Love and survival through Khmer Rouge years


http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/...er-rouge-years

Public Swearing In Middleborough, Mass. Now Subject To Fine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/public-swearing-middleborough-fine_n_1587270.html

Georgia blocks KKK from Adopting a stretch of highway

The US state of Georgia has turned down an offer by the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a stretch of highway to keep it tidy, saying the sight of the group's name on a sign would be distressing.

Members of the white supremacist organisation applied to the Adopt-A-Highway program last month. The program enlists the help of volunteers to remove rubbish from the sides of roads. ''The impact of erecting a sign naming an organisation which has a long-rooted history of civil disturbance would cause a significant public concern,'' Georgia transportation commissioner Keith Golden wrote.

Missouri rejected a similar request in 1997, but a federal appeals court later ruled in favour of the Klan.

Progress..
 

Pentagon To Mark Gay Pride Month


WASHINGTON (AP) — Last summer, gays in the military dared not acknowledge their sexual orientation. This summer, the Pentagon will salute them, marking June as gay pride month just as it has marked other celebrations honoring racial or ethnic groups.

In the latest remarkable sign of change since the military repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the Defense Department will soon hold its first event to recognize gay and lesbian troops. It comes nine months after repeal of the policy that had prohibited gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.

Details are still being worked out, but officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wants to honor the contributions of gay service members.

Wow. This is great!

Way Kewl!!!

China warns its rare earth reserves are declining




China has warned that the decline in its rare earth reserves in major mining areas is "accelerating", as most of the original resources are depleted.

In a policy paper, China's cabinet blamed excessive exploitation and illegal mining for the decline.

China accounts for more than 90% of the world's rare earth supplies, but has just 23% of global reserves.

It has urged those with reserves to boost production of the elements, which are used to make electrical goods.

"After more than 50 years of excessive mining, China's rare earth reserves have kept declining and the years of guaranteed rare earth supply have been reducing," China's cabinet said in the paper on the rare earth industry published by the official Xinhua news agency.
'Willing to cooperate'

The term rare earth refers to a group of 17 elements that are used to make a range of hi-tech gadgets.

These elements are used in products ranging from MP3 players to mobile phones, flatscreen TVs and hybrid batteries.

With those products becoming increasingly popular, the demand for rare earths has been rising.

But China has imposed export quotas on these elements. It says it has done so to prevent excessive mining of these elements, which also causes damage to the environment.

The US, Japan and the European Union have called the quotas illegal and dragged Beijing to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the matter.

However, Gao Yunhu, deputy chief of the Rare Earth Office at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, said China's policies were in compliance with the WTO rules and that Beijing was keen to settle the dispute with its trading partners.

"We're willing to cooperate with the parties involved to solve the dispute as soon as possible," Mr Gao was quoted as saying by Xinhua.

"At the same time, we will actively use WTO rules to defend China's legitimate rights and interests."

In the policy paper, China added that it would implement "stricter standards" and "protective exploitation policies" to ensure sustained growth of the sector.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1612925.html

Let's discuss.

I for one am so appalled I want to fly to Greece, NY and smack the ever-loving snot out of those "kids".

I will go with you. And when you are done smacking the kids, can we go smack their parents as well? This is learned behavior and they didnt learn it in a vacuum.

Matt Sandusky says he was abused by father, Jerry Sandusky
 

Just hours after the sex abuse trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky wrapped up on Thursday, his adopted son revealed that he had been "a victim of Jerry Sandusky's abuse" and had offered to testify against his father.

It is unclear whether prosecutors were prepared to put Matt Sandusky on the stand. But NBC News reports that Jerry Sandusky's defense team decided against having the former coach testify on his own behalf after they learned that prosecutors planned to call a new witness -- believed to be Matt Sandusky.

Earlier Thursday, the jury of seven women and five men began their deliberations on the 48 charges levied against Sundusky. They are sequestered and there have been no indication when they might deliver a verdict. Those jurors heard both Jerry Sandusky's defense attorney and the lead prosecutor in the case deliver pointed closing arguments. Defense attorney Joe Amendola painted the former coach as a man victimized by overagressive cops, social works and even the media. In response, Deputy Attorney General Joseph E. McGettigan III dismissed the concept that Jerry Sandusky was targeted by anyone - an idea that would have required dozens of people to conspire of more than a decade.

The explosive disclosure that Matt Sandusky had offered to testify came following the release of a statement from lawyers Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici, who represent two alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky.

"During the trial, Matt Sandusky contacted us and requested our advice and assistance in arranging a meeting with prosecutors to disclose for the first time in this case that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky's abuse," the statement reads. "At Matt's request, we immediately arranged a meeting between him and the prosecutors and investigators."

The statement continued: "This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy."

Matt Sandusky moved into the Sandusky home when he was 11, having been involved in Second Mile, the charity for troubled children founded by Jerry Sandusky in 1977. Prosecutors have said Jerry Sandusky used Second Mile to find his abuse victims. Earlier in the trial, it was disclosed that Matt Sandusky's former wife, Jill Jones, sought a restraining order in 2011 to prevent her former father-in-law from hosting sleep-overs with the couple's three young children. The Associated Press also reported that Matt Sandusky attempted to commit suicide in 1995, several months after he moved into the Sandusky home. Matt Sandusky's biological mother, Debra Long, has claimed that Jerry Sandusky effectively 'stole' her son, and told a grand jury considering the charges against the former coach that Matt was upset about staying with his adoptive father.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...214145968.html

ICE asks public's help identifying 'endangered' boy in video

.....

The images show a boy between 13 and 19 years old and in a basement, the agents believe. Neudauer would not say what the boy is doing in the video.
"We believe there's an adult involved in all of this," Neudauer said from Minneapolis, Minnesota. "If we can identify the young person involved, we suspect that we'll be able to remove a couple of young people from a dangerous environment and also, perhaps, identify an adult."

pictures of boy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tery-teen.html

Sentencing in 3 months.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foo...6pLid%3D172657

Was an empowering day for childhood sexual assault survivors
 

Pa. Catholic official convicted of child endangerment


PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Roman Catholic church official was convicted Friday of child endangerment but acquitted of conspiracy in a groundbreaking clergy-abuse trial, becoming the first U.S. church official convicted of a crime for mishandling abuse claims.

Monsignor William Lynn helped the archdiocese keep predators in ministry, and the public in the dark, by telling parishes their priests were being removed for health reasons and then sending the men to unsuspecting churches, prosecutors said.

Lynn, 61, had faced about 10 to 20 years in prison if convicted of all three counts he faced — conspiracy and two counts of child endangerment. He was convicted only on one of the endangerment counts, leaving him with the possibility of 3 1/2 to seven years in prison.

Full Story

Truth, I watched the entire video this morning... it's appalling to say the least. My disbelief and disgust in these "kids" is only trumped by my sadness over the state of humanity that this is too often what we are turning out now.
There is not only what's in them that shouldn't be, there is what is missing that should have stopped them from a natural standpoint... a heart, a conscience... compassion... on and on. It's a scary testiment to the decay of our society...

Justice...finally
 

Penn. Attorney General Speaks About Sandusky's Conviction



Thank you Corkey for posting your earlier update.

Sharing this video in addition and in support of the young
men/survivors, and all of those who, "believe the kids."

Greco

Be prepared for more conservative decisions, including upholding DOMA, if Obama loses, Ginsberg retires and Romney appoints another right/winger!

Hi Kobi,

I may be wrong but based on the portion they upheld, they are still allowing police officers to ask for "papers please" to what, prove if they are not legal immigrants? Then they get to check with the Feds?

How about probable cause to stop them in the first place? Asking for papers, to me, smacks of a police state.

I could be wrong but that's what I read when I read your link. If I am incorrect in how I read "papers please" (and of course the police will say please); then mea culpa.

"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision.

Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.
Monday's decision on "papers please" -- Section 2(B) in S.B. 1070 -- rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization.

The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released."

This makes my heart ache.

Arizona implements immigration law as feds push back
 

Arizona began implementing the piece of its anti-illegal immigration law that survived the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, requiring police officers to verify immigration status during routine stops if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that someone may be in the country illegally.

Arizona tells police officers to look for specific signs that indicate they should ask for immigration papers when stopping a person. These signals include lack of a license, driving a car with foreign plates, difficulty speaking English and seeming nervous. Officers must be careful not to stop someone for more than a "reasonable" amount of time while verifying his or her status, however, or the inquiry could violate the stopped person's rights. Gov. Jan Brewer says officers have been trained not to racially profile while implementing the new law.

But Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor told the Los Angeles Times he worries his department will be flooded by lawsuits from people who say they were improperly questioned about their status, or held for too long. Under the law, Villasenor estimates that Tucson will make 50,000 additional calls to the federal government each year to verify status. Officers will have to hold people whom they would usually just cite and let go while they verify immigration statuses, he added.

These extra calls will present "operational challenges," an Obama administration official who declined to be named told reporters on Monday. But the federal government has no plans to change how it operates in any way due to the law, he added. "We will not allow a state to dictate our priorities," the official said.

When an Arizona police officer calls to verify a suspect's immigration status, the federal government will decide to hold someone only if the person has committed serious crimes or is a recent or repeat border crosser. An Arizona officer will be forced to let that person go if the federal government doesn't want him or her and if the officer doesn't have a crime to charge the person with.

In a rebuke to Arizona, the Obama administration also ended an agreement Monday that allowed some specially trained local police in the state to enforce immigration laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...154346200.html

----------------------------


Anya, you were right. The nightmare begins in Arizona.

Oh how wrong I wished I had been.

Some may call me pragmatic, some may call me a cynic but unfortunately, I saw this a mile away.

Absolutely nothing surprises me anymore about this country.

Aaron Sorkin's new show Newsroom on HBO Sunday night had some profoundly sad statistics about the USA, compared to other countries:

We are #7 in literacy
#7 in math
#22 in science
#49 in life expectancy
#178 in infant mortality
#4 in exports
#4 in labor force

However, we are #1 in the number of incarcerated citizens per capita
#1 in the number of adults that believe angels are real

Supreme Court upholds health care lawBy Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer
Updated at 11:55 a.m. ET: In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is “increasing taxes” on those who choose to go uninsured.

Poll: Do you agree with Supreme Court ruling on health care law?

Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog breaks down the Supreme Court's ruling on health care. Also, when asked why Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the law, Goldstein said, "I think he believed it."


The 2010 law, the Affordable Care Act, requires non-exempted individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

The essence of Roberts’s ruling was:

• “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.

• “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

• But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Click here for Twitter reactions to the ruling

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court upholds President Obama's national health-care insurance act. NBC's Pete Williams reports. TODAY's Matt Lauer discusses the ruling with NBC's Savannah Guthrie and David Gregory, host of "Meet the Press."


The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”


Jason Reed / Reuters

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the centerpiece of Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law that requires that most Americans get insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty.
He said “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

He said the Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

Dems cheer high court as galvanized GOP vows 'full repeal'

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein told NBC’s Pete Williams that “the Affordable Care Act was saved by Chief Justice John Roberts.”

Goldstein said the Obama administration “got the one vote they really needed in Chief Justice John Roberts.”

When he served in the Senate in 2005, Obama voted against confirming Roberts as chief justice, arguing that he lacked empathy for underdogs and “he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

(Twenty-one other Democratic senators, including Joe Biden, also voted against confirming Roberts. Twenty-two Democratic senators voted to confirm him.)

The four justices joining Roberts in upholding the law were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The dissenting justices were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

For individuals who choose to not comply with the individual insurance mandate, Congress deliberately chose to make the penalty fairly weak: only $95 for 2014; $325 for 2015; and $695 in 2016.

After 2016, that $695 amount is indexed to the consumer price index.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.




Chief Justice Roberts announces the Supreme Court's opinion in health care law
NBC's Pete Williams reported that Roberts reasoned that “there’s no real compulsion here” since those who do not pay the penalty for not having insurance can’t be sent to jail. “This is one of the scenarios that administration officials had considered that if the court did this they would consider it a big victory,” Williams said.

But in a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote.

“A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

Congress cannot “penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said.

The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans -- but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose

I am beyond floored that this conservative Supreme Court upheld the Healthcare law!!

I am speechless.

Yes, I know this is surprising (me speechless and all) but I am personally very happy about this!

When will it stop?

What scares me the most are the young women of pregnancy age in the USA that have no memory of what it was like when abortion was illegal and unsafe abortions were the only way to terminate, unless they had money and could find a licensed physician willing to perform a "D&C".

Of course there are countries in the world where there is not access to legal abortions and/or due to stigma, even if abortion is legal, do not seek them.

Some sobering facts below:

There are over 1.7 billion young people aged 10-24 in the world (PRB 2006).

This is the largest population of young people in history. Their sociocultural environment and circumstances are changing, which can affect the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy and abortion:

• Girls are reaching puberty earlier now than in previous decades (WHO et al. 2006).

• Due to global efforts to broaden opportunities for young women, many are now staying in school longer, migrating further away from their birth place, entering the workforce in larger numbers and marrying later.

• Pregnancy and motherhood outside of marriage are stigmatized in many societies, which may cause young, unmarried pregnant women to seek abortion. Other reasons that are independent of marital status include a desire to continue education; an unsupportive or absent partner; inadequate resources; the pregnancy resulted from violence or abuse; health risks; or the woman does not want to become a mother at that time, or at all.

There are many social, economic, logistical, policy and health system barriers to safe abortion care for young women, including:
stigma and negative attitudes, fear of negative repercussions, lack of access to comprehensive sexuality education, limited financial resources, cost of care, transportation, involvement laws and concerns over privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.ipas.org/~/media/Files/Ip.../ACYTKE11.ashx

Almost two dozen states in the USA have passed or are considering, laws that would make birth control and abortion harder to access. And results of a recent national poll kicked up even more dust.

The Gallup Poll suggests that the percentage of Americans who call themselves "pro-choice" is at its lowest point since the survey first asked in 1995.

Back then, 56% identified as "pro-choice" and 33% as "pro-life." Today, more than half of those surveyed say they are "pro-life," and only 41% claim to be "pro-choice."

The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be outlawed has remained steady for years at around 20%.

But more than half of those polled this year pronounced abortion "morally wrong."

Planned Parenthood's Serena Josel blames semantics: "The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are such packed shorthand.

"They work in the political sphere to put people in categories. But these are intensely personal issues," she said. "Those labels don't leave much room for the complicated realities of people's lives."

The young women that Josel works with "have concerns that go beyond abortion, to contraception access, cancer screenings, healthcare they can trust and afford," she said.

"A lot of them see themselves as pro-life and pro-choice. They would never choose in their lives to have an abortion. But they don't think it's right to restrict someone else's choice."

The movement has to engage those women. That's where sharing stories comes in.

Our recollections are a way to educate a generation that can't imagine being ashamed to ask for a pregnancy test just because there is no wedding ring.

Young women have grown up in California with the expectation of reproductive freedom — with mothers who put them on the pill at 16 and drugstore access to the morning-after Plan B. There are so many ways to not get pregnant, some see abortion as a consequence of carelessness, rather than a reprieve from misfortune.

Our values might match, but our language differs: They don't recognize the shorthand Roe vs. Wade.

Choice to them translates to consumer options, like whole milk or soy with that latte.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...nks-20120602/2

I am concerned over the portion of the decision concerning Medicaid too- most certainly can have an adverse effect on women overall.

The Teavangelical-publicans will continue the attacks on reproductive rights no matter what, however, I agree that this is going to be more fuel on the fire.

Oh, and I wonder if Rush Limbaugh is going to make good on his promise to move to Costa Rica if the SC did not find the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Just shows how sure the idiot was that it would be deemed so.

Have to share this-

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...32933147_n.jpg

I dont like the supreme courts decission.. I think it has found a loop hole in what apears to me a movement almost toward dictatorship. Im sure the taxation point was argured quite well on the floor of the supreme court and it won out. Ok .. so we can be taxed.. got it.. how about if at the end of the year.. the medical community has to turn over its billing to the federal govenment(see where this is still going) so that each who files income tax is matched up to that list to see if they have any outstanding medical bills .. if they do then tax them....Either way the federal govenment is "dictating" something as individual as your privite health care issues.. be it from the consumer or the provider.. They want that informantion. If this is truly upheld.. you will find that there will be limits then placed on procedures and recovery times for indivuals, services will be cut, it will eventually be that you will have to go through a governmental process to see if your condition is even worth addressing by the health care community. They will be dictating what meds can be dispensed .. at what cost and rate.. because they can only tax a certian precentage Heath care is not a one size fits all. I do understand that privite insurance will still exsit.. until it doesnt. The most basic of human instint is survival..What would you do for a person who is standing over you holding the very pill that would enable you to take your next breath. Its a wolf in sheeps clothing yall.