Breaking News Events

[Wolfsong]

Cops Barge Into California Parents’ Home, Take Their Baby After They Seek 2nd Medical Opinion

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Cops Barge Into California Parents’ Home, Take Their Baby After They Seek 2nd Medical Opinion

FYI for all those interested: This online "news" source was founded by Glenn Beck.

I'm not saying the story isn't true, but I do like to know from whence my news is originating.

Take a gander around the site -- their agenda is loud and clear.

[Wolfsong]

Originally Posted by Soon

FYI for all those interested: This online "news" source was founded by Glenn Beck.

I'm not saying the story isn't true, but I do like to know from whence my news is originating.

Take a gander around the site -- their agenda is loud and clear.

Well I totally agree with what you are saying, I should have grabbed the story from a different source, like the area local news channel that is carrying it. Looks like Fox (cough cough) is carrying it too

[Kobi]

GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — Two billboards in which images of Native Americans are used to make a gun rights argument are causing a stir with some Colorado residents who say the image is offensive and insensitive.

The billboards in this northern Colorado city show three men dressed in traditional Native American attire and the words "Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you."

Matt Wells, an account executive with Lamar Advertising in Denver, said Monday that a group of local residents purchased the space.

"They have asked to remain anonymous," he said.

He also refused to disclose the cost but said the billboards are only appearing in the Greeley area. Wells said he has not received any complaints so far.

"I think it's a little bit extreme, of course, but I think people are really worried about their gun rights and what liberties are going to be taken away," Wells told the Greeley Tribune (http://tinyurl.com/cdtkgj2).

Greeley resident Kerri Salazar, who is of Native American descent, said she was livid when she learned about it. She said she doesn't have a problem with the gun rights message, but she's offended the Native American people were singled out, apparently without their consent.

"I think we all get that (Second Amendment) message. What I don't understand is how an organization can post something like that and not think about the ripple effect that it's gonna have through the community," she said.

Irene Vernon, a Colorado State University professor and chairwoman of the ethnic studies department, said the message on the billboard is taking a narrow view of a much more complicated history of the Native American plight. She said it's not as if Native Americans just gave up their guns and wound up on reservations.

"It wasn't just about our guns," said Vernon, a Native American.

Greeley resident Maureen Brucker, who has worked with Native American organizations and who frequents the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota as an honorary family member, said she thinks the billboards are making light of atrocities the federal government committed against Native Americans.

She said the billboard brings to her mind one of the most horrendous examples of that, the Wounded Knee Massacre on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1890. Historical accounts say the 7th Cavalry had detained a band of Native Americans and asked them to give up their weapons. Troops began firing after a shot rang out. Death toll estimates of Native American men, women and children range from 150 to 300.

Brucker said she thinks those who put up the billboards should come forward to discuss their viewpoints.

"I thought it was pretty cowardly that someone would put something like that up and spend the money for a billboard but didn't have the courage to put their name on it," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-native...163833535.html

[Kobi]

In Kathryn Bigelow’s movie “Zero Dark Thirty,” Jessica Chastain played Maya, a young CIA operative whose stubborn pursuit of Osama bin Laden played a major role in the al-Qaida leader’s death.

The film garnered both awards (including a Golden Globe for Chastain) and controversy—largely because of graphic scenes depicting the CIA’s use of torture on suspected terrorists. But an undisputed—and to some, surprising—revelation in the film was its disclosure of the key role a female CIA agent played in the search for bin Laden.

Now a new documentary goes further—making clear it wasn’t just one female CIA operative relentlessly searching for bin Laden, as Bigelow’s dramatization suggests, but rather a whole team of women who began sounding the alarm about the al-Qaida leader almost a decade before the 9/11 attacks made bin Laden a household name.

“Manhunt,” which premieres Wednesday on HBO, tries to tell what director Greg Barker describes as “the real story” behind the 20-year hunt for bin Laden. It includes interviews with several members of the so-called Sisterhood, as the team of female analysts assigned to track bin Laden came to be known within the CIA.

Many of those interviewed, including retired agents Nada Bakos, Cindy Storer and Barbara Sude, speak on camera for the first time about their role in the bin Laden pursuit. And all, in some ways, appear to have inspired the female heroine of “Zero Dark Thirty,” from their headstrong efforts to convince colleagues that bin Laden was a serious threat to their fight to be taken seriously by male colleagues amid job pressures that came to dominate their lives.

Storer began tracking bin Laden in the early 1990s—“when al-Qaida was denying its existence even to its friends,” she says in the film. With tears in her eyes, she recalls how she was criticized in a performance review for “spending too much time working on bin Laden.”

“They said we were obsessed crusaders, overly emotional,” Storer recalls. The difference between her and her male colleagues, she says, is “Men throw chairs, women cry.” Still, she admits, “We were borderline obsessed, but I thought it was for a good reason.”

She recalls how she and her colleagues passed around large containers of Tums as they watched increasingly disturbing videos that suspected members of bin Laden’s network posted online—cataloging details in what was becoming a large dossier on al-Qaida.

“It wasn’t the sexiest job,” Bakos said in an interview with Yahoo! News. But she said it was a position that showed how important women are to the CIA. As analysts, she said, “women have patience and perseverance.” She added: “They weren’t looking for the sexy payoff. This wasn't a job people were being promoted to. They were really looking at it as in the defense of our country.”

Only after bin Laden began to be more explicit in his threat to attack the United States was their intelligence taken seriously. But despite clues analysts had that “something big” was coming, they weren’t able to prevent the 9/11 attacks. And the film details the guilt that Storer and her colleagues felt in the aftermath, as they trudged forward in their search.

Bakos, a veteran CIA analyst sent to Iraq at the height of the war to track down al-Qaida leaders there, seems to be a major inspiration for the Maya character in “Zero Dark Thirty”—though she said in an interview she never talked to Bigelow or anyone else associated with the film.

As part of her duties, Bakos was required to go on raids in search of her target, Abu Musab Zarqawi, then the leader of al-Qaida. It was a role that made her uncomfortable, as she recounts in the film, leading viewers to believe she, like Maya, struggled with seeing the sometimes brutal results of intelligence-gathering in the field.

But the film does not take a moral position on the CIA's interrogation efforts—and Bakos says that’s one reason she decided to speak out about her history as part of the bin Laden hunt. The film, she said, keeps it “politically agnostic and lets the audience decide for themselves” about the CIA’s tactics.

Bakos praised “Zero Dark Thirty” for portraying the “moments of intensity” that came during the CIA’s search for bin Laden and described the film’s depiction of “bureaucratic frustrations” as accurate. But she said Bigelow’s film did not fully communicate the “nuances of intelligence” that she and other analysts on the al-Qaida trail dealt with—and continue to deal with today. And she said it failed to focus on how much of the search was conducted by a "whole team of people" working together under the intense pressure of preventing another terrorist attack.

Asked what she hopes viewers will take away from “Manhunt,” Bakos said she hopes people will gain a better understanding about national security and how the CIA works.

“Intelligence is only as good as the information gathered," Bakos said. "There’s no crystal ball. And there’s no 100 percent. ... You cannot, 100 percent of the time, prevent or predict everything that will happen.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...124822316.html
---------------------------

This looks interesting. Note the sexism that was going on in the CIA.

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A few dozen words rushed into law days after the September 11, 2001, attacks have been used to justify U.S. counterterrorism efforts from the war in Afghanistan to warrantless wiretapping and drone strikes, all on orders of the White House - and with little congressional oversight.

Now, as criticism grows that the law has been stretched well beyond its original intent to go after militant groups that did not even exist on 9/11, some Democrats and Republicans have begun writing legislation to update the nearly 12-year-old resolution.

That could restoke tensions between Congress and the White House over executive power, which were on display when Republican Senator Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster in March to protest President Barack Obama's use of unmanned aircraft to conduct targeted killings.

"If you look back at the 60-word authorization that was put in place on September 18, 2001, and look at where we are today, there's a very, very thin thread, if any, between that authorization and what is occurring today," said Senator Bob Corker, a leader of the effort to examine the 2001 resolution. Its formal title is the Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker said he wanted to spell out the kind of counterterrorism activities that could be authorized, and to bring Congress back into the equation.

"Congress has totally outsourced its foreign policy oversight," he said in an interview. "And a lot of people like it that way. Congress can take credit if things go well, criticize if things don't go well, but in essence Congress has no ownership over what we are carrying out right now. That's not an appropriate place for Congress to be."

The AUMF gives the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."

It has no geographic limits or expiration date and, as such, has been the legal justification for drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen that have sometimes killed civilians and increased tensions among local populations.

In recent days, debates over U.S. national security policies have been roiled again by the Boston Marathon bombings, and a spreading hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected foreign militants, which Obama pledged - and has failed - to close.

While opponents want the AUMF repealed, a group of more moderate legislators wants it adjusted to account for a changing world and to set precedent as other countries build their own counterterrorism - especially drone - programs.

It is not yet clear what a revised AUMF would look like. Some members of Congress want to spell out policies for conducting drone strikes. Many want its scope expanded to include militant groups not directly tied to or found to be "harboring" al Qaeda, including some operating in Africa, and to groups that target U.S. allies in its fight against terrorism.

Some say a "Son of AUMF" should include more controls, such as defining who can be detained and for how long, including U.S. citizens. Others said there should be some definition of when hostilities under the AUMF would end.

"The current AUMF is too broad, too narrow and too vague," Michael Leiter, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March.

Most presidents, Obama included, guard their war-making powers jealously. White House officials have suggested they are open to changes in the AUMF, congressional aides said. Publicly at least, they have not offered specifics.

Obama, who has pledged more transparency over U.S. drone operations, said in October, "One of the things we've got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president's reined in in terms of some of the decisions that we're making."

White House officials had no immediate comment.

'GETTING OLD'

John Bellinger, then a legal adviser to Republican President George W. Bush's National Security Council, helped draft the AUMF "almost on the back of an envelope" when the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoldering. Congress passed it three days after the attacks, and Bush signed it on September 18.

Bellinger said the measure needed an update. He noted, for example, that it was now being used to justify going after targets who were only 8 or 9 years old when the September 11 attacks occurred.

"It really is getting old," he said. "It was drafted extremely rapidly after September 11 and has covered a whole variety of different activities over the last 12 years that were not originally contemplated."

Bellinger, now a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter, said there was a tension between those on the left - an important part of Obama's base - who want to cut the law back or repeal it and those who would revise it to provide authority to engage in more activities.

"If people ... were to delve into the legal theories, I think they would find that the administration is probably either really stretching the boundaries of the AUMF to cover some of the individuals or groups that they're targeting, or, without telling anyone, simply relying on the president's constitutional authority," Bellinger said.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said any effort to change the AUMF should be done carefully.

"It's a huge subject and there's not an easy answer to it. It takes a lot of thought and I myself have thought a lot about it, but I don't have an answer to (the question) if I could write a new AUMF, what would I say?" he said.

Democratic U.S. Representative Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in September 2001, said the intervening years had only underscored her original concerns and intensified her desire for repeal.

"This has been I think a very dangerous resolution and it's given the executive branch just such broad authority that it has eroded our system of democracy and our system of checks and balances," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/amid-security-...051151977.html

[Nat]

Pablo Pantoja Turns Democrat: RNC Florida Hispanic Director Cites GOP 'Intolerance' In Making Party Switch


Full letter:

From: Pablo Pantoja

Subject: From Republican to Democrat

Date: May 13, 2013 5:57:11 PM EDT

Friend,

Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party.

It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them.

Studies geared towards making – human beings – viewed as less because of their immigrant status to outright unacceptable claims, are at the center of the immigration debate. Without going too deep on everything surrounding immigration today, the more resounding example this past week was reported by several media outlets.

A researcher included as part of a past dissertation his theory that “the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ.” The researcher reinforces these views by saying “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

Although the organization distanced themselves from those assertions, other immigration-related research is still padded with the same racist and eugenics-based innuendo. Some Republican leaders have blandly (if at all) denied and distanced themselves from this but it doesn’t take away from the culture within the ranks of intolerance. The pseudo-apologies appear to be a quick fix to deep-rooted issues in the Republican Party in hopes that it will soon pass and be forgotten.

The complete disregard of those who are in disadvantage is also palpable. We are not looking at an isolated incident of rhetoric or research. Others subscribe to motivating people to action by stating, “In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That’s a lot of Democratic voters coming.” The discourse that moves the Republican Party is filled with this anti-immigrant movement and overall radicalization that is far removed from reality. Another quick example beyond the immigration debate happened during CPAC this year when a supporter shouted ““For giving him shelter and food for all those years?” while a moderator explained how Frederick Douglass had written a letter to his slave master saying that he forgave him for “all the things you did to me.” I think you get the idea.

When the political discourse resorts to intolerance and hate, we all lose in what makes America great and the progress made in society.

Although I was born an American citizen, I feel that my experience, and that of many from Puerto Rico, is intertwined with those who are referred to as illegal. My grandfather served in an all-Puerto Rican segregated Army unit, the 65th Infantry Regiment. He then helped, along my grandmother, shatter glass ceilings for Puerto Rican women raising my aunt to become the first Puerto Rican woman astronomer with a PhD in astrophysics (an IQ of a genius as far as I’m concerned). Puerto Ricans, as many other Americans still today have to face issues of discrimination in voting and civil rights.

Regardless of what political affiliation people choose, my respect for some remains. I don’t expect all Hispanics to do the same (although I would hope so) but I’m taking a stand against this culture of intolerance.

I am also making a modest contribution (here: http://bit.ly/12uf3g8) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the efforts in helping protect the rights of immigrants and civil liberties in general.

With warm regards,

-pablo

[Kobi]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Columbia University, one of the nation's Ivy League schools, has joined an effort to have restrictions removed from a decades-old scholarship offered only to white students.

The Lydia C. Roberts Fellowship, established in 1920, requires that Columbia students who receive funding must be from Iowa, must not study law or several other fields, and must return to Iowa for two years after graduation.

It also stipulates that the fellowship "shall be awarded only to persons of the Caucasian race," a requirement now being challenged in a New York court by the scholarship's administrator, JPMorgan Chase.

"It should go without saying that a university rightly known for the great diversity of its student body is as offended as anyone by the requirements of these fellowships," Columbia University spokesman Robert Hornsby said on Wednesday.

Columbia filed an affidavit last week in state Supreme Court in Manhattan supporting JPMorgan's effort to have the whites-only provision removed from the fellowship. A court order is required to change the fellowship's guidelines.

"Columbia long ago ceased awarding the fellowships in question and does not follow gift conditions that violate anti-discrimination laws," Hornsby added.

The trust was designed to provide a stipend for Columbia University graduate students, as well as provide for the cost of a single round trip from Iowa to New York City. Roberts died in 1920 and the trust was created as directed in her will.

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



1920? And they are just getting around to change the stipulations? Really?

[Kobi]

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Twenty-three youths have died in the past nine days at initiation ceremonies that include circumcisions and survival tests, South African police said Friday.

Police have opened 22 murder cases in the deaths in the northeastern province of Mpumalanga, according to spokesman Lt. Col. Leonard Hlathi. He said an inquest is being held into the 23rd death, of a youth who complained of stomach pains and vomited.

Initiation ceremonies are common in South Africa, where youths partake in various activities as a rite of passage into adulthood, usually over the course of three weeks. Some 30,000 youths signed up for initiation this year.

In addition to being circumcised, the boys and young men are put through a series of survival tests which sometimes include exposure to South Africa's chilly winter conditions with skimpy clothing. Their faces are painted with red clay and they also are given herbal concoctions to drink.

Nelson Mandela, the first democratically elected president of South Africa, described the experience in his autobiography as "a kind of spiritual preparation for the trials of manhood."

Hlathi said that all the deaths occurred at government-registered initiation sites where medical practitioners usually are present. The government became involved to prevent such unnecessary deaths.

Mathibela Mokoena, chairman of the House of Traditional Leaders in Mpumalanga, says the Department of Health was alerted before the initiation ceremonies began, but only showed up after the first few deaths were reported. He said the department has now agreed to have officials present for the remainder of the ceremony.

Popo Maja, head of communications at the Health Dpartment, said: "We would want to find out why they were done without the supervision of medical personnel.

The deaths are the highest recorded in Mpumalanga, surpassing the previous highest toll of eight some years ago, Mokoena said. He said early investigation by the House of Traditional Leaders showed some schools were negligent, leaving the youths in the care of young men instead of experienced adults.

Mokoena said some of the initiates were not in ideal health when they enrolled. He said new legislation is being introduced outlining procedures to be followed, and including a punishment of a life ban for those found negligent.

The suspected causes of the deaths were not released pending the results of post-mortems. Most deaths in the past have been caused by infection and loss of blood after circumcision.

Government spokeswoman Phumla Williams said the government is sending condolences to the families and urged creation of "better and safe initiation schools that will ensure the safe passage of young initiates to manhood and prevent the unfortunate loss of lives."
-----

http://news.yahoo.com/23-dead-initia...131938573.html

[starryeyes]

This is the epitome of bravery. This article did not elaborate that there were 20,000 Religous freaks against 50 gay activists. 20,000 against 50. It's mind boggling. The article also doesn't state the religous freaks were carrying some kind of whip or plant (stinging plant) to hit the gay activists for immoral behavior. This is so sickening. ((


By Margarita Antidze and Liza Dobkina

TBILISI/ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Large crowds of anti-gay protesters broke up homosexual rights rallies in Georgia and Russia on Friday, underlining deep hostility in the former Soviet bloc.

Priests and thousands of Georgians pushed their way through police barriers protecting around 50 people marking International Day Against Homophobia in a square in capital Tblisi.

Waving banners marked with the slogans "Stop Homosexual Propaganda in Georgia" and "Not in our city", they forced the small groups of campaigners to flee in buses.

In the Russian city of St Petersburg, an aggressive, mostly male crowd threw smoke bombs over police barriers and shouted "Death to Faggots" and other insults.

A hugely outnumbered band of gay rights campaigners also had to pile into buses minutes after the start of their rally.

"Stalin would have showed you and exiled all these," a man dressed in urban camouflage shouted as activists hurried away.

Attitudes towards gay people in Russia and former Soviet states are largely shaped by repressive Stalin-era policies, when sodomy was punishable by up to five years in jail.

The resurgent Christian Orthodox Church, which says homosexuality is a sin, also holds great sway.

"The rally... had a funeral-like atmosphere since homophobic crimes in Russia are on the rise... by the kind of people who view Jews as abnormal, blacks as abnormal and gays and lesbians as second-class citizens," Yuri Gavrikov, head of the Russian LGBT-rights organization Ravnopravo, or Equal Rights, said.

CHURCH URGES BAN

In Georgia, around 28 people including policemen and journalists, suffered slight injuries in the clashes, government officials said.

"We won't allow these sick people to hold gay parades in our country ... It's against our traditions and our morals," said Zhuzhuna Tavadze, brandishing a bunch of nettles and adding that she was ready to fight.

Later in the evening, rowdy crowds took to the streets in the capital of the former Soviet republic, shouting and roughing up anyone they thought might be homosexual.

Amnesty International called for the perpetrators to be punished, saying in a statement that impunity for such acts was becoming a "dangerous trend in Georgia".

The head of Georgia's influential Orthodox Church in the mostly Christian nation of 4.5 million condemned the violence, but called on authorities to ban gay-rights rallies.

"We don't approve of violence, but propaganda of this (homosexuality) must not be allowed. It is a sin," said Patriarch Ilia II.

While support for same-sex marriage and other forms of equality increases in the West, in Russia and several other former Soviet states gay people say they are facing increasing discrimination.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia in 1993, two years after the Soviet Union broke up. But the stigma remains strong and much of the gay community is underground.

A survey by independent pollster Levada last year found that nearly 50 percent of Russians believe homosexuals should be given medical or psychological treatment.

Gay and lesbian groups in Russia say a recent law banning gay "propaganda" encourages prejudice.

A 23-year-old man in the southern city of Volgograd was tortured and killed in May after revealing he was gay during a drinking session.

(Reporting by Margarita Antidze and Liza Dobkina; Writing by Alissa de Carbonnel; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

[Kobi]

As the Boy Scouts of America prepares to vote tomorrow on a proposal that would change its long-standing policy of excluding gay boys from Scout units, the executive director of Scouts for Equality, a gay rights advocacy group, is hopeful that the proposal will pass--but says this is just the first step.

“This is a good step in the right direction, we want youth protection throughout the entire program, and it looks we'll be able to see that on the 23rd,” executive director Zach Wahls tells Top Line. “But after that, we have to make sure that we are telling Scouts that when you turn 18 you are still welcome in the program.”

The proposal up for vote will not change the BSA's policy of banning gay adult leaders. To Wahls, changing that policy is not just political, it's personal.

“As the straight Eagle Scout son of a lesbian couple, I know exactly how important lifting the ban on adults is," he says. "I got to see first-hand when I was growing up in Iowa the impact that great, wise, loving parents could have in the lives of my Scouters.”

In addition to advocating for policy changes, Wahls says a big focus of his organization’s mission is to increase understanding around LGBT issues, one conversation at a time.

"What we are seeing is the effect of people having conversations and moving past fear," Wahls says. "When we talk about homophobia, literally the fear around this, is people can have person-to-person conversations...and understand that there isn't anything to be afraid of."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-pl...5412.html?vp=1

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by starryeyes

This is the epitome of bravery. This article did not elaborate that there were 20,000 Religous freaks against 50 gay activists. 20,000 against 50. It's mind boggling. The article also doesn't state the religous freaks were carrying some kind of whip or plant (stinging plant) to hit the gay activists for immoral behavior. This is so sickening. ((


By Margarita Antidze and Liza Dobkina

TBILISI/ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Large crowds of anti-gay protesters broke up homosexual rights rallies in Georgia and Russia on Friday, underlining deep hostility in the former Soviet bloc.


(Reporting by Margarita Antidze and Liza Dobkina; Writing by Alissa de Carbonnel; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

I've got four words for people who are violent towards any group, in the name of any Christian religion...What would Jesus Do?

[Kobi]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City is seeing a spike in anti-gay attacks, with two assaults coming within days of the fatal shooting of a gay man over the weekend, the city's police commissioner said on Tuesday.

Two men in their early 40s were attacked on a street in Manhattan's SoHo neighborhood early on Tuesday morning by two men who shouted anti-gay slurs in Spanish and English and left one victim with a minor eye injury, police said.

Late on Monday night, a 45-year-old man was beaten unconscious after spending the evening at bars in Manhattan's East Village with a man he met at a homeless shelter where they both were staying, police said.

The attacks followed the killing on Friday of Mark Carson, 32, who was shot in the head in what police are calling a hate crime in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood often described as the cradle of the gay-rights movement in the United States.

Carson, who was openly gay, was shot by a gunman shouting anti-gay slurs, police say. A suspect identified as Elliot Morales, 33, was arrested on a charge of second degree murder as a hate crime shortly afterward.

The police commissioner said 29 anti-gay attacks have been reported in New York City this year, up from 14 in the same period last year, even as hate crimes overall have declined almost 30 percent.

Kelly said officials did not believe the anti-gay crimes were connected. He said there was no simple explanation for the apparent spike, but suggested it may be the result of more victims coming forward.

"We don't really see patterns in hate crimes," Kelly said. "We believe they are underreported generally, so when we have a particularly heinous crime like we had on Friday night, people are perhaps more likely to report it."

Two men, Fabian Ortiz, 32, of Manhattan, and Pedro Jimenez, 23, of Brooklyn, were arrested soon after the SoHo attack and charged with assault as a hate crime.

The victim in the East Village attack spoke to police after being released from a hospital on Tuesday, telling them he had chatted in a friendly way with the man who would later attack him.

"Suddenly, according to the victim, his assailant just snapped and became enraged," Kelly said.

Police are seeking Roman Gornell, 39, who has been arrested about 20 times, mostly on drug-related charges, in connection with that attack, Kelly said.

http://news.yahoo.com/york-city-seei...223749300.html

[Kobi]

DALLAS – The Boy Scouts of America, one of the country’s largest and oldest youth organizations, decided on Thursday to break 103 years of tradition by allowing openly gay members into its ranks.

The controversial move was approved by more than 60 percent of the approximate 1,400 votes cast by the BSA’s national council. According to the new resolution, beginning Jan. 1, 2014, “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”

“The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting,” the BSA stated in a press release.

Lifting the organization’s ban on gay adult volunteer leaders and paid staff was not considered and remains in place.

Texas Governor Rick Perry told the Texas Tribune, “While I will always cherish my time as a Scout ... I am greatly disappointed with this decision.”

The emotionally charged issue has seen those for and against it wage costly public relations campaigns, and has fostered intense debate from coast to coast.

In a statement, John Stemberger, an Eagle Scout and leader of a coalition of people who opposed the change, accused the BSA of caving to polls, politics and public opinion.

“It is with great sadness and deep disappointment that we recognize on this day that the most influential youth program in America has turned a tragic corner,” Stemberger stated in a press release. “The vote today to allow open and avowed homosexuality into Scouting will completely transform it into an unprincipled and risky proposition for parents. It is truly a sad day for Scouting.”

Stemberger, founder of On My Honor, stated his group and other like-minded organizations will meet in Louisville, Ky., next month to discuss creating a new character-development organization for boys.

The historic change comes 13 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that BSA is a private club that is allowed to set its own rules for membership. Since then, public pressure has mounted for the Texas-based organization to change the exclusion, especially last year, when a gay California teen was denied his Eagle Scout award and an Ohio lesbian was removed as a den mother from her son’s troop.

Still, just 10 months ago, the Scouts reaffirmed their stance, saying a two-year confidential review revealed a majority of the organization’s parents wanted to keep the policy. The about-face to put it to a vote came “out of respect for the diverse beliefs of Scouting's chartered organizations,” according to the BSA website.

After the vote, the Scouts stated there would be no plans to revisit the issue.

“While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting,” they stated in a press release. “ … America’s youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...221438621.html

[Kobi]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Legislators in Puerto Rico on Friday approved a heavily debated bill that outlaws employment discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

Opponents of the bill prayed on the steps of the seaside Capitol building as lawmakers voted on a simplified version of the measure, which was widely rejected by religious organizations in the conservative U.S. territory.

The original version was broader and would have also banned such discrimination when it comes to commercial transactions, property rentals and public transportation, as well as in other circumstances. About half of U.S. states have approved similar bills.

Legislators on Friday also approved a separate bill that extends a domestic violence law to gay couples.

Both bills are to go back to the Senate, which is expected to approve them. The governor has said he would sign both measures.

Supporters of the bill waved rainbow flags and loudly chanted ‘‘Equality!’’ as they crowded around legislators who approved the bills.

‘‘A decade ago, (we) were criminals under a sodomy law. Today, we’re second-class citizens,’’ said Pedro Julio Serrano, spokesman for the U.S.-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ‘‘When this measure becomes law, we will be closer to obtaining the first-class citizenship we deserve.’’

The new measures come as the U.S. territory begins to debate gay rights more seriously in the Caribbean region, where sodomy laws and harassment of gays is common.

Earlier this year, Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed an order extending health insurance coverage to the domestic partners of workers in his executive branch of government, regardless of gender. The island’s Justice Department also is prosecuting its first hate crime case for the killing of a hairstylist who was set on fire.

But the push toward more gay rights in Puerto Rico remains widely debated.

The island’s House of Representatives approved the anti-discrimination bill 29-22 after a 10-hour debate that ended overnight Thursday without a consensus.

The proposal did not have full support from the governor’s Popular Democratic Party, which controls the island’s House and Senate. The governor had met with members of his party late Thursday and urged them to vote for the bill.

‘‘The country has a social obligation, a historic obligation and also a Christian obligation to fight all types of discrimination,’’ he said.

The island’s Senate approved the original measure 15-11 last week, but the House of Representatives sought to changes in the bill.

Rep. Javier Aponte Dalmau was among those who opposed the measure. He said all types of discrimination are wrong, but considered the original bill’s wording to be too far reaching, and there are other judicial means to address potential discrimination.

Other legislators voted against the measure saying they believe the island’s Constitution already addresses discrimination.

A local Christian organization, Puerto Rico for Family, said the bill was unnecessary because the gay and lesbian community has not proved it faces greater employment discrimination than other groups.

‘‘This law creates a base to promote homosexuality and other conducts in schools,’’ the organization said in a statement.

Most government agencies in Puerto Rico already have their own anti-discriminatory policies, but human rights activists say they are often not enforced.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/car...WYL/story.html

[Wolfsong]

School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a major victory for law enforcement agencies, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police can take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested and charged but not convicted of a crime.

By a 5-4 vote the court reversed a decision last April by Maryland's highest court that overturned the 2010 conviction and life sentence of Alonzo Jay King for a rape committed seven years earlier.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, handed a victory to the state of Maryland by saying taking of DNA samples was similar to taking fingerprints

DNA samples can be taken if police have probable cause to detain a suspect facing charges relating to a serious offense, Kennedy said.

Taking a sample using a swab of the cheek is "like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure," Kennedy said.

King's right under the U.S. Constitutional Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had therefore not been violated, he added.

Like fingerprints, DNA is used for identification, and is not by itself evidence of a crime, Kennedy said. There is a legitimate government interest in knowing the identity of the person arrested, he added.

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three liberal justices in dissenting from the decision.

The Maryland court had concluded that King's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was required to provide his DNA upon being arrested.

CHECKS WITH DNA DATABASES

Under Maryland law, samples can be taken from anyone arrested for a serious offense without police needing to get a warrant. Police can then submit those samples to a national database to see if the suspect is linked with any other crimes.

Monday's ruling will leave that law and others like it around the nation intact.

The case focused purely on samples taken after a suspect is arrested and charged with a crime, but not convicted of it.

Samples taken from convicted felons are routinely submitted to the national database and that practice was not an issue in the case.

Every other state in the country, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, signed on to a brief in support of Maryland's position.

The case is Maryland v. King, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 207.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-cou...141958322.html

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


Further erosion of our constitutional right to privacy. This is disturbing.

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

police can take DNA upon arrest


Further erosion of our constitutional right to privacy. This is disturbing.

I dunno, I can understand the comparison to fingerprinting. If you're OK with fingerprinting, DNA sampling for identification isn't far from it--it's an identifier that can be used to determine presence at the scene of a crime. I mean, is it bad for cops to be able to take and keep fingerprints?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Allison W

I dunno, I can understand the comparison to fingerprinting. If you're OK with fingerprinting, DNA sampling for identification isn't far from it--it's an identifier that can be used to determine presence at the scene of a crime. I mean, is it bad for cops to be able to take and keep fingerprints?

My concern is with the ways in which basic rights are being undermined with the culture of fear the war on terrorism spurned. This ruling is just an extension of the forfeiting of rights that began under the Patriot Act.

The issues of concern, as per The Wall Street Journal highlight the following:

"Most states and the federal government authorize the taking of such samples from arrestees, and they typically are matched against a nationwide database of DNA evidence from unsolved crimes."

"The Maryland court said that because people merely arrested for crimes—in contrast to those already convicted—are entitled to a presumption of innocence, the DNA matching amounted to a fishing expedition to solve open cases. "

"Justice Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned dissent, signaling his concern by reading it aloud from the bench. He likened the DNA law to the "despised" British practice of issuing general warrants in colonial days, authorizing royal officers to conduct blanket searches of the public."

"The Fourth Amendment, he wrote, forbade general warrants by requiring that authorities demonstrate specific reasons to suspect an individual of a crime before they could search him or her. The DNA-sampling law was a suspicionless search used only to solve open cases, he wrote, calling that a worthy objective but one outweighed by the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches."

"Justice Scalia contended that because authorities already possessed the power to take DNA samples from those ultimately convicted of crimes, only people who are wrongly arrested or later acquitted will have their privacy violated."

As far as I know, people still have rights when it comes to self incrimination. We require Miranda rights to inform people of their rights. Yet it is ok for us to take their DNA to confirm their identity, and prosecute them based on this?

And, it is ok for someone who has not been convicted of a crime to have their DNA put through the DNA database of unsolved crimes so we can nail them for something else while we are at it? Is that like a secondary gain kind of thing?

I understand the rationale. However, it violates the logic of innocent before proven guilty and the rights against self incrimination.

To me, this is police state logic where the "protection of the public" is the new mantra enabling law enforcement to trample on peoples right to due process.

[Allison W]

Serious question: do you believe the police should be forbidden from taking fingerprints from people accused of crimes but not convicted? If you do, then the stance against taking DNA from people accused of crimes but not convicted is consistent. Do you believe police should be forbidden from entering the fingerprints of people accused of crimes but not convicted into a database? If you do, then the stance against entering the DNA of people accused of crimes but not convicted into a database would be consistent. If you have no problem with fingerprinting in either case, then I am forced to wonder why you consider one worse than the other, aside from simply being new and useful.