WORLD NEWS: The USA

[T-bone]

Ahhhhh - Jersey style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Camden, N.J. Named Most-Dangerous City

Mon Nov 22, 5:31 AM ET* U.S. National - AP


By BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. - Camden has been named the nation's most-dangerous city, snatching the top spot from Detroit, according to a company's annual ranking based on crime statistics.

*

Officials in Camden, which was ranked third last year, downplayed the dubious designation Sunday, saying many steps have already been taken to reduce crime in the city.


"We must give our people jobs, training and opportunity," said City Councilman Ali Sloan-El, who pointed out that Camden's poverty is an important contributing factor to its high crime rate.


Atlanta, St. Louis and Gary, Ind. rounded out the top five in the most dangerous city rankings, which was to be released Monday by Morgan Quitno Corp. The company publishes "City Crime Rankings," an annual reference book that will be published next month. Detroit fell to second in this year's list.


However, company president Scott Morgan told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in its Sunday edition that he had been unaware that St. Louis police omitted 5,760 crimes from their 2003 crime data. Provided with the correct data, Morgan found that St. Louis would have switched places with Atlanta.


The news wasn't all bleak for New Jersey. The state's Brick Township was rated the second-safest city for the third straight year, behind only Newton, Mass., while the Garden State's Dover Township was ranked tenth. The other communities in the top five were Amherst, N.Y., which had been ranked as the safest city for the past four years, followed by Mission Viejo, Calif., and Clarkstown, N.Y.


The rankings look at the rate for six crime categories: Murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and auto theft. It compares 350 cities with populations of 75,000 or more that reported crime data to the FBI (news - web sites). Final 2003 statistics, released by the FBI in October, were used to determine the rankings.

[/b][/quote]

[goodwije]

I have never even heard of Camden New Jersey.. guess i won't be heaed there for the holidays though style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[T-bone]

Rutgers University has a campus there - as well as New Brunswick and Newark (where I graduated from).

[Master Cephus]

Well you know, if you are going to do something...you might as well be the best at it right? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue2.gif

[goodwije]

Time to prepare for takeoff

Frequent flier? Novice? Start with word to the wise

By Bob Dyer

Beacon Journal staff writer


Flying somewhere over the holiday? You can expect the same old hassles -- which is good.

The same old hassles are certainly preferable to the new ones that arose during the first couple of years after 9/11.

Mind you, some things will never be the same. Never again will you be encouraged to hike to an observation deck to watch the planes take off and land, as people did for generations. Because of security fears, observation decks have become taboo.

But nobody is advising you to show up three hours before a flight, and most of the security screeners -- now employed and trained by the Transportation Security Administration -- no longer seem to make sport of needlessly annoying people.

Today, most of the hassles are the ancient ones. Namely, you're flying at the busiest time of the year, and the sheer volume of fellow travelers will make your life uncomfortable.

And, same as it ever was, all flights in a sense go through Las Vegas: They're a crapshoot. One small mechanical problem can keep you on the ground for an eternity. So can the weather -- and not just the local weather.

If one area of the country is having a bad storm, that can send ripples throughout the entire transportation system. You may get to your gate and not see a plane because it couldn't get off the ground 2,000 miles away.

Even if you do see a plane, there may be nobody available to fly it because government rules dictate that crews can only work so many hours within a certain period of time.

If the bad weather is local, your odds of getting off the ground have improved dramatically at Cleveland Hopkins International. The airport this summer completed its second 9,000-foot runway and boasts a ``Category III'' instrument landing system, which means the big birds can now take off and land in all but the worst conditions.

Those changes have helped give Hopkins the best on-time record of any Ohio airport and any hub airport in the Midwest.

Getting through security

The most notable difference between Thanksgiving and the rest of the year is that a far higher percentage of passengers are novices. And that will slow things down because the newbies don't know the nuances known by frequent fliers that keep things moving. To wit:

• You can carry only one small suitcase and one ``personal item,'' such as a purse or briefcase, onto the plane.

• You have to take off your coat before walking through the metal detector.

• Footwear other than sneakers will probably set off the alarm, so take off your dress shoes and toss them in one of the little plastic trays.

• Take your laptop out of its case and put it in a tray.

• Ditto for jewelry.

• Ditto for the stuff in your pockets -- and not just car keys. Almost anything can set off the metal detectors these days, even the foil from a pack of gum.

• Don't even think about bringing wrapped gifts. They will be opened prematurely, and not by the intended recipient. Instead, ship them a few days ahead of time.

Depending upon your fashion sense, you should be aware that tales abound about uncomfortable confrontations involving body piercings. As it says on the TSA Web site, ``be aware that any metal detected at the checkpoint must be identified.'' In other words, it would be a good idea to remove that nipple ring in advance.

Noteworthy refinements have been made in the inspection of checked bags.

In the bad old post-Osama days, travelers who locked their luggage found their locks had been cut off by screeners. Today, the screeners have master keys to at least 27 brands of locks -- which means they can check out your stuff but the baggage-handlers can't. (A list of brands can be found on the TSA's Web site, www.tsa.gov.)

If you plan to shoot holiday photos during your trip, keep in mind that the new, more sensitive security equipment can do bad things to film.

Never put any type of undeveloped film in checked baggage. In most cases you'll be OK if you carry it onto the plane. You won't be OK if the film has a speed of ASA 800 or faster, and you won't be OK if you carry it through more than five checkpoints.

In those cases, ask the screener to hand-inspect the film. That request should be granted anywhere in this country. If you're flying overseas, it depends.

The good news is that digital photography isn't affected by either the checked-bag or carry-on screening machines. Same with video.

Although it is commonly believed that only passengers with boarding passes can get through security and go to the gate, a person with special needs can be accompanied by one non-flying companion, and a minor flying solo can be accompanied by one parent or guardian. But you've got to ask for a ``gate pass'' at the check-in counter.

Some aspects of air travel have actually improved during the last decade.

Although the Internet has pretty much destroyed small travel agencies, it's the best thing that has happened to passengers since the birth of beverage service. Today you can not only check schedules, shop prices and buy your ticket online, you can print out your actual boarding pass as much as 24 hours ahead of time.

(Attention infrequent fliers: Even with a boarding pass, if you're checking luggage, you still have to visit the ticket counter or the outdoor baggage check-in before you go through security.)

Arriving at the airport

Believe it or not, parking rates also have improved. Just a few years ago, parking in the long-term garage at Hopkins required a second mortgage. Now it's $9 per day -- two bucks cheaper than the list price for off-site competitors like Park 'n' Fly and Park Air Express.

Akron-Canton Airport is cheaper still -- $7 in the closest spaces, $6 in the farthest.

If you're just picking somebody up, the short-term lot at Hopkins is free for the first 30 minutes and $1 at Akron-Canton.

How soon to arrive? An hour ahead should be fine, especially at Akron-Canton, which has 86 flights a day compared to 600 at Hopkins. If you're a Type A personality, you may want to add another half hour -- especially if you're flying early in the day.

``People think that if they have a 5:30 or 6 a.m. flight, nobody else has one of those -- and that is a complete misconception,'' says Akron-Canton spokeswoman Kristie Van Auken. ``That's our (busiest time) of the morning because every plane is on the ground and they all take off within half an hour of each other.''

Keep in mind that different airports and different airlines do things differently. For instance, sometimes you'll be required to show an ID and boarding pass at the gate, and sometimes you'll need only the boarding pass.

You've just gotta go with the flow. Which isn't a bad idea regardless of your mode of travel

[T-bone]

2003 Sees Highest Caesarean Birth Rate
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - More than a quarter of babies born in the United States in 2003 were delivered by Caesarean section, the highest rate on record, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Birth rates for teenagers continued their steady decline last year while increasing for women age 35 to 44, the report from the National Center for Health Statistics said. The agency is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).

Nearly 4.1 million births were recorded in the United States in 2003, a slight increase over 2002. Roughly 1.13 million, or 27.6 percent, were Caesarean deliveries. The rate is up by a third since 1996, said the report, which is a preliminary look at U.S. births last year.

A Caesarean section is major abdominal surgery with serious potential side effects. The report does not distinguish between those that were medically necessary and those that were elective.

The question of whether it should be performed when natural childbirth poses no threat to either mother or baby is controversial among obstetricians.

One unexplained trend in the annual report is the continued increase in the rate of premature and low birthweight babies even though the teen birth rate dropped, fewer women were smoking while pregnant, and more women were getting timely prenatal care.

The rate of babies born after less than 37 weeks of gestation rose slightly to 12.3 percent, the report said, and those weighing less than 5.5 pounds increased slightly to 7.9 percent last year.

Some of the rise in these early births can be tied to the increasing number of older mothers, who naturally and through fertility treatments are more likely to have twins and triplets. These babies are more likely to be born early and weigh less, said Joyce Martin, an epidemiologist and author of the report.

"But it's important to note that the increase in preterm and low birthweight is not restricted to older moms and for women just having singletons. So something else is going on here, too," Martin said.


Among other statistics in the report:
_ Births to unmarried mothers rose slightly.

_ Women of Hispanic origin had the highest birth rate, 96.9 per 1,000 women, compared to the overall rate of 66.1.

_ Two teenage girls younger than 15 gave birth to at least their fourth child.

_ There were 1,512 first-time mothers between the ages of 45 and 54.

___

On the Net:
2003 U.S. births report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/birthrates.htm

[T-bone]

Bush Orders Review of Covert Operations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) has ordered an internal review into whether the Defense Department should run covert paramilitary operations traditionally mounted by the CIA (news - web sites), administration officials said on Tuesday.

The presidential directive, signed by Bush last week, asks the CIA and the Departments of State, Defense and Justice to report back to him in 90 days on "whether or not the paramilitary operations, currently under the control of the CIA, should be transferred to the Department of Defense (news - web sites)," a senior administration official said.

The recommendation was first made by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as part of a package of reforms to overhaul and streamline the intelligence community.

Top officials at the CIA and the Pentagon (news - web sites) have been cool to the idea of giving the military's Special Operations forces such a large role in paramilitary operations.

The CIA's paramilitary units are authorized to carry out the most sensitive covert operations, like the one launched in Afghanistan (news - web sites) soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

COMPLEX ISSUE

Personnel in U.S. military Special Operations forces, such as Delta Force and Navy SEALs, are elite and highly trained troops who perform special missions, in many cases covert and behind enemy lines.

"Since this is a complex issue, we want to study it closely with the intelligence community to better understand it," said a Pentagon spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We don't have any preordained or preferred solutions in mind. We are undertaking the study with open minds.

"We have been working formally and informally with the CIA already on this issue. We have a great deal of common ground and agreement with them," the spokesman added.

Officials said the interagency review, first reported by The New York Times, would look at whether paramilitary authorities should be transferred in their entirety to the Defense Department.

It could also advocate a more collaborative role between Special Operations forces and the paramilitary units of the intelligence agency. They already work together in the hunt for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and other al Qaeda leaders.

The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission have been critical of the CIA's covert paramilitary actions, which before Sept. 11 had used local agents with little success to attack al Qaeda.

The commission said the joint CIA-military covert operations in Afghanistan after Sept. 11 were successful but still recommended shifting lead responsibility for all paramilitary operations to the better-equipped Pentagon.

In the Iraq (news - web sites) war, Special Operations troops again figured prominently, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been a big backer of the military's special forces.

[T-bone]

Exploding Cell Phones a Growing Problem
By ELIZABETH WOLFE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Curtis Sathre said it was like a bomb going off. His 13-year-old son Michael stood stunned, ears ringing, hand gushing blood after his cell phone exploded. Safety officials have received 83 reports of cell phones exploding or catching fire in the past two years, usually because of bad batteries or chargers.

Burns to the face, neck, leg and hip are among the dozens of injury reports the Consumer Product Safety Commission (news - web sites) has received. The agency is providing tips for cell phone users to avoid such accidents and has stepped up oversight of the wireless industry. There have been three voluntary battery recalls, and the CPSC is working with companies to create better battery standards.

"CPSC is receiving more and more reports of incidents involving cell phones, and we're very concerned of the potential for more serious injuries or more fires," said agency spokesman Scott Wolfson.

U.S. phone makers and carriers say most fires and explosions are caused by counterfeit batteries and note that in a country with some 170 million cell phone users, the number of accidents is extremely low.

"Is it a problem? It has turned up, you bet. But statistically it is extraordinarily rare," said John Walls, spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "But the fact that it has happened certainly has the industry's attention."

Some consumer advocates say the cause goes beyond bad batteries making their way to the market. They point to the increasing pressure on battery and phone makers to fit more capabilities into small instruments.

"If you're cramming more and more power in a small space, what you're making is a small bomb," said Carl Hilliard, president of the California-based Wireless Consumers Alliance, which has been tracking incidents of cell phone fires and explosions.

Though legitimate batteries can go wrong, there is a greater chance that poorly made, counterfeit ones will lack safety devices to detect overheating or overcharging. The lithium-ion batteries found in most cell phones can overheat if, for example, heat vents are covered.

The CPSC is trying to determine if improved venting is enough by itself to ensure safety. "We have seen temperatures as high as 600 degrees, and you can have a torch-like effect if these batteries don't function properly," Wolfson said.

The commission has announced three battery recalls since January, one from Verizon Wireless and two from Kyocera Wireless Corp. Kyocera's first recall was blamed on a supplier whose standards had slipped. The other recalls were attributed to suppliers bringing counterfeits into distribution chains.

Kyocera, which recalled 1 million batteries last month, said it has changed vendors and doubled efforts to test its own batteries.

Hoping to address problems that may lie beyond their supply lines, members of the wireless industry began collaborating last week with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a standard-setting organization, to create voluntary design and performance standards for all batteries.

"There needs to be high-quality batteries for these cell phones. You have a lot of power in a very small product, so it's really key," said Wolfson of the CPSC, which is participating in the meetings between wireless industry members and IEEE.

Carriers and manufacturers also are urging cellular users to exercise reasonable care of batteries, chargers and phones and to purchase them directly from phone companies rather than secondhand dealers or off the Internet.

But even following those recommendations sometimes isn't enough, as bad products inevitably find their way onto store shelves.

Angela Karasek, a 21-year-old paralegal in Philadelphia, bought her Motorola phone and battery together from a Nextel store. She awoke one night a few weeks ago to what she described as a pinging sound and then saw fire. Her cell phone battery had blown out, igniting a doll about three feet away. She ran to her parents' room for help, and her father quickly put out the fire.

"I'm just a light sleeper, and for some reason I sat up and saw all the flames on the doll," Karasek said.

Marcelino Gonzalez of Brentwood, N.Y., said he suffered second-degree burns after his Kyocera phone exploded in his hand as he turned it on to make a call.

"If it was to my face it would have blown up in my face," said Gonzalez, 62, who has contacted a lawyer.

Michael Sathre, who is expected to fully recover from his wounds, was picking his fully charged Verizon LG cell phone off the floor when it exploded by his side. The family chose not to sue and has instead allowed the companies involved and a consumer group to come to their house to study the damage, in the hopes it won't happen to someone else.

"It took my son two months to decide to even be near a cell phone," said his mother, Cris. "But he needs one."

[Crazydude]

New Jersey seems to be one of those really bizarre states right now.

[T-bone]

This is an opinion piece but I found it somewhat intriguing and thought I'd post it:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES' ARGUMENT IS BIGOTRY IN DISGUISE
By John Leo

I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values" argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. Of course if everybody already shares them, no imposition would be necessary.

Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is -- trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."

Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slaveowners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.

The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent, deploring, for example, Catholics who act on their church's beliefs on abortion and stem cells, but not Catholics who follow the pope's insistence that rich nations share their wealth with poor nations, or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).

If the "don't impose" people wish to mount a serious argument, they will have to attack "imposers" on both sides of the issues they discuss, not just their opponents. They will also have to explain why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions because he is an atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist would likely be seen as a violation of some sort.

Consistency would also require the "don't impose" supporters to speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to violate their own principles: anti-abortion doctors and nurses who are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques; Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts are entitled to go their own way.

Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs commissioner of the European Union (news - web sites), then rejected for having an opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of Buttiglione "for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing social orthodoxy ... despite a categorical statement that he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions." The Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to impose their views. No word of protest yet from "don't impose" proponents.

Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry (news - web sites) tried to define the stem-cell argument as science vs. ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology vs. ideology: the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos vs. the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones.

Those who resent religiously based arguments often present themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As professor Volokh argues, "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises." No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the "don't impose" argument would be a step toward improving the political climate.
[/b][/quote]

[DblDwn]

Ok, I am all in favor of increased airport security but isn't it extreme to have people taking their shirts off at the security check? I understand that they have to be careful but 99.99999% of flyers are not posing an immediate threat. When does enough become enough?

[goodwije]

that peice T, although a couple of good points where made, is another of the "America Hates Christians" articles i have been reading lately. I really believe that idea is being blown out of porportion. As a secularist one of my goals is that all forms of religion be removed from our government. That does not mean it would be removed from our personal lives. And it does not mean that someone who's faith tells them to vote a certain way would not be permitted to do so.

I was speaking recently with my bf's Boss. She said to me "Hey you guys should have the right to make a union, i just don't think you should be allowed to marry in MY church". To which i explained to her that even if same sex marriage was made legal today there is no way any church would be forced to marry them. A church has every right to deny someone services based on religious thought and practice. Hundreds of hetero couples are turned away from churches each day because they do not met the criteria the church sets forth in order to be married there.

All that is for me to say, i do not believe we (those on this side of the secular idea) are "forcing" our persepective on anyone.

[T-bone]

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume to Step Down

BALTIMORE - NAACP President Kweisi Mfume is stepping down as the head of the nation's oldest and largest civil rights group, a spokesman said Tuesday.

Mfume plans to make the formal announcement at a news conference later Tuesday, communications director John White said. The organization's legal counsel, Dennis Hayes, will serve as interim president while a national search is conducted, he said.

White would not say why Mfume was stepping down and said Mfume would not comment until the midday news conference.

Mfume, 56, has been president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (news - web sites) since 1996. Before that, he was a congressman for nine years.

Last month, the organization's chairman, Julian Bond, announced that its tax-exempt status is under review by the government in an investigation he contends stems from a speech he gave that criticized President Bush (news - web sites). Bond said IRS agents were investigating his keynote address July 11 at the NAACP's annual convention in Philadelphia.

For an organization to keep its tax-exempt status, "leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official organizational functions," according to an Oct. 8 letter to the NAACP from the IRS office in Louisville, Ky.

In September, the group launched an advertising campaign aimed at combating what officials describe as stagnant membership growth. The civil rights group, founded in 1909, wants to increase membership by 20 percent, Mfume said at the time.

The group claims 500,000 members, but it has not seen significant membership growth in recent years.

Mfume represented Baltimore's 7th district in the House of Representatives and headed the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites) before taking over as head of the NAACP. He inherited an organization tarnished by scandal and burdened by a $3.2 million debt.

Before entering Congress, he was on the Baltimore City Council for eight years.

[T-bone]

It's about time.

[T-bone]

Campuses May Bar Military Recruiters
By Esther Schrader Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Handing a significant legal victory to gay-rights advocates, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that academic institutions may restrict on-campus recruiting by the military because of the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s policy on gays and lesbians.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites), based in Philadelphia, ruled that a federal law known as the Solomon Amendment infringes on the free-speech rights of schools by allowing the federal government to withhold funds from colleges and universities that deny access to military recruiters.

The preliminary injunction issued in one of four separate lawsuits filed by students and professors at law schools throughout the country found that by threatening to withhold federal funds from schools that do not accommodate military recruiters, the government was compelling them to take part in speech they did not agree with.

"The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom," the panel wrote in a 2-1 decision.


The court overturned an opinion by a federal judge in New Jersey who ruled a year ago that law schools must open their doors to military recruiters, even if the Defense Department's refusal to admit openly gay or lesbian individuals to military service offends a school's antidiscrimination policies.


"The court understood that if bigots have a 1st Amendment right to exclude gays, then enlightened institutions have a 1st Amendment right to exclude bigots," said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, lead counsel for the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, a coalition of more than 25 law schools — including those at Stanford University, New York University and Georgetown University — that filed suit against the Pentagon in September 2003.


The Pentagon can seek a review of the ruling from the entire 3rd Circuit or from the Supreme Court. Lawyers for the Pentagon did not return calls asking what their next step might be.


The controversy over military recruiting on law school campuses has simmered since the early 1990s, when schools began to extend their long-standing policies against campus recruitment by employers that discriminated on the basis of race and sex to those that did so on the basis of sexual orientation.


In 1994, Congress passed a defense authorization bill that included an amendment, sponsored by then-Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.), allowing the government to withhold federal funds from institutions if they denied military recruiters access to students.


Faced with the possibility of losing hundreds of millions of dollars, almost all law schools backed down from their bans, allowing military recruiters on campus if invited by a student group or if they conducted interviews off campus.


But in December 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Department added new teeth to the Solomon Amendment, establishing regulations that subjected entire academic institutions, rather than just their law schools, to the loss of federal dollars.


A year later, it began enforcing the new regulations in earnest, notifying schools that they were out of compliance with the law and faced a loss of funds if they did not provide military recruiters the same level of access to their students as that given to recruiters from the private sector.


The modern military relies heavily on lawyers, who form the Judge Advocate General's Corps and help commanders establish the legal basis for many of their decisions.


Some law school officials say they believe that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the government's concerns about terrorism are driving its campaign for greater access to potential recruits. The Defense Department contends that it is just following the law.

[T-bone]

Ya know - it's like some people WANT terrorism to continue.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I was speaking recently with my bf's Boss. She said to me "Hey you guys should have the right to make a union, i just don't think you should be allowed to marry in MY church". To which i explained to her that even if same sex marriage was made legal today there is no way any church would be forced to marry them. A church has every right to deny someone services based on religious thought and practice. Hundreds of hetero couples are turned away from churches each day because they do not met the criteria the church sets forth in order to be married there.[/b][/quote]

By looking at the article T said above about the campuses, I have to ask the question about what you said Good:

Churches recieve a non-tax code by the government. If a gay couple was turned away by a church, could someone step in (ahem ACLU) and try to get the non-tax code taken away from the church? Would it be possible?

[T-bone]

Bush Signs Internet Tax, Special Ed Bills

WASHINGTON - State and local governments will be barred from taxing connections that link people to the Internet for the next three years under legislation signed Friday by President Bush (news - web sites).

The measure blocks taxation of all types of Internet connections, from traditional dial-up services to high-speed broadband lines.

"I cannot envision any time in the history of our country when it would make sense to be imposing taxes on broadband or the Internet, no matter where one is or who one may be," said Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va.

The new law, which remains in effect until Oct. 31, 2007, will help ensure that less-affluent Americans can afford Internet access, Allen said. Otherwise, Internet access taxes would average 18 percent, he said.

An earlier ban lapsed more than a year ago while lawmakers struggled to rewrite the regulations to include new technologies while ensuring that it wouldn't exempt all telecommunications activities from taxation.

Also Friday, Bush signed a bill updating special education requirements. It eases pressure on teachers while increasing enforcement of high standards for the disabled.

The measure is the first major revision to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in seven years. The law promises a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to more than 6.7 million children with special needs.

A key provision aims to boost discipline, giving schools more freedom to remove disruptive children if their behavior is not a result of their disability.

It also seeks more accurate identification of which children have disabilities, earlier intervention for struggling students, and stronger enforcement of how states comply.

For teachers, there is the promise of less paperwork. New educators will also get more flexibility in proving they are "highly qualified" to stay in the classroom under new federal standards, but not as much flexibility as several education groups say is needed.

The government also recommitted to the promise it made long ago: paying for up to 40 percent of the additional cost of educating children with special needs. It now pays less than 19 percent, and states and schools must make up a difference of billions of dollars.

"In the bill I sign today, we're raising expectations for the students," Bush said at a signing ceremony. "All our students deserve excellent teachers. So this law ensures that students with disabilities will have special education teachers with the skills and training to teach special education and their subject area."

[Master Cephus]

Principal suspended after 5 year old handcuffed (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/16/handcuffed.child.ap/index.html)

<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">Principal suspended after 5 year old handcuffed</span>

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- The board of a St. Louis charter school on Wednesday placed a principal on leave after he had police handcuff a 5 year old and drive him around the block in a squad car to curb his unruly behavior.

Principal Sam Morgan is on leave from Thurgood Marshall Academy pending an investigation into last month's incident, board attorney Wayne Harvey said.

Morgan declined to comment Wednesday, but last week said he had spent more time on the boy "than any kid in this building, trying to steer him straight."

He said he had police "put the handcuffs on one arm, put him in the back seat of their car and drive him around a little bit."

Morgan added: "This kid is heading for the Department of Corrections at 5. He fights, strikes somebody practically every day on the bus. He's a constant disruption."

Morgan, a longtime principal at East St. Louis High School in Illinois, also spent eight years working in the Department of Corrections.

The boy's mother, Aroni Rucker, said Wednesday her son had trouble adjusting to his first year of school and may have been disruptive, but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.

"They put handcuffs on my baby," Rucker said. "That's for adults who murder and kill. He's 5. He's in kindergarten."

Rucker said she was planning to pull the boy and her second-grader from the school at the end of the semester when Morgan told her last week that the kindergartner could not come back.

St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said the department was looking into the incident. "Handcuffing 5-year-olds is not a practice of the department," he said.

The University of Missouri-St. Louis announced in August that it would end its sponsorship of the charter school, meaning the school must find a new sponsor by June or close. The university placed the school on probation twice, citing fiscal mismanagement, board corruption, poor academic performance and high turnover in leadership -- seven principals in five years.

University spokesman Bob Samples, part of the sponsorship team, said only that "it's inappropriate to handcuff a 5-year-old."

[T-bone]

Sick

[Master Cephus]

10-20 years ago, the parents would be thanking the principal for trying to help the boy. It might be a little extreme, but sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to teach lessons that one day might help that child actually not become a convict.

People need to quit being so sensitive.

And yes if I had a child (and the child was as troublesome as the article stated), I would not mind at all what the principal did...I would tell my son that if you don't quit being a bad boy, that one day you might be in the back of that car for real.

Tough love now, might keep from 5-10 in prison later.

[T-bone]

Trust me, you'll mind. This is up to the parents, not some teacher. I would go nuts if I found out someone did this to my son. He acts up like mad and we take care of it how WE see fit. Not what some principal thinks. How dare they.

You'll see when you have kids. Trust me, you WON'T agree.

[Master Cephus]

I wonder how the kid acted afterward...I mean did he act better?

I can understand what you are saying...the principal probably should have contacted the parent and asked if he could have done it. I can see that.

I would also like to know how much interaction the parent had with the school about the child being a problem.

Many variables, but I still think (if there was parental permission, which in this case there wasn't) this isn't a terrible act.

[Master Cephus]

Court: Mom's eavesdropping violated privacy law (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/parental.snooping.ap/)

<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">Court: Mom's eavesdropping violated privacy law
</span>
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state law prohibits parents from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations.

The case reached the high court because of a purse-snatching.

A 17-year-old boy was convicted of the robbery, in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mother, who overhead him discussing the crime on the phone with her daughter.

The daughter had taken a cordless phone into her bedroom and closed the door. In another room, her mother pressed the speakerphone button on an extension, listened in and took notes.

The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone.

Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.

"The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The boyfriend will get a new trial.

[Master Cephus]

This is really getting ridiculous...

Who pays the phone bill?

Do parent's actually have parental rights anymore? I mean really!

[T-bone]

It's not the act - it's the fact it was done wihtout permission. You're actually not even supposed to put a hand on a kid, at least here in NJ.

My wife's mom is a teacher and she had a little kid - maybe around the same age - threaten to kill her, and he used to bite her and kick her and basically attack her physically and in no small way.

By law, she was refused the option to do anything at all to this kid including, oh, say, handcuff him until police came around. She basically could just about defend herself and had to wait til the cops came while this crazy kid ran around like a madman. Cops took it from there but the point is, if she laid one finger on the kid they could take her away and there would probably be some lawsuit filed on top of that.

Yea 10 or 20 years ago a principal could whack a kid and no one would care. This is not 20 years ago. When I was a kid in catholic school, kids were paddled and spanked and stuff - by the teachers. I know two kids that got the paddle for passing obsene notes in class - that was it.

I'm glad that's stopped and this guy was DEAD wrong to do this just on a whim. It's not his job to teach the kid a life lesson that HE thinks is right. This is the parents' failure and they need to look at life at home and retool it. If the kid is acting up every day like that - that's why you SUSPEND kids or expel them. You don't take em for a handcuffed ride...that's just getting them used to what's going to happen to them later - it almost makes them more comfortable when it happens for REAL because they've been there, done that.

This is a ridiculous item for debate. No 5 year old kid needs to be handcuffed. It's like handcuffing an old lady who shoplifted a pair of stockings. There are far worse people they should be out there catching.

[goodwije]

not to mention it is doubtful at the age of five the lesson would have worked anyways, maybe 9 or 10. I am shocked the police agreed to it, they are just as guilty as the principle.

We used to whacked with a paddle when i was in school. Most teachers did not but some still did. Often as not if was for stupid stuff like sleeping in study hall or not doing homework. All it really taught me was to not, and to this day do not, respect that specific teacher.

In highschool it was worse, i was trown up against the lockers by my principle my junior year and it wasn't even me he was after. Had me confused with another student, and then refused to apologise. Sue, hell we didn't have the money to sue. It was a different world in the late 80's. It was common practice to rap a kid on the head with your knuckles if they feel asleep or where not paying attention. Twice i saw teachers throw desks out in the hall. This was all in public school btw. I aint all that old either, i graduated at 18 in 1992.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 17 2004, 08:43 AM
Court: Mom's eavesdropping violated privacy law (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/parental.snooping.ap/)


This headline seems kind of misleading. The article says nothing of the mother facing charges. It just says that her testimony needed to be thrown out because of how she gathered the evidence.

Regardless, this is the first time I've seen a state act this way. Most states would say, you're a minor. Your parents own the phone and the service. They can listen to whatever they want to.

I'm sorry, my kids do not live in a democracy, they live in a dictatorship. You have your privacy, but if you do something to violate my trust, forget about it. You don't like it?? There's the door! You obviously "know everything", so I'm sure you'll have no problem whatsoever adapting in the "real world".

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry, my kids do not live in a democracy, they live in a dictatorship. You have your privacy, but if you do something to violate my trust, forget about it. You don't like it?? There's the door! You obviously "know everything", so I'm sure you'll have no problem whatsoever adapting in the "real world".[/b][/quote]

Wow, another time Sargoth and I agree....this world could be headed for destruction...

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Dec 17 2004, 11:31 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry, my kids do not live in a democracy, they live in a dictatorship. You have your privacy, but if you do something to violate my trust, forget about it. You don't like it?? There's the door! You obviously "know everything", so I'm sure you'll have no problem whatsoever adapting in the "real world".

Wow, another time Sargoth and I agree....this world could be headed for destruction...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Hey, stranger things have happened! Like two social lefties arguing with two republicans about why gun ownership is a good thing. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[DblDwn]

Originally posted by T'bone@Nov 30 2004, 10:00 AM
Ya know - it's like some people WANT terrorism to continue.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I hope that was not implied towards me because of my comment about people being forced to disrobe at the airport? If it was I would appreciate an apology T because that is hardly what I was saying................and you know it style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/exclamation.gif

[T-bone]

sorry

[goodwije]

Originally posted by Sargoth@Dec 17 2004, 03:55 PM
Hey, stranger things have happened!* Like two social lefties arguing with two republicans about why gun ownership is a good thing.* style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


ya know? that thread makes me feel all conservativy.. not sure i like it style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[T-bone]

Mo. Woman Donates Kidney to Stranger
By CHERYL WITTENAUER, Associated Press Writer

ST. LOUIS - Madolena Key was scheduled to donate a kidney to her husband in 2002 when a perfectly matched organ from a deceased donor became available. Just like that, Key's kidney wasn't needed — until she thought about it for awhile.

Key contacted Mid-America Transplant Services the following January and said she would like to donate her kidney anyway — to someone else in need. Her husband's ordeal with kidney disease and dialysis had taught Key that 60,000 people in the United States are waiting for a kidney transplant.

"I thought 'why not do that for someone else?'" said Key, 43, a bank manager.

On Wednesday, Key and the recipient of her kidney, Tracy Griffin, 37, met for the first time at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, where doctors performed the surgeries in November 2003. Key leaped from her chair to meet Griffin, and the women hugged and wept, exchanging greetings as they wiped away tears.

"I've got a large family that's waiting to meet you," Key told Griffin, who has had diabetes since childhood.

Griffin, who is studying to be a respiratory therapist, said her siblings also have diabetes and could not be donors.

Key's gift to Griffin is one of only 263 in the country since the first such donation in 1998, according to the Richmond, Va.-based United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the nation's organ procurement and transplantation network.

Second Chance Saint Louis, Mid-America's living donor program, is one of only three programs in the country that screens and evaluates persons for altruistic organ donations.

Second Chance has coordinated seven altruistic donations — six kidney, one liver — since it began in 2002, said Merry Smith. Before a coordinating program was in place, offers from strangers often went unused.

Living donor candidates must be in excellent health, undergo medical and psychological tests and other screenings. Key said the extensive screening made her confident her choice was the right decision.

[Sargoth]

Congressman dies of rare disease

Sunday, January 2, 2005 Posted: 2:01 PM EST (1901 GMT)

BETHESDA, Maryland (AP) -- Democratic Rep. Bob Matsui of California, who spent time in an internment camp for Japanese-Americans as an infant during World War II and went on to serve 26 years in Congress, has died of complications from a rare disease, his family said Sunday.

Matsui, 63, died Saturday night at the National Naval Medical Center in a Washington suburb.

Matsui juggled political and policy roles during more than a quarter-century in Congress. He was the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the past two years, in charge of the party's unsuccessful effort to regain control of the House.

He also was the third-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, where he was his party's point man on Social Security legislation.

In a statement announcing Matsui's death, his office disclosed that the congressman was diagnosed several months ago with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, a rare stem cell disorder that reduces the body's ability to produce red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. Victims of the disease are left more susceptible to other illnesses, with less ability to fight them off.

The statement said Matsui entered the hospital on December 24 with pneumonia.

Matsui was recently re-elected with ease to his 14th term in Congress. His death will trigger a special election for a new representative in his Sacramento-area district.

Matsui was born in 1941. The following year, his family was among the Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during World War II. Decades later, he helped pass legislation which apologized for the internment policy and provided compensation for survivors.

Matsui first won election to his seat in Congress in 1978. He generally supported Democratic legislation, but his support for global trade legislation put him at odds with members of his party on some high-profile measures.

As senior Democrat on the subcommittee on Social Security, Matsui gave every impression during the final few weeks of his life of being eager to lead the opposition to President Bush's plans to establish personal retirement accounts as part of a general overhaul of the program.

"With the passing of Bob Matsui, our country has lost a great leader and America's seniors have lost their best friend in Congress," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Californian, said in a statement.

[T-bone]

What a bunch of unbelievable bull****

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Texas Mom's Murder Convictions Overturned

HOUSTON - Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two.
[/b][/quote]

[goodwije]

damn, the one time a Texas court doesnt give the death sentence and she gets out on a fricing technicality.. will they try her now for the death of the other two?

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>damn, the one time a Texas court doesnt give the death sentence and she gets out on a fricing technicality.. will they try her now for the death of the other two?[/b][/quote]

So I think we both can see a lesson here...

[goodwije]

well.. not sure if i have ever really talked about on here but i am not against the death penality.

[Master Cephus]

I think the death penalty has its place.

Like we talked in another thread (I think), prison is a place for rehabilitation of criminals to allow them to be members of society again. In some cases, I don't think rehabilitation is possible for certain people.

It's a taboo issue and I can see both sides, but I do believe that people have to pay for their crimes, and sometimes the payment is their lifes for the lives they took. IMHO

[Dutch]

"Rehabilitation" is a myth.

We need to make prisons tougher. I'd say that 1% of those folks that end up in jail have a reasonable shot a becoming functioning members of society again.

Talk to most police officers and prison guards.

Make it so GD miserable that they never want to come back. Hell prisons are camp for some of these guys. They have their gangs, three squares a day, a roof over thier heads, TV, exercise equipment, school, etc. and what percent of released criminals don't go back to that lifestyle? I'd bet less that 1%.

[Master Cephus]

That is true. Some people have very different definitions as to what is rough though and that is where the problems start.

[Dutch]

no physical roughness, just put 'em all in solitary all the time.

give em their meals in their rooms, they wanna exercise, jog in place, do push ups and sit-ups.

[T-bone]

Playing the old blame game
By John Leo

Almost everyone is a victim now, but some are more newsworthy than others. Here are the best of last year's victims:

Courtney Love is a victim of George W. Bush. "The last thing I want to say is 'I'm a victim,' " the singer told London's Sunday Telegraph after an emotionally troubled period. "I believe it's a trickle-down from Bush . . . . Did I bring it on myself? I don't think so."

Florida Democrats, 15 of them, came down with "post-election selection trauma" and required treatment by licensed therapists after Bush's re-election. Signs of the syndrome, according to psychologist Douglas Schooler of Boca Raton, are being "depressed and angry" and "threatening to leave the country." The executive director of the American Health Association said pest is something "we're working to develop a counseling program for."

Students in West Covina, Calif., were all potential victims of an "unsafe situation" created by their classmate, 11-year-old Deirdre Faegre. So her school suspended her for a day. Deirdre's offense? Doing cartwheels and handstands during lunchtime. Her father pulled her out of the school, complaining about "cartwheel cops."

Single professors on college faculties are an unnoticed but deeply aggrieved victim group, according to a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Wilson complained that unmarried profs are under pressure to do more than their fair share of work because they have no family obligations and are expected to show up at wedding showers they do not wish to attend. "Single people, griped one unattached professor, "are the last underrepresented minority."

Tammy Imre, 29, a receptionist in Stratford, Conn., was charged with repeatedly having sex with an 8-year-old boy. Imre's mother blamed the boy. "It's not her . . . she was just too friendly; that's all," said the mother. "He's the one who needs to be looked at."

Atheists are still seen as negative elements of society, according to the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, a support group for nonbelievers. Complaining that "religious people are permitted everything," the group said, "religious organizations have also been glorified by the government . . .[as] 'social service providers.' " Discriminatory acts and slurs against beleaguered atheists can now be reported to the National Atheist Ombuds.

Santa Clauses are victims of unsympathetic bosses and parents, as well as kids who ask tenacious questions, said Victor Nevada, a professional Santa in Calgary, Canada. The kids are heavy to lift and ask tough questions about Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), he said. And there is always the risk of getting sued. "I had a Santa working for me a couple years ago; he had a girl on his knee and he commented, 'You have nice eyes and nice hair.' She claimed sexual harassment."

Lisa Walker told New Yorkers she was a Saudi princess named Antoinette Millard, when she was really a divorced investment banker from Buffalo who went on a spending binge. When American Express sued to recover $951,000 in charges, Walker countersued for $2 million, saying Amex should have known she was acting irrationally because of anorexia, panic attacks, depression, and head tumors.

People who win the lottery or find themsleves beneficiaries of other sudden financial windfalls may become victims of Sudden Wealth Syndrome, experts warn. Painful confusion, guilt, and self-destructive behavior can befall anyone who strikes it rich, according to the Money, Meaning and Choices Institute. Education and personal counseling are particularly important, the institute said, in cases of "Ticker Shock" (anxiety and depression in response to stock market volatility) or "Clinton Syndrome" (a condition marked by a pull between one's childhood life and the adult life we all are supposed to be living). Psychologist Stephen Goldbart reports seeing clients afflicted with Sudden Loss of Wealth Syndrome, which often follows cases of Sudden Wealth Syndrome.

Steven Sarenpa 's father and stepmother complained when Steven separated from his wife and found a new girlfriend. Steven says they called him a sinner. But Steven was an employee in his father's business. After his father fired him, Steven sued his parents in federal court for religious and marital status discrimination. The case comes up this year.

Todd Bertuzzi of hockey's Vancouver Canucks delivered a vicious assault on Colorado's Steve Moore, breaking Moore's neck and two of his vertebrae. But a team official thought Bertuzzi was the victim of the news media. "All you have done is crucify my player," said the Canucks' general manager, Brian Burke.

Patricia Frankhouser of Jeannette, Pa., is suing Norfolk Southern Railway over injuries she sustained when she was hit by a freight train. In her suit, she argued that the railroad should have warned her that walking along the tracks was dangerous. She also charged that the train should have yielded the right of way.

Columnist's note: If anyone in America is not yet a social victim, don't stay out there alone. Call or write. We will do our best to get you into a victim group .

[Master Cephus]

Funny pick...

[goodwije]

January 11, 2005
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Two teenagers were arrested on charges they bombed their high school with a bucket of eggs from a low-flying airplane.

During the incident last June, panicked officials evacuated about two dozen people from the top floors of a hotel when the two-seat plane circled low over downtown Gettysburg, then disappeared.

"You hate to think what might have happened - even unintentionally," prosecutor Brian Sinnett said. He called the prank "one of the most bizarre cases that I've been involved in."

The two Gettysburg High students were arrested Friday on charges including risking a catastrophe and reckless endangerment. They were caught after telling others about the incident, authorities said. They were not identified because they are juveniles.

During the incident, police tried to signal the plane using flashlights. Fog and darkness prevented authorities from reading the tail number.

The airplane, which belonged to the father of the boy at the controls, apparently landed at a private family airstrip. The boy does not have a pilot's license, Sinnett said.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>EAST CLEVELAND -- The East Cleveland mayor, convicted last August of taking bribes, got $28,000 for unused vacation and back pay after he resigned.

Emmanuel Onunwor says he never took a vacation in six years as mayor. The city finance director approved the payout, but cut $6,000 or five weeks of vacation from the request because he doubted Onunwor had never taken vacation time.

The claim was prepared by the ex-mayor’s sister-in-law, who is East Cleveland’s human resources director.

The payout has angered the East Cleveland police union, which has been hit by layoffs in the financially hard-hit city.

Onunwor faces sentencing January 19th. [/b][/quote]

I heard today that he has made some kind of plea bargain..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Convicted East Cleveland mayor resigns
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Martin Stolz
Plain Dealer Reporter

East Cleveland- Mayor Emmanuel Onunwor's political career, which began full of hope and promise, ended Wednesday night with a five-line resignation letter to City Council.

His resignation took effect immediately, two days after a federal jury found Onunwor guilty of 22 corruption charges. John Pyle, Onunwor's attorney, read the letter aloud and handed it over to council during an executive committee meeting.

Onunwor freely resigned and faced no outside pressure, Pyle said. He remains in jail and will be sentenced in November.

According to the city's charter, Council President Saratha Goggins now can become the next mayor of the inner ring suburb of about 27,000 people. East Cleveland is one of the poorest cities in the United States. The city remains in a fiscal emergency declared by the state in 1988.

Onunwor emerged from a crowded field of candidates in 1997 to defeat the incumbent mayor. He vowed to fight crime and reform government. But his tenure as mayor was marred by scandal, and he was under investigation for several years before his conviction. Federal prosecutors say his corruption cost the city $2.5 million. [/b][/quote]

[T-bone]

Kennedy Accuses Bush of Hyping Problems
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday of hyping concerns about the nation's retirement program, just as he did on Iraq (news - web sites), and urged Democrats to stand up to the "politics of fear."

The leading liberal voice in the U.S. Congress, Kennedy said Democrats, who lost the race for the White House for a second time in a row, must do a better job promoting their basic unifying values without mirroring Republicans in order to rebound from last November's elections.

"We have an administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis," the Massachusetts Democrat said in offering his party a political road map. "They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security (news - web sites)."

"They exploit the politics of fear and division, while ours is a politics of hope and unity," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club.

Kennedy helped John Kerry (news - web sites), Massachusetts' junior senator, capture the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and a number of Kennedy aides joined Kerry's White campaign.

Though Kennedy rallied the Democratic base, Bush won re-election with 51 percent of the vote and his fellow Republicans increased their majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

With Democrats still seeking to regroup and debating whether they need to move toward the political right, Kennedy urged them to stand firm.

"I categorically reject the deceptive and dangerous claim that the outcome last November was somehow a sweeping, or a modest, or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security, redistributing the tax burden in the wrong direction or packing the federal courts with reactionary judges," Kennedy said.

"Those proposals were barely mentioned -- or voted on -- in an election dominated by memories of 9/11, fear of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, and relentlessly negative attacks on our presidential candidate," he said.

Kennedy, 72, first elected to the Senate in 1962, offered his insights and advice as one of the party's elder statesmen.

"We must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in," Kennedy said.

"We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose," he said. "If the White House's idea of bipartisanship is that we have to buy whatever partisan ideas they send us, we're not interested."

As Bush prepares to begin his second term, one of his top goals is to restructure the Social Security retirement program to allow workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds.

The administration contends that the move is needed to help keep the retirement program afloat. Critics accuse Bush of exaggerating the problem and complain that his plan would inject too much risk into a program that has helped keep retired people out of poverty.

Kennedy said, "The biggest threat to Social Security today is not the retirement of 'baby boomers.' It is George Bush and the Republican Party."

On Iraq, Kennedy said, "I do not retreat from the view that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."

"The administration turned away from pursuing Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and made the catastrophic choice instead to bog down American forces in an endless quagmire in Iraq," Kennedy said.

"I'm convinced John Kerry could have worked with the international community to end that war and bring our troops home with honor."

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>while ours is a politics of hope and unity," Kennedy said[/b][/quote]

ehh.. not sure i agree with that one.

All politics IMO work on peoples fears. I wish it was hope but i just don't think it is a strong of a driving force as fear.

[T-bone]

democrats do the exact same thing.
i mean, did they forget this whole past election?

[goodwije]

yeah that is what i was sayin'

[T-bone]

Sen. Clinton Collapses During Appearance

BUFFALO, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) collapsed during an appearance here Monday before delivering a speech on Social Security (news - web sites).

Colleen DiPirro, president of the Amherst Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites), told WBEN-AM radio that Clinton told the crowd she was feeling weak and had had a stomach virus. Clinton started to speak then collapsed, DiPirro told the radio station.

Clinton was scheduled to speak Monday at a Catholic college despite protests from anti-abortion groups and reluctance from the Catholic diocese. She was expected to discuss health care, not her pro-choice stance on abortion — the cause of the protesters' anger.

Several hundred people were waiting to hear that address. There were also hundreds of protesters waiting at the college.

[T-bone]

Scholar Defiant Amid Furor Over 9/11 Remarks
By Keith Coffman

BOULDER, Colo. (Reuters) - A University of Colorado professor under fire for comparing World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal on Tuesday refused to apologize for his remarks.

"I am not backing off an inch," said Ward Churchill, drawing an ovation from a standing-room-only crowd of about 1,200 students and backers gathered in a ballroom. "I owe no one an apology."

Churchill, who filed a lawsuit earlier in the day after officials at the state-funded university had threatened to cancel his speech, said his central message was that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had been provoked by U.S. foreign policy.

"Naturally and inevitably, what you put out will blow back on you and that's what happened," Churchill said.

In his essay, "Some People Push Back," written shortly after Sept. 11, Churchill said the hijackers had mounted "counterattacks" in the face of hostile U.S. policy in the Middle East and a campaign of "genocide" against Iraq (news - web sites) through the trade sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War (news - web sites).

In the essay, later revised for a book, Churchill also said that World Trade Center victims could not be seen as innocent, calling them "little Eichmanns," a reference to German World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann.

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."


'I DON'T WORK FOR BILL OWENS'

Churchill, a veteran Native American activist, first attracted widespread notice last month after Hamilton College in New York canceled a scheduled appearance, citing threats against him and others who had been slated to appear.

The University of Colorado then launched an investigation, a first step toward possibly firing Churchill.

Scholars have rallied to the defense of what they see as the free-speech rights at stake in the case, saying the firing of a tenured professor over unpopular remarks would threaten academic freedoms.

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, has called for Churchill to be dismissed and state lawmakers have passed resolutions denouncing him.

"I do not work for the taxpayers of Colorado, and I don't work for Bill Owens. I work for you," Churchill told the audience.

Churchill has resigned as chairman of the university's ethnic studies department but has threatened to sue the school if he is fired.

Churchill said he felt sorrow for "the firefighters, food service workers, broom pushers and passersby" who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

But he added that he also felt sorrow for the 500,000 Iraqi children he said had died as a result of the sanctions imposed on that country after the first Gulf War.

And he said he thought his initial published remarks had been deliberately miscast by conservative pundits.

"Nowhere in there did I justify the killing of innocent people," he told Reuters. "Those words are not there."

University administrators reversed course on Tuesday, allowing Churchill's speech to take place after determining students who organized the speech had not received death threats, as one had earlier claimed.

Even so, Churchill's lawyer, Darold Killmer, asked U.S. District Judge Bob Blackburn to grant an injunction that would prevent the university from "further suppression" of Churchill's free speech rights.

Blackburn gave the university until Feb. 24 to respond to that petition.

[T-bone]

Wow - no opinions on this guy? I thought you'd all be going nuts.

[goodwije]

I can't imagine that there are really that many people who agree with him, on top of which he will be a poster child for conservative commentaters to point at saying "see all liberals think this way". Which is ridiculous. He can say anything he wants and he doesn't deserve to loose his job for it, but at the same time if an Univerity chooses not to let him speak because of worries of security or image, that is buisness not a matter of free speach.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Scholars have rallied to the defense of what they see as the free-speech rights at stake in the case, saying the firing of a tenured professor over unpopular remarks would threaten academic freedoms.[/b][/quote]

He does have the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he also has to face the onslaught of the repercussions of what he says.

A lot of people try to hide behind that free speech clause in our constitution...I think it might be the most abused amendment we have. IMO

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>He can say anything he wants and he doesn't deserve to loose his job for it, but at the same time if an Univerity chooses not to let him speak because of worries of security or image, that is buisness not a matter of free speach.[/b][/quote]

I have to disagree with you. When you work for someone, especially in an acecemic setting, you are the universities' represenative. If they don't like the message you are sending out, then yes they should have the ability to fire their represenative.

I don't understand why he shouldn't be able to lose his job. If his free speech is that important to him, he should be willing to risk losing his job to get his word out.

[T-bone]

Teachers need to be objective. Everyone harped on that guy in California for mentioning GOD and this guy gets a pass?

sorry.

[goodwije]

I didn't realize he was expressing these veiws in his classroom. If so that isn't right. I agree that teachers should teach objectivly, their opinions on their own time is another matter.

I have to say I do not understand or agree with the notion that we can become too free, or use our freedoms too much.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, has called for Churchill to be dismissed and state lawmakers have passed resolutions denouncing him. [/b][/quote]

these people should have just stayed out of it, of course they are doing it on purpose for the same reasons the conservative commentaters i mentioned above. Anyone who does not denounce him, or thinks he should not be dismissed will be lumped with him and a sympathiser or supporter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Everyone harped on that guy in California for mentioning GOD and this guy gets a pass?[/b][/quote]

wasn't he an elematary school teacher? I don't think its fair to compare an essay written for other professionals and students in his feild to a elementary teacher in public schools.

[T-bone]

i dont know for sure if he is but you know how professors are - always pushing their opinions and pimping their books...i've had them too. But we're not paying them money to do this - we're paying them for education, not opinions. Teach.

[goodwije]

sorry i edited while you where responding.. and i agree with you, if he was spreading these views in class it is easily grounds for dismissal

[T-bone]

i dont know for sure if he was so i can't say but i would find it hard to believe he wasn't saying anything at all - these guys seem to never shut up and i saw some interviews with his students...they seemed pretty brainwashed to me...i dunno...

i can't judge so i'll just say i think the guy's a jerk for saying what he said in any case - it's insensitive to a lot of people who lost loved ones. he has the right to say whatever he wants and that's fine but people have to remember that free speech is a 2 way street and he's gotta be able to deal with people talking about him now.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I think the guy's a jerk for saying what he said in any case [/b][/quote]
yeah, thats putting it lightly

[Talcy]

I think when people make comments like that, they often don't deserve attention.

No matter who might ultimately be responsible (for sowing seeds of hatred on both sides) innocent people trying to earn a living cannot and must not ever be compared in this way.

[Master Magnus]

While I'm not an American and perhaps shouldn't post in this particular thread, I was horrified and disgusted over what Churchill wrote. When I first heard of this, I believed that this perhaps had been blown of proportion, but after reading what he wrote I was shocked. When I read the passage where he called the innocent people that was working in the WTC for "little Eichmanns", my stomach turned.

He has apparently resigned as head of ethnic studies now, thankfully.

While I had some strange professors during my university studies (this is Sweden, many of them are far left, and whose views on politics and society I don't share) I've never heard of anything like this.

[Master Cephus]

Look I don't think the guy should apologize for his stupid comment...it's his right to say what he wants.

What I don't understand is how he shouldn't be accountable for the actions created by his comments.

No one is stopping him from making his comments. If he is fired from that university for saying that, then he has every right to go to the nearest street corner and keep on with his speeches.

People have the right of free speech, and they have to bear the conseqences of those rights as well.

[T-bone]

He resigned? I didn't know that. He was so defiant about it I didn't think he would.

[Master Cephus]

I don't think he did...

I was just saying that if he loves free speech so much, he should be willing to accept any kind of consequence of his speech.

[Master Magnus]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Feb 9 2005, 08:34 PM
I don't think he did...

I was just saying that if he loves free speech so much, he should be willing to accept any kind of consequence of his speech.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes, according to the Denver Post he did resign:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0%2C1413...85148%2C00.html (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C36~53~2685148%2C00.html)

[T-bone]

he only resigned as chair and he gets a weeee salary dip.
big whoop -that's for show and to save the university a little face.

[T-bone]

Prof quits chair over 9/11

By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, criticized for comparing victims of the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center to Nazis, resigned Monday as chair of the school's ethnic-studies department.

Todd Gleeson, dean of CU-Boulder's College of Arts and Sciences, accepted the resignation. Churchill will continue to teach in the department of ethnic studies.

"I believe it is in the best interests of both the university and professor Churchill that he step away from his administrative role in the department at this time," Gleeson said. Churchill's term as department chair was to expire in June.

His salary will drop to $94,242 from $114,032, said Pauline Hale, a CU spokeswoman.

In his letter to Gleeson, Churchill said that he is proud of his administrative accomplishments but that the present political climate made him a liability in representing his department and the university as an administrator.


Advertisement

He had compared the World Trade Center victims to "little Eichmanns," after Adolf Eichmann, who managed the Nazi plan to exterminate Jews.

Earlier Monday, Churchill said in a statement issued through his wife, Natsu Saito, that he hadn't compared all of the World Trade Center victims to Nazis, just the "technicians" who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

CHURCHILL RESIGNS
Essay and video

Click here to see Ward Churchill's essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," as posted on a third-party website. Todd Gleeson, dean of the University of Colorado's College of Arts and Sciences, which oversees Churchill's department, has indicated to The Denver Post that this posting is an authentic copy of Churchill's essay.

Click here for a 9NEWS video report on Churchill.

"I have never characterized all the Sept. 11 victims as Nazis. What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire' working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of 'little Eichmanns.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food-service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack," Churchill said.

Churchill said he isn't a "defender" of the Sept. 11 attacks but simply pointed out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, "we cannot feign innocence when some of the destruction is returned."

In the essay "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," Churchill said the Pentagon was a military target, "pure and simple."

"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."

Lawrence Pacheco, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wasn't satisfied with Churchill's clarification.

"There were no legitimate targets for the 9/11 attacks. Thousands of innocent people were killed in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is no way to rationalize those attacks," Pacheco said.

Churchill is scheduled to speak on a panel Thursday at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., where his comments have upset students, residents and relatives of 9/11 victims.

Kathy Trant, whose husband, Dan, died in the attacks, plans to confront Churchill when he speaks in New York on Thursday.

Dan Trant was a bond broker at Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 employees.

"I want to ask him why he feels the way he does," Kathy Trant said Monday. "It is just hurtful, and I think this man is looking for attention."

Richard Pecorella, whose fiancée, Karen Juday, was an administrative assistant at Cantor Fitzgerald, said he is outraged.

"I feel it is almost defamation of character of these people," he said Monday. "This is not an ethnic issue or freedom-of-speech issue. This is someone outright saying these people deserved to be murdered because they worked for corporate America. And he compares them to Nazis; that's outrageous."

Churchill's comments have brought calls for apologies and demands that he be fired.

He lashed out at recent media coverage of his essay, saying it had resulted in death threats and defamation of character.

Shoba S. Rajgopal, an instructor in the ethnic-studies department, said Churchill's resignation isn't pleasing everyone.

"He's very sad the whole department is being dragged down by this," she said. "He did not want the whole department tarnished. A lot of students are upset about him stepping down. I suppose there are students who feel the other way, too."

Speaking Monday night, New York Gov. George Pataki said he would tell Hamilton College officials they made a mistake in inviting Churchill.

"I am appalled first that this person with such a warped sense of right and wrong and of humanity teaches at a higher education institution anywhere in America," the Republican governor said. "But I am equally, or perhaps even more, appalled that Hamilton College in this state has invited that person to participate in a forum. It is wrong. There is a difference between freedom of speech and inviting a bigoted terrorist supporter."

Staff writer Dave Curtin and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-820-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.

[RebelRoss0587]

I heard that a bill was just passed that will allow anyone to be searched and their possessions search without probable couse. Has anyone heard about this and what do you think?

[goodwije]

Originally posted by RebelRoss0587@Feb 9 2005, 05:44 PM
I heard that a bill was just passed that will allow anyone to be searched and their possessions search without probable couse. Has anyone heard about this and what do you think?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


probably talking the US Patriot Act.. that's a can of worms i am not going to open again.

[Master Cephus]

Texas House to Cheerleaders - Don't Shake it (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/cheerleaders.law.reut/index.html)

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) -- Texas lawmakers sent a message to the state's high school cheerleaders Wednesday: no more booty-shaking at the game.

The state's House of Representatives voted 85-55 to approve a bill that would forbid sexy cheers and give the Texas Education Agency authority to punish schools that allow "overtly sexually suggestive" routines at football games and other events.

The proposal must go to the Texas Senate for consideration.

"People are calling and telling me how disgusting it is to see sexually suggestive routines on the part of marching units or cheerleaders," said State Rep. Al Edwards, a Houston Democrat who sponsored the bill.

He complained of cheerleaders "shaking their behinds, breaking it down," but the proposal does not define what constitutes suggestive cheering.

Democratic state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, also of Houston, said the bill was a waste of valuable time.

"I think the Texas Education Agency has enough to do making sure our kids are better educated, and we are wasting our time with 'one two three four, we can't shake it any more?"' Thompson told legislators.

[Master Cephus]

This has to be the funniest thing I have seen all day.

[Master Cephus]

<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">Grads boo Schwarzenegger (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/schwarzenegger.booed.ap/index.html)</span>

SANTA MONICA, California (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to his alma mater turned into an exercise in perseverance when virtually his every word was accompanied by catcalls, howls and piercing whistles from the crowd.

Schwarzenegger's face appeared to redden during his 15-minute commencement address Tuesday to 600 graduates at Santa Monica College, but he ignored the shouting as he recalled his days as a student and, later, his work as a bodybuilder and actor.

"Always go all out and overcome your fears," he told the graduates. "Work, work, work. Study, study, study."

Inside the stadium, the drone from hundreds of rowdy protesters threatened to drown out the governor's voice at times. Many in the crowd erupted in boos when a police officer pulled down a banner criticizing the estimated $45 million cost of the November 8 special election that Schwarzenegger proposed Monday.

The governor is backing three ballot initiatives that call for imposing a cap on state spending, stripping lawmakers of the power to draw their own districts and increasing the time it takes teachers to gain tenure.

At times during Schwarzenegger's speech, cheers and boos mingled, and the graduates themselves appeared eager to hear the governor. Many applauded at one point when the noise from the bleachers briefly subsided.

"It didn't matter. I just ignored them," graduate Ray Lewis, 21, of Los Angeles, said when asked about the racket from protesters. Schwarzenegger's "political views and all that had nothing to do with the graduation," Lewis said.

Schwarzenegger has been feuding for months with groups he calls "special interests" -- teachers, nurses and other public employee unions who accuse him of selling out to big business while shortchanging education, health care and other programs. Those groups have hounded Schwarzenegger at his public appearances.

The special election "is a waste of money that you could be using for education, hospital care. He's wasting it on his vanity election," said Sue Cannon, a nurse who was among the crowd outside the stadium.

About two dozen Schwarzenegger supporters also rallied outside the stadium. One of them, Ben Eisenberg, who heads the Santa Monica College Republicans, said the ceremony "should be about the students."

Schwarzenegger left the stage almost immediately after his speech, speeding across the infield in a golf cart surrounded by sprinting security guards. Across the field, he pulled up toward a waiting SUV and a large steel gate was closed behind him.

Schwarzenegger took general studies classes at the two-year community college between 1970 and 1974. He later took correspondence courses through the University of Wisconsin-Superior, where he earned a degree in 1979.

[Master Cephus]

I don't mind freedom of speech and all that jazz.

But there is a time and a place for everything...you don't protest the speaker at a graduation. All these graduates will only remember one thing from thier day, and now it will be the wrong thing.

[Master Magnus]

Of course, I'm not familiar with American graduation ceremonies (here in Sweden we don't even have graduation ceremonies for college/universities, you recieve your diploma in the mail) but booing at a guestspeaker is very bad form. It doesn't sound as if he was trying to push his political views either.

[T-bone]

Sounds like media overhype to me.
The left wing media does NOT like Arnold and they try to rip him down a lot. He's doing a good job out there from what I can tell.

[Master Cephus]

yeah, I don't know a lot about CA politics, but if he has not changed his stance, he was more of a reformer of things to help pay off debt, than the usual raise taxes to pay debt...

[Master Cephus]

<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain</span>


WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut (search) residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[Master Cephus]

This is about the most disgusting thing I have heard today...

[T-bone]

Very odd.
I don't like it.

[Filoviridae]

I wonder what "just compensation" amounts to and who decides what it is.

[Master Cephus]

yeah that would be a good question...

But the fact is that sometimes money isn't the problem. For instance, if you lived somewhere with your wife for 50 years...I don't think I would want to move for no amount of money...you raised your family there and probably no amount of money would be worth the move...

[T-bone]

It's a little too communistic for me.

[Filoviridae]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jun 23 2005, 10:52 AM
yeah that would be a good question...

But the fact is that sometimes money isn't the problem. For instance, if you lived somewhere with your wife for 50 years...I don't think I would want to move for no amount of money...you raised your family there and probably no amount of money would be worth the move...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


That was my point. I can imagine someone owning a house that had been built by their great great grandfather..."Oh sorry. Have to tear that old thing down. There's a McDonald's coming you know."

[Emperor Cos Palpatine]

I don't know why everyone likes to hate America. Its a jealousy thing I think. In France, Germany and the UK many look on Americans as inferior, less intelectuals which is complete bulls**t speaking as a Brit. I like Americans as people, but I really hate your system of government and your way of handling the rest of the world. At times its disgusting what the US government gets up to. But at least the Americans are cool people.

[Horse_Head]

Yes... don't judge a country by its government... thats what I always say style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif

[Filoviridae]

Oh all Germans are Nazis and you know it!

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jun 23 2005, 11:52 AM
yeah that would be a good question...

But the fact is that sometimes money isn't the problem. For instance, if you lived somewhere with your wife for 50 years...I don't think I would want to move for no amount of money...you raised your family there and probably no amount of money would be worth the move...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



Well, Cephus, you've been asking for a time when I disagreed with the Supreme Court. This is a great example right here. It was a very close decision, so I'll be anxious to read the minority statement. For Conneticut residents, I'd recommend lobbying at the state level to have the Immenent Domain laws changed explicitly to fix this.

[Master Cephus]

Don't federal laws supercede state laws?

The thing is, and not to go politicizing this, but 4 of the more liberal judges actually voted for big business and against the individual, and the more conservative judges did the opposite...

Anyone else see the irony in this?

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jun 23 2005, 04:31 PM
Don't federal laws supercede state laws?


I haven't followed this case closely, so I may be out of line. But I believe it was a state law that was being ruled on. SCOTUS has the ability to overturn a state law if it is found unconstitutional, or to uphold a state law if it is constitutional.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The thing is, and not to go politicizing this, but 4 of the more liberal judges actually voted for big business and against the individual, and the more conservative judges did the opposite...

Anyone else see the irony in this?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]


Yup...

I normally appreciate irony. But this time, I'm just scratching my head...

[stormtrooper9]

Oh so if I pay 100.000 or more USD for a house a few years ago then the goverment takes it and I dont get most of that money back is that right? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif *wonders who voted infavor of this*

[bluemilk]

Originally posted by Emperor Cos Palpatine@Jun 23 2005, 02:22 PM
I don't know why everyone likes to hate America. Its a jealousy thing I think.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/no.gif

[bluemilk]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jun 23 2005, 11:11 AM
This is about the most disgusting thing I have heard today...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yes.gif

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh so if I pay 100.000 or more USD for a house a few years ago then the goverment takes it and I dont get most of that money back is that right? banghead.gif *wonders who voted infavor of this*[/b][/quote]


"Fair Market Value"

That's probably what you will get. I don't know what that means, and who determines what fair market value is. The problem I see with this is two situations:

1) People who just don't want to move
2) Your property might not be worth much "as is", but to a developer who wants to build a strip mall and your property is the best place for it, you property is worth 4 times what it's worth now...but the law says now that they only have to pay "fair market value" which means that negotiations are no more.
===========
Now we throw in the mix things like non-profit organizations property...they produce no tax benefit to a community, however they might provide some service...what about them? They could be open game to people who want to develop business.

Now I don't see this law getting abused too quickly, but if we don't keep talking about this, complain to our elected officials, we are going to forget about this and in 5-10 years, this is going to come back and bite a few of us.

If this is not overturned, we just became closer to a socialistic society where the individual has no value, only the community.

Democracy is crying this morning...

[Sargoth]

^ The Fifth Amendment has always allowed for Eminent Domain.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b][/quote]

That being said, it has also always been contraversial. The key here is what SCOTUS defined "public use" to mean. In the past, it meant that you could be forced to sell your land back to the government if they planned to build a freeway, or expand an airport, etc.

Recently, this has been expanded to allow the government to take "blighted" property for urban renewal.

This ruling expands these powers greatly. Now, the government can force a sale of land only to sell it back to a commercial developer for the benifit of "improving community standards", or "increasing tax revenues".

I agree, this is a terrifying ruling. It's a foregone conclusion that your "Cottage by the lake" will never bring in the tax revenue that a "Golf Course by the Lake" will.

Where we disagree, is where this will take us. It *certainly* isn't socialism. Socialism would be if the government took the land and never sold it, keeping it for their own use.

This ruling will open us up to being much more of an oligarchy, where only those with money and influence will have government representation. All it takes is an ambitious land developer, and a couple of corrupt congressmen to turn this into an abomination of justice.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Where we disagree, is where this will take us. It *certainly* isn't socialism. Socialism would be if the government took the land and never sold it, keeping it for their own use.[/b][/quote]

It's certainly heading in that direction. The thought of government being able to take your land because the community needs another dollar store sounds awfully painful. Socialism in its pure form maybe not...but