christopher columbus trina the green mile the green mile james whitey bulger rachel uchitel amerigo vespucci
BANGKOK (AP) ? Asian stock markets fell Tuesday after Standard and Poor's warned 15 countries using the euro currency that their credit ratings are at risk of a downgrade.
Japan's Nikkei 225 dropped 0.8 percent to 8,628.73. South Korea's Kospi dipped 0.7 percent to 1,908.75 and Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 1 percent to 18,988.82. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 shed 0.6 percent to 4,293.90. Benchmarks in Singapore, Taiwan and New Zealand also gave up ground.
The S&P announcement came only hours after French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday unveiled sweeping plans to change the European Union treaty in an effort to keep tighter checks on overspending nations.
The S&P warning left out only two of 17 countries that use the euro: Cyprus, whose bonds have near-junk status, and Greece, which already has ratings low enough to suggest that it's likely to default soon anyway. The inclusion on the list of Germany, Europe's strongest economy, was the biggest surprise.
The Franco-German plan, which would tie the 17 euro nations closer together, would likely also result in heavier financial burdens for Germany and other stronger economies that have already put up billions of euros to rescue Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Sarkozy and Merkel discussed several broad changes for the EU treaty, including the introduction of a penalty for any government that allows its deficit to exceed 3 percent of gross domestic product. The penalty would be automatic ? unless a majority of nations opposed it, a loophole that drew sharp criticism from analysts.
Andrew Sullivan, principal sales trader at Piper Jaffray in Hong Kong, said the sanctions were "subject to political control" and in reality represent no change from mechanisms already in existence.
The French-German proposal will be taken up at a summit of EU leaders on Thursday and Friday aimed at fixing a debt crisis so severe that it threatens the viability of the euro currency.
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 0.7 percent to 12,097.83. The S&P 500 rose 1 percent to 1,257.1. The Nasdaq added 1.1 percent to 2,655.76.
Associated Pressoneiric eartha kitt psych david ortiz matthew shepard matthew shepard aaron curry
The World News (WN) Network, has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to user privacy. The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for wn.com, as well as e-mail newsletters.
We do not collect personally identifiable information about you, except when you provide it to us. For example, if you submit an inquiry to us or sign up for our newsletter, you may be asked to provide certain information such as your contact details (name, e-mail address, mailing address, etc.).
When you submit your personally identifiable information through wn.com, you are giving your consent to the collection, use and disclosure of your personal information as set forth in this Privacy Policy. If you would prefer that we not collect any personally identifiable information from you, please do not provide us with any such information. We will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to third parties without your consent, except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy.
Except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy, we will use the information you provide us only for the purpose of responding to your inquiry or in connection with the service for which you provided such information. We may forward your contact information and inquiry to our affiliates and other divisions of our company that we feel can best address your inquiry or provide you with the requested service. We may also use the information you provide in aggregate form for internal business purposes, such as generating statistics and developing marketing plans. We may share or transfer such non-personally identifiable information with or to our affiliates, licensees, agents and partners.
We may retain other companies and individuals to perform functions on our behalf. Such third parties may be provided with access to personally identifiable information needed to perform their functions, but may not use such information for any other purpose.
In addition, we may disclose any information, including personally identifiable information, we deem necessary, in our sole discretion, to comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal proceeding or governmental request.
We do not want you to receive unwanted e-mail from us. We try to make it easy to opt-out of any service you have asked to receive. If you sign-up to our e-mail newsletters we do not sell, exchange or give your e-mail address to a third party.
E-mail addresses are collected via the wn.com web site. Users have to physically opt-in to receive the wn.com newsletter and a verification e-mail is sent. wn.com is clearly and conspicuously named at the point of
collection.If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter and promotional communications, you may opt-out of receiving them by following the instructions included in each newsletter or communication or by e-mailing us at michaelw(at)wn.com
The security of your personal information is important to us. We follow generally accepted industry standards to protect the personal information submitted to us, both during registration and once we receive it. No method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage, is 100 percent secure, however. Therefore, though we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
If we decide to change our e-mail practices, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we think appropriate so that you are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it.
If we make material changes to our e-mail practices, we will notify you here, by e-mail, and by means of a notice on our home page.
The advertising banners and other forms of advertising appearing on this Web site are sometimes delivered to you, on our behalf, by a third party. In the course of serving advertisements to this site, the third party may place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser. For more information on cookies, you can visit www.cookiecentral.com.
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell certain aspects of our entities or assets. In such transactions, user information, including personally identifiable information, generally is one of the transferred business assets, and by submitting your personal information on Wn.com you agree that your data may be transferred to such parties in these circumstances.
Source: http://article.wn.com/view/2011/12/03/Africa_Should_Lead_Climate_Adaptation/
david nelson david nelson frank gore frank gore frank miller 60 minutes duggar family
WASHINGTON ? The Senate moved methodically Thursday toward completing a massive defense bill that has drawn a presidential veto threat over increasing the role of the military in detaining terrorist suspects and indefinite detention of even American citizens linked to terrorism.
A final vote was expected late in the day on the $662 billion measure that would authorize funds for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. The bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and $43 billion less than what Congress provided to the Pentagon this year.
The Senate version still must be reconciled with a House-passed measure in the remaining few weeks of the congressional session.
Pitting the Senate against Obama's national security team, led by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and dividing Democrats are provisions in the bill on how to handle captured suspected terrorists. The escalating challenge reflects the ongoing political and constitutional fight over whether to treat terror suspects as prisoners of war or criminals, a tussle that has encompassed the nearly 3-old presidency of the Democratic commander in chief.
The White House has threatened a veto of the bill over the provisions, saying "this unnecessary, untested and legally controversial restriction of the president's authority to defend the nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals." An administration that has killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is resisting congressional meddling in its prosecution of the war on terror.
The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. The language includes an exemption for U.S. citizens and allows the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security.
The bill also would allow the government to hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. That provision had no exception for a U.S. citizen.
The Senate was poised to vote Thursday on two amendments by Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein to change those provisions. One would prohibit the indefinite detention for a U.S. citizen without charges or a trial; the other would limit the military custody to those captured outside the United States.
Feinstein said Thursday her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."
The California Democrat has said the last time the government held U.S. citizens indefinitely was when Japanese-Americans were interned in camps during World War II. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has called the provision unconstitutional., violating the 4th amendment and the right of individuals to be secure in their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Countered Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.: "We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights."
It was unclear whether Feinstein would prevail. Earlier this week, the Senate resoundingly rejected an effort to strip the detainee provisions from the defense bill as just two Republicans ? Kentucky's Rand Paul and Illinois' Mark Kirk ? voted with Democrats. Several Democrats, specifically those facing re-election next year, broke with the leadership and the administration and voted to leave the provisions intact.
The Senate also was expected to overwhelmingly approve crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump.
Last week, the administration announced a new set of penalties against Iran, including identifying for the first time Iran's entire banking sector as a "primary money laundering concern." This requires increased monitoring by U.S. banks to ensure that they and their foreign affiliates avoid dealing with Iranian financial institutions.
But lawmakers pressed ahead with even tougher penalties despite reservations by the administration.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Kirk offered an amendment to the defense bill that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.
Testifying before the Foreign Relations Committee, David Cohen, a senior Treasury Department official, cautioned against steps that would "threaten to fracture the international coalition of nations committed to the dual-track approach, does not inadvertently redound to Iran's economic benefit, and brings real and meaningful pressure to bear on Iran."
apple earnings tampa weather pat buchanan susan sarandon susan sarandon motorola razr camille grammer
Luke and I had been best friends for a couple of years when we faced a decision that many gay friends confront: whether to take our relationship to a romantic level. We soon learned that as a binational couple, we would face even greater challenges.
Luke was the first person I met when I moved to New York from Los Angeles in January 2007. He is South African, and I'm a sucker for a good accent. We clicked instantly. Rarely do I hang out with someone one on one and feel comfortable; if there is any lull in the conversation, I feel like it's my fault and my duty to fill it. But hanging out with Luke was effortless. Other friends drifted in and out of my life, but Luke was always there, and I could always talk to him. Our lives merged more and more over the first year and a half, despite my moves to that distant region called Brooklyn and our neighbor to the north, Harlem. His friends became my friends, and my friends became his. We went to movies and dinner in groups, but more often than not we were meeting in coffee shops and enjoying each other's company. It was so simple and so... easy.
We grew closer as we talked about everything, called each other out on our ridiculousness, shared our lives and revealed our imperfections with each other. When I came out of the closet, I had no clue how to form friendships with other gay men without making it seem like I was asking them on a date. Half of the time I wasn't sure myself. I've rarely been sure where I stand with people. And I've rarely known what I've been looking for. Despite this, my friendship with Luke never seemed to get bogged down with such self-doubt. Even when we seemed to run out of things to say, it was oddly comfortable. Our friendship became extremely valuable to me.
Luke would make a comment and hold my hand. In doing so, I noticed Luke had a way of holding my hand that seemed so loving and nurturing. I started looking at him differently, but I was afraid of our friendship changing, or, worse, ending.
The tension built when I was away on a work trip in Atlanta. I was texting back and forth with Luke, when our byte-sized conversation hit a lull. That dreadful lull. Then his text came. You know the one.
"Brandon, have you ever thought of us as more than friends?"
I shot back, "Really Luke?? Over text?? While I'm out of town???"
"LOL," he replied.
I was simply too afraid of our friendship changing, and I told him we would be better off if we did not put it at risk. I made it sound like a very logical and reasonable solution, but still, I was filled with fear. What if we made great friends, but we weren't compatible as boyfriends? Our friendship would be forever altered. And finally, what if it were true love? What then?
When I returned back to New York, things were different. Everything I was afraid of happening was happening. He would skip out on going to dinner with our group of friends, or he would leave early with other friends. He seemed distant. I had never experienced the kind of feelings that overwhelmed me when I sensed him slipping away. I felt a void in my life. I told my therapist and one of my closest friends about our text conversation and how afraid I was of things changing. My therapist said, "When's the last time you made a good decision based on fear?" I had no response. It was one of the most logical things I'd ever heard. I texted Luke a few days later.
"Have you ever thought of us as more than friends?"
We both LOL'd.
Our first kiss was on my 29th birthday. It was ridiculous how cinematic it was: the two of us desperately trying to get a moment away from our friends the night of my party, finally ducking around a corner as it started to rain. We pulled each other against the side of a building across the street from Sheridan Square and started to kiss. That was more than three years ago.
Our friendship had changed. And nothing collapsed. The ground didn't open up and swallow us whole. My fear subsided. It turned into a hope that I had never felt before, that sense when you meet someone you can imagine waking up next to and craving a day of doing everything or nothing as long as he is with you.
We already knew so much about each other. We'd seen all our different moods, unfiltered. He moved in within six months. We got a dog, a Dachshund named Andrew. We moved from Harlem to a great apartment in Greenwich Village. We were a family. We started talking about marriage less than a year into our relationship.
We wanted to wait until we could have a big wedding; neither Luke nor I is a man of half-measures. We soon realized it would be years before we would be able to afford the kind of wedding we wanted, but we didn't want that to stop us.
The day we got our rings, we sat at our dining room table, smiling, alternating glances between them and each other. Andrew was looking up at us, waiting patiently to be fed or played with. There was kind of a healthy blend of shock, fear and excitement between us that was palpable. These days two men marrying can be considered political activism as much as an expression of love and commitment. Neither of us thought that at this point in our lives we would have met the man we wanted to be with for the rest of our lives. For me, there was no question: my best friend made the perfect partner.
I got down on one knee, slipped the ring on Luke's finger and said, "Luke, will you marry me?"
Almost immediately I felt a knot in my stomach. Not because of the question or Luke's answer (he said yes). I felt like it wasn't real, because it wouldn't truly be official for all the world to know. It didn't feel equal. I felt like an imposter in a straight world's tradition and privilege. I shared these feelings with Luke, who assured me that our marriage was just as valid as any other marriage. This was going to be our marriage and our ceremony, he said. We were going to start our own traditions. We understood from the beginning that this decision would cement our commitment to each other. That was the easy part. I was dating my best friend.
For a gay child of divorced parents, a committed marriage can seem like a triumph of will as much as fate. If anyone could make it, I knew we could.
When the economy collapsed, I got laid off. Within a few months, I was able to find a new job, but Luke's business slowed down. So we were tight on money. Our dreams of having a big, gorgeous wedding seemed to be slipping further away. So we opted for the cheapest, er, most affordable wedding in history. With our $20 rings from the glamorous Canal Street, we caught a train up to Milford, Conn. ($50), obtained marriage licenses ($40), and caught a cab to our friend's house for the weekend ($10). During the ceremony, we smiled from ear to ear and didn't break eye contact while the Mayor of Milford read the gender-neutral wedding vows and Andrew sniffed around City Hall.
We spent the weekend at our friend's house and watched the movie Milk in honor of our wedding, which also happened to be gay pride weekend.
Our first year as a newly married couple has been phenomenal, though not always easy. We're moving through the same growing pains as every other healthy marriage. Communication, compassion and humility have gotten us through our difficult times, and will continue to do so as we grow together. We have replaced our Canal Street wedding rings with something more appropriate. But our first rings will always have the most sentimental value.
On our first anniversary, New York joined five other states and the District of Columbia in ending discrimination against lesbian and gay couples in marriage. We celebrated with thousands of other New Yorkers, knowing that other couples would no longer be forced to travel like refugees to Connecticut or other states to do what all other Americans take for granted. But winning marriage equality in New York and watching the euphoria on Sunday, July 24 as thousands of lesbian and gay couples married across New York state were a celebration of a job not yet completed. Marriage equality can never simply mean winning the right to marry in each state, as long as the federal government denies recognition of those marriages. Each of us, married and celebrating our love and this historic advance, remains unequal. Marriage inequality will continue until the ruinous and hateful era of DOMA is ended.
And that is how Luke and I decided to embark on a new chapter of our lives together. I will fight for my right to sponsor my husband for a "green card," a privilege heterosexual Americans take for granted. With President Obama's recent decision not to defend DOMA and signals from the Department of Homeland Security about protecting LGBT families from being torn apart by deportation, we believe that this is the time to challenge our exclusion from the family-based immigration system that otherwise works reasonably well to keep opposite-sex binational couples together.
We start here today by arguing our case in the court of public opinion. Recently, we joined Stop The Deportations: The DOMA Project, and I filed a petition for Luke as my spouse. We know that puts us in a potentially perilous position: unlike an opposite-sex couple, my petition will face the insurmountable hurdle of DOMA, and unlike all other spouses in our situation, Luke could face deportation if we are not ultimately successful. We do not want to be forced into exile, and we cannot imagine life apart. This means we might have no option but to fight this in the courts and in Congress, like so many thousands of gay binational couples who have raised the profile of this inhumane and cruel discrimination. Whatever the short-term challenges, we will not allow ourselves to be torn apart by my government.
For now, I'm determined not to let fears about our uncertain future dominate my thoughts. I am not worrying about being forced to leave our home and lives we've built in New York. I'm not thinking about saying goodbye to friends and family, or how we'd ever rebuild new lives for ourselves halfway across the world in South Africa. I cannot allow myself to think of what would happen if Luke were deported. Instead, I'm trying to channel the uncertainty into the sort of optimism I felt when President Obama was elected: that this is a country in which we judge others by the content of their character. We should not hold anyone back because of who they are or whom they love. And, most importantly for us, in the end, we must take on this battle. We will not bring about change by standing on the sidelines.
Can a nation's immigration laws recognize something as simple as true love? We think so. If change comes, Luke will truly be able to live his life to its fullest potential with his husband and best friend, which will make it all the more possible to take that honeymoon we have been dreaming of.
This piece originally ran on StopTheDeportations.com.
?
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-melchior/more-than-just-friends_b_1121144.html
jon huntsman darrell hammond darrell hammond tcu boise state boxer rebellion boxer rebellion
MOSCOW ? Russia's political parties enjoy "free and equal competition" ahead of this weekend's parliamentary election, President Dmitry Medvedev insisted Friday, even as voters complained of record violations by the Kremlin party and the only independent election monitoring group faces prosecution.
Seven Kremlin-approved parties have been allowed to field candidates this year, while the most vocal opposition groups have been denied registration and barred from campaigning.
In a televised address, Medvedev made an apparent call to vote for the dominant United Russia party and warned that a parliament made up of diverse political camps would be incapable of working for the good of the country.
"Will it be a lawmakers' corps torn by irreconcilable conflicts, incapable of making a decision ? something that has, unfortunately, happened in our history?" he asked. "Or will we get a capable legislative body dominated by responsible politicians, who can help improve our people's living standards in practice, who will be guided in their actions by the interests of voters and national interests?"
United Russia dominates the nation's political life and has received overwhelmingly favorable coverage during the recent campaign, mostly from Kremlin-controlled national television. But the party is increasingly disliked, accused of supporting a corrupt bureaucracy and often called "the party of crooks and thieves."
Golos, a respected independent watchdog, compiles complaints of election law violations across the country and posts them on online. It has recorded more than 4,700 complaints, most involving United Russia.
But Golos has come under growing pressure since Sunday, when Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused Western governments of trying to influence the election through their funding of Russian non-governmental organizations. Golos, whose name means "vote," is supported by grants from the United States and Europe.
Golos directors were called to court Friday to answer accusations that the organization has violated election law.
Prosecutors opened a case Thursday, claiming they had found indications that Golos was "abusing the freedom of the press by falsifying publicly important data, and spreading rumors under the disguise of reliable facts in an attempt to blacken the party and some of its members." The prosecutors' documents do not name the party.
Independent pollster Levada Center predicted last week that United Russia would receive 53 percent of the vote. While still a majority, this would deprive the party of the two-thirds majority that has allowed it to amend the constitution.
Levada said its survey indicated that the Communist Party's share of the vote would rise to 20 percent from less than 12 percent in 2007, as well as showing an uptick for the two other parties in parliament: the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party and Just Russia, a party established with Kremlin support to lure votes from the Communists.
pacquiao vs marquez junior dos santos junior dos santos evelyn lauder nfl standings devin hester devin hester
NEW DELHI ? India's ruling Congress party failed Tuesday to persuade both its allies and the opposition to support the country's new open-door policy for foreign retailers.
The Cabinet decision last week to let foreign retailers own up to 51 percent of supermarkets and 100 percent of single-brand stores has unleashed a political furor across the country, with parties across the spectrum demanding its immediate revocation.
A meeting of lawmakers from all parties in Parliament to discuss the dispute collapsed Tuesday morning, and the national legislature was forced to adjourn for a second day in a row because of the deadlock.
Sitaram Yechury, a legislator from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), called the policy "disastrous" and accused the government of blind-siding its opponents by pushing the new rules without consulting Parliament.
"The demand of the whole opposition is that the decision should be revoked," Murli Manohar Joshi, a leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, told the Press Trust of India.
The new regulations don't require parliamentary approval, but to set up shop, foreign retailers such as Wal-Mart and Tesco must get approval from the government of the state where stores will be located.
Five state leaders have already made it clear they're unwilling to let in foreign companies. Two of the Congress' main coalition allies also oppose the policy, though they said they would not quit the government over the dispute.
As the argument raged, Ikea chief executive Mikael Ohlsson visited India to evaluate the new rules. He could make an announcement regarding Ikea's investment plans as early as Wednesday, Ikea spokeswoman Josefin Thorell said.
Ikea has long wanted to come to India, but declined to do so under the old investment rules, which required it to work with an Indian partner.
The United States, which had urged India to open up to foreign retaliers, welcomed the decision to do so. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday it would strengthen business and economic ties between the U.S. and India and create more choice for Indian consumers.
Addressing a meeting of the Congress party's youth wing, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the regulations would improve transportation and storage of food supplies and lead to the creation of new jobs.
"I urge you to spread awareness about this across the country," he said Tuesday.
Communist Party-controlled trade unions have threatened to strike Thursday and at least one lawmaker from the rightwing Bharatiya Janata party has even threatened to burn down foreign big-box retailers.
The opponents of the policy, which would allow big foreign retailers to set up supermarkets only in major cities, say it threaten millions of India's small traders.
India's Commerce Minister Anand Sharma has said that the change will be a boon for both consumers and farmers rather than a threat to small store owners. He said the new rules would edge out unscrupulous middlemen who eat into the profits of the small farmers.
Sharma said it would also bring down the cost of food for everyone, eliminate spoilage that claims up to 40 percent of all fresh produce, and create millions of jobs.
In a move that was widely perceived as capitulation to its critics, the Ministry of Commerce on Monday said that to take advantage of the new investment rules, foreign companies must source at least 30 percent of manufactured and processed products from "Indian micro and small industry."
Last week, it had said such sourcing must come from "micro and small enterprises, which can be done from anywhere in the world and is not India specific."
"There is a change," Ministry of Commerce spokesman Dheeraj Singh said Tuesday. The new rule is "mandatory," he said, declining to discuss the reason for the shift.
The change could violate India's World Trade Organization obligations, which prohibit mandatory local sourcing requirements to the extent that they disrupt international trade, said Nishith Desai, founder of Nishith Desai Associates, an international tax and corporate law firm based in Mumbai.
___
Associated Press Writer Erika Kinetz in Mumbai, India, and Matthew Pennington in Washington contributed to this story.
collegeboard kelsey grammer coco rocha coco rocha al sharpton izon heart attack grill
