It is written
theyoungturks:

Supreme Court Justice Scalia on Homosexuality and Murder

This dude is in the fucking SCOTUS. He should know this is a privacy not moral issue. Keep your personal, conservative politics out of the constitution. 

theyoungturks:

Supreme Court Justice Scalia on Homosexuality and Murder

This dude is in the fucking SCOTUS. He should know this is a privacy not moral issue. Keep your personal, conservative politics out of the constitution. 

poorrichardsnews:

To all the executives of CNN who are wondering why your network’s ratings are at 20 year lows: this kind of thing might have a little to do with it.

from MRCTV:

In yet another classic display of the liberal media, CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien has been caught red-handed using left-wing…

#YOLO  I prefer ThinkProgress, personally.

I should probably just shut up about Paul Ryan, because I believe there’s a federal statute requiring pundits to marvel at his “seriousness” and “courage.” I think there’s also a constitutional mandate enshrining him as a “deficit hawk,” even though he voted for the Bush tax cuts, the Bush military and security spending binge, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the bank bailout and the auto bailout, and against the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan. So I think for now I’ll just repost my screed about the Ryan plan from April 2011, suggesting that fuzzy math in the service of Tea Party ideology is not all that brave.
Time’s Michael Grunwald has the Paul Ryan rant we’ve been waiting for. (via motherjones)
theeconomist:

Overfishing, global warming and pollution threaten to transform the ocean—and perhaps life as we know it

theeconomist:

Overfishing, global warming and pollution threaten to transform the ocean—and perhaps life as we know it

arielnietzsche:

Argentina Passes Transgender Rights Law; Operation Covered Under Health Plan

Freedom from government intervention or religious persecution…Argentinians are now able to decide for themselves whether or not they think they’re men or women.  This is a groundbreaking law passed by a 55 – 0 margin in the Senate.  Let the people be.  I can’t imagine how horrible it must feel to be trapped in the body of a person that you don’t feel is your own…hell in eternity times infinity + 1.  If you don’t support the transgender community – don’t be a transgendered person.  Stop worrying, have a smile and shut the front door.

The Washington Post has the news – article HERE:

Any adult will now be able to officially change his or her gender, image and birth name without having to get approval from doctors or judges — and without having to undergo physical changes beforehand, as many U.S. jurisdictions require.

When Argentines want to change their bodies, health care companies will have to provide them with surgery or hormone therapy on demand. Such treatments will be included in the “Obligatory Medical Plan,” which means both private and public providers will not be able to charge extra for the services.

Children also get a voice under the law: Youths under 18 who want to change their genders gain the right to do so with the approval of their legal guardians. But if parents or guardians want a gender identity change and don’t have the child’s consent, then a judge must intervene to ensure the child’s rights are protected.

crisisgroup:



The Washington Post: Latin America’s new strategy in the war on drugs 
Mary Speck is a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group’s Latin America and the Caribbean program.
The retired general who won Guatemala’s presidency in November seems an unlikely advocate of a kinder approach toward counternarcotics policy. Otto Pérez — whose party’s symbol is a clenched fist — campaigned on the promise that his government would crack down on the crime ravaging parts of the country. A former member of the special forces known as Kaibiles, he also served as director of military intelligence.
But his reluctance to join a stalemated war against drugs is understandable. As a military man and a pragmatic politician, Pérez wants to fight battles he has a chance of winning. The two Latin American presidents joining Pérez’s call for a debate on legalization also campaigned on the issues of crime and public safety:Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos, a former minister of defense, andCosta Rica’s Laura Chinchilla, a former minister of public security.
Pérez,Santosand Chinchilla suffer from the counternarcotics fatigue spreading among Latin American politicians and pundits who see the “war on drugs” as a debilitating waste of blood and treasure. They are looking for an honorable withdrawal from a seemingly unwinnable fight. They want to put their resources and energy into more politically profitable pursuits — strengthening public education, eliminating hunger or combating street crime.
The issue is likely to dominate this weekend’sSummitof theAmericas, whichSantosis hosting inCartagena. Pérez has promised to push his proposals for global drug regulations, arguing that the consumption, production and trafficking of drugs can be better controlled if brought into the legal economy.
Pérez faces opposition from his counterparts in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panamaand, crucially, the United States. While visiting Mexicolast month, Vice President Biden insisted that there was “no possibility” theUnited States would consider the option and cited the impact of drug addiction on health, mortality and economic productivity.
But the current policies aren’t alleviating the harm caused by drug addiction. The Justice Department’s 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment says that “the overall availability of illicit drugs in theUnited States is increasing.” Seizures of chemical precursors and illegal laboratories inGuatemala suggest that traffickers have responded to reductions in Colombian cocaine production by diversifying into synthetic drugs.
Meanwhile, fragile democracies such as Guatemala’s, still struggling to bolster the rule of law after decades of military rule and internal conflict, are further undermined as drug money, especially in transit or border regions, permeates politics and neutralizes law enforcement.
Washingtonhas failed to convince many Latin Americans that they have an equal stake in the battle against narco-trafficking. Although Pérez’s proposal to regulate the drug trade is the most radical from a sitting president, he is hardly alone in voicing doubts about U.S.-supported ­anti-drug strategies. His frustration with these policies is echoed by leaders who have been key allies inWashington’s counternarcotics crusade.
Although he avoided fighting words such as “legalization” or “decriminalization,” Mexican President Felipe Calderón told the U.N. General Assembly in September that, if consumer nations can not reduce demand for illegal drugs, they should “look for other ways, including market alternatives, that prevent narco-traffickers from continuing to be the origin of violence and death.”
Colombia’s Santosurged world leaders in January to break the “taboo” on discussing alternatives: “Taking the profits away from organized crime and letting the state use those profits to launch propaganda campaigns against consumption; those are practical solutions, which I believe could be effective if taken worldwide.” A blue-ribbon commission whose members included former Latin American presidents voiced similar arguments three years ago.
Calderón andSantosspeak with the moral authority of leaders who think their countries have paid an unacceptable price, with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, in their efforts to stem the flood of drugs to theUnited States. Now Pérez, the leader of a much smaller country with a far weaker state, has joined the chorus of skeptics.
These leaders have yet to grapple publicly with the impact that legalization might have in their countries. Would decriminalization reduce drug-related killings, or would traffickers simply move into other, equally violent rackets? Would historically weak states have the capacity to regulate the sale and transport of narcotics, or would black-market dealers continue to traffic drugs and corrupt state institutions? Would consumption increase in production or transit countries? If so, could cash-strapped governments handle the consequences to public health?
Latin American leaders are desperate to end the corruption and carnage wrought by today’s drug policies. Rather than dismiss demands for a new approach, theUnited Statesshould join the debate on legalization and its potential costs.
Washington Post


Photo: Surizar/Wikimedia Commons 

crisisgroup:

The Washington Post: Latin America’s new strategy in the war on drugs 

Mary Speck is a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group’s Latin America and the Caribbean program.

The retired general who won Guatemala’s presidency in November seems an unlikely advocate of a kinder approach toward counternarcotics policy. Otto Pérez — whose party’s symbol is a clenched fist — campaigned on the promise that his government would crack down on the crime ravaging parts of the country. A former member of the special forces known as Kaibiles, he also served as director of military intelligence.

But his reluctance to join a stalemated war against drugs is understandable. As a military man and a pragmatic politician, Pérez wants to fight battles he has a chance of winning. The two Latin American presidents joining Pérez’s call for a debate on legalization also campaigned on the issues of crime and public safety:Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos, a former minister of defense, andCosta Rica’s Laura Chinchilla, a former minister of public security.

Pérez,Santosand Chinchilla suffer from the counternarcotics fatigue spreading among Latin American politicians and pundits who see the “war on drugs” as a debilitating waste of blood and treasure. They are looking for an honorable withdrawal from a seemingly unwinnable fight. They want to put their resources and energy into more politically profitable pursuits — strengthening public education, eliminating hunger or combating street crime.

The issue is likely to dominate this weekend’sSummitof theAmericas, whichSantosis hosting inCartagena. Pérez has promised to push his proposals for global drug regulations, arguing that the consumption, production and trafficking of drugs can be better controlled if brought into the legal economy.

Pérez faces opposition from his counterparts in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panamaand, crucially, the United States. While visiting Mexicolast month, Vice President Biden insisted that there was “no possibility” theUnited States would consider the option and cited the impact of drug addiction on health, mortality and economic productivity.

But the current policies aren’t alleviating the harm caused by drug addiction. The Justice Department’s 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment says that “the overall availability of illicit drugs in theUnited States is increasing.” Seizures of chemical precursors and illegal laboratories inGuatemala suggest that traffickers have responded to reductions in Colombian cocaine production by diversifying into synthetic drugs.

Meanwhile, fragile democracies such as Guatemala’s, still struggling to bolster the rule of law after decades of military rule and internal conflict, are further undermined as drug money, especially in transit or border regions, permeates politics and neutralizes law enforcement.

Washingtonhas failed to convince many Latin Americans that they have an equal stake in the battle against narco-trafficking. Although Pérez’s proposal to regulate the drug trade is the most radical from a sitting president, he is hardly alone in voicing doubts about U.S.-supported ­anti-drug strategies. His frustration with these policies is echoed by leaders who have been key allies inWashington’s counternarcotics crusade.

Although he avoided fighting words such as “legalization” or “decriminalization,” Mexican President Felipe Calderón told the U.N. General Assembly in September that, if consumer nations can not reduce demand for illegal drugs, they should “look for other ways, including market alternatives, that prevent narco-traffickers from continuing to be the origin of violence and death.”

Colombia’s Santosurged world leaders in January to break the “taboo” on discussing alternatives: “Taking the profits away from organized crime and letting the state use those profits to launch propaganda campaigns against consumption; those are practical solutions, which I believe could be effective if taken worldwide.” A blue-ribbon commission whose members included former Latin American presidents voiced similar arguments three years ago.

Calderón andSantosspeak with the moral authority of leaders who think their countries have paid an unacceptable price, with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, in their efforts to stem the flood of drugs to theUnited States. Now Pérez, the leader of a much smaller country with a far weaker state, has joined the chorus of skeptics.

These leaders have yet to grapple publicly with the impact that legalization might have in their countries. Would decriminalization reduce drug-related killings, or would traffickers simply move into other, equally violent rackets? Would historically weak states have the capacity to regulate the sale and transport of narcotics, or would black-market dealers continue to traffic drugs and corrupt state institutions? Would consumption increase in production or transit countries? If so, could cash-strapped governments handle the consequences to public health?

Latin American leaders are desperate to end the corruption and carnage wrought by today’s drug policies. Rather than dismiss demands for a new approach, theUnited Statesshould join the debate on legalization and its potential costs.

Washington Post

Photo: Surizar/Wikimedia Commons 

leaveobashar:

Results of the Israeli missiles targeting civilian neighborhoods in Gaza. Sorry for the graphic picture, but as i’ve stated before, this is reality.

leaveobashar:

Results of the Israeli missiles targeting civilian neighborhoods in Gaza. Sorry for the graphic picture, but as i’ve stated before, this is reality.

pantslessprogressive:

Stephen Hill, Gay Soldier Booed At GOP Debate, Shares Reaction

[…] Hill says the fact that he just outed himself on national television had barely registered when he absorbed the boos and Santorum’s answer followed by applause.
“When the actual booing occurred, my gut dropped out, because my first inclination was, did I just do something wrong?” he said. “The answer, obviously, wasn’t very supportive of gay people, and there was a lot of fear of how the Army would take the question.”
He did not have to wait long to find out. At breakfast later that morning, the segment was playing on the chow hall television. Hill immediately tracked down his commander, who told him she had no problem with what he’d done but that she would need to run it up the chain of command. She later relayed the response.
“She said, `What the military’s most concerned with is that you are OK, because it’s a lot of pressure on you and we want to make sure if there is anything we can do to help,’” he recalled. […]
What Hill remembers most was that a presidential candidate defined his marriage and military service in terms of sex. He holds that up against the times he hid Snyder’s photograph because Army buddies were coming over to play video games, introduced his husband as his roommate or brother, and the legal vows they exchanged at the grave of Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovich, who was discharged in 1975 after becoming the first gay service member to challenge the U.S. military’s ban on gay troops. [read more]

pantslessprogressive:

Stephen Hill, Gay Soldier Booed At GOP Debate, Shares Reaction

[…] Hill says the fact that he just outed himself on national television had barely registered when he absorbed the boos and Santorum’s answer followed by applause.

“When the actual booing occurred, my gut dropped out, because my first inclination was, did I just do something wrong?” he said. “The answer, obviously, wasn’t very supportive of gay people, and there was a lot of fear of how the Army would take the question.”

He did not have to wait long to find out. At breakfast later that morning, the segment was playing on the chow hall television. Hill immediately tracked down his commander, who told him she had no problem with what he’d done but that she would need to run it up the chain of command. She later relayed the response.

“She said, `What the military’s most concerned with is that you are OK, because it’s a lot of pressure on you and we want to make sure if there is anything we can do to help,’” he recalled. […]

What Hill remembers most was that a presidential candidate defined his marriage and military service in terms of sex. He holds that up against the times he hid Snyder’s photograph because Army buddies were coming over to play video games, introduced his husband as his roommate or brother, and the legal vows they exchanged at the grave of Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovich, who was discharged in 1975 after becoming the first gay service member to challenge the U.S. military’s ban on gay troops. [read more]

diegueno:

President Eisenhower could have taught Scott Walker a thing or two

diegueno:

President Eisenhower could have taught Scott Walker a thing or two

thepoliticalnotebook:

Occupy Oakland. This is a Facebook photo of Kayvan Sabehgi, an Army veteran of both wars, who was seriously injured by the Oakland police early Thursday morning. [photo via]
According to the Bay Citizen, who contacted his friend and business partner Brian Kelly, Sabehgi was returning home from a protest when police blocked his way and told him to move off. Trying to get to his house, Sabehgi asked them where he was supposed to go. According to his report, they beat Sabehgi with their batons, and although he is being charged with resisting arrest, he says he “took the blows” before falling to the ground.
As I reported last night, he spent eighteen hours in jail in agonizing pain. After his release on bail (posted by Kelly), he was hospitalized at Highland Hospital for internal bleeding and a lacerated spleen. Iraq Veterans Against the War has informed the press that he was an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. His friend Brian told the Bay Citizen that he had been part of undercover operations. Of his friend’s involvement in the Occupy protests he said, “I mean he’s a soldier. He’s a tough dude, but he’s got a big heart.” Brian is a partner in their brewery, Elevation 66 and said that Sabehgi often spoke of dissatisfaction with corporate America. Brian Kelly has filed a complaint with the OPD on Sabehgi’s behalf.
Read the Bay Citizen’s story.

thepoliticalnotebook:

Occupy Oakland. This is a Facebook photo of Kayvan Sabehgi, an Army veteran of both wars, who was seriously injured by the Oakland police early Thursday morning. [photo via]

According to the Bay Citizen, who contacted his friend and business partner Brian Kelly, Sabehgi was returning home from a protest when police blocked his way and told him to move off. Trying to get to his house, Sabehgi asked them where he was supposed to go. According to his report, they beat Sabehgi with their batons, and although he is being charged with resisting arrest, he says he “took the blows” before falling to the ground.

As I reported last night, he spent eighteen hours in jail in agonizing pain. After his release on bail (posted by Kelly), he was hospitalized at Highland Hospital for internal bleeding and a lacerated spleen. Iraq Veterans Against the War has informed the press that he was an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. His friend Brian told the Bay Citizen that he had been part of undercover operations. Of his friend’s involvement in the Occupy protests he said, “I mean he’s a soldier. He’s a tough dude, but he’s got a big heart.” Brian is a partner in their brewery, Elevation 66 and said that Sabehgi often spoke of dissatisfaction with corporate America. Brian Kelly has filed a complaint with the OPD on Sabehgi’s behalf.

Read the Bay Citizen’s story.


thepoliticalnotebook:

The private Halloween parties of the 1%. These are photos provided to the New York Times by a former employee of the law firm of Steven J. Baum, a firm known as a “foreclosure mill,” because it represents banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo in foreclosure cases. This is a Halloween party held last year in the firm’s HQ near Buffalo, NY, in which employees mockingly dressed up as “squatters” and decorated the office with caricatures of homeless camps and foreclosed homes, under a sign reading Baum Estates.

The firm is currently under investigation by the NY Attorney General for its practices (not its appalling parties in which it mocks the people it works to make homeless, but its “dubious legal practices”) and the subject of a class-action lawsuit.

The firm should also be the subject of widespread scorn for their absolute lack of compassion and their delight and ridicule in the misery of people whose homes have been foreclosed on.

Read the whole story at the New York Times.

“You can demonstrate all you want on Wall Street, the problem is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

— Hermain Cain speaking at the Values Voter Summit.

Corporations are not people. They’re Republicans.

—Rev. Al Sharpton

His hell raising aside, Cain is the newly selected Obama mouthpiece for the status quo. Money has always hidden behind the political front man. This is why Democrat/Republican makes no difference. Vote Obama and you get Wall Street. Vote Republicans for Congress and you get Wall Street.

US Constitutional government is NOT the problem. The Siamese Twin of the 1% joined to state power is the problem. Only a new direction in new laws can separate this anti-democracy monster created by the criminally brilliant Frankensteins of the organized crime gang of NYC—Wall Street.

~gonzodave

(via gonzodave)