"As first lady and as a U.S. senator, Hillary Clinton visited more than 80 nations, but for a majority of the world's population, her unique quality may be her gender. Senator Clinton understands that improving the status of women is not simply a moral imperative; it is necessary to building democracies around the globe. Improving the status of women is key to creating stable families, stable communities, and stable countries. Women's ability to control the size of their families, regardless of economics, nationality, or culture, has a direct impact on their economic well-being and that of their children... Senator Clinton understands that women's quality of life directly affects the major issues confronting the globe: national security, environmental sustainability, and global poverty."

Planned Parenthood, American Democrats, and democratically aligned world particiipants applaud the election of Barack Obama as President-elect, and Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-ric hards/sen-clinton-champions-wom_b_147389 .html

After a tumultuous week on this site, no meta's, just the facts.  

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

I know there's been plenty of chatter lately on President-Elect Obama's foreign policy. In particular, I've heard the usual Beltway Pundits proclaim Obama must abandon his "leftist dovishness" and embrace his inner "center-right hawk" to be a "credible Commander-in-Chief". Meanwhile, I'm also seeing some progressives wail in despair over how Obama is supposedly abandoning them for "neocon-lite".

But what if both camps are wrong? What if today's revelation of the foreign policy/national security wing of the Obama Administration reveals something completely different? Hold on, because you may be surprised.

In what can only be described as something that is a long time coming, longtime Oregon conservative activist (and complete A-hole) Bill Sizemore was jailed today after being found in contempt of court for the fourth time.  The specific incident this time was Sizemore's failure to file federal and state reporting forms required for organizations he controls to maintain their tax exempt status.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do ?diaryId=1513

Electing Barack Obama president was the first step in redeeming American democracy.  The second step must be indicting ex-president George W. Bush, giving him a fair trial, finding him guilty of many criminal acts and putting him in prison.  Forget revenge.  Think rule of law and justice.

I had to rub my eyes and take a shot of whiskey when I actually saw the heading "Maddow for Meet the Press". Everyone has to remember the growling she did during the primaries, how disrespectful she was to the other commentators on the stage, and the condesending attitude. If her nose was any higher, it would have been cut off by the studio ceiling fans.

To even suggest that a partisian go on a show that is known for their equal time for all sides mentality, would just basically doom the show. Send the dragon back to the cave.

Whomever floated this idea obviously has a crush on this monster. She is horrible and I cannot even believe that she even got her own show.

I WANT EVERYONE TO REVIEW THE RATINGS OF MSNBC AND THEIR INTERNET WEBSITE. Ever since she appeared, it has dropped so much, that even the pigs in the duldroms of ratings won't even mention it.

Horrible Idea, Horrible Host, and Horrible Thought.

Your Thoughts?

...just like every other day.

Just felt like passing this along. It is tragic and unless Obama gets the United States deeply back into a humane foreign affairs policy, we will be reading the same thing about AIDS in four years.

More than ever,  with each passing day of late, as I read more and more about the ongoing and imminent devastation of our national and global economies, I'm getting the sense of  watching one of those formulaic, sci-fi disaster flicks where a handful of scientists and some people in the White House are the only ones aware of some impending catastrophe that's going to change just about everything in our lives as we now know it.

At this point,  as far as the national and global economies are concerned, I would have to concur that the writing is, indeed, on the wall, and things are quickly spiralling out of control on a worldwide basis, economically.  It's a catastrophe that very rapidly lies not too far ahead of us, too. We really are "Facing a Greater Depression." And, as even President-elect Obama now openly discusses it, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and motley moose)

Back in August Stephen Hockman QC proposed an interesting idea. Namely proposing that a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment. Hockman argues that for the lack of solutions at hand for addressing climate change, "only an impartial adjudicating body is capable of providing the catalyst for a global consensus as to the fairest way to distribute the burdens that accompany solutions to the climate change problem."

The understandable reluctance of developing countries to sign up to carbon commitments - unless the developed world is prepared to make an equitable contribution - calls for more radical options. Those options must be realised at state, regional and international levels, and they will require political, economic and legal solutions.

In this mix, international legal instruments are crucial. The existing tools lack the necessary jurisdiction, clout and transparency. The time is ripe for a serious consideration of an international court for the environment. Such a court was mooted in Washington in 1999, but sank without trace. Today, however, we cannot afford to drop the ball.

Hockman, who is also a trustee of Client Earth, a nonprofit environmental law group, argued that such an institution would also offer a centralized system, "an enhanced body of law regarding environmental issues, and consistency in the resolution of environmental disputes". He wrote that such a court should be compulsory and have its own scientific body to assess technical issues.

However some are skeptical as to whether this concept would work, as Environmental Capital notes:

But what about the two giants in that global economy? The U.S. and China together account for about half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions. Any meaningful climate-change pact begins and ends with what Washington and Beijing decide. And while both presidential candidates are less hostile to the ICC, ceding control to supra-national jurisdictions generally gives the U.S. pause. Chinese leaders, meanwhile, have not traditionally embraced global law or institutions with open arms.

Concluded Environmental Capital: "Are lawyers really the best way to save the earth?"