U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss teen violence

CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are set to discuss youth violence in Chicago in the wake of the beating death of a 16-year-old honor student whose attack was caught on cell phone video.

Holder and Duncan plan to meet privately Wednesday with students, parents and school officials. They'll hold a news conference later with Ron Huberman, who replaced Duncan as chief executive officer of Chicago Public Schools.

President Barack Obama sent the two federal officials to Chicago after images emerged of the fatal beating of high school sophomore Derrion Albert. Four teenagers have been charged in his death.

by the associted press

Court hears arguments on cross on park land

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.

The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.

A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.

Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.

The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve — like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it — will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.

Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.

The administration wants the court to rule that Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says.

Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any First Amendment problem.

The case is Salazar v. Buono, 08-472.

by the asssociated press

Obama weighs Afghanistan options

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is gathering his national security team for another strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that a troop withdrawal is not under consideration.

Obama's White House session Wednesday comes eight years after the war started and amid new poll statistics showing that support for the conflict in this country is waning.

Obama, who inherited the war when he took office last January, is examining how to proceed with a worsening combat situation that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Public support for the war now stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.

Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a "leisurely pace," according to people in the room.

That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.

The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.

"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."

What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.

Obama's emphasis on building a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.

The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.

"Half-measures is what I worry about," McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country — similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq.

The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.


by the associated press

Great, photo a hit for Westminster birder

Pat Gaines actually felt sorry for the red-tailed hawks at Bonny Lake State Park this summer.

Despite their aggressive reputation, loud screams and fierce, piercing looks, the red-tailed hawks at the park north of Burlington, just west of the Colorado-Kansas border, were being bullied when Gaines saw them.

"I've never seen red-tails harassed so much. They all seemed hoarse. I felt kind of sorry for them," said Gaines of the sight of dozens of little birds dive-bombing the hawks.

The hawks were minding their own business, Gaines recalled.

But the western kingbirds at the park were upset.

Highly territorial, the kingbirds felt the hawks were intruding on their space, said Gaines, a Westminster scientist who helps develop vaccines and tests used in veterinary medicine.

Gaines had focused his camera on one red-tailed hawk because the bird had been screaming. As he followed the hawk across the sky, a kingbird dive-bombed the hawk.

The hawk, which is not a predator of the kingbird, flew as fast as it could from the kingbird. For a moment it appeared the kingbird had stopped attacking. But then it began the pursuit again and — to Gaines amazement — landed on the hapless red-tail's back.

"He rode the hawk for 25 yards. The hawk was not trying to fight back — it was just trying to get out of there," said Gaines.

As the kingbird rode bareback on the hawk, it pecked away at the hawk's head.

"They (the kingbirds) are not afraid of anything," said Gaines. "Until this happened, I had never seen one perch on a hawk's back."

Gaines posted his photo at the Colorado Birder website last month, where he is a frequent contributor.

Other sites, including some in the United Kingdom, have picked up the photo.

The comment posted by Colorado Birder Sarah E sums up the reaction to the image: "Awesome photo!"

from the denver post.com

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.

The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.

"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.

The Shroud of Turin shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side.

Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.

But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

PIGMENT, BLOODSTAINS AND SCORCHES

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith, but says it should be a powerful reminder of Christ's passion.

One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year.

Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings.

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said.

The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results.

The history of the Shroud is long and controversial.

After surfacing in the Middle East and France, it was brought by Italy's former royal family, the Savoys, to their seat in Turin in 1578. In 1983 ex-King Umberto II bequeathed it to the late Pope John Paul.

The Shroud narrowly escaped destruction in 1997 when a fire ravaged the Guarini Chapel of the Turin cathedral where it is held. The cloth was saved by a fireman who risked his life.

Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.

"Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."


from Reuters

Thinking About Moving

Thinking About Moving.

Now , i have posted a few weeks ago , that I was planning to take a vaction in Hawaii. Now , i am thinking about moving to Hawaii.

I can a job transfer their and all , I have to is having enough money to get into a place their.
I have looked into a bedroom Condo . They start of around $98,000 , so i am thinking why not ?

i am still very young , and I want to travel . So why not ?

Well it is food for thought.

Now , that I am making real money , from Buying Stocks and ETF's.

I can do it. I just want to make sure that Hawaii , is where I want to live.

Top Reason why Men Break-Up with Women

I was flipping through a Women's Health recently (I admit it), and I noticed an interesting poll. Women cited the following as the most common breakup reasons:

He changed
We weren't compatible
He cheated on me
When I was little, it drove me crazy when my parents supported "no" with "because I said so." I always wanted a reason. I'm not sure if knowing why always helps, but perhaps if you know common reasons guys break up with girls, you'll at least be able to see it coming. So, here are mine:

I Got Bored: I've read many different hypotheses on attention span, but my favorite is (Wikipedia):

"Continuous attention span, or the amount of time a human can focus on an object without any lapse at all, is very brief and may be as short as 8 seconds. After this amount of time, it is likely that an individual's eyes will shift focus, or that a stray thought will briefly enter consciousness."

My attention span (unless it's a football game or a song) may be worse. I know a relationship is not supposed to be exciting all the time, so getting through those flatline moments between the sparks is critical. If I start having more fun with other activities, the relationship is doomed.

One of Us Was Too Serious: This could be as simple as she wanted to see me three times a week, and I only wanted to see her once a week. If she's flirting with other guys, flighty, or not as into it as I am, then I'm too serious for her.

Burnout: I'm a big believer in pacing and rhythm in dating. A relationship can suffer burnout if certain milestones occur too fast: Being exclusive, sex, meeting parents. When that happens, I get that feeling the colonists must have gotten after they won the Revolutionary War: "Ok, we did it...so now what?"

I Was Tempted To Cheat: I do my best not to cheat, so when I have recurring urges to cheat on my girlfriend, I figure it's time to break up with her. I don't need to go through with cheating; the constant urge is enough for me to end things.

All My Friends Broke Up With Their Girlfriends: This is by far the most immature reason on this list. While my girlfriend and I are curled up on the couch watching "The Devil Wears Prada," my newly single guy friends are out shredding the karaoke waves with Journey's "Don't Stop Believin" and tearing up the town. That conflict gives me wanderlust. It's much easier when we are all in for a quiet Saturday night with the significant others.

Divergent Lives: If someone moves to another town, or work is taking over, or other life changes are driving you apart, sometimes it's best to end it.

Feeling Selfish: Dating is selfless because you're giving your time and yourself up to a relationship. "Me time" is necessary at some point to work on career/living situation, travel, or whatever. When I'm in a "selfish period," it's tough to participate in a relationship.

I "Misread" My Feelings: This is the most unfair of all the reasons. Both genders make this mistake—you get into a relationship and everything seems so great. Then, a few weeks later, you realize you got wrapped up in something for the wrong reason, dated for the sake of dating, or whatever, and you need to get out.

My Friends Or Family Didn't Like Her: I pay close attention to friend/family opinions because they know me best, and they've earned the right to have their say. Also, friends and family may be able to see things inside the relationship that I'm too blinded to see.

I Took Her For Granted: Great relationships should be easy, but there has to be some tension too—especially in the beginning. If it's too easy, there's a lack of challenge. If I feel like I could have her heart any time any place, sometimes I'll let her go. This almost always ends up coming back to haunt me later, though. I never learn.

She Was Too Negative: All too often, I end up with the brooding, depressed, uptight type who is constantly complaining. I don't expect someone to be happy all the time, but if she makes me unhappy every time I see her, why stay with her?

What reasons have guys used to break up with you, and which make you most angry? What reasons have caused you to break up with guys? Which reasons do you think are the most common cause of breakups- do they differ for guys and women?

from Shine , Yahoo