In both my professional and personal life, I am forever frustrated by the fact that I cannot read a room. Every day, I know I am going to be blind to dozens of social cues others expect me to see, and be subtly punished for it. And sometimes not so subtly: I was once fired from a job after two days because the project manager thought I was being disruptive on purpose.

Relatively speaking, I am lucky. I had parents who could afford to put me though the counseling and accommodations necessary to live independently. Not everyone does.

Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate in history to propose a government initiative specifically to help people with autism. Her plan includes a nationwide childhood screening and awareness campaign; requiring the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and TRICARE to cover occupational therapy and accommodation; and launching a national public-private partnership called Autism Works, which will help young adults on the spectrum transition from school into the professional world.

Every time I read her policy document, the one thing that leaps out at me is her empathy. She never once, as many people do, refers to my struggle as an “illness” to be “cured.” Nor does she simply seek to make it easier for society to deal with me. She seeks to ensure that I can deal with society. That I can live my life with independence, pride, and fulfillment.

If we are fortunate enough to have Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States, I know she will fight for me. She will put what I have faced daily into the national conversation. It is something I — and many others like me — are eagerly awaiting.

http://shareblue.com/what-hillary-clintons-support-of-autism-rights-means-to-me/

Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Trump’s behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race. As a result, Moscow put its hacking campaign temporarily on hold, ending the distribution of documents until Trump stabilized, both personally and in the polls, according to reports provided to Western intelligence.

America’s European partners are also troubled by the actions of several people close to Trump’s campaign and company. Trump has been surrounded by advisors and associates with economic and familial links to Russia. The publicized connections and contacts between former campaign manager Paul Manafort with Ukraine have raised concerns. Former Trump advisor Carter Page is being probed by American and European intelligence on allegations that he engaged in back-channel discussions with Russian government officials over the summer. Page did travel to Moscow, but he denies any inappropriate contact with Russian officials. The allies are also uneasy about retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a Trump advisor who was reportedly considered a possible running mate for the GOP nominee. Last December, Flynn attended a dinner at the Metropol Hotel in honor of the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian news agency that has been publicly identified by American intelligence as a primary outlet for Moscow’s disinformation campaigns. Flynn, who was two seats away from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the dinner, has frequently appeared on RT, despite public warnings by American intelligence that the news agency is used for Russian propaganda.

MORE: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Trump’s behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race. As a result, Moscow put its hacking campaign temporarily on hold, ending the distribution of documents until Trump stabilized, both personally and in the polls, according to reports provided to Western intelligence.

America’s European partners are also troubled by the actions of several people close to Trump’s campaign and company. Trump has been surrounded by advisors and associates with economic and familial links to Russia. The publicized connections and contacts between former campaign manager Paul Manafort with Ukraine have raised concerns. Former Trump advisor Carter Page is being probed by American and European intelligence on allegations that he engaged in back-channel discussions with Russian government officials over the summer. Page did travel to Moscow, but he denies any inappropriate contact with Russian officials. The allies are also uneasy about retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a Trump advisor who was reportedly considered a possible running mate for the GOP nominee. Last December, Flynn attended a dinner at the Metropol Hotel in honor of the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian news agency that has been publicly identified by American intelligence as a primary outlet for Moscow’s disinformation campaigns. Flynn, who was two seats away from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the dinner, has frequently appeared on RT, despite public warnings by American intelligence that the news agency is used for Russian propaganda.

MORE: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.

If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade, notwithstanding the large number of women who had come forward with credible claims. And now history is repeating itself.

In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted — no, we are obligated — to analyze the case’s viability now.

No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility — whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop.

I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.” These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored. Mainstream media, I’m looking at you.

1. Consider the context: Mr. Trump’s overt, even proud misogyny.

The rape case must be viewed through the lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for women. Men who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime.

Mr. Trump has relished calling women “dogs,” “slobs” and “pigs,” and cyberstalked and derided journalist Megyn Kelly for having the temerity to ask him to defend his own words. He threw out the most misogynist of attacks, attempting to undermine her professionalism by accusing her of menstruating. He’s cruelly ridiculed the appearance of a female opponent (Carly Fiorina) and an opponent’s wife (Heidi Cruz). His campaign even openly acknowledged that it disqualified all women for consideration as his vice-president.

Mr. Trump has a long history of debasing women he’s worked with, crossing the line on a regular basis. He’s taken lifelong joy in objectifying women, including his proclamation: “Women, you have to treat ‘em like shit.”

This cannot be ignored. Decades of abusive language does not make him a rapist. But it does show us who the man is: a callous, meanspirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with her daughter. As Dr. Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they really are, believe them.”

CONTINUES IN LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Russia depends on its revenue from oil and gas for more than half of its federal budget, according to its Ministry of Finance. That, combined with weak energy prices in recent years and Russia being stuck in its longest recession in two decades, leaves the country and Putin in a very precarious position. Much of its petroleum export revenue comes from countries in the European Union, many of which are U.S. allies. Mindful of this, Clinton told Deutsche Bank in October 2014, “I want to export gas, especially to our friends in order to undercut, in Europe’s case, the pressure from Russia.”

Moscow is well aware of this vulnerability. As Clinton noted in mid-2014, Russian state-owned company Gazprom was taking over strategic energy infrastructure across Europe, including its largest underground gas storage facility in Germany and engaging in what she called “pure power politics.”

“That’s why, as secretary of state, starting in March 2009, I pushed the Europeans to get serious about finding alternative energy sources and to invest in real resources in their infrastructure, so they wouldn’t be at Putin’s mercy,” she said in the July 2014 speech. March 2009 was also when Clinton presented her Russian counterpart with a symbolic “reset” button in what turned out to be an ill-fated attempt at mending relations.

Why would Clinton pursue a Russian reset while embarking on an energy war? A speech in April 2014 reveals a possible reason: While secretary of state, she witnessed an abuse of power by Putin so severe it led to civilian deaths. “I cannot say I saw this coming, but what I saw was that in 2006 in January, he cut off gas to Eastern Europe. I think like a dozen people froze to death in Poland,” she said. “He did it again in 2009, primarily focused on Ukraine. He has used his energy as a weapon to intimidate Europe.”

Clinton’s speeches even outlined where pipelines would need to be built to ease Europe off its Russian oil and gas fix, including sites in the former Soviet Russia. “How far this aggressiveness goes I think is really up to us,” she said in March 2014. “I would like to see us accelerating the development of pipelines from Azerbaijan up into Europe. I would like to see us looking for ways to accelerate the internal domestic production.”

MORE IN LINK: http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-energy-oil-natural-gas-ukraine-europe-fracking-516397

On Monday evening, two potentially Category 5 stories broke concerning Donald Trump and his many ties to Russia. At 5:36 PM, Slate was up with an analysis of a server in Trump Tower that seemed to be directly, and exclusively, connected to an oligarch-controlled bank in Russia.

It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.

At 7:52 PM, Mother Jones was up with a reveal from a former spy who claimed to have seriously shocking information.

"Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance."

But by 9:14 PM, the New York Times was ready not only to dismiss the Russian connection to Trump, but paint the Russian hacking of Democratic emails—and only Democratic emails—as a random prank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

And just like that, stories that might have dominated the morning news were strangled in their crib. But … by who? Who gave the Times the very timely information it needed to attack the Trump/Russia connection at just the right moment?