umbertino

Rubio and Cruz go after frontrunner on immigration, healthcare and more Both campaigns claim victory ahead of crucial Super Tuesday races in US 2016 elections Sexual assault allegations against Trump resurface Republican debate in Texas: 11 things we learned Ben Jacobs and Tom Dart in Houston Friday 26 February 2016 07.12 GMT Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz shake hands while Donald Trump stands by. Photograph: David J. Phillip/AP Vids in link http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/25/donald-trump-marco-rubio-ted-cruz-republican-debate-houston

Happy belated ( sorry...read it just now) Birthday from Italy, DT ( not Donald Trump....) Yes Hey Thug...This is for you

Grazie Amico for listening

Halleluhwah

One More Night

by: John Bachtell February 25 2016 The 2016 elections have been dynamic and unpredictable. On the Democratic side, the primary battle between Hillar-y Clinton and Bernie Sanders will likely remain competitive into the spring. On the GOP side, we face a threat to democracy most clearly posed by the candidacy of Donald Trump. The stakes in the election outcome have been dramatically raised. The campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders is making a unique contribution to defeating the Republican right and has the potential to galvanize long-term transformative change. The campaign is also a movement. Millions are fed up with the same old establishment politics tied to Wall Street and the 1 per cent. It's reminiscent of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns. Large numbers, particularly youth, are being activated and excited. Political boundaries are being eclipsed and thinking reshaped. Seeds of change are being sown and foundations are being laid for deeper-going changes in the future. The Sanders campaign is giving hope to millions coping with long-term economic stagnation and vast wealth inequality, poverty and joblessness, student debt, climate crisis and institutionalized racism. The campaign is expanding the collective political imagination and injecting radical ideas into the body politic. It has legitimized democratic socialism in the national conversation. Sanders is also influencing Hillar-y Clinton to adopt more progressive positions on a wide range of issues. But Sanders understands if he is elected his radical economic and social agenda including breaking up the big banks, universal health care, tuition-free university, massive jobs creation, expanding Social Security, and repealing Citizen's United will go nowhere given the vice grip the GOP and extreme right has on Congress. The only way to realize a radical agenda is through a "political revolution". This means drawing millions of people into the political process to overcome the power of Wall Street, obstruction of the GOP, and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Sanders sees his campaign as part of a much bigger movement that must be built. It starts with defeating the GOP at every level: presidency, congress and statehouses. As Sanders said after his victory in New Hampshire, "Whether or not I win the nomination, we all must work together to unite the Democratic Party. We must come together to assure that the right wing does not capture the White House." A decisive victory can open the door to passing progressive legislation, changing the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court and more radical changes down the road. A political revolution rests on building a broad coalition comprising anyone opposing the extreme right; one that is multi-class, multi-racial, male and female, and multi-generational, which unites left and center currents and encompasses all the democratic movements. It's a coalition that fits this moment with the current balance of class and social forces. If the balance shifts in a more favorable direction resulting from victory, more radical reforms will be possible. A political revolution can transform politics if labor, its allies and the broad left put their stamp on the multi-class alliance, shape its politics and frame the issues debated for the elections. The Sanders campaign is helping do this including strengthening the left and grassroots composition of the broad anti-ultra right coalition. It will be transformative if the anti-right coalition is united and mobilized. Polls show that 86% of Clinton supporters will support Sanders in the general election if he is the nominee, and 79% of Sanders supporters will support Clinton if she wins. Sanders will need Clinton's supporters in order to win. Such a coalition must have an organized expression in every community, particularly working class communities. It must fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attacks and all efforts to divide. White working class communities are considered a key demographic for the GOP and are targets of the worst kinds of racist and reactionary ideas. A political revolution cannot abandon them to the embrace of the extreme right and its ideology of hate. Sanders' vision of a political revolution calls for a 50-state strategy including turning red states and districts blue and defeating the GOP in its stronghold - the Deep South. If either Sanders or Clinton are elected, their administrations will face unrelenting obstruction from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks and mass media and, of course, right-wing elements in the oligarchy (Koch brothers et al). Voters must remain engaged at a high level after the election. When President Obama was elected in 2008 voters thought they had done their duty and went home. The void was filled by GOP obstruction and the Tea Party. Low voter turnout in 2010 and 2014 led to GOP control of Congress and state houses across the country. A political revolution will be fueled by ongoing shifts in public attitudes. Majorities of Americans now favor taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, immigration reform, abortion rights, marriage equality, criminal justice reform, and action to curb the climate crisis. New social movements are influencing millions at the grassroots including the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, The Dreamers, reproductive rights, marriage equality, and climate justice activists. A political revolution is based on the idea that majorities make change. It is not enough for majorities to believe in an idea, they must actively fight for it. Sanders' political revolution envisions democratizing our political system. This includes removing money from politics, expanding the right to vote, and stimulating independent politics. Movements are acting both within and outside the Democratic Party and comprise many of the key forces in the anti-right alliance. A political revolution will help establish the foundations for a real people's party, whether it results in a breakaway from or a takeover of the Democratic Party. Regardless of whether Sanders wins or not, the politics of the nation will never be the same and the fight for a political revolution will continue. Photo: Bernie Sanders. | Michael Dwyer/AP http://www.peoplesworld.org/the-sanders-campaign-political-revolution-and-the-2016-elections/

"Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me" soundtrack Originally by the "Guess Who"

Another Day In Paradise Sussudio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqzxwwIxlw

"Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me" soundtrack

Bittersweet

Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast I. "Rise and Shine" II. "Sunny Side Up" III. "Morning Glory"

Fat Old Sun

‘We do not need a militia of toddlers,’ says lawmaker of draft law allowing under-14s to have ‘a pistol, revolver or the ammunition’ under parental supervision Ellen Brait in New York Thursday 25 February 2016 18.28 GMT A bill that allows children of all ages to handle guns, passed through Iowa’s house of representatives on Tuesday. Passed by a 62-36 vote, the bill permits children under the age of 14 to have “a pistol, revolver or the ammunition” while under parental supervision. The bill will now head to the state senate. State representative Kirsten Running-Marquardt, who opposes the bill, said it “allows for one-year-olds, two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds to operate handguns”, according to CBS-affiliate KCCI. She added: “We do not need a militia of toddlers.” Currently in Iowa, children can legally use long guns and shotguns under adult supervision but not handguns. This bill would change that, allowing the use of handguns as long as parents are 21 years old and maintain “visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person”. Children would still not be able to purchase firearms on their own. State representative Jake Highfill told the Washington Post that the new law “gives the power back to parents”. “Allowing people to learn at a young age the respect that a gun commands is one of the most important things you can do,” Highfill said. The alternative, he added, is “turning 18 with no experience”. But those opposing the bill were not convinced. State representative Mary Mascher argued that they “can’t legislate good parenting … but we can protect our children”. She cited seat belt, smoking and car seat laws. “While most parents would not allow their two-year-old to wield a revolver, we pass laws for those parents who lack the parenting skills needed to protect their own children,” Mascher said. She also referenced a case from 2014 when a nine-year-old girl in Arizona accidentally shot and killed her shooting range instructor with an Uzi. The girl said “she felt the gun was too much for her and had hurt her shoulder”, according to the Huffington Post. But Highfill said the new bill is “something that was needed”, according to the Washington Post, and parent’s decisions regarding their children are “something the government should not be involved with”. A proponent of the draft law said: ‘Allowing people to learn at a young age the respect that a gun commands is one of the most important things you can do.’ Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/25/iowa-passes-bill-children-handle-guns

By Kevin Freking, The Associated Press Feb. 24, 2016 WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama signed legislation Wednesday that would extend some U.S. privacy protections to citizens of allied countries and let foreigners sue the U.S. government if their personal data is unlawfully disclosed. In a separate ceremony just a few minutes later, Obama signed into law a bill that beefs up trade enforcement and includes a ban on Internet access taxes. Obama said both bills had bipartisan support. The bill extending certain privacy protections was aimed at shoring up trust among European allies following leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. Obama said the new law makes sure data is protected under U.S. privacy laws, "not only American citizens, but also foreign citizens." Even as the U.S. government works to protect American's security, Obama said "we're mindful of the privacy that we cherish so much." Supporters say extending privacy protections helps ensure that other nations will continue sharing law enforcement data with the United States. Obama is trying to build support for a trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and during the second bill signing ceremony, he sought to emphasize that his administration is vigorously taking on countries that violate free trade law. He said the bill will provide more resources to boost trade enforcement efforts and streamline the process for fighting the illegal dumping of goods. Businesses groups have said the legislation would cut down on paperwork needed to ship goods, lowering the cost of doing business and helping consumers. Obama did not focus on the aspect of the bill that has gained the most attention, the ban on Internet access taxes. Until now, states that imposed Internet access taxes have been allowed to continue. Under the legislation Obama signed, those states would have to phase out their taxes by the summer of 2020. Seven states - Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin - have been collecting a combined $563 million yearly from Internet access taxes, according to information gathered by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Although Obama signed the bill, the White House took issue with a provision opposing the movement to boycott Israeli products in protest of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Certain provisions of the bill lump together Israel and Israel-controlled territories, "contrary to longstanding bipartisan United States policy," Obama said in a signing statement. Obama added that his administration will implement the bill in a "manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy." The Associated Press President Barack Obama, joined by from left, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., signs House Resolution1428, the Judicial Redress Act of 2015, in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington,Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) http://www.jsonline.com/news/usandworld/national/obama-signs-bill-extending-privacy-protections-to-allies-mjsurnpublicidaporg7d9e53bc740b4488868d7daa-370033101.html

This racist backlash against refugees is the real crisis in Europe The European coalition of the inhumane – contriving to trap refugees in Greece – cannot go on. A humanitarian evacuation plan is urgently needed Thursday 25 February 2016 12.09 GMT By Apostolis Fotiadis ‘Consider for a minute the ‘invasion’ these leaders are moving against. Figures show 34% of refugees are children. Another 20% are women.’ Photograph: Petros Giannakouris/AP http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/racist-backlash-against-refugees-greece-real-crisis-europe

Athens accuses Vienna of undermining efforts to reach Europe-wide response by siding with hardline EU members who refuse to take refugees Helena Smith in Athens, Ian Traynor and agencies in Brussels Thursday 25 February 2016 14.18 GMT Greece has recalled its ambassador to Austria amid growing tensions between the two countries over Vienna’s strong-arm approach to the handling of Europe’s migrant crisis. Enraged at its exclusion from a mini-summit of Balkan states convened by Austria on Wednesday, Athens hit back denouncing what it described as diplomacy that had “roots in the 19th century”. At the meeting nations along the migrant route agreed to step up restrictions, including closing borders, to stem the number of immigrants flowing into Europe, effectively stranding thousands in Greece. Issuing a furious statement, the Greek foreign minister, Nikos Kotzias, said Athens had recalled its ambassador “to preserve friendly relations between the states and the people of Greece and Austria”. “The big problems of the European Union cannot be handled with thoughts, mentalities and supra-institutional initiatives that have their roots in the 19th century,” the statement said. “Such acts undermine the foundations and the process of European unification.” The move reflected mounting anger in Greece over what is perceived as unjust criticism of its frontline role handing the crisis. With the longest sea border in Europe and its proximity to Turkey, the EU member state says it cannot be blamed for being the main gateway into Europe of those fleeing war and mayhem in the Middle East. With some 20,000 Afghans and other migrants trapped in the country following Macedonia’s snap decision to increase border controls on Sunday, the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, threatened to veto EU agreements if action wasn’t taken to ameliorate the situation. “We will not accept turning the country into a warehouse of souls,” he told the Greek parliament after blasting Austria for its “unacceptable” behaviour. The EU migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos said on Thursday that unless the flow of migration weakened in the next 10 days, “there is risk the whole system will completely break down.” The numerous splits in Europe over immigration policy were fully evident in Wednesday’s Vienna meeting, which was unilaterally called by Austria and snubbed both the Germans and the Greeks. Speaking before a crucial meeting of European ministers in Brussels on Thursday, the Greek migration minister, Yannis Mouzalas, said Greece would not be left by the rest of the EU to become the “Lebanon of Europe” by hosting millions of migrants and refugees. “A very large number here will attempt to discuss how to address a humanitarian crisis in Greece that they themselves intend to create,” Mouzalas told reporters. “Greece will not accept unilateral actions. Greece can also carry out unilateral actions. Greece will not accept becoming Europe’s Lebanon, a warehouse of souls, even if this were to be done with major [EU] funding.” The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, pressed last week for a special summit on 7 March with Turkey, in an attempt to revive a faltering pact with Ankara that pays the Turks to stem the flow of refugees to Greece. EU members opposed to German-backed refugee quotas and the Turkey pact instead want to quarantine Greece and seal the country’s northern border with Macedonia, effectively shifting the border-free Schengen zone’s external frontier from the Aegean to central Europe. Eastern Europe, Austria and Slovenia want to help Macedonia close the Greek border. Hungary has meanwhile called an anti-immigration referendum aimed at stopping Brussels and Berlin forcing it to take in refugees under any EU quota schemes. Border controls on the Balkan migrant route (check link for map) Four million refugees have fled Syria for the relative safety of neighbouring countries, according to the UN with more than 1 million in Lebanon. Greece is the main entry point for refugees to the EU, with most of them crossing the Aegean Sea to Turkey via the Greek islands. At least 102,500 people have arrived on the Greek islands of Samos, Kos and Lesbos this year, according to figures this week from the International Organisation for Migration. A further 7,500 have reached Italy, and, in the first six weeks of 2016, 411 people died attempting to make the journey. In 2015 the threshold of 100,000 arrivals was not reached until the end of June. As spring approaches and the weather improves, the rate of arrivals this year is expected to climb further. The IOM said 20% of the arrivals were from Afghanistan and nearly half were Syrians. Already divided over what to do about mass immigration, the EU faces further fragmentation as governments rush to impose national border controls from central Europe down to the Balkans, leaving Greece as the entry and end point for many migrants entering the EU from Turkey. After Austria’s decision last week to allow in no more than 80 asylum seekers daily, Slovenia is following suit and sending troops to its frontier with Croatia, while Belgium announced new border controls with France this week. Afghan children sit between tents at a relocation centre for migrants and refugees near Athens. Greece, faces growing pressure to stop refugees leaving it for the rest of Europe. Photograph: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP/Getty Images http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/greece-wont-be-lebanon-of-europe-yannis-mouzalas-refugees-eu

With Hassan Rouhani as president, reformists feel there is an opportunity to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians – if they can be convinced to take part in Friday’s election Ian Black in Tehran Thursday 25 February 2016 06.00 GMT Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, looks meaningfully into the camera as he holds a piece of paper poised over a plastic ballot box. “Elections are the bulwark of our nation,” proclaims the Farsi caption. “People at the polling stations will protect the destiny of our nation and prevent our enemies taking over our land.” Khamenei is looking down from a giant poster in the courtyard of the Shahid Motaheri mosque in south Tehran, a poor area where support for his ultra-conservative leadership is strong. Only a few hundred people have come to this rally but there is a flurry of excitement at the arrival of Gholamali Haddad-Adel, the first candidate on the main list of hardline “principalists” contesting Friday’s parliamentary poll. Haddad-Adel is followed by a media gaggle – including a few of the foreign journalists who have been given rare visas to report from Iran – as well as an officer of the Revolutionary Guards with a clenched fist and Kalashnikov badge gleaming on his dark green uniform. Speeches follow afternoon prayers in the Islamic Republic’s classic combination of faith and power. “The economy,” declares Haddad-Adel, “will be the main priority for the next government.” He provides a succinct summary of the theme of this country’s first elections since last summer’s landmark nuclear agreement and the lifting of international sanctions just more than a month ago. Not a single benefit has yet come from that, he complains. The atmosphere is charged. The crowd at the blue-tiled Motaheri mosque chants slogans attacking reformists, the BBC and England – still the “Little Satan” of Iran’s nationalist demonology. (America remains the “Great Satan.”) Meanwhile, Shargh, a reformist paper, lyrically foresees “a wave of hope rising” when the contest for the 290-seat majlis is over - even after the disqualification of hundreds of reformist candidates. In parallel, clerical leaders are standing for election to the assembly of experts, a normally obscure body whose role is to choose the next supreme leader. Khamenei is 76 and reportedly suffering from prostate cancer, so whoever ends up occupying its 88 seats may have a crucially important decision to make in the coming years. On the face of it, Friday’s votes are not as dramatic as the presidential contests in 2009, which saw the confrontational Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win re-election by rigging the results and crushing the subsequent Green movement protests, and in 2013, when the pragmatic Hassan Rouhani succeeded him as president. But in the circumstances both could be significant milestones on the path to Iran’s future, shifting the balance of internal power in favour of greater change. The mood seems calm, though both sides recognise that the stakes are high. “This election is about protecting the regime from changes that are important to the revolution,” warned Saeed Salehi, an oil engineer listening to Haddad-Adel in the Motaheri mosque. “The reformists are not experienced enough and they look to the outside world – not to our own national resources. The Iranian people have not enjoyed the good will of the west.” If more reformists enter parliament, their argument goes, it will help Rouhani open up the economy to deliver urgently needed improvements for millions of ordinary Iranians – in terms of jobs, growth, housing and medical care, crucially demonstrating that ending Iran’s isolation will make a real difference. There is no doubt that this threatens the vast interests of the conservative establishment, especially the Revolutionary Guards. The president’s headline-grabbing deal to buy 118 planes from Airbus for $25bn has come under withering fire as an elite project that serves foreign rather than national interests. Still, the scars of 2009 – with its mass street protests, killings and arrests – run deep, so no-one is rushing headlong into a new crisis. Even the most optimistic estimates say that reformists and moderates – once distinct terms that are now blurred – are unlikely to take more than 80 seats. “We are not going to have a carnival,” concedes Mohammed Ali Vakil, a leading reformist candidate. “But a lot of people will vote for us. They will be calm, but they will surprise us.” Sadegh Zibakalam, a political scientist who is campaigning for the reformist alliance, agrees. “I am excited,” he told the Guardian by phone while getting the vote out in Khuzestan in the south-west. “If we can persuade 10%-20% of undecided voters to overcome their indifference and go to the polling stations then there could be a historic outcome. Conservative voters are determined and will definitely vote. It’s the reformists who are undecided.” Apathy is a huge problem, however. “I voted for the revolution when I was a young man, and that was it,” shrugged Hassan, a burly 60 something driver stuck in the traffic around the capital’s Ferdowsi Square. “Why should I bother now?” The cynicism is just as strong in the leafy north Tehran suburb of Jamaran, where Ayatollah Khomeini lived. “If you are educated you never vote because you would just make a fool of yourself,” said Negin, a young dentist smoking shisha with four friends – their loose headscarves, makeup and fashionable clothes and boots a reminder of far-reaching social changes of recent years. “It’s easier to live in Iran without thinking about politics,” sighed Melina, a designer. “People opposed to voting think those who do are sheep or donkeys,” said one still undecided middle-aged voter. “But the Iranian people are the only real reformers in Iran by remaining engaged and persisting in effecting change from the bottom up millimetre by millimetre. The younger generation’s higher expectations is testament to that.” The argument for gradual change has powerful proponents. Mohammed Khatami, the reformist president of the late 1990s, has openly endorsed the Rouhani camp – his Instagram account circumventing the official ban on publishing his picture. Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and one of the historic leaders of the revolution, is another. Rafsanjani, now 80, is drawing heavy fire from hardliners for his bid to inject a more moderate element onto the assembly of experts. Tehran is festooned with election flyers and posters – though reformists complain that theirs have been systematically torn down at night. The campaign is far from perfect – and not only because of the mass disqualifications. Language is careful and coded; everything tightly controlled. Still, Mohammed Reza Aref, overall leader of the reform camp, is closely identified with Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the Green leaders who are still under house arrest after having their victory “stolen” in 2009 – one vivid illustration amongst many of the limits of domestic change under Rouhani, despite his breakthrough in relations with the west. Above all, Iranians are approaching this contest in a realistic mood – and not least because of the violence elsewhere in the region. “The simple-minded, idealistic fantasy of an Iranian-style Arab spring has gone,” argues the veteran analyst Saeed Barzin, “Iranians have become more conservative and more inclined to get involved in elections even though they know they are not free and fair. That’s important after what happened in 2009. This is based on a social contract where the state says it will provide security and a chance of economic progress and allow you to choose between political programmes that are somewhat different. It’s fairly limited on both sides.” An Iranian raises her palm with writing in Persian that reads: ‘I’m ready to sacrifice myself for the supreme leader’. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/iran-elections-stakes-are-high-as-reformists-seek-further-political-gains

We asked those living in Italy what they think of the vote over same-sex civil unions. Here are some of their responses Rachel Obordo Wednesday 24 February 2016 18.55 GMT ‘Everyone is tired of having to explain that we are just ordinary people looking for equal rights’ Italy cannot continue to deny the LGBTQI community their rights. I would have preferred same sex marriage which guarantees equal rights, but the civil union law is at least a start! It is great that people are debating all around the country and it helps to open up communication on such a taboo subject in the Italian culture. It’s time and if the bill (also known as the Cirinnà bill named after senator Monica Cirinnà who introduced it) doesn’t pass I’m afraid that the LGBTQI community will feel even more detached from participating in the struggle for change and protesting. Everyone is tired of having to explain that we are just ordinary people looking for equal rights. I’ve been living with my Italian partner for over 10 years now - and being from South Africa on a working visa which has to be renewed and is quite burdensome to do - the civil union law would make it possible for me to get Italian citizenship and not be worried about being separated from my partner should I lose my working visa. Ordinary administration things like joint bank accounts and having the house in both of our names etc. - small things that we desperately need. Being from South Africa we could get married there and adopt a child but we wouldn’t be able to bring him or her to Italy. I am not 100% sure what the law specifically says about international adoption but I think the stepchild adoption provision is only for biological children of one of the partners. I have campaigned in the south of Italy with all the LGBTQI organizations here. In the past few years campaigners slowly but surely started to include heterosexuals and parents of homosexuals and ordinary citizens who are tired of their friends not having equal rights. We are all trying to be very optimistic and think it will probably pass with five to ten votes but it depends on the Five Star Movement and the 30 odd senators in the Democratic party who are pro Catholic. I’ve looked at some predictions and it is very close. The biggest risk and the point of uncertainty is article five which includes stepchild adoption by the partner in cases where children are involved. Apparently there will be a secret vote on this article and no one knows how the vote will swing. Unfortunately surrogacy has been the major weapon of the opposition and they have used it in a very negative and derogatory way to speak against homosexuals being parents. They have created fear amongst the public proclaiming that gays are abusing women in especially poor areas around the world to buy children which is not the case. Stefan Labuschagne, a business owner originally from South Africa now living in Lecce ‘No argument will stand - it’s discrimination, plain and simple’ I am bisexual and even though I am too young to think of marriage, I would like to be able to marry my partner one day. I also want the same for my lesbian aunt and for all other LGBT people in Italy. We are entitled to the same rights straight couples are entitled to. No argument will stand - it’s discrimination, plain and simple, especially if you look closely at the rights. Will you tell someone: “You can’t know about your sick partner, because you’re ***?” Well, that sounds awfully discriminatory to me. I think the bill might be passed, but with some reductions - possibly no stepchild adoption. Silvia, a student from Trieste ‘The concept of paternity and maternity would be destroyed’ People engaged in same-sex unions already have a lot of reciprocal rights in Italian law. On one hand the Cirinnà bill is misleading, since it proposes civil unions as a specific formation different from marriage but throughout the text refers to articles of the civil code regarding marriage. This is a trick by the proposers who know full well that the majority of Italian people are against same-sex marriage. The stepchild adoption is unacceptable since it would lead to the absurdity that means children will have two legal fathers or mothers simultaneously. Moreover, in the case of two men, this would be a stimulus to ‘rented uterus’ a practice which implies a new slavery of women and a cruel separation of the baby from the mother at birth. Though this practice is prohibited in Italy, people will feel encouraged to go abroad for it. I wouldn’t personally be affected but children and the common good would be since the concept of paternity and maternity would be destroyed for society. Marisa, former university professor ‘Children are better off with same sex families rather than in orphanages’ This is not the first time in Italy that a bill legalizing same-sex unions has been presented to parliament. There were many attempts in the past - all failed. The people of Italy are more ***-friendly than the politicians. This bill has been criticized mainly because of the stepchild provision. People against the bill say we must defend the children and the ‘traditional family’. Many homophobes are against this bill because they claim it will legalize ‘the renting ofwombs’ which is surrogacy. This is completely false as the bill states nothing of the sort. The opponents of this bill are clueless and ignorant. They’d rather see children in orphanages than with a loving family. Children are better off with same sex families rather than in orphanages. Riccardo, a bartender in Rome ‘If anything were to happen to my partner I currently have no rights’ I moved to Italy from London to be with my partner not fully realizing how different my life would be from my open, ‘easy’ life in the UK. Many people here question why we don’t just go back to live in the UK but there are relatively few visible LBGT people here compared to London and we feel it’s important to try and fight to make a difference here in any small way we can. If the bill was passed I would have the opportunity to be legally recognized with my partner of four years. My partner’s parents are Catholic and very vocally against us being together. If anything were to happen to my partner I currently have no rights and could see a situation similar to the film Bridegroom. More than that my partner has had a lifetime of homophobia to fight against whereas my university days saw the abolition of section 28. It’s unthinkable that Italy is more than a decade behind. I’m a teacher and luckily being self-employed I have decided to be out to both my adult students, parents of child students and any under-18 who asks me directly. I know I risk losing business but I have decided that this is a cause that needs people to stand up and be counted. I know that if I worked in a state school my job would be at risk and I have decided that the future rights of LGBT people is more important than job security. Any plans for having children together has been put on hold as we are not sure whether I would have any rights to the child here in Italy if my partner were to give birth. We are at an age where time is running out for us to have children so it deciding where we live in the future will be a difficult decision. I’ve campaigned by attending marches, rallies and being present on social media. My fear though is that the bill will be passed but with huge caveats with step child adoption laws becoming more stringent. I fear that the conversation about *** marriage will be put off for another 10 years as Italy/ Renzi will have considered it a ‘job done’ and move on. The other fear is that it will give a louder voice to the religious armies here. They have large corporation backing and no-one is holding these bussinesses to account. Naomi, a teacher originally from London now living in Bologna What about the right of children to have a mother and a father? Traditional families cannot be considered the same as *** unions which do not have any right to have children considering they cannot have kids naturally. And what about the right of children to have a mother and a father? I won’t support political parties in favour of *** unions and I hope that the proposed bill will not be passed. Alexandra, public manager in Milan ‘If same-sex unions are not approved, my rights as an Italian citizen would be limited’ Homosexual couples are a reality. It is necessary to give them the same rights as those that married people have. Recognising love (with no distinctions) as the basis of the social groups that form our society is the only way we can assure equal rights. Italian people are still divided on the issue, that’s why we need a cultural change in order to be a more modern and united society. It does not require destroying our traditional values: but we cannot limit people’s rights in the name of our personal beliefs and lifestyle. As a *** 20-year-old, if and when I find the love of my life I would know that even if we lived the rest of our lives together we would legally be seen as two strangers. This would be the case unless the bill is approved. If it is not, we could not have children. We would not be able to make important decisions on our house, our health and for example organ donation, end-of-life treatment, etc. If same-sex unions are not approved, my rights as an Italian citizen would be limited. I would be discriminated. The number of pro and against voters is uncertain, but I’d say (and I really hope) that the bill will be approved. Gianluca, a student ‘I’m not expecting a corrupt government and a corrupt church to jump on the love bandwagon’ I got married last year to an Italian in my home state of California. My husband can collect my retirement benefits from the USA but if I switch over to the Italian system (INPS), he’ll get nothing when I kick off. It’d be nice to know that my years of contributions could go to someone I love. The vote could allow for easier Italian citizenship but that’s not such a big issue. It would be cool to have the state’s recognition but we already had two wedding parties here and in San Francisco. Our friends and family already recognise us. I’m not expecting a corrupt government and a corrupt church to jump on the love bandwagon any time soon. The stepchild provision won’t affect us. There might be a pug or a French bulldog in our future but I think we can manage that.... I know, super ***, right? Eric, a communications trainer originally from California now living in Torino Supporters of the Cirinnà bill demonstrating in Piazza Duomo in Milan Photograph: Giuseppe Cacace/AFP/Getty Images http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/24/its-discrimination-plain-and-simple-italians-on-the-civil-unions-vote

Jury in Missouri orders pharmaceutical company to pay damages to family of deceased woman who claimed talcum powder caused her cancer Associated Press Wednesday 24 February 2016 00.32 GMT A Missouri jury has awarded $72m to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she said was caused by using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and other products containing talcum. The civil suit by Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a broader claim in the city of St. Louis circuit court involving nearly 60 people. Her son took over as plaintiff following his mother’s October 2015 death at 62, more than two years after her diagnosis. Marvin Salter of Jacksonville, Florida, said his late mother, who was a foster parent, used the brand of talcum powder as a bathroom staple for decades. “It just became second nature, like brushing your teeth,” he said. “It’s a household name.” An attorney for Fox said the jury verdict Monday night, which came after nearly five hours of deliberations at the conclusion of a three-week trial, was the first such case among more than 1,000 nationally to result in a jury’s monetary award. The jury said that Fox was entitled to $10m in actual damages and $62m in punitive damages. Attorney James Onder said he “absolutely” expects Johnson & Johnson – the world’s biggest maker of healthcare products – to appeal the verdict. The New Jersey-based company previously has been targeted by health and consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients in items including in its Johnson’s No More Tears baby shampoo. In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminate questionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal care products. After three years of petitions, negative publicity and a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate the ingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable human carcinogens, from all products by 2015. A bottle of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Photograph: Sean Gibson for the Observer http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/johnson-johnson-72-millon-babuy-talcum-powder-ovarian-cancer

by: Pat Fry February 24 2016 Everyone seems to be talking about socialism these days, but what does it mean? That was the question asked by Susan Webb in one of our most popular and widely-shared recent articles. Millions of Americans are considering alternatives to a system run by and for the 1 percent. They are taking an interest in socialism, a word that has meant a great many things to activists, trade unionists, politicians, and clergy around the world over the last century and a half. The article below is one of a series on socialism, what it can mean for Americans in the 21st century, and how we might get there. I appreciate the invitation to respond to Sue Webb's essay addressing a deeper discussion on a definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders' campaign for president certainly has elevated this discussion to a national stage - masses of people in the U.S. are voting for a socialist for president, drawn by his unabashed progressive economic populist agenda. This, in and of itself, is an advance over decades of anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda. Sanders has given expression to a powerful progressive majority, and moved politics to the left, including the likely Democratic Party nominee. The moment challenges us to get a bit more specific on how socialists define socialism. To speak to this, I would like to draw from the thinking of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. In our Goals and Principles document, adopted in 2009, we say that the efforts to build socialism in the 20th century in uncharted territory were carried out under conditions of severe coercion from outside capitalist powers. In that context, the democratic soul of socialism was seriously undermined, the essential need for popular participation in building the system was largely unrealized, and economic advances were distorted by dogma. For the 21st century, we agree, there is no blueprint for socialism. This we can all agree on - socialism cannot emerge from sentiment, ideology, or wish fulfillment. Socialism emerges because the working class, as it struggles around the crisis of everyday living, comes to recognize that it is a necessity. Socialism is a democratic political system wherein the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and play the leading role in society. It is still a class society, but in a protracted transition to a future classless society. It will be a mixed economy, with both public and private capitalist ownership, for some time. There will still be a need for entrepreneurial startups, both as worker cooperatives and as private firms serving the common good. Capital markets and wage-labor markets will be sharply restricted and even abolished over time. If needed, a stock market can exist for publicly-traded firms and investments abroad, but it will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be prohibited. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit. Socialism will feature planning to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities. Socialism will guarantee democracy in the workplace and the right to unions; democracy in voting with representative government; a society in harmony with the natural environment; living-wage jobs, genuine full employment, and adequate security for those who cannot work; freedom to practice religion; full equality in all spheres between women and men, between Black, Latin, Asian, Native and white people, and for *** and lesbian, trans, and bi-sexual people. The role of the armed forces under socialism will be transformed from occupying forces around the world in the interests of capital to defending the interests of people in time of natural disaster, for example. Local police under community control, a prison system based on the principle of restorative justice, non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be established. The starting point on the path to socialism today is the struggle to both safeguard and advance democratic openings. It will require new directions in our nation's domestic and global policies, including: democratic control of the Federal Reserve that can channel stimulus funds to workers, not bankers; public ownership of banking and financial institutions that would place people's resources in their own hands; and nationalization of energy to eliminate fossil fuels and move toward a clean energy economy. Democratic advances in housing, education, health care, affirmative action to address centuries of racial inequality, civil and human rights, voting rights and democratic electoral reforms, women's reproductive rights, child care, environmental justice and reversing climate change - in sum, an all-sided progressive democratic agenda. Whether Sanders or Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination, the progressive movement has been strengthened in opposition to a virulently racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-communist/anti-socialist right wing centered in the Republican Party. A key question for all of us is how do we translate the votes for Sanders into organization beyond the November elections? Needed is strength at the grass roots. Organizations like the Working Families Party, Progressive Democrats of America and other such forms that can mobilize around issues in communities and neighborhoods with electoral capacity at all levels of government are urgently needed. The Sanders campaign signals that the time is ripe to step it up. Pat Fry is co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, is retired from the staff of a health care union, and lives in New York City. http://www.peoplesworld.org/what-is-socialism-let-s-get-specific/

by: David Mirtz February 23 2016 On February 5, the public learned that a leak at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, just 25 miles north of New York City, had released radioactive contaminants into the area groundwater, causing radioactivity levels 65,000 percent higher than normal. The groundwater flows into the Hudson River. The aging plant, owned by Entergy Corp., was commissioned in the 1970s and has had big toxic leaks previously. Federal and state investigations are in progress. This article relates the author's experiences working in the plant. NEW YORK - As an ironworker you can end up working in some interesting places. Indian Point nuclear plant, about an hour north of New York City along the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., was one of them. Periodically the plant has planned outages to do maintenance and improvements in the plant. My union local sent me up to work during one of the outages. It was a particularly bad year on the heels of the big financial crisis of 2008, and I had been bouncing around from job to job. Now, most jobs, you show up, have a brief safety training, and get to work. Not at a nuclear power plant. Two weeks of orientation and safety training, a 500-question multiple choice mental stability test, drug tests and FBI background check are required. You get paid, most of the training is indoors and it was winter, so why not? Of course a little bit of it was sitting through Entergy's corporate propaganda about the benefits of nuclear energy - it supplies 25 percent of the downstate area's power and, while recognizing the potential dangers, management said, it complies strictly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's operating guidelines. The presentation wasn't over the top as I expected, although I was informed about natural existence of radiation all around us. It's in bananas after all, and who doesn't like bananas? I do. Two weeks later, training completed, and somewhat to my disappointment FBI background check cleared, I was OK'd to go to work. Even though Indian Point is one of the original nuclear power plants built in the United States 40 years ago, you have this expectation that given the potential dangers of nuclear power, the plant would reflect the up-to-date clean energy image that nuclear energy proponents like to project. I was kind of shocked at how decrepit the facility seemed. Paint peeling on the walls, rusty pipes, water damage. The complexity of the plant was confounding too. Passageways here and there, and of course restricted areas. It did not inspire confidence in the state-of-the art image the nuclear industry likes to promote. So I was not entirely surprised when two weeks ago the company reported alarming levels of radioactive tritium in the groundwater, with one monitoring well's levels increasing 65,000 percent and more recent samples showing a continued increase of 80 percent from the original samples. The New York Daily News reported, "The leak occurred after a drain overflowed during a maintenance exercise while workers were transferring water containing high levels of radioactive contamination." Oops! Entergy officials say that there is no threat to public health or safety. The contamination numbers "remain less than one-tenth of 1 percent of federal reporting guidelines," the company said in a statement, adding the higher levels are "fluctuations that can be expected as the material migrates." Migrates where, though? Into the groundwater and nearby Hudson River and downstream? In fact, journalist and technology expert Roger Witherspoon says, "there is no indication that the company has developed the ability to prevent the latest uncontrolled leaks from following the underground waterway into the Hudson. And because the river is a tidal estuary flowing as much as 20 miles above and below the nuclear site, radioactive contaminants may be sucked into the drinking water systems of several river towns." He points out that a New York State Coastal Zone Assessment issued last November "expressed concern about the periodic leaks into the Hudson River because it serves as a direct water source for Poughkeepsie, Wappingers Falls, Highland, Port Ewen, East Fishkill, Hyde Park, and the Village of Rhinebeck. It is also a backup water source for some 9 million residents of New York City and Westchester County." The assessment notes that the Croton Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to New York City, is only 6 miles from Indian Point. Environmental groups such as Riverkeeper have called for Indian Point's immediate closure. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said, "The trends of unexpected outages and environmental incidents like these are extremely disconcerting," and called on federal authorities to not renew the plant's license, which would mean its eventual closure. However Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who supports the plant's closing, has rejected its immediate closure, citing its role in providing affordable electricity rates. Schumer said: "I have told some of the environmental people, if you can show me a plan to figure out a way to replace that electricity, fine, but if you can't, it's going to raise electricity rates 30 or 40 percent, which are high enough on average people and that's not the way to go." But Riverkeeper tells another story. In its 2011 study on retirement options for the plant, the organization cites "ample existing and new resources available to replace Indian Point if it were to retire; and ... neither New York City's nor New York State's electricity reliability would be jeopardized. A replacement scenario focusing on cost-effective demand-side resources, local renewable resources, repowering of existing older inefficient power plants and new efficient generation as necessary would maintain reliability at a low cost to electricity customers." Others have argued that the plant is an important economic engine for the area. Nearly 1,000 full-time workers and nearly 4,500 jobs statewide are generated from the plant's operation, says the pro-industry Nuclear Energy Institute. But the jobs argument has never been that convincing to me. We never seem to do much to stop plant closings when the corporate bottom line is at stake, no matter what the impact is on the local economy. Why should it be different here, when public health and the environment are at stake? Of course replacing Indian Point as an energy producer and economic engine no doubt would be a challenge, requiring investment in energy infrastructure across the state as well as renewable alternatives, which of course means jobs. But it's a challenge most reasonable people would agree we could meet if there is the political will, which makes Senator Schumer's comments all the more disappointing. We elect our leaders to face these challenges. It's been six or seven years since I worked at Indian Point. It is in a beautiful part of the Hudson Valley. When I was there, bald eagles had recently made their appearance in the area, nesting right alongside the Hudson River near the plant. It was the first time I had seen bald eagles in the wild. Even the plant's presence doesn't diminish the beauty of the area, and one could be forgiven for seeing it as an example of the clean energy promise of nuclear power. Just stay away from the water. Susan Webb contributed to this article. Photo: Indian Point nuclear power plant, next to the Hudson River, photographed in 2012. Wikimedia Commons http://www.peoplesworld.org/for-this-worker-indian-point-nuclear-leak-was-no-surprise/

February 23, 2016 http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/nina_turner_on_switching_from_clinton Nina ( not Tina)

Beautiful. Grazie for sharing, moose. Nature knows best ( once again...)