bhutan travel

Friday, March 29, 2013

Sarah Chalke: My Son Had Kawasaki Disease

"You present with all these symptoms, you get a lot of repeated misdiagnoses, you keep getting sent home [by doctors]," Chalke, 36, tells TVLine.

Source: http://feeds.celebritybabies.com/~r/celebrity-babies/~3/kjx5b6z5DPM/

ferris state hockey mary poppins john derbyshire kinkade thomas kinkade paintings easter bunny navy jet crash virginia beach

Powerball winner's outstanding debt: child support

By Dave Warner

(Reuters) - The winner of one of the biggest Powerball jackpots of all time owes $29,000 in overdue child support payments, the Passaic County, New Jersey, sheriff's office said on Thursday.

Pedro Quezada, 44, a county resident who is married and the father of five children ages 5 to 23, was the sole winner of a $338 million jackpot on Saturday.

Because he chose the lump sum option, instead of annual payments over 30 years, he will actually receive $211 million, lottery officials said on Thursday. Officials said that is the third-largest lump sum payment in Powerball history.

The lottery will take out a total of 28 percent in federal and state taxes, which would leave Quezada, who until this week was the owner of a bodega in Passaic, New Jersey, with about $152 million.

His Apple Deli & Grocery now has a "for sale" sign on the door. Quezada told reporters on Tuesday that the business is now closed.

Passaic County Sheriff Richard Berdnik said in a statement that his office is attempting to notify Quezada about the support payment. He said that generally the state's lottery division would pay the judgment out of the winnings.

"Like everyone else, until this warrant is satisfied, Mr. Quezada is subject to potential arrest," the statement said.

The child support issue dates back to 2009, according to local media reports.

Quezada could not be reached for comment.

(Editing by Barbara Goldberg; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/powerball-jackpot-winner-owes-29-000-child-support-163424715.html

wal mart happy thanksgiving Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 Turkey Cooking Times Butterball mashed potatoes Apple Black Friday

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Family Home and Life: Giveaways!

The current giveaways post are:

Please click one each one to see how to enter! All three close on March 31 with the winners announced on Monday April 1st.?

Source: http://www.familyhomeandlife.com/2013/03/giveaways.html

bret michaels bret michaels pekingese tcu football westminster bonnaroo 2012 lineup twisted metal

Damon Lindelof Explains His 'Prometheus 2' Absence

After a particularly nasty report about the current status of "Prometheus 2," Damon Lindelof clarified why he decided to not writer the sequel to the "Alien" prequel. Also, learn about the long lost G.I. Joes in today's Dailies! » Damon Lindelof addresses "Prometheus 2" rumors [/Film] » The Lost G.I. Joes [Moviefone] » "You're Next" [...]

Source: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2013/03/27/damon-lindelof-prometheus-2/

slow jam the news madden cover obama slow jams the news metta world peace ron artest gladys knight private practice

A boost for gay marriage: Justices question US law

This artist rendering shows Roberta Kaplan, attorney for plaintiff Edith Windsor, addressing the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013, as the court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA). Justices, from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)

Plaintiff Edith Windsor,of New York, waves to supporters in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013, after the court heard arguments on her Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second day of gay marriage cases, turned Wednesday to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Kevin Coyne of Washington holds flags in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second day of gay marriage cases, turned Wednesday to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Gabriela Fore, 6, of Upper Darby Pa., holds a sign with her moms in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013, as the court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In the second of back-to-back gay marriage case, the Supreme Court is turning to a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Wyatt Tan, left and Mark Nomadiou, both of New York City, kiss in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013, prior to the start of a court hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In the second of back-to-back gay marriage cases, the Supreme Court is turning to a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Concluding two days of intense debate, the Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it could give a boost to same-sex marriage by striking down the federal law that denies legally married gay spouses a wide range of benefits offered to other couples.

As the court wrapped up its remarkable arguments over gay marriage in America, a majority of the justices indicated they will invalidate part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act ? if they can get past procedural problems similar to those that appeared to mark Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Since the federal law was enacted in 1996, nine states and the District of Columbia have made it legal for gays and lesbians to marry. Same-sex unions also were legal in California for nearly five months in 2008 before the Proposition 8 ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more-liberal justices in raising questions Wednesday about a provision that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

It affects more than 1,100 statutes in which marital status is relevant, dealing with tax breaks for married couples, Social Security survivor benefits and, for federal employees, health insurance and leave to care for spouses.

Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. When so many federal statutes are affected, "which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody," Kennedy said.

Other justices said the law creates what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called two classes of marriage, full and "skim-milk marriage."

If the court does strike down part of DOMA, it would represent a victory for gay rights advocates. But it would be something short of the endorsement of gay marriage nationwide that some envisioned when the justices agreed in December to hear the federal case and the challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Still, the tenor of the arguments over two days reflected how quickly attitudes have changed since large majorities in Congress passed the federal DOMA in 1996 and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 2011, President Barack Obama abandoned the legal defense of the law in the face of several lawsuits, and last year Obama endorsed gay marriage. Clinton, too, has voiced regret for signing the law and now supports allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

In 1996, the House of Representatives' report on the legislation explained that one of its purposes was "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." Justice Elena Kagan read those words in the courtroom Wednesday, evoking a reaction from the audience that sounded like a cross between a gasp and nervous laughter.

Kagan's quotation gave lawyer Paul Clement, representing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that has taken up defense of the law in place of the administration, some uncomfortable moments at the lectern.

"Does the House report say that? Of course, the House report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute," Clement said. But he said the more relevant question is whether Congress had "any rational basis for the statute." He supplied one: the federal government's interest in treating same-sex couples the same no matter where they live.

Clement said the government does not want military families "to resist transfer from West Point to Fort Sill because they're going to lose their benefits." The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal, and Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, where gay marriages are not legal.

Opposing Clement was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Donald Verrilli, who said the provision of DOMA at issue, Section 3, impermissibly discriminates against gay people.

"I think it's time for the court to recognize that this discrimination, excluding lawfully married gay and lesbian couples from federal benefits, cannot be reconciled with our fundamental commitment to equal treatment under law," Verrilli said.

Both Verrilli and Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer for Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old New York woman who sued over DOMA, told the court that views about gay people and marriage have shifted dramatically since 1996 when the law was approved.

"Why are you so confident in that judgment? How many states permit gay couples to marry?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked Kaplan.

Nine, she said.

"So there's been a sea change between now and 1996," Scalia said, doubtfully.

But Chief Justice John Roberts jumped on the idea of a rapid shift in opinion to suggest that perhaps gays and lesbians do not need special protection from the court.

"As far as I can tell, political leaders are falling all over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts said.

The justices stepped into the dispute after lower federal courts ruled against the measure.

The DOMA argument followed Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case in which the justices indicated they might avoid a major national ruling on whether America's gays and lesbians have a right to marry. Even without a significant ruling, the court appeared headed for a resolution that would mean the resumption of gay and lesbian weddings in California.

Supreme Court arguments are the most visible part of the justices' consideration of the cases before them, but they often play a relatively small role in rulings compared to the mountain of legal briefs that are filed in the weeks leading up to the public sessions.

Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down DOMA's Section 3, which defines marriage. In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it.

The change in position led the court to consider the related questions of whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case.

Roberts and Scalia seemed most interested in this sort of outcome, and the chief justice offered perhaps the most pointed comment of the day when he wondered why Obama continues to enforce a law he believes is unconstitutional.

"I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, 'Oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice,'" Roberts said.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get the $363,000 estate tax refund for which she sued because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. Spyer, who suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years, died in 2009 and left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero. Windsor was in court Wednesday, where she received a hug from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi before the argument started.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Reflecting the high interest in the cases, the court released an audio recording of Wednesday's argument, just as it did Tuesday for that day's proceedings.

Wednesday's audio can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/d626ybg . Tuesday's is at: http://tinyurl.com/dxefy2a .

A somewhat smaller crowd gathered outside the court Wednesday, mainly gay marriage supporters who held American and rainbow flags. "Two, four, six, eight, we do not discriminate," a group chanted at one point. "If this isn't the time, when is the time? When does equality come into play?" asked Laura Scott, 43, of Columbia, Md.

Wednesday's case is U.S. v. Windsor, 12-307.

___

Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/shermancourt

Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/jessicagresko

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2013-03-27-Supreme%20Court-Gay%20Marriage/id-ad351d3e7f26499a8b00473b559ba9c2

smash Richard III Superbowl Commercials 2013 irs Grammy nominations 2013 Lynsi Torres Fall Out Boy

Congressman wants to telecommute

For the second time, a member of Congress is proposing rule changes that would let lawmakers telecommute to Washington and pass laws without meeting face to face. But is that in the best interests of voters?

Joint_Session_of_Congress The idea of a ?virtual Congress? isn?t new and isn?t likely to get a lot of support in the current Congress, but it does raise some interesting issues.

New Mexico Representative Steve Pearce introduced the idea back in November 2010. His latest resolution argues that that a remote Congress is better for citizens, because it puts elected representatives closer to constituents.

Pearce?s resolution ?directs the Committee on House Administration to establish procedures and rules for the consideration of legislation by Members of Congress in a virtual setting.?

In short, the House of Representatives would be able to teleconference and video conference and ?implement hearings, conduct debate, meet, and vote? under Pearce?s plan.

Pearce?s argument also states that a remote Congress would save taxpayers money by minimizing travel costs, and prevent evildoers who might disrupt the government with a terrorist attack on Capitol Hill by spreading members across the country.

In a 2010 policy document, Pearce provided more details about the plan. For starters, the House wouldn?t be 100 percent virtual, which would keep the proposal from conflicting with constitutional requirements for it to meet in person in Washington.

?Members of Congress would report to Washington for debate and votes on critical bills and bills that pass a certain threshold of spending. Other occasions that warrant they be present in person would be to attend the annual State of the Union or receive addresses by foreign heads of state and other significant events,? he said in 2010.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires that if the House or Senate wants to meet in session outside of the Capitol, it needs permission from the other chamber.

The 20th Amendment also requires that Congress ?shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.?

Pearce also states that a remote Congress would insulate members from lobbyists in Washington, and make representatives directly responsible to voters.

?Regular, everyday citizens have little-to-no-input as legislation moves through the subcommittees, full committees or floor debate. That is a problem that needs resolution,? Pearce said in 2010.

Last week, he told The Hill that ?Keeping legislators closer to the people we represent would pull back Washington?s curtain and allow constituents to see and feel, first-hand, their government at work.?

However, critics of the current Congress and its underachieving predecessor point to the constant travel to and from Washington by politicians as a leading cause of gridlock.

Labeled ?The Commuter Congress,? most lawmakers use long weekends to travel home and see family members and constituents. Business on Capitol Hill is often limited to three or four days a week.

For example, in the current calendar for the 113th Congress, the House meets four days a week for 26 weeks in the year; its members are never scheduled to work a five-day week. The House will work on 14 Fridays, out of 52, this year.

Former Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle have talked about the lack of personal contact outside of work between Congress members as a direct factor in political gridlock.

?I know many times I would look up on TV and I would see somebody and then the name would come up and it would say ?member of Congress? and I?d go ?I don?t even know who that is,?? former congressman Connie Mack told CNN in January 2013.

A 2011 Newsweek article recounted some tales from prior sessions of Congress, where politicians and their families spent a lot of time with each other outside of the Capitol?and regardless of political affiliation.

?Real legislating?the compromises and deal making that distinguish politics from posturing?happens only among people who know and respect each other,? said author Lisa Miller.

Miller also pointed out two other realities: Some politicians don?t want to be seen as part of the Washington establishment, and it?s easier for congressional members to raise election funds at home.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, much compromise was achieved when the delegates met socially after their contentious sessions inside what is now known as Independence Hall. Many also stayed in the same rooming houses. The resulting document was the U.S. Constitution, which set up Congress along with other essential institutions of government.

Scott Bomboy is editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories
Four amendments that almost made it into the Constitution
Presidential Madness: Favorite historical secretary of state
Obamacare? biggest challenge may be coming this fall
The court, marriage and high expectations

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

N. Korea puts artillery forces at top combat posture

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) ? North Korea's military warned Tuesday that its artillery and rocket forces are at their highest-level combat posture in the latest in a string of bellicose threats aimed at South Korea and the United States.

The announcement came as South Koreans marked the third anniversary of the sinking of a warship in which 46 South Korean sailors died. Seoul says the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, while the North denies involvement.

Seoul's Defense Ministry said Tuesday it hasn't seen any suspicious North Korean military activity and that officials are analyzing the North's warning. Analysts say a direct North Korean attack is extremely unlikely, especially during joint U.S.-South Korean military drills that end April 30, though there's some worry about a provocation after the training wraps up.

The rival Koreas have had several bloody naval skirmishes in disputed Yellow Sea waters since 1999. In November 2010, a North Korean artillery strike on a South Korean island killed two marines and two civilians.

North Korea, angry over routine U.S.-South Korean drills and recent U.N. sanctions punishing it for its Feb. 12 nuclear test, has vowed to launch a nuclear strike against the United States and repeated its nearly two-decade-old threat to reduce Seoul to a "sea of fire." Despite the rhetoric, outside weapons analysts have seen no proof that North Korea has mastered the technology needed to build a warhead small enough to mount on a missile.

On Tuesday, the North Korean army's Supreme Command said it will take "practical military action" to protect national sovereignty and its leadership in response to what it called U.S. and South Korean plots to attack.

The statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, cited the participation of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in South Korea-U.S. drills.

North Korea's field artillery forces ? including strategic rocket and long-range artillery units that are "assigned to strike bases of the U.S. imperialist aggressor troops in the U.S. mainland and on Hawaii and Guam and other operational zones in the Pacific as well as all the enemy targets in South Korea and its vicinity" ? will be placed on "the highest alert from this moment," the statement said.

Pentagon press secretary George Little said the threat would only further isolate North Korea.

"North Korea's bellicose rhetoric and threats follow a well-worn pattern designed to raise tensions and intimidate others," Little said. He said there have been three flights by U.S. B-52 bombers during the recent military drills with South Korea.

The North's recent threats are seen partly as efforts to strengthen internal loyalty to young leader Kim Jong Un and to build up his military credentials.

Kim "needs to show he has the guts. The best way to do that is to use the military might that he commands," said Lee Yoon-gyu, a North Korea expert at Korea National Defense University in Seoul. "This paves the way for greater praise for him if North Korea makes a provocation later and claims victory."

South Korean conservative activists burn cutout pictures of North Korean national founder the late Kim Il Sung, right, and late leader Kim Jong Il during a rally to mark the third anniversary of the ... more? South Korean conservative activists burn cutout pictures of North Korean national founder the late Kim Il Sung, right, and late leader Kim Jong Il during a rally to mark the third anniversary of the sinking of South Korean naval ship "Cheonan" which killed 46 South Korean sailors, in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, March 26, 2013. An explosion ripped apart the 1,200-ton warship, killing 46 sailors near the maritime border with North Korea in 2010. A banner reads: "Bomb at statue of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung." (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon) less? Kim will eventually be compelled to do "something provocative to prove the threats weren't empty," Lee said.

Meanwhile, websites and organizations run by North Korean defectors in South Korea said they suffered cyberattacks on Tuesday, one week after computer systems at some South Korean banks and TV networks were widely disrupted.

Daily NK, which posts news about North Korea, said it experienced a cyperattack, and South Korea's Yonhap news agency said Free North Korea Radio also was attacked.

Yonhap said a computer network used by seven local governments was also briefly attacked, as was a network belonging to broadcaster YTN.

Authorities have not confirmed who was behind last week's cyberattack but suspect North Korea.

At a ceremony marking the third anniversary of the warship sinking, new South Korean President Park Geun-hye urged the North again to abandon its nuclear weapons program. "Focusing its national strength on the development of nuclear weapons while its people are suffering starvation ... will only bring international isolation to themselves," Park said in a televised speech at a national cemetery south of Seoul where the 46 sailors are buried.

___

Associated Press writers Sam Kim in Seoul and Lolita Baldor in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/nkorea-puts-artillery-forces-top-combat-posture-095818312.html

Kyla Ross Ryan Lochte Montenegro Olympic Games Dana Vollmer phillies phillies