March 31, 2017

Carly Simon’s xHubbie Reveals He’s Always’ Being Struggling with Sexuality



Jim Hart is pictured with Carly Simon on their wedding day. 

  (COURTESY OF JIM HART)



 “Lucky Jim" is Jim Hart’s astonishingly candid account of his long, sexually fraught marriage to Carly Simon, who ended her notorious run of famous lovers with a gay man.

Not that she knew. Hart, a recovered alcoholic and struggling novelist working as an insurance broker, was in deep denial when he met Simon in 1987.
They were introduced by a friend on the platform at a train station in upstate New York.

What had to have struck Simon was Hart’s almost doppelganger resemblance to ex-husband, James Taylor. Their rock-star marriage, as much sexual fusion as anything else, had cratered four years earlier. On their first date, Hart and Simon enjoyed a cozy evening at her sprawling Central Park West apartment, ending the evening chastely with a kiss.
“She had clearly been swept away by me,” he writes.

The door had barely closed on him when Hart started envisioning the golden new life ahead that would allow him to “escape” from “the dreary, unrelenting, middle-class obsession with making a living. I was so tired of everything about my career in insurance.”

At the time, Hart was seeing three other women and had “discovered” gay phone lines. He’d taken to dropping into the gay movie house near his West Village apartment.

An evening out with Simon, though, beat all. Hart escorted her to a birthday party director Michael Nichols threw for himself at his Upper East Side townhouse. The rooms were thick with celebrities.

Harrison Ford, Paul Simon, Sigourney Weaver, Dustin Hoffman, Candice Bergen, Steve Martin, Richard Avedon, Rose and Bill Styron. This was Simon’s crowd — and now his.

Six months after they met, they married. He already fit comfortably into her life both in New York and Martha’s Vineyard, where their magnificent seaside home was the one she famously shared with Taylor.

Hart had grown up hardscrabble in Long Beach, N.Y., and spent years in and out of a seminary as a teenager. The trauma of life in those years was something he shared with Jackie Onassis, Carly’s good friend and, soon enough, his as well.

Jackie, Hart writes, was always eager to hear his opinions about the men in her life. But as her sixty-second birthday approached, she had a more specific male-related question to ask.

Hart recalls her asking in her “breathy whisper” whether his friend, Alec Baldwin, might consider being her date that night for dinner and the theatre. Even though Baldwin had just started seeing Kim Basinger, his first words were “I’m there.”

One day Simon came to him stuck for lyrics on a song she was writing for Mike Nichols’ new movie “Working Girl.”
Hart hit the books, specifically James Joyce and Walt Whitman, presenting Simon with a “first draft” that, after she added a few phrases, became “River Run,” the first song ever to win a Grammy, a Golden Globe and an Oscar.

Yet old urges kept intruding on Hart’s idyllic life with Simon. One night she confronted him with phone records. He’d been making calls to an S&M sex line, The Dungeon, to “chat with guys about what they wanted to do with me.”
Simon took a day to think about it before agreeing she’d never mention it again. But her final words on the subject, as quoted by Hart, sound bizarrely like something a guy hired to answer an S&M sex line might say.

“I think it must have something to do with the seminary. You must be a very bad boy. Do you think you need to be punished?”

Hart emerged from his writing class one night at the 63rd Street YMCA to see a veiled Simon, in spike heels and a bright red wig, greeting everyone in a thick Spanish accent.

Convinced the women in the class were in love with Hart, Simon had disguised herself as a Latina hooker to check them out.

One morning, John Kennedy Jr. called, distraught. He’d flunked the bar exam and headlines were huge. Kennedy was so humiliated he was threatening not to show up that night for the Rolling Stones concert at Shea Stadium.

Simon talked Kennedy down and into the limo. But Hart found himself shut out when his wife and Kennedy rushed behind a closed door to chat with Mick Jagger.

He seethed that “Carly had gone in to see the man who had almost broken up her first marriage” without him. Back home, Hart erupted into such a venomous rage that Simon’s 13-year-old son, Ben, threatened to call 911.

She was clearly “terrified.” In bed that night, Simon tried to reassure him, but Hart had some hard reckoning to do about his wife’s many famous lovers, including Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson.

“I would never be enough to capture the part of her that Mick and James and so many others had already captured,” he writes. Pauls friend, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist William Kennedy, advising him.

When it became obvious the book wasn’t going to find a publisher, Simon had Onassis talk to him. A book editor herself, Onassis suddenly struck up a conversation about how it might be time for Hart to find something else to do with his life.

He turned on her and snarled, “Jackie, can I ask how many novels have you written?”

Hart wisely started a software company and his life with his ever-more famous wife rolled on.

As the years passed, their marriage entered what he calls a “film-noir stage,” veering into strange territory. One night when Hart called from the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, where he was staying on a business trip, Simon announced that he needed to “get laid.”

“You have to go to a whorehouse,” she ordered. “You have to do this for the both of us.”
Simon urged him on by phone as he stumbled into a massage parlor in Chinatown where an aggressive Madam accosted him.

“What are the girls like? Are there any pretty ones?” Simon asked. “Remember this is my treat.”
Hart hung up and backed out of the deal.

But the glamour of their life never abated. In 1999, they spent the weekend with Bill and Hillary Clinton at Camp David after the Senate acquitted the President in his impeachment.

The Clintons’ astonishing equanimity gave Simon and Hart hope for their own troubled marriage. But in 2002 — after 21 years sober — Hart suffered a prolonged and vicious relapse on crack.

He writes candidly about the sordid and brutal homosexual encounters he had through years of repeated relapses on drugs and then alcohol. Simon stayed in the marriage until filing for divorce in 2006 after 19 years.

On what would have been their 20th anniversary, Hart was truly a changed man. Not only was he sober, he was in the loving arms of a man. So ends the saga of James Hart and Carly Simon.

NY Daily News

Lawyer Looses License Because of Anti Gay Hostility Towards Client

A former lawyer with the state of Michigan has lost his law license in a misconduct case related to his public hostility for a gay student leader at the University of Michigan.
Andrew Shirvell’s disbarment was ordered Thursday by a panel at the Attorney Discipline Board. He can appeal to the full board.
Shirvell was an assistant attorney general. He was fired in 2010 after criticizing Christopher Armstrong on an anti-gay blog, on Facebook and during visits to the Ann Arbor campus.
 Shirvell said he was exercising free-speech rights. But the panel at the discipline board says his motive was “dishonest or selfish,” not simply careless.
A message seeking comment was left with his attorney. In a separate matter, a jury in 2012 ordered Shirvell to pay $4.5 million to Armstrong

Japanese Whaling Fleet Returns to Port with 333 Whale Caucuses


AGAIN! Another Year
 A past expedition of the Orca Whale Studying spree


For the second consecutive year, Japanese whalers have returned to port after an Antarctic expedition with the carcasses of 333 whales. The five-ship fleet, put forth by the country's Fisheries Agency, killed the minke whales during a months-long voyage to southern waters for what it calls ecological research.

The agency released a statement describing the mission as “research for the purpose of studying the ecological system in the Antarctic Sea," according to Agence France-Presse.

 Research

The Associated Press reports that Fisheries Agency official Shigeto Hase lauded a successful expedition in Shimonoseki, the home port for Nisshin Maru, mother ship of the Japanese fleet.

"It was great that we have achieved our plan," Hase told those gathered for a welcome ceremony, including the city's mayor and about 200 local people, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. notes. "We will steadily continue our research toward a resumption of commercial whaling."

It is not by chance that the word "research" served as the centerpiece of both statements.

Under the rules of the International Whaling Commission, of which Japan is a member, there has been an international ban on commercial whaling since 1986 — though there is an exception for whaling conducted with ecological research in mind. It is this exception that allows Japan's whaling fleet to embark on its yearly hunt in the icy waters of Antarctica.

 This picture is from a past expedition
Yet many critics view this use of the exception as a fig leaf, exploited by Japan's Fisheries Agency to cover for the practice of reportedly selling whale meat commercially.

In fact, as NPR's Bill Chappell reported in 2014, the International Court of Justice ruled that the whaling program — which has been going on since 2005 and killed thousands of minke whales, according to the ICJ — has generated only limited scientific output. Not enough, in other words, to justify the program.

Despite the ruling, and opposition from neighbors such as Australia, Japan refrained for just one year from killing whales on its annual expedition before returning to the practice under a document submitted to the ICW, which laid out the scope and techniques of its resumed program.

Still, the ABC reports that the exception that has allowed for Japan's whaling expeditions might soon see further restrictions:

"Japan will have to submit its proposed catch to a scientific working group within the IWC.
"The commission will ask for further justification about why the scientific program needs to kill the whales to study them."
For conservationists such as Humane Society International Executive Vice President Kitty Block, this change is not enough.

“It is an obscene cruelty in the name of science that must end," she said in a statement, according to the AP.

Controversial “Christ was Gay” by Christopher Marlowe


A controversial document in which the playwright Christopher Marlowe reportedly declared that Christ was gay, that the only purpose of religion was to intimidate people, and that “all they that love not tobacco and boys were fools” is to go on show online for the first time.

The so-called “Baines note”, a star item in the British Library’s Renaissance manuscript collection, offers tantalizing evidence about the private life of Marlowe, one of the most scandalous and magnetic figures of the Elizabeth period.  

 Christopher Marlowe. Photograph: Alamy
Compiled in May 1593 by the police informant and part-time spy Richard Baines, it claims to record a conversation between the two men in which the playwright airs a long list of what Baines describes as “monstrous opinions:


Richard Baines to the Privy Council
Shortly before Marlowe's death, the informer Richard Baines made the following accusations against the playwright in a note to the Privy Council, the group of advisors who worked closely with Queen Elizabeth.
[One Christopher Marly]
A note containing the opinion of one Christopher Marly concerning his damnable judgment of religion, and scorn of God's word:
"That the Indians, and many authors of antiquity, have assuredly written of above 16 thousand years agone, whereas Adam >> note 1 is proved to have lived within six thousand years.
He affirmeth that Moses was but a juggler, >> note 2 and that one Hariot>> note 3 being Sir Walter Raleigh's man can do more than he.
That Moses made the Jews to travel 40 years in the wilderness (which journey might have been done in less than one year) ere they came to the promised land, to the intent that those who were privy to many of his subtleties might perish, and so an everlasting superstition reign in the hearts of the people.
That the beginning of religion was only to keep men in awe.
That it was an easy matter for Moses being brought up in all the arts of the Egyptians to abuse the Jews, being a rude and gross people.
That Christ was a bastard and his mother dishonest. >> note 4
That he was the son of a carpenter, and that if the Jews among whom he was born did crucify him, they best knew him and whence he came.
That Christ deserved better to die than Barabas, >> note 5 and that the Jews made a good choice, though Barabas were both a thief and a murderer.
That if there be any God or any good religion, then it is in the Papists,>> note 6 because the service of God is performed with more ceremonies, as elevation of the mass, organs, singing men, shaven crowns, etc. That all Protestants are hypocritical asses.
That if he were put to write a new religion, he would undertake both a more excellent and admirable method, and that all the New Testament is filthily written.
That the woman of Samaria >> note 7 and her sister were whores and that Christ knew them dishonestly.
That Saint John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom; that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma. >> note 8
That all they that love not tobacco and boys are fools.
That all the apostles were fishermen and base fellows, neither of wit nor worth; that Paul >> note 9 only had wit, but he was a timorous fellow in bidding men to be subject to magistrates against his conscience.
That he had as good a right to coin >> note 10 as the Queen of England, and that he was acquainted with one Poole, a prisoner in Newgate, who hath great skill in mixture of metals, and having learned some things of him, he meant through help of a cunning stamp-maker to coin French crowns, pistolets, and English shillings.
That if Christ would have instituted the sacrament with more ceremonial reverence, it would have been in more admiration; that it would have been better much better being administered in a tobacco pipe.
That the angel Gabriel was bawd >> note 11 to the Holy Ghost, because he brought the salutation to Mary.
That one Richard Cholmley hath confessed that he was persuaded by Marlowe's reasons to become an atheist."
Among them, Marlowe casts doubt on the existence of God, claims that the New Testament was so “filthily written” that he himself could do a better job, and makes the eyebrow-raising assertion that the Christian communion would be more satisfying if it were smoked “in a tobacco pipe”.

Baines added a personal note, apparently aimed at watching government officials: “All men in Christianity ought to endeavour that the mouth of so dangerous a member may be stopped.” A few days later, Marlowe was stabbed to death in Deptford, south London, in circumstances still regarded as suspicious.

The document has been in the collection at the British Library since its founding in 1753 and has often been consulted by scholars, but this is the first time the public will be able to examine it in detail.

Curator Andrea Varney told the Guardian: “There’s nothing quite like being able to look at the real thing, and this will let students and readers from all over the world get close to Baines’s original report. The manuscript itself is over 400 years old and fragile, so digitisation really helps.”

The document and accompanying transcript are being made public in the latest phase of the British Library’s Discovering Literature project, aimed at students, teachers and the general public. Some 2,000 documents are now online, accompanied by 370 background essays and other resources. Four million visitors have visited the site since its launch in 2014. 

One of the biggest attractions to date has been a late 16th-century play text calling for tolerance towards refugees. It is seemingly in the handwriting of a man even more famous than Marlowe, albeit somewhat better behaved – William Shakespeare.

In the centuries since his violent death, Marlowe has been celebrated as gay icon whose works explored the realities of homosexual desire while it was still deeply dangerous to do so. Alongside the Baines note, the British Library has uploaded scans of the director Derek Jarman’s notebooks for his avant-garde film of Marlowe’s Edward II (1991). The play focuses on Edward’s love for his favourite male companion, Piers Gaveston; Jarman’s take on the story is nakedly political, featuring references to contemporary battles over gay rights.

The library is also making available resources on other contemporary writers, among them Ben Jonson and the poets John Donne and Emilia Lanier.

Varney said: “So often we focus only on Shakespeare, but there are a whole world of other people out there, many of them just as brilliant. It’s about opening a window on that.”

The Baines document itself is highly contentious, with some scholars arguing that Baines was a fantasist, and that his “note” was a put-up job designed to get Marlowe, who was arrested at almost exactly the same time, in even more trouble with the authorities.

Charles Nicholl, whose 1992 book The Reckoning examines the shady circumstances surrounding the playwright’s death, said: “The one thing you can say for certain about it is that the note was designed to incriminate Marlowe. These are pretty dangerous and wild utterances that he is making.”

Nonetheless, Nicholl added, the document has a rare power: “It does sound like Marlowe; it’s almost as if he walked into the room. After all this time, that’s still rather shocking.”

The documents are available at bl.uk/discovering-literature

The information here is from the Guardian below:

Daniel Newman of Walking Dead ‘Comes Out Gay'

Newman, who plays Daniel in the hit AMC show, shared the news on Twitter and Instagram before posting a YouTube video in which he explained his decision to speak publicly about his sexuality.


In the video, Newman, who has also appeared in Sex And The City and The Vampire Diaries, told fans that it was “just time” to be open about his sexuality.

He proceeded to explain that helping at a centre for homeless young people had been the catalyst for his decision to come out. When a young woman at the centre thanked him for supporting the LGBTQ community, presuming the actor was heterosexual, Newman corrected her by saying he is gay. She then asked why he hadn’t spoken publicly about his sexuality.

“It hit me like a gut punch. It felt like someone knocked the wind out from me,” Newman recalled. “And I realised how important it is in this day and age to be visible – to let people who know you are.”


Explaining why he feels it’s important for high profile LGBTQ people to come out, Newman added: “When you’re accomplishing incredible things and you’re hiding who you are, you are hurting hundreds of millions of people.”




LGBT’s Are Being Erased from the Next Census and it Matters


                                                                  2020 Census
1-2-3-4 5-6-8-11-14??After 14 comes??? 14 gay goats cousin Pepe

Tim Teeman wrote this story and editorial, it was posted on The Daily Beast. Some believe that LGBT’s should no longer be counted on the census because we already have gay marriage and is against the law to be discriminated by the government in many states. The problem is just that. Not all states and not in the private sector.

LGBT rights vary from state to state and if it wasn’t for the census of 2010, Would we have gotten the push for same sex marriage and other laws enacted in the last seven years?  If you are not counted you have no numbers to show, without numbers you have no political power.
Straights are counted and we should be too.  As a matter of fact even with the census we are way undercounted because not every LGBT is an out person. Im glad Tim Teeman agrees with me. I really do like what he wrote on this issue.
This is another idea of the current administration and the all GOP Congress to slowly chip away on what we have painfully gained in the past ten years. 

                                                                        _*_

Erasure is not an uncommon thing for LGBT people to experience. For millennia—with same-sex behavior and trans identity variously legally proscribed or forbidden, or punishable and stigmatized—it suited societies and religions to make LGBT people as invisible as possible.

And, to escape detection and persecution, many LGBT people chose to collude with this forced invisibility. Even today, making ourselves visible, coming out, is something every LGBT person considers or does.

If you want to understand the anger felt over the news that LGBT people not being counted in the 2020 Census, consider this: if you are straight you have always counted. You have no idea what it is not to be counted, or not to count, or what the implications of not being counted may be.
For you, it just happens.

The LGBT population, on the other hand, has been consistently discriminated against, and consistently made invisible. It has consistently been under legal and physical threat. It has had to fight for visibility.
As Harvey Milk said, coming out is the most potent thing an LGBT person can do. Showing that we are here, that we are present, is the most powerful statement of all. This visibility has never been enumerated. No-one’s ever figured out how to definitively. You might have thought the Census Bureau would be best positioned to. Apparently not.

Our presence, then, has always been configured as a moral issue. For years, the law was either against LGBTs, or implicitly skewered against them. LGBTs have been murdered and attacked for who they are. People have tried to change their sexual orientation with chemicals, electric shocks, and feverish threats. The Nazis killed gays, imprisoned them, and then the Allies rearrested some of those same people after the end of World War Two.

The fight for LGBT presence is historic and continuing. LGBTs were made invisible on film and in TV, and this struggle for equality is far from over.
LGBT people are used to feeling that they do not count—and the census controversy shows what that means all too literally and practically.

Initially, LGBT people were to be part of the 2020 census: as the Washington Blade and other publications reported, sexual orientation and gender identity were included in proposed categories.
However, the Blade reported, the U.S. Census “issued a notice shortly afterward indicating the report was corrected because the initial appendix ‘inadvertently’ included LGBT categories.

“The Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey report released today inadvertently listed sexual orientation and gender identity as a proposed topic in the appendix,” a statement from the Census read. “The report has been corrected.”
John H. Thompson, director of the Census Bureau, was stung into releasing a statement of his own Wednesday. Apparently, there was an “error” in the initial appendix—the nature of this error, the identification of it, the rectification of it, remains a mystery.

The Census Bureau reviewed the request to include sexual orientation and gender identity, he wrote. “Our review concluded there was no federal data need to change the planned census and ACS subjects.”
Again, Thompson offered zero explanation on how this process was conducted, what evidence and testimony was presented, and how the decision was reached.

The response of some to this brouhaha seems to be: well, we weren’t included in the past, so what’s changed? Big deal. “Well, you never had it before, so what are you missing now?” is not a strong or convincing argument against the usefulness of maintaining prejudice and bigotry. It amounts to little more than learned passivity. Just because you are being diminished as you expected to be doesn’t lessen the diminishment.

It may well be that this would have been a first time. Neither the U.S. Census, nor the American Community Survey has ever included questions about sexual orientation or transgender status.
Just because LGBT has never been counted before, the fact we remain uncounted in a year when LGBT rights feel imperiled feels darkly significant—especially the mysterious circumstances by which census chiefs decided that LGBT people should not be counted.

This isn’t some abstract intellectual argument, or pass-by news headline. As Nancy Marcus, Law and Policy Project Senior Advisor at Lambda Legal pointed out, “Census information helps determine the allocation of federally funded social services that are critically important to so many members of the LGBTQ community.”

How, if not by counting them, can LGBT people be protected and have their rights, quality of life, and health maintained? By not counting LGBT people, the Government is hurting them. The case for a proper LGBT Census is a moral, as well as practical, one.
Why did census organizers at first plan to include LGBT Americans in the census, and then—suddenly, and so far without explanation—decide not to?

The Census Bureau has estimated the number of same-sex couples before in America, so what is the problem now making LGBT research more concrete?
Numbers have always been a fraught matter for LGBT people. For those that came out in the 1980s, the figure “one in ten” was most usually cited—the figure derived from Kinsey’s research into the prevalence of male homosexuality.

In recent years, Gary Gates, an LGBT demographer at the Williams Institute, found that 11 percent of the American population had experienced same-sex attraction, but only 3.5 percent identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, with sharp gender divides (2.2 percent of men defined themselves as gay, compared to 1.1 percent of women who said they were lesbian).

Numbers, when it comes to LGBT people, as Gates once told NPR, are controversial: for some they are too high, for others too low. They can be used, indecently, in arguments about policy and legality—why, the prejudiced politician might ask, should we be spending time and money on LGBT equality when such things affect such small groups?

The answer—that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law regardless of their sex, race, or sexual and gender identities; regardless of how many of them they are—can be lost at the pedestal of a stark statistic.

But the necessity of counting LGBT Americans is the same as the many legal and cultural arguments that statistics are quoted in.

This is about equality, and recognizing the needs and presence of particular sub-populations within the main one. This is about signaling to LGBT people that they count culturally, as well as statistically.
LGBT Americans should be counted as equally as everyone else, and whatever results gleaned be analyzed and utilized sensitively, taking into account such complicating matters as people not self-defining themselves honestly or openly.
Sure, that may happen, some people may lie or not tell the truth—but that does not invalidate the exercise.
The issue of the Census erasure matters because the battle for LGBT equality is at a critical moment, and that struggle at its heart is about visibility, about becoming visible and insisting on a social and cultural presence.

Indeed, absence and presence is one of the defining dynamics of LGBT people in culture.
The activism of the Mattachine Society, the Stonewall demonstrators, and all those brave souls before and since who have taken up the struggle, has been about presence, and voice.

All that has been fought over—marriage equality, and before that against sodomy laws, or lobbying against unfair rules on adoption and surrogacy, the fight to serve equally in the military, or to ensure discrimination against LGBTs is outlawed in workplaces and when it comes to ill and deceased loved ones in hospital rooms—has been done by persons showing up and showing their faces, and not being invisible.

The disquiet over the LGBT Census erasure, the injustice of it, is that in action, meaning and consequence, it very literally makes LGBT people invisible again: this time on a stark white form that should include us.

The message of still not being counted on a Census form sends a wider and more profound message around erasure at a time when LGBT rights themselves are under attack. LGBT people see newly minted, anti-LGBT legislators taking their positions in government, and are frightened with good reason. And now, on a basic population form, the one box just for them got blanked out.

That means not only won’t LGBT people be counted, but all that could be gleaned about LGBT people, and who they are and what might best be done in terms of funding and assisting those who may need it most, will not be counted.

That means less understanding at a time when more is urgently needed.
Sure, it’s one box. Sure, it might not be precise or definitive. But everything about that box’s presence, and now its absence, counts—both practically and symbolically. LGBT people know why. They live why, every day.

To LGBT people, an official erasure by Census organizers and government may be painful, and yet another practical and cultural negative. But remember this: the LGBT population has been long numberless, long unfixed by statisticians. That numerical mystery zone will persist now as official policy, but—just as in so many years before—this sanctioned statistical ignorance will not stop the LGBT population’s very visible and enduring campaign for equality.



Yoga Star in a Kilt Gets Death Threats




Finlay Wilson, whose video on BBC Scotland's The Social was viewed more than 50 million times, received a letter threatening his safety.
The handwritten note was left in an envelope on the 30-year-old's doorstep on Tuesday.
Police are treating the incident as a hate crime.
Mr Wilson said: "I came out my flat at 06.30 in the morning to walk the dog and there was a handwritten letter in a sealed envelope on the front step addressed to 'the gay boy at number 45'.

"It said threatening stuff like 'you need to watch yourself' and they said they'd been watching my videos online and that they want me to get out.
"I don't really know anyone in the building. My friends have been saying they didn't realise this sort of thing still happened in this day and age."
Mr Wilson said he had "never had any grief" in Dundee before.

Mr Wilson's video with Tristan Cameron-Harperin has been viewed over 50 million times
He said: "I was upset at first, but now I am furious, because someone's aim is to intimidate me and terrorise me into leaving my home because of their own bigoted beliefs.
"The people who do this sort of thing need to know that their views are unacceptable and the majority of people won't tolerate it."

Mr Wilson, whose popular videos for the BBC Social website showed him doing yoga with Mr Scotland Tristan Cameron-Harperin in the Hermitage forest in Dunkeld, Perthshire, said the abuser also threatened his dog Amaloh.
He said: "I've had to put a cage on the letterbox to make sure they don't post anything harmful through that he might eat."
Police Scotland said it was investigating a "threatening and abusive incident" in connection with a letter being left outside an address in Dundee between 22:00 on Thursday and 06:30 on Tuesday.

A Tayside Division spokeswoman said: “Police Scotland does not tolerate hate crime in any form and everyone has the right to live safely and without fear."

BBC

March 30, 2017

A Mechanical Fish Gay? Only in Australia

Australians think this mechanical fish is gay. They think the voices is for sure gay. It has been allowed but not before a fight.


Let me show it to you thanks to YouTube:

$Money$(Russian Linked?) Being Pumped to Gorsuch Appt.

 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰Editorial


This story posted by  on Esquire
The original tittle  Finally the Democrats are getting how politics work

There's been a lot of stirring on the Neil Gorsuch front. More and more Democratic senators seem disinclined to allow the Senate to give his nomination a vote. Chuck Schumer seems immovable on the subject. (The same cannot be said, alas, for Claire McCaskill, who seems distressingly ambivalent on the topic. My guess? She goes over the side.) Meanwhile, the Republicans are unsure whether or not they want to blow up the filibuster to install Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. (My guess? Boom!) A lot of this ambivalence, I believe, is rooted in their vestigial conscience as a party.
They know what they did to Merrick Garland. They know why they did it to Merrick Garland. At some level, they know how ridiculous their whining about how roughly Gorsuch has been treated sounds to anyone with a short-term memory that extends back to 2015. The longer this stretches out, the more time their vestigial conscience has to work on them. At the same time, Schumer's argument that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should not be doled out by a president who is under FBI investigation is beginning to bite just a little. People are getting a little antsy about the amount of dark money pushing Gorsuch's case. And Gorsuch did himself no favors by trying to bury the Senate Judiciary Committee under an avalanche of smug non-answers. (Dark money? What's that? Is that trying to find the pants in which you left your wallet?) There's more going on here than there was a month ago.
So the job of bucking up the Senate majority is left to its good friends outside the caucus room. For example, the National Rifle Association has stepped up bigly. It's in for a million bucks, which, of course, will not cause Gorsuch to sacrifice his ability to judge a gun control case fairly. You can also tell how nervous Gorsuch’s supporters have become because, once again, we are seeing the Keep The Powder Dry argument floating through the discourse. This is the political strategy by which Democrats give the Republicans what they want on the assumption that they will be able to assert their power at some vague point in the future. The only minor flaw in this plan is that it never works. The Democratic Party must have an airplane hangar somewhere filled to the rafters with dry powder. Nonetheless, the idea is back again. Here’s some superb concern-trolling from a former Republican flack, brought to us by Tiger Beat On The Potomac:
The problem for Schumer and his caucus is this: Republicans are not bluffing when they say Gorsuch will be on the court one way or another. The squishes, the institutionalists, even the erstwhile "Gang" members are unwavering in their support. Gorsuch is well-qualified for the job, acquitted himself admirably by any measure, and if an unprecedented partisan filibuster is the only thing standing between him and the bench, the Reid Rule will be invoked for the second time.
Here it comes…
But saying Republicans have the political will to put Gorsuch on the court is different than saying there are 50 GOP senators who are otherwise prepared to end the filibuster. Their appetite is entirely a function of circumstance. Were Democrats to lay off Gorsuch, keeping their powder dry for the future and maintaining the moral high ground, it would be rather easy to imagine the Susan Collinses, John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world getting cold feet with a lesser Trump pick, particularly one who shifts the balance of the court rather than maintaining it. Which is to say that Gorsuch's nomination is something of a perfect storm for GOP procedural fortitude. Only seeing such a model jurist held hostage to cynical political whims would be enough to compel the righteous indignation necessary to go nuclear.
And then comes the point where the author shoots his own argument through the head, and gives anyone with that aforementioned short-term memory a chance to tell the author to piss off.
(I'll pause here so my friends on the left can let out a primal scream for poor Merrick Garland.)
Piss off.
What happened to Garland—who couldn't even get a private meeting with a single Republican senator—changed the political context irreparably. Because of that, you can't just tell the Democrats that it's to their advantage to wave off what was done to Garland, much less to roll over for Gorsuch, without sounding naïve or ignorant. History tells us that the fight for which the Democrats "keep the powder dry" never occurs. Recent history tells us that there is no compelling political reason to put Neil Gorsuch on the court ahead of Merrick Garland. If the Republicans want to blow up the filibuster to do it, they should suck it up and take the political risks that doing so entails.
HISTORY TELLS US THAT THE FIGHT FOR WHICH THE DEMOCRATS "KEEP THE POWDER DRY" NEVER OCCURS.
(I'm not entirely sure that those risks are that great, at least in terms of getting Republican senators re-elected.)
But one thing that makes me feel good about the building resistance to Gorsuch is that the Democrats in Congress seem at last to be bridling at the notion that "bipartisanship" is primarily the responsibility of their party, that they don't necessarily have to be the grown-ups in a room where childish vandals roam free, and that, sooner or later, the Republicans have to take responsibility in real time for the damage they do. Chuck Schumer is under no obligation to salve the consciences of the people who stiffed Merrick Garland—and, by the way, there is no requirement that the Supreme Court be "balanced" ideologically—by giving them exactly the result they wanted a year ago.
Touch off the powder for a change.

UK New Cat Ownership is Being Driven by Men


 Cats may have already taken over the internet, but now they are stealing the hearts of UK men, a survey suggests.
The Pet Food Manufacturers' Association said the number of pet cats in the country has gone up by 500,000 to reach eight million in the past year. 
The rise was driven by one million more men getting a feline friend, the PFMA, which spoke to 8,000 households, says.
Celebrity cat owners, such as Russell Brand and Ed Sheeran, may have also influenced the new pet owners, it says.  About 17% of men in the UK now own a cat, up from 13% in 2016, according to the survey. 
Hugh Wigmore lives in London with his cat Nigel Harmsworth. 
"I like having a cat because we have loads in common," said Hugh. "We both love cuddles, jelly and the outdoors!
"We get on really well. I'd definitely recommend it to other guys. Nigel is fantastic."
Sam Sahota went the extra mile, adopting three newborn kittens which had been dumped in a dustbin, despite a vet saying they had no chance of survival. 
Sam and hs catsImage copyrightSAM SAHOTA
Image captionSam Sahota's kittens are now all grown up
"I had always been a dog man, but when my colleague found a box with three kittens inside, my natural instinct was to save them from certain death," he said. 
"I fed them milk from syringes, I placed a clock under their blanket to replicate the heartbeat of their mother and spent hours a day raising them."
Now Sam adores owning cats. 
"The thing I love most is how playful they are," he added. "Their curiosity, the affection they show which is real, unlike a dog. 
"Cats do not need the attention a dog does but when it gives you attention is not false. They select who they want to be with."
James Copeman, from Canterbury, said having cats made his house "feel full" and loves coming home to his two, Miles and Keiko, waiting at the door. 
Image copyrightJAMES COPEMAN
James and Keiko the cat
Image captionJames Copeman loves having Keiko the cat at home
"We never had pets when I was young so it's something I've always wanted," he said. "They always seem to know when you need a bit of attention after a bad day.
"I'd definitely recommend it but you have to be prepared for the wake up calls, smelly litter trays and scratched furniture!"
Mike Brooks, from Nottingham, has three cats and loves them as pets. 
"I got a cat because I have always had cats since I was a child and they're wonderful creatures," he said. 
"They're cute, usually cuddly (if you respect their wishes), generally low-maintenance, and there is nothing more satisfying than the purr of a happy cat."
Mike Brooks and his cat NimbusImage copyrightMIKE BROOKS
Image captionMike Brooks gets a lot of love from his cat Nimbus
Michael Bellingham, chief executive of PFMA, said: "Pet ownership is a rewarding experience for everyone. It's wonderful to see that men are realising the huge benefits of pets with an increase in cat ownership in this sector."
The most popular pet in the UK is fish - 33 million are kept in tanks and ponds around the country - followed by dogs at 8.5 million. 
There are also 900,000 rabbits, 700,000 pet birds, 700,000 reptiles, 600,000 domestic fowl, 500,000 guinea pigs and 300,000 hamsters.

Pharma Opposes Legal Pot-To Make Their Own Synthetic One





Last year, backers of an Arizona initiative to legalize recreational marijuana ran into stiff resistance from a large pharmaceutical company. Opponents of Proposition 205 got a huge boost from drug company Insys Therapeutics in the form of a $500,000 donation.

At the time, an Insys spokesperson said the company was opposing legalization because "it fails to protect the safety of Arizona's citizens, and particularly its children." However, the real reason, which was made official last week, was because Insys didn't want competition.

Insys' new synthetic marijuana drug, Syndros, was given a green light by the FDA, as well as  preliminary approval by the Drug Enforcement Agency, last July. That approval became official last Thursday. The purpose of the new medication is to treat nausea in patients suffering from cancer and AIDS – something that natural cannabis does quite well for a fraction of the cost.

In keeping with the rank hypocrisy of the anti-marijuana legalization cabal, the DEA now lists Syndros in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act – which includes cocaine and prescription opioid painkillers, while natural cannabis remains Schedule I.

Several years ago, corporate attorneys for Insys wrote a letter to the DEA, urging the agency to keep marijuana criminalized because of "the abuse potential in terms of the need to grow and cultivate substantial crops of marijuana in the United States." At the same time, they petitioned the DEA to ease up on restrictions of the production of synthetic cannabidol (CBD), a less psychoactive compound in marijuana that has been proven effective in treating epilepsy. It should come as no surprise that Insys has been working on its own CBD product.

Now, the story gets interesting. It turns out the Insys is under investigation while being sued by shareholders for illegally marketing highly-addictive opioid painkillers. Six former Insys executives were arrested in December on charges of racketeering. According to the FBI, the conspired to "sell a highly potent and addictive opioid that can lead to abuse and life threatening respiratory depression."

No coincidentally, Insys is working on a treatment for opioid overdose.

It is worth pointing out that in states that have legalized marijuana, those natural humans who wish to go into business as growers and suppliers must pass very strict background checks and have squeaky clean records. However, it is becoming clear that corporate "people" are exempt from those high standards that natural people are held to.

This is also another example of the rank hypocrisy of America's so-called "free market" capitalist system. Supposedly, a free market is based on competition, and rewards those who can provide the best products at the lowest price. However, when it comes to big corporations, government agencies can – and often do – rig the rules of the game.

Aside from that, it turns out that synthetic marijuana, unlike natural cannabis, can have serious, and even deadly toxic side effects. But that doesn't matter when corporate profits are on the line.

For Big Pharma, it's business as usual and the rest of us will be paying the price. There may be a bit of justice in store for Insys, however. According to the independent investment research and analysis website Seeking Alpha, investors who were keeping an eye on the development and approval for Syndros had been hoping for a much-less strict Schedule 3 classification by the DEA  ("drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence"). This would have put it in the same category as codeine, anabolic steroids and testosterone replacement treatments. Between Syndros’ Schedule II classification and last week's arrests of former Insys executives and the arrest of a doctor last week, Seeking Alpha considers Syndros "too worrisome to prescribe" and is advising investors to "avoid [Insys] at all costs."

North Carolina Fakes Repeal to Bathroom Law





 

In the showdown between Gov. Roy Cooper and North Carolina’s Republican-led General Assembly over HB 2, it was the governor who blinked first.

As a result, North Carolina lawmakers are now moving forward with a bill to “repeal” HB 2 in name only while keeping the law’s most pernicious provisions. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore announced the compromise legislation late Wednesday night.

Under the terms of the deal, House Bill 142, which had initially dealt with occupational licensing boards, will be gutted and replaced with a one-page bill that “technically” repeals the section of state law created by HB 2, reports WRAL. But lawmakers have inserted language that preempts any locality, state agency, branch of government, university or community college in the state from regulating multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, unless the General Assembly approves the change beforehand.

The bill also places a nearly four-year ban that prohibits any municipality from passing or amending any nondiscrimination ordinance that regulates employment or access to public accommodations (which does not include restrooms, showers or changing facilities). That section is set to expire on Dec. 1, 2020, by which time Republican leaders expect ongoing litigation over HB 2’s provisions and legal challenges to various anti-transgender laws across the country to be resolved by the courts.

The bill is expected to go before a Senate committee on Thursday morning, and will likely be approved by both houses in short order soon after.  
 
The deal is being sold as a “repeal” of HB 2 in the media, but it really just allows Cooper, Berger, and Moore to save face by arguing that the controversial law has been repealed in order to attract major corporations, conventions, and sporting events back to the state. An analysis by the Associated Press recently estimated that North Carolina has lost out on at least $3.76 billion over the next 12 years because of HB 2, with none of that money able to be recouped. 

The deal also provides political cover for various sporting associations, including the NCAA, the NBA, and the ACC, who have historically preferred to host sporting championships or other events in North Carolina and may have been concerned about maintaining the current boycott against the state. According to sources within the NCAA, Thursday is the last day by which North Carolina could repeal its law in order to be considered as a potential host city for various sporting championships. Otherwise, the NCAA is likely to pass over the state as a host city through the year 2022.

Additionally, some corporations who are wary of losing customers or clients as a result of their support of transgender rights may embrace the fake “repeal” as justification for them to begin resuming business with the Tar Heel State.

But while most North Carolinians may be relieved at the perception — even if it’s not real — that the HB 2 controversy is “behind them,” LGBTQ groups are practically apoplectic over the proposed deal.

Poll: North Carolinians say HB 2 not needed for privacy or safety
Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality NC, called the proposal a “train wreck” and urged Cooper and LGBTQ allies in the legislature not to go along with the fake “repeal” effort.

The National Center for Transgender Equality trained its fire on Cooper for agreeing to the so-called “compromise.”

“Let me be clear: this is not a repeal. It’s a cynical ploy that will continue to hurt North Carolina and transgender people,” NCTE Executive Director Mara Keisling said in a statement. “Passing this bill would mean that North Carolina continues to be one of the very few states where it’s illegal for cities to protect the rights of their residents. It pushes aside real North Carolinians in favor of political expediency.”

Keisling also noted that the way the “repeal” bill was being pushed through without debate or input from the public was eerily similar to the manner in which HB 2 was passed over a year ago. 

“It’s time for North Carolina’s political leaders to get their act together and remember who they’re working for — the North Carolinian public,” Keisling added. “After all, Gov. Cooper ran his campaign on fully repealing HB 2 and protecting transgender North Carolinians. It is an outrageous betrayal that he supports this fake repeal.”

“This so-called ‘deal’ may be an economic quick fix, but it continues to write discrimination into the law,” added Simone Bell, Southern Regional Director for Lambda Legal. “A deal that leaves out LGBT North Carolinians, and particularly transgender people, should be no deal at all. … Lawmakers should demand a full, clean repeal, and enact comprehensive non-discrimination protections and not leave our community unprotected in the name of ‘compromise.’”

By  

Featured Posts

Navy Plane Crashes Into Pacific

Eight people have been found alive and are in "good condition" after a U.S. Navy plane with 11 aboard crashed into...