Breaking News Events

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

OMG. Are my dogs gay too? What does 'de-sexed' mean? If it's the same as neutering then my dogs are for sure gay.

OK since we are gay, does that mean we must have been "de-sexed" or "neutered"? Please someone tell me when that happened because I have no such recollection!

[UofMfan]

Oklahoma Backs Abortion Restrictions
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: April 27, 2010, The New York Times

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral.

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said.

The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit at 10:42 a.m. Tuesday, making the two measures law.

The ultrasound law was part of a bill that was struck down by the state courts last August because it violated a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that requires bills to deal with only one subject. Republican lawmakers vowed at the time to pass it again.

This year, Republican leaders passed five separate antiabortion bills to satisfy the courts’ concerns. Mr. Henry signed one into law: it required that clinics post signs stating a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, that an abortion cannot be performed until a woman gives her voluntary consent, and that abortions based on a child’s gender are illegal.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

Though many states have passed similar laws aimed at curbing abortion, with Tuesday’s action, Oklahoma appears to have become the most hostile to women seeking to end a pregnancy, said Dionne Scott, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group for abortion rights based in New York.

“It’s the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country,” she said.

[Tommi]

Thu, April 29, 2010
FTMI Announces April 29 Long Beach CA Rally for Attacked FTM College Student
. FTM_International_Discussion


From FTM International: A 27-year-old transgender student at Cal State Long Beach reported he was assaulted in a university men's room near Lecture Hall 151 at 9:30 p.m. on April 15. He was pushed into a stall, had his shirt pulled over his head and had the word "IT" carved into his chest with a knife. According to the CSULB Crime Statistics from 2004 to spring 2009 shown on the University Police website, this is the first hate crime to occur at CSULB, but the second assault to occur in the past school year. Last night a PFLAG event had speakers who addressed the attack. The following is a statement the Daily 49er received from Cal State Long Beach. April 28, 2010, "Statement from Colle Carpenter, graduate student who was attacked at California State University, Long Beach on April 15 On April 15, I was attacked while on a break from class at Cal State Long Beach. Since this happened to me, I have received respect and support from the university, far beyond what I expected. The campus police have made every effort to conduct a thorough investigation and have been especially concerned with respecting my wishes for privacy and for ensuring my safety. I'm aware the university has come under criticism regarding communications and response in general, but again, I feel that the administration' s response has been focused on the investigation and my well-being. I think it's really unfair that the university is being criticized. I requested time alone to heal privately with my family and the university honored that request. The university statement was released 20 minutes after I approved the sketch of the suspect. I appreciate the outpouring of support from the community. However, some people and organizations have directed their anger and fear toward the university instead of the person who did this. I think the most important thing for everyone to understand is the need to find and prosecute the person who hurt me. I chose to return to my classes and CSULB is doing everything possible to make sure I feel safe in that decision." As part of Take Back the Night, there will be a rally April 29 at CSULB 7pm, Maxson Plaza: Speaker's Rally 8pm: March through campus 9pm, Soroptimist House: InterACT performance skit: Sexual Assault, followed by Speakout facilitated by YWCA 1250 Bellflower Boulevard Long Beach, CA

[socialjustice_fsu]

Although I have not heard the most recent update on the oil spill in the northern region of the Gulf of Mexico I am acutely aware of what is about to happen to our coast line within a matter of days, perhaps hours. I reside in Pensacola, Florida. We have the whitest beaches and the most pristine sapphire waters in the southeast and likely in the entire United States. We rely on the abundant seafood that comes from our unpolluted, well-stocked waters. This is being threatened as I write this. The oil rig explosion killed a number of hard workers and I believe 11 of the worker's bodies have not been found and the search has been terminated. Add this to the likely horredous toll this spill will take on our fishes, sea life and wildlife along the coast and my heart aches. I do understand this oil spill may make the Exxon Valdez look lame. WTF is happening to our gifts we have had bestowed upon us as we partake of the goodness of the beaches and our waters?
Many of my family have asked me why I abhor oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I say to that: Come with me. Now. Look. Then ask me.

We have a tremendous lobby group in our area...Emerald Coast Waterkeepers...and they have repeatedly provided facts and figures as to the likelihood of this type of accident occuring. Perhaps, someone just might listen up as the voter's watch the elected official's voting record as well as who lines your deep pockets.

Please, BFP, just keep our area close to your hearts for a while. I am a volunteer for our Wildlife Sanctuary and we are pulling out every stop we can to prepare for what is at hand. Please pray that we have effective leadership and healing hands as we take a seagull, pelican, sandpiper and so on to clean and try to restore them to some degree of normalcy.
Thank you, BFP. You, of all groups, I know understand the depth of this mess and, perhaps, collectively we can all send energy to those in this massive clean up.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by socialjustice_fsu

Although I have not heard the most recent update on the oil spill in the northern region of the Gulf of Mexico I am acutely aware of what is about to happen to our coast line within a matter of days, perhaps hours. I reside in Pensacola, Florida. We have the whitest beaches and the most pristine sapphire waters in the southeast and likely in the entire United States. We rely on the abundant seafood that comes from our unpolluted, well-stocked waters. This is being threatened as I write this. The oil rig explosion killed a number of hard workers and I believe 11 of the worker's bodies have not been found and the search has been terminated. Add this to the likely horredous toll this spill will take on our fishes, sea life and wildlife along the coast and my heart aches. I do understand this oil spill may make the Exxon Valdez look lame. WTF is happening to our gifts we have had bestowed upon us as we partake of the goodness of the beaches and our waters?
Many of my family have asked me why I abhor oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I say to that: Come with me. Now. Look. Then ask me.

We have a tremendous lobby group in our area...Emerald Coast Waterkeepers...and they have repeatedly provided facts and figures as to the likelihood of this type of accident occuring. Perhaps, someone just might listen up as the voter's watch the elected official's voting record as well as who lines your deep pockets.

Please, BFP, just keep our area close to your hearts for a while. I am a volunteer for our Wildlife Sanctuary and we are pulling out every stop we can to prepare for what is at hand. Please pray that we have effective leadership and healing hands as we take a seagull, pelican, sandpiper and so on to clean and try to restore them to some degree of normalcy.
Thank you, BFP. You, of all groups, I know understand the depth of this mess and, perhaps, collectively we can all send energy to those in this massive clean up.

where is my magnifying glass......cuz my reading glasses ain't do me much good.............laughin

[Rook]

WASHINGTON – The House on Thursday approved legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico's 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence. The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future. It passed 223-169 and now must be considered by the Senate.

Initially, eligible voters, including those born in Puerto Rico but residing in the United States, would vote on whether they wish to keep their current political status or opt for a different direction.

If a majority are in favor of changing the current situation, the Puerto Rican government would be authorized to conduct a second vote and people would choose among four options: statehood, independence, the current commonwealth status or sovereignty in association with the United States. Congress would have to vote on whether Puerto Rico becomes a state.

Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's nonvoting delegate to the House, said that while the island has had votes on similar issues in the past, Congress has never authorized a process where Puerto Ricans state whether they should remain a U.S. territory or seek a nonterritorial status.

"The American way is to allow people to vote, to express themselves and to tell their elected officials how they feel about their political arrangements," said Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno at a news conference with Pierluisi. "For 112 years, we haven't had the chance ... to fully participate in one way or another in the decisions that affect our daily lives."

Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory at the end of the Spanish-American War. Those born on the island were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 and Puerto Rico gained commonwealth status in 1952.

Today, Puerto Ricans serve in the military but can't vote in presidential elections. They do not pay federal income tax on income earned on the island.

In the last referendum, "none of the above" garnered 50 percent of the vote, topping the other options, including statehood at 46.5 percent and independence at 2.5 percent.

Some of those differences were evident among lawmakers of Puerto Rican background. Puerto Rico-born Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., whose parents were from Puerto Rico, strongly opposed the measure, saying it was designed to push a statehood agenda. "This is the Puerto Rico 51st state bill," said Gutierrez, an independence proponent. "The deck is stacked."

But another Puerto Rico-born lawmaker, Democrat Jose Serrano of New York, backed it. "I support it because for the first time in 112 years the people of Puerto Rico will have an opportunity to express themselves."

Opposition to the House bill included Republican concerns about the consequences of Puerto Rico, where Spanish, as well as English, is the official language, becoming a state. Republicans said Puerto Rico would get some six seats in the House, possibly at the expense of other states, and that statehood would impose further burdens on the federal Treasury.

Republicans, led by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., unsuccessfully tried to attach a provision that ballots favoring statehood make clear that a Puerto Rican state would adopt English as its official language and abide by Second Amendment gun rights. The proposal was defeated 198-194.

[UofMfan]

New Okla. anti-abortion law temporarily blocked

By TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma's attorney general agreed Monday to temporarily block enforcement of a controversial new state law that requires pregnant women to get an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before they get an abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights was set to argue for a temporary restraining order Monday, but attorneys for both sides agreed to accept the order before the court hearing, Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich said. She signed the order Monday afternoon.

"We're sorry to see implementation of the law delayed," said Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee. "This has been a long process and apparently it will be a little longer."

A pregnant woman should have all of the information available before she makes the irrevocable decision to terminate her pregnancy, Lauinger said, adding: "We're confident that this law is constitutional."

Attorney General Drew Edmondson agreed to the order to give his office more time to retain Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who represented the state when a similar law passed in 2008 was challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights. She also is the Republican nominee in Minnesota's 4th Congressional District election this fall.

A judge ruled last year that the 2008 law was unconstitutional because it violated requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject — but did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.

The new abortion law went into effect last week after lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto.

The New York-based abortion rights group has said the new law is among the strictest in the nation. The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.

The law also requires doctors to turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images toward the woman so she can view them.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has said the law forces a woman to hear information that may not be relevant to her medical care and could interfere with the physician-patient relationship by compelling doctors to deliver unwanted speech.

Collett, a native of Norman, Okla., said Monday that nothing in Oklahoma's abortion statute is inconsistent with standard medical practice.

"It would be remarkable if a women would undergo a medical procedure and a doctor would not have an obligation to describe the procedure and the results of that procedure to the patient," Collett said.

She said state lawmakers required abortion providers to describe the ultrasound's images because of some doctors' "unusual failure" to pass along the information to pregnant women.

The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law on behalf of Nova Health Systems, operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, and Dr. Larry Burns, who the group said provides abortions in Norman.

Officials at Reproductive Services have said the law had drawn emotional responses from patients, some leaving in tears from the room where ultrasound procedures are performed because of what they had to hear.

[Toughy]

those idiot republican mother fuckers from OK don't have any concept of Christianity.......

This is utter bullshit.............

I want one of those men to under a procedure that requires a probe up their ass............

To force a women to have anything inserted in her vagina is RAPE............sorry ass fuckers..........all those who voted for this should be charged with rape the first time this happens to a woman...........

[Jet]

Didn't know where to post this:

Gay pastor reinstated in Atlanta

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23449337/detail.html

[UofMfan]

Obama Nominates Kagan as Justice
By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY
The New York Times.

Published: May 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the nation’s 112th justice, choosing his own chief advocate before the Supreme Court to join it in ruling on cases critical to his view of the country’s future, Democrats close to the White House said Sunday.

After a monthlong search, Mr. Obama informed Ms. Kagan and his advisers on Sunday of his choice to succeed the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. He plans to announce the nomination at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House with Ms. Kagan by his side, said the Democrats, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision before it was formally made public.

In settling on Ms. Kagan, the president chose a well-regarded 50-year-old lawyer who served as a staff member in all three branches of government and was the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. If confirmed, she would be the youngest member and the third woman on the current court, but the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.

That lack of time on the bench may both help and hurt her confirmation prospects, allowing critics to question whether she is truly qualified while denying them a lengthy judicial paper trail filled with ammunition for attacks. As solicitor general, Ms. Kagan has represented the government before the Supreme Court for the past year, but her own views are to a large extent a matter of supposition.

Perhaps as a result, some on both sides of the ideological aisle are suspicious of her. Liberals dislike her support for strong executive power and her outreach to conservatives while running the law school. Activists on the right have attacked her for briefly barring military recruiters from a campus facility because the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

Replacing Justice Stevens with Ms. Kagan presumably would not alter the broad ideological balance on the court, but her relative youth means that she could have an influence on the court for decades to come, underscoring the stakes involved.

In making his second nomination in as many years, Mr. Obama was not looking for a liberal firebrand as much as a persuasive leader who could attract the swing vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and counter what the president sees as the rightward direction of the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Particularly since the Citizens United decision invalidating on free speech grounds the restrictions on corporate spending in elections, Mr. Obama has publicly criticized the court, even during his State of the Union address with justices in the audience.

As he presses an ambitious agenda expanding the reach of government, Mr. Obama has come to worry that a conservative Supreme Court could become an obstacle down the road, aides said. It is conceivable that the Roberts court could eventually hear challenges to aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care program or to other policies like restrictions on carbon emissions and counterterrorism practices.

With all signs pointing to a Kagan nomination, critics have been pre-emptively attacking her in the days leading up to the president’s announcement. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, writing on The Daily Beast, compared her to Harriet E. Miers, whose nomination by President George W. Bush collapsed amid an uprising among conservatives who considered her unqualified and not demonstrably committed to their judicial philosophy.

M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote on National Review’s Web site that even Ms. Kagan’s nonjudicial experience was inadequate. “Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any entering justice in decades,” Mr. Whelan wrote.

Ms. Kagan defended her experience during confirmation hearings as solicitor general last year. “I bring up a lifetime of learning and study of the law, and particularly of the constitutional and administrative law issues that form the core of the court’s docket,” she testified. “I think I bring up some of the communications skills that has made me — I’m just going to say it — a famously excellent teacher.”

Ms. Kagan was one of Mr. Obama’s runners-up last year when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the court, and she was always considered the front-runner this year. The president also interviewed three other candidates, all federal appeals court judges: Merrick B. Garland of Washington, Diane P. Wood of Chicago and Sidney R. Thomas of Montana.

Ms. Kagan had several advantages from the beginning that made her the most obvious choice. For one, she works for Mr. Obama, who has been impressed with her intelligence and legal capacity, aides said, and she worked for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. when he was a senator. For another, she is the youngest of the four finalists, meaning she would most likely have the longest tenure as a justice.

Ms. Kagan was also confirmed by the Senate just last year, albeit with 31 no votes, making it harder for Republicans who voted for her in 2009 to vote against her in 2010.

The president can also say he reached beyond the so-called “judicial monastery,” although picking a solicitor general and former Harvard law dean hardly reaches outside the Ivy League, East Coast legal elite. And her confirmation would allow Mr. Obama to build on his appointment of Justice Sotomayor by bringing the number of women on the court to its highest ever (three, with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

Moreover, in his selection of finalists, Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center.

Judge Garland was widely seen as the most likely alternative to Ms. Kagan and the one most likely to win easy confirmation. Well respected on both sides of the aisle, he had a number of conservatives publicly calling him the best they could hope for from a Democratic president. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, privately made clear to the president that he considered Judge Garland a good choice, according to people briefed on their conversations.

But Mr. Obama ultimately opted to save Judge Garland for when he faces a more hostile Senate and needs a nominee with more Republican support. Democrats expect to lose seats in this fall’s election, so if another Supreme Court seat comes open next year and Mr. Obama has a substantially thinner margin in the Senate than he has today, Judge Garland would be an obvious choice.

As for Ms. Kagan, strategists on both sides anticipate a fight over her confirmation but not necessarily an all-out war. The White House hopes the Senate Judiciary Committee can hold hearings before July 4, but some Congressional aides were skeptical. Either way, Democrats want Ms. Kagan confirmed by the August recess so she can join the court for the start of its new term in October.

A New Yorker who grew up in Manhattan, Ms. Kagan earned degrees from Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School, worked briefly in private practice, clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, served as a Senate staff member and worked as a White House lawyer and domestic policy aide under President Bill Clinton. She was nominated for an appeals court judgeship in 1999, but the Senate never voted on her nomination.

She has been a trailblazer along the way, not only as the first woman to run Harvard Law School but also as the first woman to serve as solicitor general. Her inexperience as a judge makes her a rarity in modern times, but until the 1970s many Supreme Court justices came from outside the judiciary, including senators, governors, cabinet secretaries and even a former president.

If the Senate confirms Ms. Kagan, who is Jewish, the Supreme Court for the first time will have no Protestant members. In that case, the court would be composed of six justices who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. It also would mean that every member of the court had studied law at Harvard or Yale.

Like her former boss, Justice Marshall, who was the last solicitor general to go directly to the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan may be forced to recuse herself during her early time on the bench because of her participation in a number of cases coming before the justices. Tom Goldstein, publisher of ScotusBlog, a Web site that follows the court, estimated that she would have to sit out on 13 to 15 matters. Mr. Whelan argued that it would be significantly more than that.

[Jet]

Originally Posted by socialjustice_fsu

Although I have not heard the most recent update on the oil spill in the northern region of the Gulf of Mexico I am acutely aware of what is about to happen to our coast line within a matter of days, perhaps hours. I reside in Pensacola, Florida. We have the whitest beaches and the most pristine sapphire waters in the southeast and likely in the entire United States. We rely on the abundant seafood that comes from our unpolluted, well-stocked waters. This is being threatened as I write this. The oil rig explosion killed a number of hard workers and I believe 11 of the worker's bodies have not been found and the search has been terminated. Add this to the likely horredous toll this spill will take on our fishes, sea life and wildlife along the coast and my heart aches. I do understand this oil spill may make the Exxon Valdez look lame. WTF is happening to our gifts we have had bestowed upon us as we partake of the goodness of the beaches and our waters?
Many of my family have asked me why I abhor oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I say to that: Come with me. Now. Look. Then ask me.

We have a tremendous lobby group in our area...Emerald Coast Waterkeepers...and they have repeatedly provided facts and figures as to the likelihood of this type of accident occuring. Perhaps, someone just might listen up as the voter's watch the elected official's voting record as well as who lines your deep pockets.

Please, BFP, just keep our area close to your hearts for a while. I am a volunteer for our Wildlife Sanctuary and we are pulling out every stop we can to prepare for what is at hand. Please pray that we have effective leadership and healing hands as we take a seagull, pelican, sandpiper and so on to clean and try to restore them to some degree of normalcy.
Thank you, BFP. You, of all groups, I know understand the depth of this mess and, perhaps, collectively we can all send energy to those in this massive clean up.

I share your concerns and grief.
Here is the latest video:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...p/?cl=19861770

[Rook]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A moderate earthquake struck Puerto Rico early Sunday, damaging some houses in western and northern towns and causing a rock slide on a highway. No one was reported injured.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the magnitude-5.8 earthquake struck at 1:16 a.m. (0516 GMT) Sunday about four miles (six kilometers) from the small community of Espino on the western side of the Caribbean island and 63 miles (101 kilometers) from the capital, San Juan, where it was felt by high-rise dwellers.

It was recorded at a depth of 67 miles (113 kilometers), according to the USGS.

The quake cracked the concrete foundations of a few buildings in the towns of Florida, Lares, Moca, Utuado and Vega Baja, according to Puerto Rico's emergency management agency.

Agency spokeswoman Melina Simeonides said the quake also spilled rocks over a highway in Utuado, where it also shifted a concrete house some four inches from its foundation.

Engineers were trying determine if other damaged homes were safe.

Local authorities on Sunday were monitoring coastal areas close to the epicenter and evaluating the damage.

I think these "small" Quakes are a warning of things to come {bigger Earthquakes in PR , ex.}

[Nat]

For anybody following Bret Michaels' health - he had a mini-stroke and had to be re-admitted to the hospital and it turns out he has a hole in his heart.

link

[Mr. Moon]

Just heard that the oil is reaching the gulflands.

The marshes will be destroyed (when they wanted a permit to dig some sort of dredge to stop it and it's taken too long)

They said within 5 days the marshland will die and will not return. Animals included. This is huge and disgraceful. Louisiana has been through so much. This will take away their livelihoods.

Brings tears to my eyes with frustration. Recovery has not be a real science that's been researched enough.

Awful.

(this makes me so mad, the well itself had problems they ignored to make their money. These people in charge....couldn't they see how they were going to affect SO MANY THINGS?)

UGH!

[SuperFemme]

Here are the disturbing news stories showing up as "breaking news" right now on my front page. Good GOD!

• Man who flees from police found underneath stuffed animals
• Shocking text messages released in brutal beating of girl
• Man trying to catch bus falls down manhole; calls 911 from cell phone
• Student punches school bus driver in the face
• Parents accused of making daughter eat, sleep, use bathroom outside for eight years
• Lance Armstrong's team releases Landis emails
• 1794 silver dollar sells for record $7.85M
• Fla. prison escapee caught in wooded area near Orlando
• Finding cause of massive scrapyard fire could take weeks
• Jersey Shore cast in Miami Beach can't wait to head north

[UofMfan]

White House Seeks To Speed Up 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal

PHILIP ELLIOTT | 05/24/10 09:30 PM | AP

WASHINGTON — A proposal to step up the repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military but still allow the Pentagon time – perhaps even years – to implement new policies won the White House's backing on Monday after administration officials met with gay rights activists.

The White House budget office sent a letter supporting the proposal to remove the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law even as the Pentagon continues a review of the system. Implementation of policy for gays serving openly would still require the approval of President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. How long implementation might take is not known, but the proposed amendment would have no effect on current practices.

"The proposed amendment will allow for completion of the comprehensive review, enable the Department of Defense to assess the results of the review, and ensure that the implementation of the of the repeal is consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention," budget chief Peter Orszag wrote in identical evening letters to Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Michigan Sen. Carl Levin – the Democrats leading the push for repeal

Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, was expected to introduce the legislative proposal on Tuesday. Gay rights groups urged a quick vote, which could come as early as Thursday.

"Without a repeal vote by Congress this year, the Pentagon's hands are tied and the armed forces will be forced to continue adhering to the discriminatory 'don't ask, don't tell' law," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

The White House had hoped lawmakers would delay action until Pentagon officials had completed their study so fellow Democrats would not face criticism that they moved too quickly or too far ahead of public opinion in this election year. Instead, administration officials recognized it could not stop Congress in its effort to repeal the 1993 ban and joined the negotiations.

Hours after activists met at the White House, top Democratic lawmakers met on Capitol Hill and approved the final version of a brokered deal that adds the repeal to the annual defense spending bill.

Obama called for the repeal during his State of the Union address this year, and Gates and Mullen have echoed his views but have cautioned any action must be paced.

In a speech last year at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., Gates noted that the 1948 executive order for racial integration took five years to implement.

[Kobi]

Anyone else wondering why the oil spilling into the gulf is being so under-reported i.e. media not using the visual tactics of oilsoaked wildlife, media not showing the outrage of helpless coastal residents over and over again? It is incredibly subdued reporting.

Feds tied up the tv for a while yesterday explaining why they werent getting involved....odd dont you think? It's our coastline that is being irreparably harmed and yet the feds arent involved?

Maybe the feds are too busy planning their next bailout...of BP for the clean up costs.....of our coastline.

And they want to know why I am opposed to a wind farm on the ocean floor off the Mass coast? Hello?

[Toughy]

I'm confused about you being opposed to wind farms in the Atlantic coastal waters. Why are you opposed? IF one of them breaks and falls down, there is no oil spilled, there is no environmental impact to the fisheries.

The one drawback I can see to windmills is the pretty view from billion dollar homes might not be so pretty...........

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I'm confused about you being opposed to wind farms in the Atlantic coastal waters. Why are you opposed? IF one of them breaks and falls down, there is no oil spilled, there is no environmental impact to the fisheries.

The one drawback I can see to windmills is the pretty view from billion dollar homes might not be so pretty...........

If it was only the views....life would be so much simpler.

In a nut shell, I believe the oceans were created in specific ways to do specific things, for specific reasons.

I dont think mankind has the right to exploit natural resources for financial gain especially when the risks of doing so are not known in their entirety. Governmental reviews and such are not, to me, anything to be trusted when a financial gain is a stake.

Simple physics shows that you cannot submerge tons of concrete bases without changing the dispersion of water. Hence you simply hasten erosion of the coastline. Think of a glass of water half full, then add ice...what happens?

Current wind technology is best for 20-30 mile winds, and designed to shut down when the wind is higher in order to protect the equipment. You dont need to stick 250 foot towers in the ocean floor to harness 20-30 mile winds.

I am not convinced that these towers will not affect marine life. Much like builders like to say knocking down forests to build homes doesnt disturb the wildlife who lives in them....we know thats bull hockey.

So, its not about views and it ticked me off a bit to hear that being said.

[Toughy]

I didn't mean to tick you off.......that's just the reason I had been hearing..........nobody could ever tell me anything else.

Some of what you say makes sense to me. Let me get to the part that doesn't make sense.

It sounds like you don't believe in green energy sources such as wind and solar and ocean waves. Those are all natural resources.

I do agree wind turbines in the ocean probably is a stupid idea. There are plenty of places on the land to put them. We've had them in No Cal for years without environmental issues that I know of....yes there is some stuff about birds getting killed and nesting in the housing units. There are ways to deal with the nesting problems and the number of birds killed is really truly insignificant in the big picture.

Solar technology is getting better and better every year.

I think the real problem with green energy production is with fossil fuel energy corporations. They don't want office buildings and housing to produce even a small part of the energy they use. They poo poo solar and wind and promote 'clean coal' and 'natural gas'....<snort>

I don't understand why New Orleans is not being rebuilt as a green city. You could put solar panels on every building in the city and reduce the amount of non-green energy that is consumed. Same for all new buildings everywhere in the country.

I dunno........just some thoughts rolling around in my head.......no judgment at all.....