Breaking News Events

[Nat]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I want this to be satire, I really, really do.

Cheers
Aj

Maybe he's satirizing himself, and he's just waiting for us all to get it.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by betenoire

OH, cuz Prince Micheal II is way less obnoxious.

At least MJ just named his kids Michael, Paris and Prince. Now that I think about it, wouldn't Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin be praised by the Pope for what they named their kids? You can't get much more biblical than Apple and Moses.

[Corkey]

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/01/...ffect-tuesday/

[Tommi]

TODAY
Sat., Jan. 15, 4:30 PM ET CBS
Pittsburgh and Baltimore Divisional Playoffs


Sat., Jan. 15, 8:00 PM ET FOX
Green Bay
Atlanta

Behind enemy lines: Local Steelers fandom thrives
By ERIN COX, Staff Writer
Published 01/15/11

Awash in a sea of purple, B.J. Nibeck remains steadfastly dedicated to the black-and-gold.

Before the Ravens even existed, Nibeck wed herself to the Pittsburgh Steelers, and like many fans, it's a marriage that transcends distance and local animosity.

"We know we are in Ravenstown, but as far as we're concerned, Steeler Nation is everywhere," said Nibeck, head of the Naptown Steelers Fan Club. "We don't even see it as Ravens country, because most of us have lived here longer than Baltimore has even had a team."

As the Steelers faithful tell it, isolation from their Pittsburgh roots breeds community here in Maryland. And the proximity to the Ravens stokes rivalry. Still, even though they live just outside the Ravens' nest, throngs of local Steelers fans have persuaded several area businesses to cast aside their own allegiances and cater to them

[Nat]

Pakistan's Lesbians Live In Silence, Love In Secret

NPR (audio available by noon eastern)

January 17, 2011 The names in this story have been changed to protect the women's identities out of concern for their safety.

Five years ago, Fatima was 23 and studying law in Lahore, Pakistan. She wore blue jeans and a loose shirt and sported short boyish hair. That was the first sign she wasn't a typical Pakistani woman.

She leaned in to share a secret she had revealed to only a few other people before: "I'm lesbian," she said hesitantly.

"I think I knew since a very early age," she said. "It felt quite isolating, I feel. Like, I didn't see people or kids around me feel the same way."

In an Islamic country like Pakistan, lesbians can be imprisoned for life. However, Fatima says, it is not the law that gays and lesbians fear — it's family and neighbors, whom she suspects murder many gays and lesbians in honor killings.

A Secret Teen Romance

Fatima grew up in a house with sisters who were always obsessing over boys, a reality that Fatima says she could never relate to.

"From the time that I've known this about myself, every day that I've felt that I'd wish I was just like everybody else," she says.

But her attraction to women became undeniable when she found herself in love with her best friend in high school. She was 18. And she finally worked up the nerve to tell her.

"What was really surprising, I really didn't expect her to like me back. I really didn't," Fatima says. "It was one of the best surprises in my life. I just thought, 'I am going to tell her and she's just going to be like, 'Are you crazy? What's wrong with you?' And the fact that she didn't say that just blew my mind."

My insides are at war with each other. There are days I wake up and think I should just embrace myself. And there are days I think I should just kill myself.

- Fatima, a fake name to protect the woman who was interviewed
The two dated for years, but always in secret.

They would hold hands walking down the street as many women do in Pakistan — it's simply regarded as "sisterly love."

And that idea of "sisterly love" allows female lovers to stay under the radar, even more easily than in the West — until they reach the age of marriage. That's when a lesbian relationship comes into conflict with the very fabric of Pakistani society.

After years of a secret romance, Fatima's girlfriend suddenly left her, saying there was no future for them in Pakistan. She married a man.

Fatima says she can understand why her girlfriend made that decision.

"I mean, I think from the time that you're born you're socialized into believing that homosexuality is unnatural," she says. "It is a disease, and it is completely prohibited."

That sense of abnormality, Fatima says, haunts her.

"My insides are at war with each other," she says. "There are days I wake up and think I should just embrace myself. And there are days I think I should just kill myself."

Leaving the country, Fatima says, is not an option. She says she thinks it's her calling to be a human rights lawyer in Pakistan, to change the country, which is in severe crisis.

'I Hated That Girl'

Fatima recounts the day when she decided to tell her grandmother that she had been in love with her best friend.

According to Fatima, her grandmother said, "That's why I always hated that girl. I just hated that girl."

"But miraculously, when she came back from work, [my grandmother] was completely fine — as if that discussion never had taken place," Fatima says. "The way I looked at it, she was in complete denial of the whole thing."

Shortly after, Fatima married a man, in an attempt to conform to Pakistani values. She told him before the wedding that she was attracted to women, but like no many others in her life he had assumed it was a phase that she'd get over. But two months into her marriage, Fatima met another woman, Kiran, and the two fell in love.

After months of begging, Fatima's family finally agreed to let her get a divorce. "I said, 'I am a lesbian. I am in love with a woman. I need to get out of this marriage, please,'" she says. "All hell broke loose, essentially."

But Fatima won her battle for a divorce. She says meeting Kiran gave her the strength to fight — gave her something to fight for.

They're now living together, and Fatima is a human rights lawyer.

But now there were other problems for the couple, Kiran says.

"There were security concerns in that her husband, who was in a bad place, was freely talking about this situation to other people," she says.

Kiran says that made them scared for a while, with so many people knowing their secret.

But, Kiran says, "it would take some doing" for people to really imagine they are lesbians.

"Yeah, it's not within the realm of possibility," Fatima says, holding her girlfriend's hand as the two giggle. "People don't usually contemplate two women living together, that they are into each other. Good for us."

Kiran agrees.

"Because in our society, women don't have sexual needs, desires, drives, whatever. And those that do, run brothels," Kiran says. "Either you are a nice girl, or you are a fast girl. So if we are fast girls, it means that men come and visit us. If we are nice girls, it means that girls come and visit us, which works out."

[suebee]

Canadian broadcasters ban uncensored version of "Money for Nothing" LINK

[Greyson]

Judge rules for gay-rights backers in health suit

The Associated Press
Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2011


SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has issued a favorable ruling for gay-rights advocates involving state employees and long-term health care.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

The San Francisco Chronicle says in issuing the ruling Tuesday, the judge turned down an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit.

The Chronicle reports the suit was filed over the California Public Employees' Retirement System's refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan.

The agency says it does not sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/19/333...-backers.html#

[Soon]

House GOP Budget Axe May Fall Heavily On Low-Income Women

[Fancy]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

"Kampala, Uganda (CNN) -- A Ugandan gay rights activist whose name was published on a list of the nation's "top homosexuals" was bludgeoned to death in his home near the capital, his lawyer said Thursday."


May David Kato rest in peace. May his murder inspire a renewed movement for LGBT freedom in Uganda, and across the world. Let us never forget his courageous love.

[Greyson]

Judge rules health law unconstitutional
By: Jennifer Haberkorn
January 31, 2011

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional, but he stopped short of ordering the federal government to stop implementing it.

Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Congress overstepped its legal bounds when it included the provision requiring nearly all Americans to buy insurance. Because the provision is key to the rest of the law, he declared the whole thing unconstitutional.

Last year, a Virginia judge knocked down the key piece of the law, but he didn’t declare the whole law unconstitutional.

Vinson said the Congress has no right to require Americans to purchase a product.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The issue is widely expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit was filed by the state of Florida shortly after the reform law was signed in March. But since then, 25 additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined the case, making it the most high-profile and politically charged lawsuit against health reform.

But it’s just one of about two dozen legal challenges to the health care reform law, most of which center around the requirement to buy insurance. Proponents of health reform argue that the so-called individual mandate is pivotal to delivering key insurance industry reforms in the law, such as a ban on denying patients over pre-existing conditions. It’s due to go into effect in 2014.

The states and NFIB also argued that the law’s mandatory expansion of the Medicaid program commandeered the states into federal service. But Vinson ruled with the federal government on the point, arguing that the states can leave Medicaid at any time.

The ruling is unlikely to have any immediate impact on the health care reform legislation. But opponents of health reform are likely to hail the ruling as another sign of the law’s imperfections.

Only four judges have ruled on whether the requirement to buy insurance is constitutional. Two federal judges have upheld the individual mandate. One other judge, Henry Hudson in Virginia, also knocked down the individual mandate in a Virginia lawsuit. A dozen other cases have been thrown out on procedural grounds.


One of the key legal questions in the numerous lawsuits has come down to whether the Constitution’s Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the decision to buy insurance.

The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance.

The federal government argued that Congress has a right to regulate the insurance market because it is unique— it’s fair to assume that every single person will need health care at one point in his or her life. If they’re not insured, their costs will have to get picked up by other consumers, driving up rates for everyone and putting them in the insurance market whether they plan to or not.

During oral arguments in December, Vinson suggested that it would be a “giant leap” for the Supreme Court to say a decision to buy or not buy insurance is the same as activity. He questioned whether Congress could require people to buy other products if they have a positive impact.

Could they "mandate everybody has to buy a certain amount of broccoli?” Vinson questioned, comparing the positive impact both could have on health.

The federal government argued that health insurance and health care are unique markets and that Congress has the power to regulate them.

“It’s not shoes. It’s not broccoli,” said Ian Gershengorn, arguing for the federal government. “Health insurance is a product that is a financing mechanism."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48517.html

[Corkey]

Bastard, the judge not Grey

[betenoire]

Is being (I think) the only industrialised nation without affordable healthcare for all what people are talking about when they say "american exceptionalism"?

*shrug*

[MissItalianDiva]

While I agree with everyone's irritation and perhaps even disgust with the attempted disposal of the new Health Care Reform, I have SLE and happen to personally shell out over 500 bucks a month on my insurance since I am considered high risk in the eyes of the insurance companies, and to some even considered not eligible for insurance.

However, with that being said I have a few points in the aritcle Greyson posted that are good points and honestly something everyone really needs to think about on a deeper level and I will explain why in my points.

Point One
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The Judge obviously does not have an issue with the Act due to his later statement regarding his decision but from a LEGAL standpoint the Judge I feel made the appropriate and necessary ruling. The individual mandate within the Act is absolutely unconstitutional without a doubt. You can not require anyone to buy anything and to do so is not constitutional especially when this is still considered a consumer affair.


Point Two
"The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance."

Here is the worry with allowing this provision within the Act to pass, it establishes precedence within the legal world for EVERY other single lawsuit and we will lose our protection for the government to not be able to mandate us into purchasing anything they so see fit. If this was to have passed without being shot down or addressed we would never be able to argue another point such as this without losing. Once precedence is set within a court of law it is used as a reference for ruling and to establish if something even needs to be allowed into a courtroom.

I just don't see any good coming out of this mandate being allowed. It is going to open a can of worms that will follow us and cause issues as well as government intrusion for years to come.

[Corkey]

If point one were true the government couldn't require auto insurance, so that doesn't fly.
Point 2 I am on medicare, and I am required to purchase separate coverage that medicare doesn't cover. So point 2 is mute.

It is legal for the government to require health care coverage, because president has been set.

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by Corkey

If point one were true the government couldn't require auto insurance, so that doesn't fly.
Point 2 I am on medicare, and I am required to purchase separate coverage that medicare doesn't cover. So point 2 is mute.

It is legal for the government to require health care coverage, because president has been set.

Actually neither is mute and here is why

We are not REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance....you are only required if you are operating a motor vehicle...therefore that has no stance where this law is concerned because you STILL have a CHOICE.

As for medicare and being required to purchase additional coverage once again you have a CHOICE you are not required to be on Medicare therefore you are not required to purchase the supplement.

Neither one establishes precedence in the court of law due to CHOICE

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by MissItalianDiva

Actually neither is mute and here is why

We are not REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance....you are only required if you are operating a motor vehicle...therefore that has no stance where this law is concerned because you STILL have a CHOICE.

As for medicare and being required to purchase additional coverage once again you have a CHOICE you are not required to be on Medicare therefore you are not required to purchase the supplement.

Neither one establishes precedence in the court of law due to CHOICE

Actually one is required to purchase auto insurance when one buys a new vehicle, whether they intend to drive it or not. If one is on Social security one is required to buy supplemental insurance. Precedence. I do believe that ALL americans should have health care and be required to have it to keep costs down for taxpayers, it's called personal responsibility. I also believe it should be affordable. You and I are not going to agree, and we don't have to.

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Actually one is required to purchase auto insurance when one buys a new vehicle, whether they intend to drive it or not. If one is on Social security one is required to buy supplemental insurance. Precedence. I do believe that ALL americans should have health care and be required to have it to keep costs down for taxpayers, it's called personal responsibility. I also believe it should be affordable. You and I are not going to agree, and we don't have to.

Actually once again.....not correct but you are right we are not going to agree on the dynamics within the issue. I never said I do not want affordable healthcare nor did I specify that I do not want it to be affordable or even that the ACT itself is flawed or a bad idea. What I did say and will continue to say is the MANDATE within the ACT is unconstitutional and if auto insurance or medicare supplement was in FACT a set precedent we would not even be having this discussion because this issue would not be sitting within a federal court. It would have not gotten that far based on precedent.

So once again I will clarify.....I do believe EVERYONE should have Healthcare and actually would love to have this Act passed for personal and non personal reasons but I will not support or agree to a mandate within the Act that is unconstitutional but like you said Corkey there is a need and everyone should have access to health care without a question.

[Corkey]

Which is why it is going to the SCOUS. There is precedence.

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Which is why it is going to the SCOUS. There is precedence.

Actually that is why no judge is going to ALLOW them to claim precedence....it is not the same thing nor will it go anywhere. It is a shot in the dark claim by an idiot lawyer that is hoping for a shot in the dark. Had this been a real precedence this issue would have been presented well before it has gone this far.....in reality this would have been brought to the table FIRST not after multiple rulings. Read the rules for precedence...

[Toughy]

Federal Courts disagree on the legality of mandating the purchase of health insurance. That is why it is going to end up in SCOTUS....

I'm not so sure it is Constitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance. I need more information.....I haven't read the decisions handed down by the different federal courts......some say yes it is and some say no it's not.

IF you have single-payer system the Constitutional question is moot