Flu Attack! How A Virus Invades Your Body

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114075029&ps=cprs

by Robert Krulwich


It starts very simply. A virus, just one, latches on to one of your cells and fools that cell into making lots more. Lots, lots more, like a million new viruses. This animation shows you how viruses trick healthy cells to join the dark side

October 23, 2009

David Bolinsky and his team at XVIVO designed this animation for a research company called Zirus (and we thank Zirus for letting us play with their pictures). Bolinsky says what you see in the video actually happens much, much faster in real life — in a fraction of a fraction of a second. So this is a very slow motion version of cellular activity.

And for those of you who were wondering, yes, the designers did add color. Proteins, DNA, organelles, and the teeny things inside a human cell are so small, and the insides of cells are so dark, that for all practical purposes, they are colorless.

So the copying molecule isn't really pink. But once you decide to colorize, pink is just as accurate as maroon or yellow.

One Last Thing

In our video we ask, if a flu virus inside your body can multiply by the millions within seconds, why don't we topple over and die quickly?

Here's a better, longer answer than the one in the video. First, some new viruses get caught in mucus and other fluids inside your body and are destroyed. Other viruses get expelled in coughs and sneezes. Second, lots of those new viruses are lemons. They don't work that well. Some don't have the right "keys" to invade healthy cells so they can't spread the infection. And third, as the animation shows, your immune system is busy attacking the viruses whenever and wherever possible.

That is why most of the time, after a struggle (when you get a fever and need to lie down), your immune system rebounds, and, in time, so do you.

09 11 28


Statement from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on today's IAEA vote

Today's overwhelming vote at the IAEA's Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program. It underscores broad consensus in calling upon Iran to live up to its international obligations and offer transparency in its nuclear program. It also underscores a commitment to strengthen the rules of the international system, and to support the ability of the IAEA and UN Security Council to enforce the rules of the road, and to hold Iran accountable to those rules. Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.

The United States has strongly supported the Director General's positive proposal to provide Iran fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor - a proposal intended to help meet the medical and humanitarian needs of the Iranian people while building confidence in Iran's intentions. The United States has recognized Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy and remains willing to engage Iran to work toward a diplomatic solution to the concerns about its nuclear program, if - and only if - Iran chooses such a course. To date, Iran has refused a follow-on meeting to the October 1 meeting with the P5+1 countries if its nuclear program is included on the agenda. Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out. If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences.

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

NPR Morning Edition
November 27, 2009




Climate Change Is Victim Of 'Tragedy Of The Commons'
STEVE INSKEEP, host:


Now, the jockeying between China, the U.S. and other nations underlines a problem in fighting greenhouse emissions. It’s a challenge world leaders will face when they meet next month to negotiate over those emissions. Every nation wants to act in its own interest but that may not be the same as the global interest. Economists call this problem the tragedy of the commons.


To explain that phrase, we turn to NPR’s David Kestenbaum of our Planet Money team.

DAVID KESTENBAUM: Fishing is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons problem. The fish are a common resource, so it makes sense to catch as many fish as you can. If you don’t, someone else will. As a result, we run out of fish. Everyone makes a rational decision but in the end we all lose. The conventional thinking used to be that people couldn’t solve tragedy of the commons problems on their own. Some governing body had to step in and set the rules, force everyone to live by them. And when it comes to climate change, there is no global government. It’s like the fishermen trying to fix things on their own.

Elinor Ostrom just won the Noble Prize in economics.

Ms. ELINOR OSTROM (Nobel Laureate): Let’s face it. This is much tougher, much, much, much, much, much tougher than many of the inshore fisheries and community action things. But I don’t think we want to say it's impossible.

KESTENBAUM: Elinor Ostrom got the Nobel for her work showing that this category of problem could be solved. Unfortunately, most of the success stories happen with smaller groups of people, not the entire planet. When you think about it, the tragedy of the commons problems are strange things. Everyone agrees it's in their collective, best interest to do something, but they just can't get there.

Professor SCOTT BARRETT (Columbia University): When I teach this subject, I play games with my students and I especially like playing games with playing cards.

KESTENBAUM: This is Scott Barrett, Professor of Natural Resource Economics at Columbia University. In one game, Barrett takes a group of people, gives each person two cards - one is red, one is black, and he tells them they're going to have a choice. They can turn in the red card or the black card and no one will know which they did. Also, there's money at stake. Everyone in the room will get one dollar for every red card that gets turned in. But, he tells them, if they don't do that, if they hold onto their red card, they still get that money, plus an additional $5 for their red card.

So from a kind of global wealth perspective, it makes sense for everyone to turn in their red cards. If you've got 50 people in the room, everyone turns in their cards, everyone gets $50.

Mr. BARRETT: Handing in your red card, that's a metaphor for reducing your greenhouse gas emissions, and it's usually between a third and two-thirds of the people will do it. Now, that makes the problem seem not so serious.

KESTENBAUM: But you really need global cooperation for climate change. So Barrett lets the students negotiate and try again.

Mr. BARRETT: Someone in the room will say, wait a minute, we're all better off if we all hand in our red cards, so let's all hand them in. And then the others will say, yes, that makes sense.

KESTENBAUM: But when they play again and count up the cards, they find some people turned in their black cards instead. In the following round, people are angry and even more turn in black cards.

Mr. BARRETT: And if you play the game long enough, the level of cooperation will start to fall, and this is a hypothetical game. The evidence is pretty strong when you play this with real money, the cooperation is even weaker.

KESTENBAUM: And you've tried this with actual - with climate negotiators?

Mr. BARRETT: I've tried it with diplomats, people who are only economists, I've done it with people who are only from West Africa. I've done it for people who are - I've done it so many different times with so many different groups.

KESTENBAUM: This does not mean a climate change treaty is impossible, but a lot of things make it hard: countries disagree on how to divide up the pain of reducing emissions, there needs to be some way to monitor whether everyone is doing what they promised, and some way to punish them if they don't.

Mr. BARRETT: This problem in particular, climate change, is the hardest the world has ever had to confront.

KESTENBAUM: So if you've ever wondered why the countries of the world can't just sit down and sign a darn climate treaty, this is why.

Richard Smith has negotiated a host of treaties for the U.S. and he said yes, tragedy of the commons problems are tough. That's why we have negotiators.

Mr. RICHARD SMITH (Treaty Negotiator): I find them solvable. I think a lot of the negotiations that I've been involved in could be described as a tragedy of the commons thing.

KESTENBAUM: Smith was giving a talk about a book he just wrote laying out eight success stories: international agreements dealing with ozone, fishing, and acid rain. Another diplomat there who'd worked on climate change praised the book, but he said he could write a book the same size about the failures.

David Kestenbaum, NPR News.
--------------



pardon turkey "courage"



You know, there are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office. And then there are moments like this -- (laughter) -- where I pardon a turkey and send it to Disneyland. (Laughter.) But every single day, I am thankful for the extraordinary responsibility that the American people have placed in me. I am humbled by the privilege that it is to serve them, and the tremendous honor it is to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the finest military in the world -- and I want to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to every service member at home or in harm's way. We're proud of you and we are thinking of you and we're praying for you.



"what will become of us, when we die away from here?

therefore, let a man here learn

Mr. Obama, whenever talk about environmental issue, talks about job. not mentioning global warming nor climate change.

from weathercase to envirocast



call from Sun






애를 쓰면 자기 긍정이 없어지고
노력을 안 하면 자기 만족이 없고

생긴대로 살아라
그것이 괴로운 줄 알면, 노력을 하겠지


community group

I was detail oriented guy, time to get many things off the plate. hung up with many things.


Simple Justice: Time for the US to Support the ICC

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/simple-justice-time-for-us-to-join-icc.php

JURIST Contributing Editor David Crane of Syracuse College of Law and Guest Columnist Leila Sadat of the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law say that after the failure of American legislative and diplomatic initiatives opposing the International Criminal Court, the time has come for the US to support and cooperate with the ICC...

For the past ten months, in a modest courtroom in The Hague, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been conducting its first trial. The accused, Thomas Lubanga, is charged with forcing children to fight as soldiers in the simmering wars that have consumed central Africa in recent years. Although these crimes are all too common, it is remarkably uncommon for a warlord like Lubanga to be facing justice. This trial, therefore, represents a singular triumph for the international justice system and for the ICC, the world’s first permanent court created to try persons accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC’s progress from a start-up international court in 2002 to a fully functioning court today, conducting four wide-ranging investigations of atrocities in African countries that would otherwise escape scrutiny, might seem like something that the US would naturally support. After all, this country was founded on the rule of law, and the US has played a central role in the creation of every international court from Nuremberg through the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Opinion polls, moreover, have consistently shown that a clear majority of Americans support the ICC.

Since the ICC’s creation, however, US policy toward the ICC has been driven by hysteria and misinformation. Wild-eyed opponents of the Court predicted that the ICC would be an anti-American monster, and before the Court ever had a chance to do anything, Congress enacted anti-ICC legislation and the Bush administration launched a global diplomatic campaign against the ICC. During President Bush’s second term, when it became apparent that the ICC was a responsible judicial institution, some of the more heated anti-ICC rhetoric faded away, and US policy gradually evolved in the direction of less overt hostility and even quiet cooperation at times, although the anti-ICC policy remained unchanged throughout.

Since President Obama took office, there has been no formal change in policy as of yet, thus the US remains on the outside looking in. There are, however, signs of a thaw. Secretary of State Clinton said on her recent trip to Africa that it was her “great regret” that the US was not an ICC member. And in March 2009, following the ICC’s arrest warrant for Sudan’s President, the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, stated that “[t]he United States supports the International Criminal Court’s actions to hold accountable those responsible for the heinous crimes in Darfur”

The time has come for the US to support and cooperate with the ICC. The legislative and diplomatic initiatives against the ICC have failed and have only served to isolate the US, as more and more countries join the ICC (the Czech Republic recently became the 110th member of the ICC). There is added urgency for US participation due to the ICC Review Conference to be held next year in Uganda. This meeting’s purpose is to take stock in the progress of the court, and evaluate mechanisms to help the Court function more efficiently. A major agenda item is settling on a workable definition of the crime of aggression, whether the ICC should exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression particularly what will trigger that jurisdiction over this inherently political crime.

US membership in the ICC is a long-term goal of many of us in the United States, but we recognize that ratification of the Rome Statute is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. The time is right, though, for a new ICC policy embracing the following elements:

First, no more empty chairs: taking part in ICC meetings should be an obvious step. The US may participate as a nonvoting observer in the intergovernmental meetings of the ICC. Other countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute, such as Russia and Israel, attend and participate.

Second, the US should continue to support the ICC’s investigations and operations by sharing intelligence and providing resources. The US has repeatedly called upon other countries to provide support for the ICC’s Darfur investigations and prosecutions.

Finally, engaging with the ICC will require the US to repeal or amend the harmful anti-ICC legislation that remains on the books. Appropriate legislation should begin as soon as an ICC policy is in place.

Americans are justly proud of this country’s commitment to the rule of law and to basic principles of justice. The past several years has brought that commitment into question by the world community. We must reclaim this heritage by rejecting the anti-ICC policies of recent years and embracing a new spirit of cooperation and support for this new and exciting institution. The principles the US helped draft at Nuremberg demand it.

The Section for International Law of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the ABA writ large have both been long term advocates of better support to the ICC. The Section for International Law has formed a blue-ribbon task force to assist the Assembly of States Parties and the new US administration in developing a dialog as the ASP begins to prepare for the Plenary Session in Kampala, Uganda in the late spring of 2010. The goal of this task force is to ensure that the US has an ability to work with the ASP on the key issues that the Plenary Session will consider next year and to develop mechanisms for communication, building mutual trust and respect. As members of that task force our hope is to see an engaged American diplomat sitting at the table in Kampala. The time is right to move forward together in seeking justice around the world for victims of atrocity.


David M. Crane is a Professor at Syracuse University College of Law and former founding Chief Prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunal in West Africa called the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2002-2005. Leila Sadat is Henry H. Oberschelp Professor of Law and Director of the Harris World Law Institute at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law.

----------------------------------------------------------------
.
.

why oppose ICC ?
politically motivated
US deploys its soldiers around the world
.
what US is trying to do are:

UN Security Council Filter - the council is empowered to veto to prosecute a case before ICC
criticism - politicize , ICC is supposed to be judicial

bilateral treaty with ICC parties - you do not turn over US military or civilian (--> ? is it considered as reservation which is not allowed in ICC regime?)

not much point in the efforts to kill the ICC. only leading US to be isolated. for example, Afghan is ICC party. US personnel committed a crime regulated by Rome statute in Afghan territory. then ICC has jurisdiction over the US personnel.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A (Partially) Dissenting View on the US “Observing” the ICC Review Conference

Posted: 20 Nov 2009 10:54 PM PST

by Kevin Jon Heller

When I critique the US’s refusal to join the ICC in my international criminal law class, I make sure to emphasize not only that the US has traditionally played a very positive role in ICL — from Nuremberg to the SCSL — but also that the Rome Statute would be considerably worse but for the input of the American representatives at PrepCom and the Rome Conference. Like many others, therefore, I am encouraged by the US’s recent decision to observe the Review Conference in 2010. I don’t expect the US to join the ICC in the near future (if ever). But increased US engagement with the Court can have significant benefits for both parties.

That said, it is important to emphasize that the US’s new “Observer” status is not without its drawbacks. The US has not abandoned its basic objections to the ICC — the independent prosecutor, automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party, no formal Security Council control over the ICC’s docket, etc. — despite the fact that they are non-starters for the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). Insofar as it renews its objections at the Review Conference, therefore, US participation threatens to delay, and perhaps actually impede, negotiations.

Indeed, the US is already up to its old tricks. Consider what Stephen Rapp, the US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, had to say about the crime of aggression in his recent address to the ASP — his only substantive comment:

Having been absent from previous rounds of these meetings, much of what we will do here is listen and learn. Our presence at this meeting, and the contacts that our delegates will seek with as many of you as possible, reflects our interest in gaining a better understanding of the issues being considered here and the workings of the Court.

That said, I would be remiss not to share with you my country’s concerns about an issue pending before this body to which we attach particular importance: the definition of the crime of aggression, which is to be addressed at the Review Conference in Kampala next year. The United States has well-known views on the crime of aggression, which reflect the specific role and responsibilities entrusted to the Security Council by the UN Charter in responding to aggression or its threat, as well as concerns about the way the draft definition itself has been framed. Our view has been and remains that, should the Rome Statute be amended to include a defined crime of aggression, jurisdiction should follow a Security Council determination that aggression has occurred.

Although we respect the hard work that has been done in this area by the Assembly of States Parties, we also share the concern that many of you have expressed about the need to address this issue, above all, with extreme care, and the Court itself has an interest in not being drawn into a political thicket that could threaten its perceived impartiality.

The irony of this statement is difficult to miss: the US’s idea of a “non-political” definition of the crime of aggression is one in which the US has complete control over the ICC’s ability to prosecute the crime by virtue of its permanent veto. That is an unacceptable position, one that echoes the US’s original demand that the ICC not have jurisdiction over any situation that the Security Council had on its agenda. And it is particularly unacceptable given that, as Rapp admits, the US has not participated in the ASP’s seven years of negotiations over the crime of aggression. It is still not clear what the jurisdictional trigger of the crime will look like — options range from the ICC being able to initiate a prosecution of its own accord to requiring the ICJ to determine that an act of aggression has occurred — but it is clear that it will not look like what the US wants. Any US involvement in the negotiations, therefore, can only be counterproductive.

I’m delighted that the US has taken Observer status. But we should not kid ourselves — if the US does more than observe, its participation may well threaten the work of the Review Conference.






Amending the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court

The Eighth Session of the Assembly of Parties to the Rome Statute will take place from November 18 to November 26. The Agenda and many of the relevant documents have been posted to the Session’s website. One of the critical activities that will be discussed at this session is the upcoming Review Conference. Under Article 123 of the Statute, seven years after the Statute has entered into force, the Secretary-General is to convene a Review Conference to consider amendments to the Statute. The Review Conference is to take place in Kampala, Uganda from the 31st of May until the 11th of June, 2010.

In preparation for the Review Conference, the proposed amendments have been collected and can be found in this document. In addition to a proposal to define the as-of-yet undefined crime of aggression, proposals seek to create a number of new crimes, in particular terrorism and international drug trafficking. There are also proposals to add to the content of the an existing crime, War Crimes, by adding 1) the employing or threatening to employ nuclear weapons, 2) the use of poisons or poisoned weapons, the use of chemical, biological, or other such agents, and 3) the use of expanding or flattening weapons.

The Session should be quite interesting.


http://anthonyclarkarend.com/

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

move toward incorporating international humanitarian law into ICC, i.e. peremptory norm or jus cogens.

move toward overriding the ICJ advisory opinion on legality of threat (use of) of nuclear weapon, in which the Court stated basically since no norm explicitly prohibits the use (threat) of nuclear weapon, coupled with resort to Lotus doctrine i.e. unless prohibited, permitted (positivism), we do not have enough fact to conclude that use of nuclear weapon is prohibited.

Hague Convention (one of the two pillars in IHL) banned on chemical and biological weapon. what is the point of the efforts of ICC to regulate the means and methods of armed conflict?

though the means and methods of armed conflict (chemical and biological) are banned, enforcement mechanism is not firmly established.

individuals who claim to be victim can go to the municipal court of perpetrating State. (exhaustion of domestic remedies)

victim's national State go to ICJ (if 36(1) or (2) of ICJ statute is applicable to both of the parties) to recover the damage under the law of state responsibility.

if IHL is incorporated into Rome Statute, ICC serves as enforcement mechanism without regard to the measures taken by UN Security Council under CH 7.






roundtable with Prof. in charge of civil clinic

Professor Kathryn Pierce

I did not see myself in corporate world

public pretender

"Should I Trust Al Gore, or My Rock Hard Nipples?"

Al Gore explains that humans have a much bigger global impact than ever before in this complete, unedited interview

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Good Friends USA at washingtonpost.com

In North Korea, the military now issues economic orders

By Blaine Harden
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

SEOUL -- North Korea's military, whose nuclear program vexes the Obama administration, has grabbed nearly complete command of the nation's state-run economy and staked out a lucrative new trade in mineral sales to China to make money for its supreme commander, Kim Jong Il.

As it deepens its dominance over nearly every aspect of daily life, the Korean People's Army is also deploying soldiers to take first dibs on all food harvested in the isolated, chronically hungry country, according to the latest assessments of analysts.

The army has earned hundreds of millions of dollars selling missiles and weapons to Iran, Pakistan, Syria and other nations. But its two nuclear tests, the most recent of which occurred in May, have triggered U.N. sanctions that are now choking off arms sales. So the army has come up with a new business model, taking over the management of state trading companies to rapidly increase sales of coal, iron ore and other minerals to China, according to trade data and analysts.

The potential profits are eye-popping: China is one of the world's most voracious consumers of raw materials, and North Korea's mineral reserves are worth $5.94 trillion, according to an estimate by South Korea's Ministry of Unification. China has been critical of North Korea's nuclear program and missile tests, but it also has vastly increased its economic ties with Kim's government.

Kim is increasingly creaming off a significant slice of Chinese mineral revenue to fund his nuclear program and to buy the loyalty of elites, according to "North Korea, Inc.," a recent report by the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based group funded by the U.S. Congress.

The report echoes the views of North Korean analysts in South Korea, Japan and the United States, who say the military has elbowed out other ministries and the Korean Workers' Party to take control of exports that earn hard currency. The military is also sending trucks to state farms to haul away as much as a quarter of the annual harvest for its soldiers, analysts say.

"The military is by far the largest, most capable and most efficient organization in North Korea, and Kim Jong Il is making maximum use of it," said Lim Eul-chul of the Institute for Far Eastern Studies in Seoul.

North Korea is perhaps the world's most secretive and repressive state, but it makes no attempt to hide the ubiquitous role the military plays in the daily lives of the country's 23.5 million people. Soldiers dig clams and launch missiles, pick apples and build irrigation canals, market mushrooms and supervise the export of knockoff Nintendo games. They also guard the country's 3,000 cooperative farms, and help themselves to scarce food in a hungry country.

"The army is the people, the state and the party," the government has declared. All references to the word "communism" were removed this year from the North Korean constitution. They were replaced with the word "songun," which means "military first."

Defectors and outside experts agree that "military first" is a literal description of how the economy works, how citizens are forced to organize their lives and how Kim remains powerful -- and wealthy.

Chinese cash cow

North Korea is the most militarized state on earth, according to the Strategic Studies Institute, a research arm of the U.S. Army War College. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, about 5 percent of the country's population is in uniform -- compared with about 0.5 percent in the United States. Conscription is universal; men serve 10 years and women seven. An additional 4.7 million people serve in the army reserve for much of their adult lives.

The government devotes about a third of its budget to military spending, according to South Korean and Western estimates. The United States allocates 4 to 5 percent of government spending to the military. The army is also front-loaded for war, with more than 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower positioned within 60 miles of the border that separates the two Koreas.

Kim's top priority is a ferocious military that can deter a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities that make North Korea an actor on the international stage, according to Bruce Klingner of the Heritage Foundation, a former CIA intelligence analyst who specialized in North Korea.

But Kim also demands that the military be the primary engine of national prosperity. Outside economists describe that strategy as absurd because defense spending usually crowds out sustainable economic growth. North Korea, though, thinks differently.

"Once we lay the foundation for a powerful self-sustaining national defense industry, we will be able to rejuvenate all economic fields," said the Nodong Sinmun, the main government newspaper.

Missile sales were for many years major earners of foreign currency, according to a report for the Strategic Studies Institute by Daniel A. Pinkston, who is now a Seoul-based analyst with the International Crisis Group. But the cost of the arms trade has gone up and sales have declined as a result of U.N. sanctions imposed after the North's nuclear tests in 2006 and this year, South Korean analysts say.

The military has thus turned to its new Chinese cash cow. As the army has taken over management of mines in North Korea, mineral exports to China have soared, rising from $15 million in 2003 to $213 million last year. Led by those sales, the North's total trade volume rose last year to its highest level since 1990, when a far more prosperous and less isolated North Korea was subsidized by the Soviet Union.

A unique advantage the Korean People's Army brings to foreign trade is a well-disciplined workforce that has to be paid -- nothing. Soldiers receive food, clothes and lodging, but virtually no cash. This competitive edge makes military-run trading companies especially attractive to the North's leadership, according to the Institute of Peace report.

Based on confidential interviews with recent North Korean defectors, four of whom said they worked for trading companies run by the military, the paper concludes that a "designated percentage of all revenues generated from commercial activities . . . goes directly into Kim Jong Il's personal accounts." The rest of the revenue flows into the operating budget of the military.

Pattern of corruption

In a cold, mountainous country chronically short of food, it is no small trick to feed more than a million soldiers every day. In the "military first" era, the army has come up with muscular solutions.

"At harvest time, soldiers bring their own trucks to the farms and just take," said Kwon Tae-jin, a specialist on North Korean agriculture at the Korea Rural Economic Institute, which is funded by the South Korean government.

In the far north, where food supplies are historically lean, the military takes a quarter of total grain production, Kwon said. In other areas of the country, he said, it takes 5 to 7 percent.

To make sure that workers at state farms do not shortchange the military, Kwon said, the army stations soldiers at all 3,000 of them. He said that when tens of thousands of city dwellers are brought to the farms to assist with the fall harvest, soldiers monitor them to make sure they do not steal food.

The permanent deployment of soldiers on the farms has led to a pattern of corruption, Kwon said: Farm managers pay off soldiers, who then turn a blind eye to large-scale theft of food that is later sold in private markets.

Disputes among groups of corrupt soldiers periodically lead to fistfights and shootouts, according to a number of defectors and reports by aid groups. And chronic malnutrition among low-level soldiers persists.

In the past month, Good Friends, a Buddhist aid group with informants in the North, reported on a fight between soldiers and guards at a state farm. In a scuffle over a piece of corn, one soldier was reportedly stabbed with a sickle.

(-> above is what I translated )


Special correspondent June Lee contributed to this report.

Ambassador Stephen Rapp


Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues

Prosecutor - trials involving genocide & mass atrocities;
prosecution of former Liberian President Charles Taylor

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, NOON
Anheuser-Busch Hall
Cullenbine Classroom No. 305

reception at 5:30


WTO twin building was on property insurance. but it was only verbal.
they were confused whether it was 4 billion or 8 billion.
in many cases, parties even with huge transaction does not have policy, the only thing they have is certificate.
many lawyers, other than head, dealing with insurance case do not know the theory.
there is genuine regret.

in bring justice before the victims across the world, cooperation by the state of perpetrators is essential.

students are lined up ... for job in public sector

black Friday shopping ?

you are so beautiful, honey (Prof. Sadat to her little daughter)

Lt. governor was gay ...