Currently viewing the tag: “Three”
This may have been a dry run or some sort of test; in any case, whatever it was, Hamas-linked CAIR is likely to be on it soon, using it as a weapon to weaken airport security — which will have the effect (unintended, no doubt) of making jihadists’ work easier.
“3 ‘Strange’ Men Cause Flight Diversion,” by Phil Rogers and Andrew Greiner for NBC Chicago, March 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):
A Portland, Ore.-bound flight made a “level two emergency” stop in Chicago Tuesday night after passengers said three men, reportedly of Middle Eastern descent, were acting strangely, even fighting with flight crews.
At least one of the men walked back to the area of the plane where flight attendants work, laid down and began complaining of illness. That man engaged in “some sort of altercation” with the flight attendant, a passenger said.
At one point another man, who was pacing back and forth in the aisles, also got into a “verbal altercation” with a flight attendant, according to a passenger.
Other men of “Middle Eastern descent” were passing notes and “writing in their notebooks,” a source told NBC Chicago.
United contacted officials at O’Hare and alerted them that the flight, which originated in Washington D.C., would stop. The flight was diverted to Chicago.
Three passengers were removed from the aircraft, and the remaining passengers were re-screened through security, before being sent on their way.
Passengers arriving at Portland told NBC affiliate KGW they were aware of problems during the flight. Cliff Robinett described the incident as “strange goings on in the back of the plane.”
Another passenger, Lydia Omelchenko, said the three individuals removed were “strange people.”
Robinett said the man was lying on the floor in the back of the plane did not speak English, and an interpreter had difficulty translating. Robinett said a doctor on the plane also tried to assist the passenger.
He said three men got off the plane, one of them ill. No one knew what was happening at the time, including TSA officials in Chicago, he said.
Stacy Niedermeyer of Southwest Portland was on the flight with her husband and four children.
Niedermeyer said one of the men went to the back of the plane and “sat down on his bottom.” Some type of heated altercation took place.
Lydia Omelchenko said passengers knew something was amiss and were texting about the incident. She reported that two men, one of them young, left the plane and neither looked ill.
Other passengers interviewed did not wish to be identified. One passenger said a man with a backpack was pacing back and forth and got into an argument with a flight attendant.
Another said she understood it was some type of medical issue and despite it all, she never felt unsafe.
United spokesman Rahsaan Johnson refused to elaborate Wednesday morning on the reasons for the passengers’ removal other than saying “they were not following crew member instructions.”…
“But an airbag had been pulled out and reattached with duct tape and wires were hanging free.” Airbags contain a charge that can be used to make pipe bombs. “Security alert issued at Camp Pendleton,” from KABC-TV, March 30 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (KABC) — A security alert was reportedly issued at Camp Pendleton after three Middle-Eastern men in two vehicles drove onto the base under suspicious circumstances Saturday night around midnight.
The drivers said they didn’t know each other, but both said they were lost and trying to get to Glendale.
One of the drivers reportedly ignored orders to wait at the main gate and drove onto the base.
A search turned up no weapons.
But an airbag had been pulled out and reattached with duct tape and wires were hanging free.
The next morning the other driver returned to the base and said he made a mistake and was trying to get onto Interstate 5.
A background check showed that the men all had clean records.
 Telegraph.co.uk |
Barry Bonds trial: Prosecution is down to last three witnesses
San Jose Mercury News Home run king Barry Bonds is being tried on charges he lied to a federal grand jury when he said he never knowingly took steroids. Follow Mercury News reporter Howard Mintz's account of the trial in this live blog … Bonds Trial Update: A very yawny Wednesday Barry Bonds Trial: Bonds' Surgeon And Personal Shopper To Testify Today Velarde says he got drugs from Bonds' trainer |
USA Today |
Feds down to last three witnesses in Bonds case
The Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Prosecutors are down to their last three witnesses in the Barry Bonds perjury trial, which is progressing faster than expected. Bonds' orthopedic surgeon Dr. Ting was expected to be the first witness called Thursday, the end of the … Feds down to last three witnesses in Bonds case Velarde says he got drugs from Bonds' trainer Agents, lab techs testify at Bonds trial |
Telegraph.co.uk |
Feds Down to Last Three Witnesses in Bonds Case
ABC News AP By PAUL ELIAS AP Prosecutors are down to their last three witnesses in the Barry Bonds perjury trial, which is progressing faster than expected. AP Barry Bonds arrives at a federal courthouse for his perjury trial, Wednesday, March 30, 2011, … Velarde says he got drugs from Bonds' trainer Agents, lab techs testify at Bonds trial A look at developments in the Barry Bonds trial |
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy reappointed the chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission Wednesday, and replaced three longstanding members.
The commission oversees the state Division of Criminal Justice and hires state prosecutors.
The new appointees are Superior Court Judge Juliett L. Crawford, Mary M. Galvin, an insurance lawyer and former state prosecutor, and Moy N. Ogilvie a private attorney specializing in civil matters.
Malloy reappointed Associate state Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer to chair the commission. Palmer has been a member and chairman since 2006
Malloy also reappointed Ann G. Taylor, general counsel for the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, and Maura H. Horan, a private lawyer specializing in civil law. Taylor was appointed in 1999 and Horan was appointed in 2007.
The governor replaced as members Thomas A. Bishop, a judge on the state Appellate Court; Garrett M. Moore, a private attorney; and Alfred A. Turco, a private attorney.
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin T. Kane also is a member of the commission.
Ever since Chief Justice Roberts joined the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce has treated his Court as their personal genie, and Roberts has been more than happy to grant even many of their most outlandish wishes. Indeed, big business’ wins before the Supreme Court have spiked massively under Roberts’ leadership:
If the Roberts Court continues its pattern of favoritism to corporate interests, voters, workers and consumers could easily be left in the cold during three cases being argued this week:
- Buying Elections
In the wake of the Court’s infamous Citizens United decision, the Chamber pledged to spend a massive $ 75 million to elect corporate-aligned conservatives, and the Chamber’s right-wing allies kicked in hundreds of millions of dollars more. This kind of corporate influence over elections not only places a huge thumb on the scale in favor of pro-corporate candidates, it also corrupts existing lawmakers by forcing them to either play ball with corporate fundraisers or find some other source of funds in order to remain in the game.
Public financing provides a partial shield against this effect, but public financing schemes only work if they allow candidates who opt into them to remain competitive. If a state offers only a few thousand dollars in public funds to a candidate whose opponent is backed by tens of millions of corporate dollars, than the non-corporate candidate will have no choice but to raise money on their own. To defend against this problem, Arizona developed a two-tiered public financing system. Candidates receive additional funds if their opponent or corporate interest groups overwhelm them with attack ads, and thus candidates who are determined not to be tainted by the corrupting influence of major donors are not left defenseless.
Yet, in a case called McComish v. Bennett, the Court’s five conservatives appear poised to strike this two-tiered system down. If they do so, it could be the death knell for public financing, since no candidate is safe from massive infusions of corporate money after Citizens United.
- Making Courts Inaccessible
Many of the Court’s most corporate-friendly decisions create complicated and arcane procedural barriers to Americans seeking justice. The Court’s infamously Ledbetter decision didn’t literally take away women’s right to equal work for equal pay, it just created a procedural rule that made it nearly impossible for women to learn that they were victims of discrimination until after the statute of limitations to file a claim had run out. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court will decide whether to shut off another opportunity for women in the workplace to seek relief — class actions.
Class action lawsuits are brought by groups of plaintiffs who share a common injury with each other. These suits are essential to allow ordinary Americans, who often lack the resources to hire lawyers capable of taking on a major corporation on their own, to pool their resources in order to hire counsel that are capable of facing off against someone like Wal-Mart. There is substantial evidence that women who work for Wal-Mart stores have endured systematic pay and promotion discrimination and thus should be able to bring a class action. If the Supreme Court denies them this right, many of them will be left powerless before Wal-Mart’s legal team.
- Lawsuit Immunity
Finally, many corporate sectors have been given almost total lawsuit immunity by the Supreme Court. The justices gave sweeping legal immunity to medical device manufacturers and health insurers, and even gave the thumbs up to a biased system of corporate-owned courts that overwhelmingly rule against consumers and employees. In a case called PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the justices will now decide whether to give lawsuit immunity to the makers of generic drugs.
Ever since Chief Justice Roberts joined the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce has treated his Court as their personal genie, and Roberts has been more than happy to grant even many of their most outlandish wishes. Indeed, big business’ wins before the Supreme Court have spiked massively under Roberts’ leadership:
If the Roberts Court continues its pattern of favoritism to corporate interests, voters, workers and consumers could easily be left in the cold during three cases being argued this week:
- Buying Elections
In the wake of the Court’s infamous Citizens United decision, the Chamber pledged to spend a massive $ 75 million to elect corporate-aligned conservatives, and the Chamber’s right-wing allies kicked in hundreds of millions of dollars more. This kind of corporate influence over elections not only places a huge thumb on the scale in favor of pro-corporate candidates, it also corrupts existing lawmakers by forcing them to either play ball with corporate fundraisers or find some other source of funds in order to remain in the game.
Public financing provides a partial shield against this effect, but public financing schemes only work if they allow candidates who opt into them to remain competitive. If a state offers only a few thousand dollars in public funds to a candidate whose opponent is backed by tens of millions of corporate dollars, than the non-corporate candidate will have no choice but to raise money on their own. To defend against this problem, Arizona developed a two-tiered public financing system. Candidates receive additional funds if their opponent or corporate interest groups overwhelm them with attack ads, and thus candidates who are determined not to be tainted by the corrupting influence of major donors are not left defenseless.
Yet, in a case called McComish v. Bennett, the Court’s five conservatives appear poised to strike this two-tiered system down. If they do so, it could be the death knell for public financing, since no candidate is safe from massive infusions of corporate money after Citizens United.
- Making Courts Inaccessible
Many of the Court’s most corporate-friendly decisions create complicated and arcane procedural barriers to Americans seeking justice. The Court’s infamously Ledbetter decision didn’t literally take away women’s right to equal work for equal pay, it just created a procedural rule that made it nearly impossible for women to learn that they were victims of discrimination until after the statute of limitations to file a claim had run out. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court will decide whether to shut off another opportunity for women in the workplace to seek relief — class actions.
Class action lawsuits are brought by groups of plaintiffs who share a common injury with each other. These suits are essential to allow ordinary Americans, who often lack the resources to hire lawyers capable of taking on a major corporation on their own, to pool their resources in order to hire counsel that are capable of facing off against someone like Wal-Mart. There is substantial evidence that women who work for Wal-Mart stores have endured systematic pay and promotion discrimination and thus should be able to bring a class action. If the Supreme Court denies them this right, many of them will be left powerless before Wal-Mart’s legal team.
- Lawsuit Immunity
Finally, many corporate sectors have been given almost total lawsuit immunity by the Supreme Court. The justices gave sweeping legal immunity to medical device manufacturers and health insurers, and even gave the thumbs up to a biased system of corporate-owned courts that overwhelmingly rule against consumers and employees. In a case called PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the justices will now decide whether to give lawsuit immunity to the makers of generic drugs.
Ever since Chief Justice Roberts joined the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce has treated his Court as their personal genie, and Roberts has been more than happy to grant even many of their most outlandish wishes. Indeed, big business’ wins before the Supreme Court have spiked massively under Roberts’ leadership:
If the Roberts Court continues its pattern of favoritism to corporate interests, voters, workers and consumers could easily be left in the cold during three cases being argued this week:
- Buying Elections
In the wake of the Court’s infamous Citizens United decision, the Chamber pledged to spend a massive $ 75 million to elect corporate-aligned conservatives, and the Chamber’s right-wing allies kicked in hundreds of millions of dollars more. This kind of corporate influence over elections not only places a huge thumb on the scale in favor of pro-corporate candidates, it also corrupts existing lawmakers by forcing them to either play ball with corporate fundraisers or find some other source of funds in order to remain in the game.
Public financing provides a partial shield against this effect, but public financing schemes only work if they allow candidates who opt into them to remain competitive. If a state offers only a few thousand dollars in public funds to a candidate whose opponent is backed by tens of millions of corporate dollars, than the non-corporate candidate will have no choice but to raise money on their own. To defend against this problem, Arizona developed a two-tiered public financing system. Candidates receive additional funds if their opponent or corporate interest groups overwhelm them with attack ads, and thus candidates who are determined not to be tainted by the corrupting influence of major donors are not left defenseless.
Yet, in a case called McComish v. Bennett, the Court’s five conservatives appear poised to strike this two-tiered system down. If they do so, it could be the death knell for public financing, since no candidate is safe from massive infusions of corporate money after Citizens United.
- Making Courts Inaccessible
Many of the Court’s most corporate-friendly decisions create complicated and arcane procedural barriers to Americans seeking justice. The Court’s infamously Ledbetter decision didn’t literally take away women’s right to equal work for equal pay, it just created a procedural rule that made it nearly impossible for women to learn that they were victims of discrimination until after the statute of limitations to file a claim had run out. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court will decide whether to shut off another opportunity for women in the workplace to seek relief — class actions.
Class action lawsuits are brought by groups of plaintiffs who share a common injury with each other. These suits are essential to allow ordinary Americans, who often lack the resources to hire lawyers capable of taking on a major corporation on their own, to pool their resources in order to hire counsel that are capable of facing off against someone like Wal-Mart. There is substantial evidence that women who work for Wal-Mart stores have endured systematic pay and promotion discrimination and thus should be able to bring a class action. If the Supreme Court denies them this right, many of them will be left powerless before Wal-Mart’s legal team.
- Lawsuit Immunity
Finally, many corporate sectors have been given almost total lawsuit immunity by the Supreme Court. The justices gave sweeping legal immunity to medical device manufacturers and health insurers, and even gave the thumbs up to a biased system of corporate-owned courts that overwhelmingly rule against consumers and employees. In a case called PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the justices will now decide whether to give lawsuit immunity to the makers of generic drugs.
The recent Arab world revolts explained using Disney and Angry Birds!
See if you can identify the “pigs” at the end (1:30 onwards)
The recent Arab world revolts explained using Disney and Angry Birds!
See if you can identify the “pigs” at the end (1:30 onwards)
As of today, protests continue in Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria with the opposition in those countries having differing levels of success. In Yemen, talks aimed at the exit of President Saleh are continuing but stalled.
Officials on both sides of yesterday’s talks, which were attended by the US ambassador, said the parties refused to give any ground.After six weeks of unprecedented protests in Yemen, Saleh says he is willing to step aside in a peaceful transition of power, but has left himself room for maneuvering by adding the condition that he wants to leave the country in “safe hands.’’In the TV interview, he insisted he would not leave the presidency “humiliated’’ and that even if he stepped down as president, he would remain head of his Congress Party, leaving the door open for his continued involvement in the nation’s politics.“I will not give up on my supporters,’’ he said.
The protesters — whose ranks have been bolstered by defecting military commanders, lawmakers, Cabinet ministers, diplomats, and even Saleh’s own tribe — are insisting he go immediately. The demands and defections have only grown since government security forces shot more than 40 demonstrators to death in the capital of Sana a week ago.
That is very different from the brutal crackdown imposed by Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa regime where security forces operating under martial law has effectively crushed the opposition.
Police have broken up small scattered protests in Manama, Bahrain’s capital, using tear gas after calls for a “Day of Rage” were quashed by a heavy security force presence.
Helicopters, extra checkpoints on major highways and visible security forces appeared to have prevented any major demonstrations from gathering support.
A 71-year-old man died of asphyxiation in his home after police fired tear gas in the village of Mameer, the main Shia protest group said.
Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Manama said: “As far as we can see there are clouds of tear gas that have been rising in recent minutes.
“People will march down the streets and a helicopter will appear, the police will move in, and people move indoors.
“Quite a tense situation here, but the call for the big protests … seems to have been quashed by the authorities here.
“Some protesters tried to mess with the statue and at that point the police opened fire.”
And in Syria, it’s unknown as to who has the upper hand, protesters or President Bashar Assad.
Scores of Syrians were killed and injured as anti-government protests swept across the country, officials said.
Syrian troops reportedly entered the port town of Latakia Sunday, deploying in areas where protests occurred Saturday, Israel Radio reported.
Protesters used to mobile phones to film the carnage in Daraa Friday, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported. Locals said at least 25 people were killed and hundreds were injured in their town alone, the newspaper said. Deaths were also reported in Homs, Latakia, Sanamein and Damascus. Exact numbers were not known.
Because the Syrian government barred the entry of foreign news networks, the images filmed by protesters could not be verified.
The Byrds are one of my favorite bands. Watch as Chicago native Roger McGuinn and the band perform three early hits:
“Turn, Turn, Turn,” “Bells of Rhymney, and “Tambourine Man.”
Related post:
Technorati tags: 
music rock entertainment videos culture byrds roger mcguinn
When it comes to the potential candidates for the GOP nomination next year, consider Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley underwhelmed:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) doesn’t think most of the potential 2012 Republican contenders are “qualified to be president.”
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Grassley said “only two or three of them” are qualified.
He didn’t say which ones, but the Iowa Democratic Party on Friday called on him to specify.
Grassley added that he’s unlikely to endorse a candidate who wins in Iowa but struggles elsewhere.
“It wouldn’t do me much good to back somebody that won in Iowa if they can’t carry on the campaign elsewhere,” Grassley said.
A number of prominent Republicans mulling a presidential run have stressed the importance of winning the early primary state.
I’ve got to say that Grassley is pretty much on the nose here.
