power: 21474850	Yeah, ATLast, wtf indeed. Today is my - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ Black Friday mayhem: Shootings, pepper spray[/QUOTE]

11-27-2011, 05:32 PM	#1649
SoNotHer Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Professional Sandbagger and Jenga Zumba Instructor Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: In the master control room of my world domination dreams Posts: 2,811 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 6,587 Thanked 4,736 Times in 1,409 Posts Rep Power: 21474850	http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/43617 Mexican farmers suffer worst drought in 70 years Photo shows the sun setting over a dry patch of land in Parras de La Fuente in the state of Coahuila November 24, 2011. Credit: REUTERS/Stringer Mexico is being battered its worst drought in seven decades, which has devastated farm life and is expected to continue into next year. The lack of rainfall has affected almost 70 percent of the country and northern states like Coahuila, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas have suffered the most acute water shortage. Due to the drought and a cold snap at the start of the year, the government has cut its forecast for corn production two times in 2011. It now expects a harvest of 20 million tonnes compared to a previous estimate of 23 million. Crops that cover tens of thousands of acres have been lost this year and roughly 450,000 cattle have died in arid pastures. Crucial dams, typically full at this time of year, are at 30 to 40 percent of capacity. "This is very serious," Ignacio Rivera, an official at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, told Reuters. "Statistics on precipitation in the country show us that this year has been the driest in the last 70 years." The country has total arable land of 22 million hectares (54.4 million acres) that can be tilled over two planting seasons while the national cattle herd last year was just over 32.6 million. Mexico is one of the world's five top corn producers and the government expects output to recover to 25 million tonnes in 2012, aided by reorganization of the cultivated areas. Rivera said that of the 8.1 million hectares of farmland insured by the government against natural disaster, some 600,000 claims have been lodged to recover losses on 3.8 million hectares. The Mexican government has so far set aside some 1.6 billion pesos ($113 million) to cover the losses. Forecasts do not signal any near-term relief, but rather more losses ahead as the winter season brings damaging frost. "It's a troubling situation, and is more worrisome because the rainy season is over... the hope is that by June it starts to rain," said Felipe Arreguin, deputy director of the National Water Commission (Conagua). Article continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AO18Q20111126

11-28-2011, 05:40 PM	#1657
Greyson Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Transmasculine/Non-Binary Preferred Pronoun?: Hy (Pronounced He) Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 6,589 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 21,132 Thanked 8,165 Times in 2,007 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	Cain "denies an affair, but not a relationship." 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 __________________ Sometimes you don't realize your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness. - Susan Gale

11-28-2011, 08:15 PM	#1658
Corkey Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Human Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Where I want to be Posts: 8,155 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 47,491 Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-m...out-trial.html So much for the Constitution. __________________ "Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them". ~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)

11-28-2011, 11:42 PM	#1660
Vlasta BFP Sentinels How Do You Identify?: ................. Preferred Pronoun?: .............. Relationship Status: .................. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ............... Posts: 546 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,353 Thanked 1,002 Times in 286 Posts Rep Power: 21474851	MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's daughter, whose defection to the West during the Cold War embarrassed the ruling communists and made her a best-selling author, has died. She was 85. Lana Peters — who was known internationally by her previous name, Svetlana Alliluyeva — died of colon cancer Nov. 22 in Wisconsin, where she lived off and on after becoming a U.S. citizen, Richland County Coroner Mary Turner said Monday. Her defection in 1967 — which she said was partly motivated by the poor treatment of her late husband, Brijesh Singh, by Soviet authorities — caused an international furor and was a public relations coup for the U.S. But Peters, who left behind two children, said her identity involved more than just switching from one side to the other in the Cold War. She even moved back to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, only to return to the U.S. more than a year later. When she left the Soviet Union in 1966 for India, she planned to leave the ashes of her late third husband, an Indian citizen, and return. Instead, she walked unannounced into the U.S. embassy in New Delhi and asked for political asylum. After a brief stay in Switzerland, she flew to the U.S. Peters carried with her a memoir she had written in 1963 about her life in Russia. "Twenty Letters to a Friend" was published within months of her arrival in the U.S. and became a best-seller. Upon her arrival in New York City in 1967, the 41-year-old said: "I have come here to seek the self-expression that has been denied me for so long in Russia." She said she had come to doubt the communism she was taught growing up and believed there weren't capitalists or communists, just good and bad human beings. She had also found religion and believed "it was impossible to exist without God in one's heart." In the book, she recalled her father, who died in 1953 after ruling the nation for 29 years, as a distant and paranoid man. "He was a very simple man. Very rude. Very cruel," Peters told the Wisconsin State Journal in a rare interview in 2010. "There was nothing in him that was complicated. He was very simple with us. He loved me and he wanted me to be with him and become an educated Marxist." Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin denounced Peters as a "morally unstable" and "sick person." "I switched camps from the Marxists to the capitalists," she recalled in a 2007 interview for the documentary "Svetlana About Svetlana." But she said her identity was far more complex than that and never completely understood. "People say, 'Stalin's daughter, Stalin's daughter,' meaning I'm supposed to walk around with a rifle and shoot the Americans. Or they say, 'No, she came here. She is an American citizen.' That means I'm with a bomb against the others. No, I'm neither one. I'm somewhere in between. That 'somewhere in between' they can't understand." Peters' defection came at a high personal cost. She left two children behind in Russia — Josef and Yekaterina — from previous marriages. Both were upset by her departure, and she was never close to either again. Raised by a nanny with whom she grew close after her mother's death in 1932, Peters was Stalin's only daughter. She had two brothers, Vasili and Jacob. Jacob was captured by the Nazis in 1941 and died in a concentration camp. Vasili died an alcoholic at age 40. Peters graduated from Moscow University in 1949, worked as a teacher and translator and traveled in Moscow's literary circles before leaving the Soviet Union. She was married four times — the last time to William Wesley Peters, an apprentice of Frank Lloyd Wright. They were married from 1970 to 1973 and had one daughter. Peters wrote three more books, including "Only One Year," an autobiography published in 1969. Her father's legacy appeared to haunt her throughout her life, though she tried to live outside of the shadow of her father. She denounced his policies, which included sending millions into labor camps, but often said other Communist Party leaders shared the blame. "I wish people could see what I've seen," Lana Parshina, who interviewed Peters for "Svetlana About Svetlana," said Monday. "She was very gracious and she was a great hostess. She was sensitive and could quote poetry and talk about various subjects. She was interested in what was going on in the world." Charles E. Townsend, who was on faculty at Princeton University's Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures when Peters arrived in Princeton in 1967, said she wasn't very politically active. "She was very pleasant," Townsend said. "Unassuming would be the word for her." After living in Britain for two years, Peters returned to the Soviet Union with Olga in 1984 at age 58, saying she wanted to be reunited with her children. Her Soviet citizenship was restored, and she denounced her time in the U.S. and Britain, saying she never really had freedom. But more than a year later, she asked for and was given permission to leave after feuding with relatives. She returned to the U.S. and vowed never to go back to Russia. She went into seclusion in the last decades of her life. Her survivors include her daughter Olga, who now goes by Chrese Evans and lives in Portland, Ore. A son, Josef, died in 2008 at age 63 in Moscow, according to media reports in Russia. Yekaterina (born in 1950), who goes by Katya, is a scientist who studies an active volcano in eastern Siberia. Evans said in an email that her mother died at a Richland Center nursing home surrounded by loved ones, but she declined to comment further. "Please respect my privacy during this sad time," she said. Tom Stafford, owner of the funeral home in Richland Center, Wis., handling the arrangements, said no services were planned at this time, though one might be scheduled later. ___ Associated Press writer Ryan J. Foley, in Iowa City, Iowa, and Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia contributed to this report.