As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.

"I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help."

The Equal Rights Amendment, which Congress passed in 1972 but has not yet been ratified by the necessary 38 states, simply says that equality under the law "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex." Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the legislation this year in hopes that it would finally become a part of the Constitution.

"If equality had been enshrined in the Constitution for these past 40 years, I wonder if we would still be hearing today from right-wing presidential contenders that women should not serve in combat, that women should think twice before they seek to work outside of the house, that women should not use birth control, and that women who do are called names that are not fit to repeat here," Maloney said at the rally.

Hanna, a pro-choice Republican and co-sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, acknowledged that women's continuing fight for equality is meeting some resistance among his Republican colleagues. He urged women to become more politically active on their own behalf.

"This is a dogfight, it's a fistfight, and you have all the cards," he said. "I can only tell you to get out there and use them. Tell the other women, the other 51 percent of the population, to kick in a few of their bucks. Make it matter, get out there, get on TV, advertise, talk about this. The fact that you want [the ERA] is evidence that you deserve it and you need it."

When HuffPost asked Hanna after the rally whether he was bucking his party by encouraging women to give their money to "the other side," he said that he wasn't.

"I'm trying to help [the GOP]," he said. "I think it's the appropriate thing to do."

Gingrich said the media, which he believes is "in the tank for Obama," will "do anything that helps re-elect" the president.

"It is just astonishing to me how pro-Obama they are," Gingrich told Rios. "Do you think you are going to see two pages on Obama's Muslim friends? Or two pages on the degree to which Obama is consistently apologizing to Islam while attacking the Catholic church?"

"Do you see anybody in the elite media prepared to say, gee, isn't this kind of odd that we really worry a lot about the Quran and nothing about the Bible?" Gingrich asked, likely in reference to Obama's recent apology to Afghanistan after U.S. troops burned the Islamic religious text.

David Silverman, chairman of the event committee and president of the American Atheists, said the rally is aimed at uniting atheist organizations and letting the religious know that there are nonbelievers among them.

?We need to stress to the theists that we are here,? Silverman said. ?Atheism is growing in all 50 states. What people don?t seem to understand is all we demand at American Atheists is equality.?

Silverman initially told CNN that the rally would draw anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 people to the National Mall, and the National Park Service has planned for 30,000 people. With thunderstorms forecast for Saturday, however, Silverman told CNN on Thursday that he expects somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people.

The cost of the event is around $300,000, Silverman said, but philanthropist Todd Stiefel, Founder of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, is supplying half the money.

The rally has been a catalyst for protests by the Westboro Baptist Church, a group well known for its picketing of funerals of American servicemen and servicewomen. Westboro Baptist has been granted a permit for the ?grassy area between 14th and 15th? streets, according to Carol Johnson, a communications officer for the National Park Service.

Though a press release for the reason rally touts 17 groups planning to protest, only the Westboro Baptist Church has applied and obtained a permit. Johnson said rally organizers have notified the Park Service of other possible protest groups, but none of those have applied for a permit.

The rally's long list of speakers and presenters runs the gamut from intellectuals to celebrities to comedians. The event is headlined by Oxford professor and author Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins, who is widely regarded as the most respected figure in atheism, is lending his voice to this event because he says freedom for atheists is ?constantly under threat from people who would like to turn this country into some sort of a theocracy.?

?The Reason Rally is part of an effort to combat the attack of the theocrats,? Dawkins told CNN. ?There is in this country at the moment a great revival of atheism, and the number of atheists in the country is much larger than people realize.?

Atheist organizer takes ?movement? to nation?s capital

At a press conference for the event, Silverman was adamant that the rally won't be the last. He didn't say whether it will be become an annual tradition, but he intends a higher profile for atheists in the future.

?The next step after the rally is all eyes on the election,? Silverman said. ?We want to post hard questions to the candidates.?

Dawkins, too, related the rally to politics.

?The nonbelieving constituency has not been vocal enough, and it therefore has been politic for them to be ignored by their congressmen, by their senators,? Dawkins said.

Directing his comments at Congress, Dawkins said, ?You have been neglecting them, overlooking them and riding roughshod over them as though they didn?t exist. Well, they do exist and they outnumber some of the other lobbies that you have been so assiduously sucking up to all these years.?

The America Atheists also are holding their annual convention in Bethesda, Maryland, and the Secular Coalition for America has scheduled its ?Lobby Day for Reason? on Friday.

The weekend is part of a larger blitz by a coalition of atheists to ?win? equality in American culture, Silverman said.

?We are the last group against whom it is politically correct to be bigoted,? he said. ?That is something that needs to change and I am very confident that we will within 20 years.?

Updated Terms of Service

Over the last few weeks, we've been working on an update to our Terms. When we first launched Pinterest, we used a standard set of Terms. We think that the updated Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy are easier to understand and better reflect the direction our company is headed in the future. We'd encourage you to read these changes in their entirety, but we thought there were a few changes worth noting.

We think these changes are important and we encourage you to review the new documents here. These terms will go into effect for all users on April 6, 2012.

Like everything at Pinterest, these updates are a work in progress that we will continue to improve upon. We're working hard to make Pinterest the best place for you to find inspiration from people who share your interest. We've gotten a lot of help from our community as we've crafted these Terms.

Thanks!

Ben & the Pinterest Team

A federal judge ordered the Food and Drug Administration to restart a process that could limit the use of two types of antibiotics in cattle, pigs and poultry, amid concerns such use leads to antibiotic-resistant infections in humans.

In a ruling late Thursday, Judge Theodore Katz in New York said the FDA needed to start the process of no longer allowing penicillin and tetracyclines to be used on livestock for non-medical reasons.

That could wind up materially cutting the amount of antibiotics used in animal feed, addressing a decades-long concern of safety advocates. But the exact outcome remains unclear. Drug makers will be allowed to request a hearing to show that such uses of their products are safe, and any final rule-tightening could get watered down along the way.

In 1977, the FDA concluded that using low doses of penicillin and tetracyclines was not safe, and issued a notice stating it would start the process of withdrawing the approval for use of such drugs for non-medical uses. But it never followed through to stop the practice.

Last year, consumer groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, sued the FDA in federal court asking a judge to order the agency to follow through on its 1977 proposal.

In the 1950s, the FDA had approved the use of antibiotics to stimulate growth of cattle, swine and chickens. However, it was later shown that widespread use of antibiotics in livestock can cause the development of drug-resistant bugs that can be transferred from animals to humans.

"For over 35 years, FDA has sat idly on the sidelines largely letting the livestock industry police itself," said Avinash Kar, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"In that time, the overuse of antibiotics in healthy animals has skyrocketed?contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that endanger human health," he said.

The FDA said it was studying the opinion and considering the appropriate next steps.

Agriculture experts and farmers said many livestock producers have already cut back or eliminated indiscriminate use of antibiotics altogether, and predicted the rule wouldn't change their operations anytime soon.

"A lot of people have the perception that people are using medication without rhyme or reason, and that's not the case," said Lisa Becton, head of swine health information and research for the National Pork Board.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents beef producers, said it was disappointed with the court ruling that would require the FDA to use a strict administrative process to regulate antibiotic use.

"Cattle producers work hand-in-hand with veterinarians and animal-health experts each day to implement comprehensive herd-health management plans, which include the judicious use of antibiotics to prevent, control and treat any cattle health issues," the group said.

Leon Sheets, a hog producer, in Ionia, Iowa, said he didn't expect the requirement would change his operations anytime soon. "Antibiotics can be one of those tools" used to manage illness, but farmers already gauge their use in part because of the cost of the drugs, Mr. Sheets said.

Earlier this year, the FDA banned non-medical uses of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins, which are sold for human use under brands including Keflex, Ceftin and Cedax, and are used to treat bone, urinary-tract and respiratory infections.

As of April 5, it will become illegal to use the products in healthy animals as a way to help prevent disease, though using them to treat a specific illness will remain legal. Cephalosporins, unlike penicillin and tetracyclines, were never approved by the FDA for non-medical use in animals.

Not that I think it will have any effect, but I appreciated this letter sent by the Texas Catholic Conference.  Sorry I can't make it clicky!

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2012/03/tapps_catholic_criticize_musli.php

We walk to the corner store, to the library, to pinky's dance class, or even just downtown to do some window shopping. They both wear their hoodies. Hell, I wear a hoodie, H wears one too. Pete likes to wear the hood pulled up because he says it's warm and comfy in there. I always tell him not to wear it up unless it's raining.

As all you moms can attest, there's nothing more annoying that repeating yourself so I got irritated last time I had to tell him yet again to pull down the damned hood because it's not raining. He looked at me like I'd lost my ever loving mind but he did what I asked. Meanwhile, because he looked so confused I thought, well maybe I'm just being stupid. Who cares if he wears his hood up?

Guess what??

I've been fighting the overwhelming urge to throw up for days now.

Any other thoughts?  I'm cleaning and procrastinating so I figured it would make sense to tear myself away from dishes to ask you this  

Another reason among the 10,000 reasons I love Bruce.

Transportation Security Administration

How the rich took over airport security

Security checks were one of America's most democratic places--until rich passengers got their own, speedy lines

 (Credit: Reuters/Salon)

Michael Lind?s new book, "Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States", will be published in April and can be pre-ordered at Amazon.com. More Michael Lind

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/how_the_rich_took_over_airport_security/singleton/

Back story - I live in a fairly new developmennt. There were two builders involved - the builder who did phase 1 and 2 (our house) are out of the community. The builder in the final phase is still here. The HOA got turned over November 2010 to the neighborhood, but the builder retains 100% control of the ARC, so the HOA has no authority in reviewing, approving, or rejecting requests.

Two guys bought a foreclosure. They are nice guys - I'll note that they are a bi-racial gay couple (I suppose this is why they are trying to get the ACLU involved). They submitted plans to re-do their front, put up a fense, and re-do their back. Their property is on a corner, so their backyard is visible to everyone. Personally, they spent a fortune I'm sure and it looks nice. They did do a ton of hardscape though - I ripped out most of the lawn and put big rocks instead of grass with some measily trees spaced out in the back. They put some big boulders in their front lawn and did a lot of stone work. Although it's nice, it does look a bit out of place - like something you'd see in Arizona or the Southwest.

They submitted approval to the ARC (builder) and their plans were rejected. They built anyway, got a cease and desist, and kept going because they said they spent the money already. The builder (who really just wants to make an example out of them) has been sueing them. Mediation failed because they refuse to change anything. One of the guys is particularly emotional - he's come to the HOA meetings (monopolized all the time) and just breaks down crying. He's come-by our house and the President's house (we both have babies) unannounced pretty late at night (for people who have babies) just sobbing to the point where poor DH doesn't know what to do becaue he has not control over what is happening.

I should mention that when this first started we socialized with them a few times and were very sympathetic - but they lied about the story (since H now has access to all the paperwork and knows their story was inaccurate). They were also sued by the HOA in their old community for the same thing (you think they would have learned a lesson).  In anycase, they met with the ACLU to try and get them to help with legal expenses, take the case because it's costing them a fortune and the builder is not going to drop this. They are claiming they are being discriminated against because one is black and they are gay. We haven't heard if the ACLU is taking their case, but they did have the meeting.  We have a very diverse neighborhood and requests by many have been denied. To build their case, they went around and filed HOA complaints for violations (way more minor, but violations nonetheless) on 5 other homes so now those poor neighbors are in shits with the HOA since once a complaint is filed, it has to be addressed/resloved.

Once my neighbor was elected to the board two months ago (and nominated by these guys to be on the board!), she told them she couldn't speak with them about the lawsuit. They stopped talking to her. We were all outside on Monday enjoying the weather and the one guy (the emotional one - the other one doesn't say much about it unless his partner gets worked-up and then he intervenes) was walking his dog and asked H and my neighbor if they were going to do anything to get the lawsuit dropped. They told him again they had no control over any of this. He then said he's going to countersue the HOA and the board members personally, started crying again, and then turned around and took off jogging with his dog.

It's a fcking mess! I know it's terrible, but this has H so stressed out and I hope they lose and have to pay big-time for doing this to everyone. My concern it (lawyers please come-in) - can we be personally sued by these people because H is on the board? They seem to think so. My neighbor's husband is getting her some sort-of personal liability policy related to this - so maybe we should look into it? My neighbor is worried that a personal policy won't cover this since we'd be getting coverage in the middle of this lawsuit - even though not personal lawsuits have been filed - the dude threatened it this week and now I'm worried.  Poor DH just agreed to be on the board to deal with landscaping because he likes that stuff.

Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot to death by a neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman in late February. Martin was unarmed, and his only ?transgression? at this point seems to to be that he was young, black, and wearing a hoodie when he was killed.

Because of Florida?s ?Stand Your Ground? law, no charges have yet been brought against Zimmerman, a man who is by all indications legitimately crazy.

To protest the killing of Martin ? and the fact that Zimmerman is a free man ? various ?Million Hoodie March? protests have been held throughout the country. Now, the Miami Heat are symbolically joining the protest.

The above photo was tweeted out by LeBron James earlier today, with the hashtags #WeAreTrayvonMartin #Hoodies #Stereotyped #WeWantJustice. According to the Palm Beach Post, James had been planning this for a few days. We should also point out that the only reason Mike Miller isn?t in this photo is because he wasn?t traveling with the team at the time.

The Heat are the first collection of high-profile athletes to publicly take a stance on the polarizing case, and since they a) play in Florida, and b) are perhaps the most visible team in America right now, this photo is an important one.

[LeBron James] Twitter

"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we're get to the bottom of exactly what happened," Obama said in response to a shouted question in the White House Rose Garden.

[Related: Fla. man survives 'shoot first' horror]

Amid angry charges that race played a central role in the tragedy, Obama said "all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen -- and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident."

The U.S. Justice Department has announced that it's conducting its own investigation into whether Zimmerman, whose father is white and whose mother is from Peru, is guilty of a hate crime by targeting Martin, an African-American, on the basis of his race."I'm the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me so I've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigation that's taking place right now," the president said.

"Obviously this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal state and local to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened," the president said.

Obama's comments came just days after his chief spokesman, Jay Carney, had deflected questions about the incident, telling reporters "we're not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-had-son-d-look-trayvon-144936867.html 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794146

Tame Iti and his colleagues weren't the only ones on trial for the past five weeks. The terrorism claims in the still-unresolved Urewera case have revealed deep divisions over Maori and Pakeha world views and state surveillance in the name of public safety.

Tame Iti, Urs Signer, Emily Felicity Bailey and Te Rangikaiwhiria were on trial in the High Court in Auckland. Picture / NZ Herald

Mid-summer 2007 and a Pathfinder 4WD makes its way into the Urewera forest. Tuhoe activist Tame Iti is the driver. With him is a personal trainer and two teenage brothers, asked along to help demonstrate kick-boxing and general fitness to a group at a wananga organised by Iti.

Suddenly, they come across a roadblock among the trees. A group of masked men, some firing guns in the air, appears and orders them from the vehicle. Iti and the others lie on the ground and are frisked.

Afterwards they are allowed to get up and are taken to a makeshift camp where they meet other people. What follows is an apology for the ambush, the kickboxing demonstrations - and a heated discussion between a vegetarian and a meat-eater about their respective diets.

"It was just [the personal trainer] said in his talk that you need meat to build your body and that's where the lady, the vegetarian, said 'no, you can get it from seeds and stuff'," said one of the young men in court.

The incident was one of many dissected at the High Court trial of the "Urewera 4" - the last remaining defendants of 18 people originally charged after the so-called terror raids of October 2007. How it was interpreted exemplified two radically different world views pitted against each other in the courtroom.

See bottom of article for an interactive timeline of the Urerewa trial.

The prosecution claimed what happened on that summer's day was evidence the men with guns were practising an ambush for as-yet unformulated future plans to commit serious violence on society.

The defence said it was simply an exercise in training for employment in the security industry, in the hope of getting people off the dole.

So what was really going on in the bush? Was it the teaching of bushcraft and security training, or was a sinister Plan B, to cause mayhem if Tuhoe's treaty claims did not go well?

The jury could not decide. Though they were clear in their verdicts this week about illegal use of firearms, they were unable to reach a verdict on the more serious charge: that the Urewera 4 were an organised criminal group, preparing to carry out serious violent offences including murder, arson and sabotage.

The trial, which wound up last week after more than five weeks at Auckland's High Court, became part of an even bigger legal saga which has twisted and turned through the court system since the raids, raising questions about the law itself.

Two areas came under the spotlight: the anti-terror law passed in the fearful days following Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 strike on America, and police powers of search and surveillance - the extent to which the authorities are allowed to snoop on citizens in this new age of terror.

Pre-dawn raids

The raids of October 15, 2007 were the first time the public knew something was up. Before dawn, heavily armed police burst into homes of suspects around the country and descended in force on the little village of Ruatoki in the Bay of Plenty, an entranceway to the Urewera forest and home to Tuhoe.

The events became so notorious that two documentaries have screened on TV and in cinemas here and at film festivals in other countries.

On that morning in Ruatoki, children cried in fright and helicopters with snipers thumped overhead. Nationwide, doors were kicked in and seemingly unconnected people were ordered from their beds at gunpoint - a mix of Maori radicals, peace and environmental activists and other stirrers known to police.

The country awoke to the startling news we could have terrorists in our midst - and a network of them, not just one or two. As the day unfolded police told of clandestine guerilla-style training camps being run in the Urewera forest, of people running round with guns and explosives - there were even rumours of napalm bombs.

Police, it was revealed, had been covertly watching and listening not just in the Ureweras but in cafes in the towns. So alarmed were they about public safety they had carefully planned this series of raids, getting sign-off at the highest level before storming dozens of houses.

At the heart of the network of people allegedly preparing to unleash mayhem on society was Tame Iti. According to police Iti, who has bared his bottom at politicians and been the author of many episodes of memorable protest, was now heading a group with death and destruction in mind.

From day one the case was greeted with levels of disbelief - and it soon began to falter. Within the month police were told they could not lay their charges under the new Terrorism Suppression Act, not so much because of the evidence they had gathered but because of the "incoherent" and complex way in which the act had been written. This decision by Solicitor General David Collins would prevent the Crown using bugged conversations as evidence.

The trial

Late last year the police suffered a further blow. After years of legal wrangling a Supreme Court finding that evidence obtained by video surveillance was illegally gathered led to charges being dropped against 13 defendants who faced only firearms charges. Only four remained: Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey. They faced firearms charges and a joint charge of being part of an organised criminal group with objectives including murder, arson and using guns against the police. A fifth accused, Tuhoe Lambert, was also to face the organised criminal group charge but died last July, aged 63.

In court, a jury finally got to see footage from police cameras hidden in the bush. There was a group taking part in military-style manoeuvres; a patrol in which some were armed and others carried sticks; an exercise to throw "Molotov cocktails" (Steinlager bottles filled with a petrol/diesel mix and wicks); an alleged practice ambush to kidnap someone from a vehicle. There were audio recordings of gunfire, including volleys from semi-automatics.

Various documents were admitted as evidence, including Tuhoe Lambert's diary, with training notes such as "take high ground then swoop down", "ambush", "speed and surprise", "deliver decisive blows first 24 hours" and "hit, rest, hit again".

The Crown produced a "scenarios" document written by Signer outlining four possible exercises: blowing up a cow shed; blowing up a bridge; setting fire to cars with Molotov cocktails and stopping a car to grab a backseat passenger. In one, a guard would have to be "eliminated".

The Crown also had transcripts of cellphone and computer chatroom conversations. In one, a person the Crown said was Iti talked of a Plan A and a Plan B if negotiations for Tuhoe self-determination hit the wall. Iti allegedly said: "We are planning for war if we have to ..."

In another, Iti allegedly said: We are a revolutionary military wing of Aotearoa."

In the raids, a pamphlet by Bailey was found which talked of "revolution" and, at the home of her brother Ira, was a chemical recipe which an expert witness said was capable of making a "thermite bomb".

And there were guns - a cache of rifles and shotguns some of which, the Crown alleged, were "military-style" semi-automatics.

But, the defence would argue, words can have more than one meaning and culture and events can't be understood by peering through a keyhole. And the weapons may not have been as sinister as the police believed.

Outside Courtroom 15 during a break one day late in the case sat a big Maori man dressed in black and with full facial moko, an alcohol and drug counsellor for Tuhoe Hauora which is Tuhoe's health service.

He was once Mongrel Mob, he revealed, and he still had shotgun pellets floating in his arm from the bad old days when he lived in the ganglands of Wairoa.

That was before he moved back to his Ruatoki homeland where he says his cousin Tame Iti, who is also a Tuhoe health worker, "pulled me from the hole". He was on the very first course Iti ran on living without violence, the man said.

On a day when Pakeha fearfulness - of Iti's moko among other things - was talked about in court, the big man pointed to a spiralling circle of black ink on his cheek.

"See how it goes around, always going round and round? That represents the planets. And these are connections," he said, pointing to the lines on his forehead.

"It's just continual. Atua, which is our gods, tangata which is us, and the connection from human to, I suppose, spiritual."

Nikapuru Takuta, 52, then nodded at the courtroom door and said "that's what that's about in there. Tame's been accused of something but all it is is connections."

Themes of connections and opposing world views threaded their way through the trial.

In court, where the lawyers outnumbered the defendants, Iti's defence counsel, former Labour MP Russell Fairbrother, stressed just how different Ruatoki was to the rest of New Zealand. There unlicensed guns, camouflage pants and balaclavas were the norm in a place where people hunted for food in the forest for reasons of both tikanga (culture) and poverty.

Crown prosecutor Ross Burns seemed to agree with the concept of two worlds. In his closing address he said it was usual in court hearings for the defence and prosecution to cover similar ground - that circles would intersect - but in this trial two very large circles barely touched.

Throughout, Burns tried to keep the focus on the evidence, stressing the unlawful use of firearms, the practising with Molotov cocktails, and quoting the intercepted cellphone and chatroom conversations.

The participants were planning acts of sabotage and armed combat - in other words "guerilla warfare".

This case was not about politics, he said, and the motivations of the accused were not relevant to the offending.

But the defence lawyers sought to broaden the case, placing the activities in the context of tikanga, political activism and Tuhoe's 160 years of grievance against the Crown.

Wherever they could, they exploited police ignorance about Tuhoe daily life and tikanga Maori, and portrayed Iti not as a villain, but a prophet ahead of his time.

His long history of protest to effect constitutional change had been flamboyant and theatrical but never violent, said Fairbrother.

In fact, Iti's activism had been the catalyst for an about-turn in the Crown's rigid stance on the past when, in 2005, it finally acknowledged the wrongs which had led to the confiscation of Tuhoe lands.

Why would Iti undo all this progress by "by some stupid act?", asked Fairbrother.

The defence raised other issues, suggesting that the Special Investigation Group formed after 9/11 had too little to do so turned its attention to protest groups. Christopher Stevenson, Signer's lawyer, noted "suspicion that's not reined in breeds more suspicion and applies its own proof".

The defence repeatedly pointed out that in the end, no terrorist attacks had actually happened. As Kemara's lawyer Jeremy Bioletti put it: "There's no thought crimes in New Zealand, not yet."

History

At times the courtroom became the setting for a history lesson. Tuhoe's grievances with the Crown were spelled out with the blessing of all, including the prosecution.

Such broad historical context was not usually relevant, Justice Rodney Hansen, said in his summing-up. But in this case a key question for the jury was whether the accused acted in a lawful purpose; and that could not be answered without an understanding of Tuhoe's historical aspirations and customs.

Defence witnesses spoke unchallenged on Tuhoe history and tikanga (culture and custom) and explained the language of indigenous activism. Waitangi Tribunal reports were admitted as evidence.

A defence expert witness, Dr Paul McHugh, said by video link from Cambridge University that Iti's activism was anchored in Tuhoe's history of fraught relations with the Crown.

"I think he's very media-savvy but I think that he is also deeply immersed in Maori custom and the importance of symbolism and of metaphor and those put together with media images can be very powerful. I think he also draws on another element, too, and the media magnify this and I think this is Pakeha fearfulness - and I think that his politics of protest ... use this and exploit this very carefully but also very adroitly."

Frequently, McHugh said, people regarded as rabble-rousers and tub-thumpers in their own time turned into tomorrow's heroes.

Another key witness for Iti was Tamati Kruger, Tuhoe's chief Treaty claims negotiator. Kruger gave much credit for recent remarkable progress in Tuhoe's relationship with the Crown to Iti and explained how the Crown had wrongly accused Tuhoe in 1865 of being complicit in the murder of two people. This led the Crown in 1866 to draw a line on a map and take all the fertile land on one side, which it gave to its soldiers, cutting Tuhoe off from the sea.

But, finally, in 2005 the Crown acknowledged the wrong and last year a historic "compact" (a formal agreement) was signed which recognised Mana Motuhake O Tuhoe - Tuhoe's right to determine its own future on issues including health, housing and education.

Kruger said Iti was the precursor to these advancements: "He has been instrumental in the expediency of these negotiations coming sooner rather than later."

In cross-examination, Burns asked Kruger whether training with Molotov cocktails at a camp would concern him. He replied it would and that it would be unacceptable to Tuhoe. Burns asked, too, if Kruger had seen the video footage and whether military patrols and violence were acceptable to Tuhoe. They were not, said Kruger.

The different worlds were also evident in police testimony about their investigation. Balaclavas and camouflage clothing were seen as suspicious. Participants had disguised themselves in the bush, the court was told.

But a defence witness said balaclavas were common in the area; that people wore them as beanies then rolled them down when the weather turned inclement.

Police who searched homes and offices on the day of the raids collected such items as an Oliver Stone documentary on Fidel Castro. They noted a political poster on an office wall and a T-shirt with a tino rangatiratanga emblem on it hanging on a washing line.

There was the police world and the real world, said Fairbrother.

The defence argued the "camps" were in fact wananga, a place to learn tikanga. One aim was to prepare Tuhoe youth for work in the security industry, including with a company logging on Tuhoe land. An intercepted communication on Iti's computer said there could be "mahe (work) in Africa for four of our guys".

Burns was having none of this. "To stop people nicking petrol in the bush, you don't provide balaclavered people with Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles and pistols and so forth."

Words such as revolution and resistance used in documents and intercepted conversations spelled violence to police but the defence witness McHugh said these were words commonly used in independence struggles, even after the struggle was over. And Kruger said that for Tuhoe the word revolution meant "the battle for hearts and minds - the last battlefield".

Surveillance

How did the police know so much - or think they did - about the activities in the bush? The scope of the surveillance is an eye-opener for those who assume New Zealanders go about their daily activities free from the eyes of the state.

The police had been monitoring some of the accused for several years - in Iti's case, decades. Signer's activities - among them demonstrating against a weapons conference in Wellington and the American invasion of Iraq - had been noted since at least 2005. He was at the time a music student at Victoria University.

Police lead investigator Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe confirmed police shared information about protest groups relevant to the inquiry. Officers had attended demonstrations and Waitangi Day commemorations. "There was a lot of work done around the protest groups during the course of [the inquiry]. It was specifically for that reason." Pascoe denied, however, that the Special Investigation Group was specifically monitoring the four accused.

Undercover police not only hid in the bush during the "camps" but went far and wide tailing and photographing suspects. Kemara, described as the "armourer", was closely watched - there were visits to Parnell cafes, an army surplus store in Karangahape Rd, the Sportways gun shops in Mt Eden.

A camera installed opposite his Grey Lynn home snapped him loading his boot before the camps with what police took to be concealed rifles. Suspects in Hamilton, Palmerston North, Christchurch and Wellington were also watched.

The evidence

What did the cloak and dagger surveillance turn up? The footage from fixed cameras in the bush was given "never before seen" billing at the start of the prosecution case. The jury saw a group walking along a track, some carrying rifles, some sticks. Some wore balaclavas and camouflage clothing; others did not. The guy in front bent down - was he tying his shoelaces? Then he signalled to those behind to move ahead.

The Crown's military expert testified that some of the footage was consistent with military drills, while other footage wasn't.

Audio devices picked up the staccato rhythm of semi-automatic rifle fire but the video footage itself was silent. There were photographs of an upturned oven in a clearing, pock-marked with bullet holes. Strewn around the oven were toppled Steinlager bottles which the prosecution said had been filled with petrol and diesel, set alight and thrown at the oven. Burns also pointed out small scorch marks on the grass.

The final video showed an exercise around a Pathfinder 4WD, in which a man got out of the wagon and placed a semi-automatic rifle on the bonnet and took aim. Others, some armed, were then seen running from the vehicle. The Crown maintained this exercise was an ambush to kidnap a backseat passenger and take him hostage.

The defence argued this was in fact an exercise in escorting a VIP. Iti's lawyer said it was consistent with the aim of preparing young Tuhoe for work in the security industry.

Rau Hunt, the ex-Navy drill instructor who conducted the exercise, testified for the defence that he had never been shown how to "snatch" a person so couldn't train people to do an ambush. Hunt added that the participants' skills were "so abysmal" that the prospect of their working in security was "a dream rather than reality".

The defence showed further footage of the same exercise, including Hunt demonstrating how to look under the vehicle "for contraband or a bomb".

Security training was even offered in explanation for the "Molotov cocktail" throwing. Fairbrother said the exercise was consistent with military training in how to deal with them.

The prosecution had more than video footage to build its case. There was the "Scenarios" document written by Signer - the key evidence against the Swiss clarinettist which fingerprint and handwriting experts said Signer had penned, outlining four potential training exercises. But three witnesses, including his former music lecturer, spoke of a man passionate about issues of social justice and world affairs, a man who was both tolerant and non-violent - "a peacemaker".

Burns asked each witness how they could reconcile the footage of Signer participating in armed military patrols with the person they knew. They could not explain this, they said, but each said the footage did not change their opinion of him.

At the Wellington home of Emily Bailey's brother Ira, they found in a notebook a chemical recipe for making a thermite bomb which Burns said was capable of "melting through an engine block of a car". This had "no place in bushcraft or survival skills in the forest", he said.

Ira Bailey was one of those charged who had firearms charges withdrawn last year. The defence argued that the recipe could have been sitting on his shelf for years and the Crown's expert witness conceded that "nowhere on this piece of paper discusses how it would be ignited". The defence also drew an admission from Pascoe that police had returned the recipe to Ira Bailey.

As for Signer, lawyer Christopher Stevenson said he was glad the scenario document was found "because it indicates that none of this was real". This was not a plan for guerilla warfare, it was a game, he said.

In Kemara's car was a copy of an online "zine" (magazine) Today's Empire is Tomorrow's Dust, edited by Emily Bailey. A prosecution witness read excerpts from a Bailey article Strategising for a Revolution in which she wrote she probably had only a further 25 years to live and wanted to participate in "a revolution of everything", invading Parliament and blowing up communication towers in the dead of night.

But her lawyer, Val Nisbet, asked the witness to read the full quote: "I want a revolution of behaviour, revolution of power structures, revolution of the global capitalist economy. I want revolution of cities. I want revolution of everything. A world without oppression, a world of liberty for all, a world of communication and negotiation for resolutions that suit all and that work long term."

Other evidence against Bailey included a disassembled rifle found at the "bush hut" she was living in in Wellington. Her fingerprints were also on a gun cleaning kit at a Ruatoki house.

The raids turned up an array of guns and ammunition. Outside the house Iti was building at Ruatoki, wrapped in a sleeping bag under a tarpaulin, police found a Saiga .762 semi-automatic rifle, a 30-round magazine cartridge and two .22 rifles, a Ruger and a Magtech. Inside the house were more weaponry and ammunition, and face paint.

In the boot of Kemara's car were shotguns and ammunition. More rifles were in the caravan he was then staying in, at Tuhoe Lambert's Manurewa home.

Kemara's lawyers maintained the rifles were configured as sporting guns and he was entitled to them under his firearms licence.

For Iti, Fairbrother said tens of thousands of such rifles had been sold here. They were the most popular gun for "dispatching small animals" and for target practice.

The defence found backing in a prosecution witness, former gun dealer Wayne Dil, who said the Saiga was "more a fun gun - you go out with your friends, put some targets and have a bit of fun" but the prosecution argued that fitting a large capacity magazine to the rifles turned them into military-style weapons.

The weapons added to the material evidence, Burns explained in his closing, but there was also what the accused had to say - the intercepted chatroom and cellphone text conversations. Several suspects used the Aotearoa Cafe chatroom which computer-whiz Kemara had created.

One communication found on the work computer Iti used at the Ruatoki Mission House ticks off someone named "weka" for failing to turn up for a camp. "You need to be clear on these matters. We are a revolutionary military wing of Aotearoa."

The prosecution also placed much store on a conversation on the same computer with a Christchurch man which talked of an A Plan and a B Plan: "We are planning for war if we have to but training. ... We are not fighting for the return of the Ureweras but mana motuhake [self-determination]."

Fairbrother argued computers at the Mission House were shared and the message was not written by Iti. The conversation used Iti's name in the third person and the concluding words "my love" suggested the talk was between a man and a woman. "We don't know who it is."

On another seized hard drive was an exchange between Ira Bailey and Kemara discussing "fireworks", in which Bailey writes of his ears ringing after an explosion, even though he was 500m away. "I think it will easily kill someone if you chuck it in the window."

Kemara replies: "I will try to get more."

Prosecutor Burns often cited a text message exchange between Tuhoe Lambert and his nephew Kevin Lambert, in which the older man talks of Tuhoe freedom fighters needing "units in da cities".

Kevin Lambert: U mean like cells nd ***: nd then do da hit?

TL: Ae.

KL: Swt; i'm in.

TL: C if u got mates, got to love Tuhoe, give their lives.

KL: Got 2 mates; dum as ***; do nethin 4 me; can drive truks; fly planes, got kidz 2.

TL: Cher cuz. Da dumber da better.

Another Tuhoe Lambert text mentioned needing "tough Tuhoe women to help kill the white eye".

The sources of some of these texts undermined their gravity, the defence suggested. Lambert was known as a big-noter and his grandiose statements were something of a joke to those who knew him, said Signer's lawyer Stevenson.

Burns said the intercepted communications helped put the guns and video footage and documents in context and gave insight into the motivations of the accused.

"One of the objectives, the Crown says, is murder. Intentional unlawful killing.

"The scenario document talks about sneaking down or around and then eliminating a guard. That can be killing or knocking unconscious. It suggests homicide or murder was one of the objectives."

He added in his closing: "You can't cross-examine a gun out of existence."

Reinforcing the notion of separate worlds were the gaps in both the prosecution and defence cases. The Crown failed to convince the jury that the accused were not only members of a group but an organised group that had an objective of carrying out murder or arson or other serious violent offences. But neither was the defence entirely convincing in explaining away some of the accused's behaviour, notably the training with Molotov cocktails.

It didn't need to, of course - the onus was on the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the end the outcome - guilty findings on some of the firearms charges but an inability to reach a verdict on the organised criminal group charge - was not surprising.

The two worlds spilled from the dock and the witness stand into the public gallery.

Some Tuhoe came to court from Ruatoki and Taneatua as part of a roster and others were there nearly every day.

One was a woman with a moko on her chin who was loath to give her name but said she lived in the forest and who made a point of greeting Pascoe, the SIG officer in charge.

"Morena (morning) Aaron," she would sing out sweetly.

On the first day of the trial it was: "Have you raided anyone today?"

Not today, he said, and he would usually smile when she announced loudly when she saw him: "there's my darling Aaron".

Bubbling underneath this seemingly good-natured jibing was anger and hurt. Pascoe is blamed by many for treating the entire community of Ruatoki as criminals that morning of the raids. People on their way to work were made to get out of their cars by armed men dressed in black "ninja" outfits and have their photos taken mugshot style.

Outside court the woman talked about human rights abuses by the police and how the men of Ruatoki had felt powerless to protect their wives and children.

"It was trespass, home invasion, assault with intent to injure..."

Nearing the end, Iti stood outside the Auckland High Court - described by a lawyer as "the ultimate theatre of protest"- signing autographs in the sun. For once, though, he hadn't choreographed the drama. The whole thing had been ridiculous, he said.

"Yeah, they really don't have any hardcore evidence ...

"I mean, the most scary part of it, I mean, they say it's a secret, this secret location but the only secret thing about all of this is them - cameras, secret operation."

They "bugged my bedroom, bugged my phone, bugged my kitchen, bugged my little red car". But Iti thinks he's been bugged for years.

The real target was Tuhoe, he said.

"Our culture and all of that is on trial."

The law

To a certain extent that scrutiny has rebounded on the police and the legal system which drew up the charges. In particular, the surveillance methods behind the raids have exposed some thorny legal issues.

While the police had obtained permission to intercept text messages and computer chatroom conversations, some of their surveillance on private property was illegal - and the police knew it. The Supreme Court judgment from late last year makes this clear. After the raids, the defendants challenged the use of the footage from hidden cameras placed in the bush on Tuhoe land and along the road leading into Ruatoki. Their challenge ended up before five judges in the highest court in the land.

Chief Justice Sian Elias was especially scathing of the police conduct. No law allowed the police to trespass on private land and undertake secret filming, she wrote, saying the police actions breached the Bill of Rights.

"The deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming, maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months, is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice."

Though the charges against 13 defendants were dropped, the judges, by a 3-2 majority, allowed the covert footage to be used as evidence for the Urewera 4 on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations. A clause in the Evidence Act allowed this.

The decision, however, prompted the Government to controversially rush through an urgent "patch" to the law to allow the police to secretly film on private property, claiming the decision would jeopardise up to 40 pending trials and more than 50 active investigations.

Prime Minister John Key said without this change - which would not affect the Urewera trial - some very serious criminals would not be brought to justice. It was only a short-term measure, he said, until the Search and Surveillance Bill was passed because that bill had a provision dealing with the issue of secret filming on private properties.

Civil rights experts were enraged by the Government's move, as were many in the law fraternity. The Criminal Bar Association called the patch a quick-fix and Rodney Harrison, QC, who appeared in the Supreme Court as counsel for Iti and other Operation 8 accused, wrote in a Herald opinion piece: "A quick quiz: name one other so-called democracy that would respond to a botched police operation involving deliberate and prolonged police illegality by immediately passing validating legislation and retrospective effect? No? I thought not." The controversial Search and Surveillance Bill was passed by Parliament this week, expanding the range of visual surveillance powers.

The police might argue they were also hamstrung by Parliament - the investigation exposed serious failings in the hastily drafted Terrorism Suppression Act.

Three weeks after the raids, Solicitor General David Collins ruled out laying charges under the act saying though the investigation had uncovered some "very disturbing activities", the evidence fell short of meeting the very technical requirements of the act.

He said the difficulties in applying the act, rather than any lack of evidence, were a "very significant factor" in his decision. He was scathing of the law, which he described as "unnecessarily complex, incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the police in this case".

The decision meant the police could not bring evidence of the suspects talking, gathered using listening devices.

Professor Kevin Dawkins, an Otago University expert who specialises in criminal and international public law, told the Weekend Herald he agreed with the Solicitor-General's conclusions about the Terrorism Suppression Act. When the September 11 attacks occurred in the US, there was already a bill before Parliament which was intended to implement New Zealand's treaty obligations under international anti-terrorism conventions.

Once the UN Security Council adopted mandatory and binding resolutions in the wake of 9/11, New Zealand was legally obliged to enact legislation giving effect to those resolutions, Dawkins said, so it was decided to use and adapt the existing bill. "To that extent, the legislation was drafted hurriedly with a sense of urgency."

Changes to the flawed legislation were included in a 2007 amendment but the underlying problems were not addressed, he said.

In light of the Solicitor-General's heavy criticism of the act, the Government agreed to send it to the Law Commission to consider amending it, to cover the conduct of individuals who create risk to, or public concern about, the preservation of public safety and security. However, the commission, with the agreement of former Justice Minister Simon Power, later dropped the review of the act from its work programme.

Power, who has since left politics, said yesterday he could not recall why the decision was made to not re-examine legislation that had been found so wanting by the Solicitor General. His successor, Judith Collins said yesterday the Government had no plans to resume the work.

Have you looked to find a local group?  I found that even going just a few times a year to one of the atheist meetups (usually held at a bar was really beneficial to a sense of community.

As for explaining yourself, have you read any of the atheist books or blogs? Sometimes I come across a paragraph and think, yeah, that's the way to explain it.  It's so simple, wth didn't I say it that way before? 

Today:

B: 3/4 cup (uncooked) oatmeal with maybe a tbsp of peanut butter, 1/2 c skim milk, 1/2 a honey greek yogurt, and strawberries. Black coffee. 

Two Andes mints and maybe 1/3 a diet coke around 10:30.

L: 2c Pyrex of homemade chili with prob 2 servings of veggies, beans and ground beef. A big ziploc of snap peas. Two of the bite sized Halloween chocolates. 

A few of a coworker's pretzels. 

Homemade nachos with leftover chicken and a beer.

And I drank water all day.  

This is a fairly typical day all around. The nachos were the least healthy dinner of the week and I usually don't have that much chocolate, but there's no dessert. I'm BFing and I walk probably 40 min a day. I mean, I know there are differences, I eat a good lot of meat, I drink beer. But I am by no means eating boxes of Oreos on the daily. 

I don't know what my point is because I'm not unhappy with my weight or my health (hence the nachos and beer), I just think calories in calories out is by no means the whole story.  

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/why-civil-disobedience-isnt-the-answer-in-this-case#When:13:56:50Z 

This post by an anonymous doctor suggesting "civil disobedience" from doctors in response to mandatory ultrasound laws is making the rounds, mainly being forwarded by people who are rightfully outraged by these laws, but---and I hate to say this---don't really understand the issue very well. Both actual abortion providers (using their actual names) and I tried very hard in comments to explain that this post is just missing the point, but alas, we were basically ignored. There's no indication that the doctor who wrote the post is an abortion provider, and in fact good reason to think he/she is not, and so it seems more than a little condescending to act like you have all the answers for solving the abortion crisis that the right is inducing with these laws. If you're a doctor and you really want to fight back against the right on abortion, why not start by providing abortion? Sure, that would mean that anonymity for your political views is stripped from you, but if you're going to scold others to break the law and put themselves in danger, the least you can do is set a good example by being public and providing abortion. 

The anon doctor suggests that abortion providers reject the mandatory ultrasound law by refusing to do it, and doctoring patient files to make it look it was done, if necessary. This is characterized as "civil disobedience", but it's really not in the same way that getting arrested at protests for moral but illegal trespassing is. Civil disobedience works best if it has a public component, to draw attention to your issues in hopes of changing the law. Privately doctoring files doesn't accomplish that. 

While it's always theoretically possible that doctors who do this will get away with it, the result if they get caught will not be that they generate outrage in a complacent public and get the law changed. No, they're probably just going to get their license stripped, and be unable to perform legal abortions. Which is what anti-choicers want. They would be delighted if doctors refused to obey the law, and could be stripped of their licenses. Giving the oppressor what they want most in the world isn't effective action. It is, in a word, counterproducitive. The reason anti-choicers pass laws like this is, I believe, they know that women will jump through any hoop to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, and they want to maximize the pain and suffering of the whole ordeal. Pro-choicers should take that knowledge and realize that depriving women of safe, legal providers is about the worst possible thing you could do under these circumstances. Yes, a non-consensual procedure is a horrible thing, but if you look at the choices women make, not being able to get a safe, legal abortion is more horrible. 

I pointed this out on Twitter, and some folks asked how doctors would get caught. Which points to another reason that a little knowledge is a bad thing. Someone on the outside probably assumes, for obvious reasons, that women getting abortions are pro-choice and would therefore be complicit in this subterfuge. I don't blame someone for having this assumption, but I do blame them for working off it without doing a little research first. The reality is that anti-choice women seek abortion all the time. They tend to justify it by saying that they're not like those other women---those sluts, you know---who are getting abortions. But because of this, a doctor can't trust that a patient in their office won't use them for the abortion, and then run to the police and squeal about law breaking they witnessed. Depressing, but a reality that people on the inside have learned they have to accept. 

So please, don't keep forwarding this piece. I realize it feels good and makes the reader feel they can exert control in a situation that's been set up to make everyone helpless and victimized, but it's an illusion.  

The film has received an ?R? rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which cited concerns about foul language, CBS News reports. The rating is believed to have been decided by just one vote.

In a statement, Joan Graves, Chairman of the Classification and Rating Administration at MPAA, urged people to remember that the R rating does not mean children cannot see the film, as their parents can still take them to the theater. ?The R rating is not a judgment on the value of any movie. The rating simply conveys to parents that a film has elements strong enough to require careful consideration.? she said.

But many people aren?t keen to accept the rating, including Katy Butler, a Michigan high school junior who was bullied after she came out as a lesbian in the 7th grade. Her campaign on Change.org now has more than 300,000 signatures. Celebrities including Ellen DeGeneres, Meryl Street and Justin Bieber have signed the petition, as well as 26 members of Congress.

?Over 13 million American youths will be bullied over the course of this year alone, making it the most common form of violence experienced by young people in our nation,? begins a letter from Rep. Mike Honda (D.- Calif.) to his colleagues, in support of Butler?s campaign. ?We cannot hope to control this epidemic ... without discussing tough issues publicly and bringing them to the forefront of the consciousness of the American public.?

Some have also suggested that the MPAA are the real bullies here. Kirby ***, who exposed MPAA secrets in the documentary ?This Film Is Not Yet Rated,? told E!online that because the MPAA is controlled by big companies, ?they've been bullying small independent films for decades.?

But ?Bully? both is and isn?t an independent film. It was made by Lee Hirsch, an independent documentary filmmaker, and is being distributed by the Weinstein Company, one of the biggest film studios in the business.

Butler, whose finger was broken during an assault by bullies in grade school, also sees the MPAA as bullies of sorts. On her petition, she writes that the rating is ?robbing many teenagers? of the chance to see a film that could potentially ?change their lives.?

The MPAA is trying to fight that perception, hosting a ?Bully? screening and panel discussion for D.C. area principals and educators with the filmmakers this evening.

It?s unlikely that the MPAA will reverse its rating decision, however. The film already went through the appeals process once and the ?R? rating was upheld. There is no process for a second appeal to ratings, the MPAA said. The rating can only change if the filmmakers submit a new version to be rated.

Watch the preview of ?Bully? below:

 http://www.hermespurseforum.com/index.php/2012/03/22/jessica-simpsons-festive-birkin/jessicasimpson/

I have seen it all, people.  Seen it all.   Who cares if she's pregnant if she is wearing rubber lace up boot/sneakers.

I feel like she is kinda the PC&E patron saint these days! 

New York (CNN) -- The U.S. soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians engaged in fraud during his career as a financial adviser and skipped out on paying nearly $1.5 million to an elderly client, according to financial records.

Before joining the military in late 2001, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of multiple instances of securities fraud. That includes a May 2000 complaint alleging Bales bilked over $600,000 from an elderly Ohio couple's retirement fund, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an independent securities regulator.

"We were taken advantage of," said Gary Liebschner, a former client of Bales. "He took an awful lot of money from us that he turned into commissions for himself."

Liebschner said when photos first began to surface of Bales, he didn't recognize him. But when he saw a high school photo of Bales, he realized the suspect in the Afghanistan killings was his former broker.

Bales served as Liebschner's financial adviser and stockbroker from mid-1998 to late 1999 and defrauded the Ohio senior citizen out of at least $637,000, according to FINRA records.

"He didn't pay any of what was owed to us," said Liebschner.

"[Bales'] financial problems have nothing to do with this, PERIOD," said John Henry Browne, Bales' attorney, in an e-mail response to a request for comment about the securities complaints.

The arbitration conducted by FINRA in 2003 found Bales jointly responsible for paying Liebschner $1,490,875 in damages and legal fees, excluding interest, according to the securities regulator's records.

Bales did not appear at the dispute resolution hearing, and Ohio and FINRA records indicate he never paid any of the amount for which he was found liable.

Michael Patterson Inc., the now-shuttered firm that employed Bales, and the firm's founder, Michael Patterson, were also found responsible for paying the award. Both the firm and Patterson never paid any of the restitution either, according to Liebschner. Michael Patterson Inc. was barred from dealing securities in Ohio, according to the state's Commerce Department.

Multiple voice messages left by CNN for Michael Patterson were not returned.

The Securities Investor Protection Corporation, a federally mandated corporation, did award Liebschner a small amount of reparations, he said. SIPC could not disclose any settlement details.

"We were able to get a few thousand dollars from SIPC, nowhere near the arbitration award," said Liebschner. "Not even close."

Liebschner, a lifelong epileptic, was admitted to Ohio State University Hospital in November 1998 for seizures and remained bedridden for six months after his liver failed. It was during that time Liebschner believes Bales swindled him.

"He took advantage of the fact that I was in the hospital, said Liebschner. "I didn't feel I was a dummy. I have two master's degrees. But at the time I couldn't walk, talk, or swallow."

Liebschner said that by the time he returned from the hospital, mail containing the status of his individual retirement account had piled up in a cardboard box his wife, Janet, had set aside. After opening the letters, Liebschner discovered that Bales had sold off his AT&T and Lucent shares, trading them for penny stocks. His account had been reduced to $30,000 from roughly $1 million, Liebschner said.

"He traded away my AT&T shares, probably worth about $75 a share, that I had saved up since the early '60s," said Liebschner, a former AT&T employee.

The Ohio couple was never able to locate Bales after filing their formal complaint against him, making it very difficult to take him to court. Leibschner said his attorney at the time, Earle R. Frost Jr., advised him not to press forward with a criminal case.

"We heard he was in the Bahamas and Florida, and I think he was in a couple different cities here in Ohio," Liebschner said. "He seemed pretty good at the start, but he was pretty flashy, too -- a bit arrogant. He led on like he was a big dealer, and could do just about anything that you wanted him to do."

According to regulatory records, Bales moved around between several different brokerages during his five years as a securities broker, never settling in for long at any of them.

Three years after the Liebschners' complaint was filed, a FINRA arbitrator found that Bales engaged in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorized trading, unsuitable investments and churning. The latter occurs when a broker engages in excessive trading of securities in a customer's account primarily to generate commissions that only benefit the broker. He was ordered to pay Liebschner $637,000 as compensatory damages plus interest and another $637,000 in punitive damages.

The arbitrator also found Bales and the company responsible for paying $216,500 in attorneys' fees and a filing fee.

FINRA, which was formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers, is a private, nongovernmental securities regulator.

The U.S. government's regulatory arm is the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under FINRA rules, the securities regulator can suspend or cancel the registration of a broker or brokerage firm if that party does not comply with an arbitration award. FINRA does not take any further action to recover awards.

FINRA would not disclose whether Bales' broker license was suspended, but Bales was last registered with FINRA in December of 2000, seven months after the Liebschner dispute was filed. He never returned to trading securities, according to FINRA records.

A separate complaint of unauthorized bond trading was filed against Bales by an Ohio woman on June 9, 2000, according to an Ohio Commerce Department report. In the report, Bales claims the illegal trading occurred after he left Michael Patterson Inc.

"I wouldn't have expected him to do that," said Liebschner when asked about the recent murder allegations. "But he is not a good person, in my opinion."

Since then, I've gone from barely being able to run 10 min at a stretch to running at an 11 minute mile pace for 30 minutes.  So I'm pretty pleased with that, even if I was running a 8-9 minute mile before B was conceived.

My question for runners is... What's next? I'm kinda eyeing up a race in June to train for. It's either a 4 or 10 mile run - my choice. I know H and my sister will do the 10 miles. So do I try and improve duration or do I focus on pace? And how would I do either. Frankly, I'm not a runner by passion, though I'm getting there. I like the achievement I've seen over the last few weeks. It's very motivating. I just have no idea where to go from here.