Thursday, January 22, 2009

Martial Law in America – by James Roberts

If terrorists strike U.S. Cities with nuclear weapons, our nation will never be the same. Borders will close, detention camps will open, and 'America' will be a thing of the past.

Martial Law - The system of rules that become reality when the military takes over the regular administration of justice in a land.

Okay, let's say that the scenario that seems so possible actually happens (FBI Director Robert Mueller even wrote about it in a recent book, The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World). If you've been reading up here at then you know what scenario we're talking about.

An American Hiroshima.

In such a situation, several cities would be attacked through the use of nuclear technology in close succession. In other words, a nuclear bomb might go off in New York, then it might be followed by another blast the next day (or even only hours later) in Washington D.C.

And so on and so forth.

In fact, let's say that the terrorists target seven cities with large Jewish populations like New York, Washington D.C., Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Chicago in successive days. Further, let's take the scenario a step further and indicate that soon after detonation in a city, the suburbs surrounding it are attacked by small terror cells.

The scenario is terrible, no doubt. But here's what else.

Such a situation would almost certainly result in a period of Martial Law.

What Martial Law might look like in the United States

First, martial law has been looked at in several films, etc. Along with this, no one really knows exactly what it would mean as the way it would take hold would differ depending on the circumstances. But under the aforementioned- Muslim terrorists targeting seven major cities with nuclear bombs and then attacking suburbs outside the explosive areas - we could expect at least some of the following.

Curfew - A curfew before dark would no doubt be imposed. The reasons are obvious: If the military is in an area, they want to ask as little questions as possible when they see someone outside, and in darkness this feeling would be tenfold.

Further, when the military is in charge fun will be less paramount. In other words, the government and soldiers won't want to deal with people out after dark.

Employment to continue soon - Initially, all activity would likely cease if a nuclear bomb were to be set off in or near an area. That said, once the threat of injury due to fallout was lifted, the government would want to get people back to work as soon as possible.

In other words, we all need work to survive and that's exactly what the country would want to do: Survive.

Rations - The military just might end up in charge of rationing out food and supplies, if needed in the area, during a period of Martial Law.

Military Tribunals - Don't expect a standard jury and trial during such times. A trial? Yes, in a way at least. Basically, members of the military ( a military commission ) would meet to determine a lawbreakers fate during a Martial Law period and this would happen swiftly.

Further, the public would have to expect much more severe penalties for lawbreaking (particularly for those offenses that could in any minor way be tied to violence or, of course, terrorism).

In other words, if you were found to be a terrorist under military rule. . . Well, let's face it: The government would probably pass a law putting these people to death.

And remember, during such times the military would not act like local police. In other words, they would probably give possible lawbreakers only one shot before shooting on site if that.

Security - With security the number one directive, expect that leaving a city/ area by car would be an ordeal. We're talking akin to getting into Canada (actually, a lot worse). Thus, travel, beyond to places of employment, would be severely restricted (possibly by permit only?).

Detention Camps - Some might not like to hear this but detention camps would clearly be warranted if such a thing were to occur. Back on November 13, 2001 the President issued a military order involving the detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. Basically, this order said that the government could detain non-citizens reasonably suspected of being a terrorist or harboring them (as long as they were treated humanely in these detention centers).

Further, there would be a trial (by military commission). In other words, much like the Military Tribunals spoken of earlier.

Beyond this, it is quite clear that the United States has considered such detention situations as Halliburton's former engineering and construction subsidiary has a contingency contract with the Department of Homeland Security to construct detention facilities in the case of national emergency (according to WorldNetDaily).

An ICE spokesman (ICE being the former subsidiary) further indicated that the detention centers would be used in the event of a mass migration crisis. Along with this, it is very hard to know how many people might be detained in such a manner (but guess on nearly every Muslim with any known tie whatsoever to terrorist states being locked up until things can be sorted through). Thus, taking everything into account, we're probably talking about tens of thousands.

The problem with detention - Obviously under such circumstances the United States would have to detain several non-citizens as was noted earlier. Further, if we're going to be honest, many of them would be Muslims (again, this was noted earlier). But consider this: What if some of our own citizens were helping the terrorists?

Remember all of that stuff on the MS-13 street gang helping terrorists cross the border? Expect these guys to be put into detention - if this is shown to be even possible - and dealt with as well.

In the end, this is all scary stuff. Then again, survival is all about dealing with scary stuff. See you next time.

‘Gay Marriage’ Is Not Only Wrong; It’s Socially Destructive By Robert Knigh

WA Commentary: Facts contradict the claim that redefining the institution would harm no one.

On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a column in The Washington Times (“The case against same-sex ‘marriage’”) in which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against state-sanctioned homosexual “marriage” is the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. But he dismissed the “sociological” case against “gay marriage” too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter that the Times printed in response on December 13:

Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especially on children.

By saying that sociological arguments against “gay marriage” suffer from “weakness,” Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote homosexual unions.

In the Netherlands, “gay marriage” hasn’t stopped AIDS

A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, although fewer than the “unpartnered,” and that men in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This is progress?

As for the moral argument, it’s easy to make to those who have not shut their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:

* Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.

* Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.

* Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.

* Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.

* Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.

* Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.

* Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

California is Exhibit A, where “domestic partnerships” are part of an overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexual relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care parents must take “diversity” training that orders them to affirm a child’s sexual behavior, including “cross-dressing.”

If you’re a Californian who believes in traditional morality, your government regards you as an enemy of the state. If “gay marriage” becomes legal nationally, all Americans will be subject to the tender mercies of pro-homosexual bureaucrats.

The new “McCarthyism”

Mr. Lindberg himself alludes to the fact that many people think homosexuality is wrong but are embarrassed to say so. It’s not because of the “weakness of the argument” but rather the unceasing media campaign to portray anyone who disagrees with homosexual activism as a “bigot” or a “hater.” During the Vietnam War, liberals invoked the ghost of Joe McCarthy to silence anti-communist opinion. Today, sexual libertines are using stigma to strangle honest discussion about homosexuality.

When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire’s homosexual Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practices in which homosexuals typically engage. “I wanted them to know what they were blessing in God’s name,” he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

Until the realities of homosexual behavior are examined publicly, Mr. Lindberg may be right that only moral arguments will carry any weight. But it’s not because the social arguments are weak; it is because the public is being kept in the dark about the real costs of homosexuality.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

Printer Friendly Version
Recent Articles
Washington Hotel Hosts Homosexual Orgy on Eve of Inauguration Festivities
Girls Need a Dad and Boys Need a Mom
Marriage Battle Rages Nationwide - Even in Iowa
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 — The Highlights
Prop. 8 Leader Defends Obama Choice of Rick Warren
Companies Large and Small Targeted by Homosexual Activists
Homosexual Activist Promotes "Nonmonogamy"
Petition to the U.N. on Human Rights
CWA asks, “Can the NAE Have It Both Ways on Same-Sex ‘Marriage?’”
Crouse Criticizes Newsweek for Distorting Christianity

Today's News NJ blog was launched on August 1st 2008 by Generation Change The World and Daryl Mikell Brooks, executive director. Today's, blog will be one of the best media reform organizations in the New Jersey. Consisting of 20 activists and members and a full-time staff in New Jersey.

Our Purpose

Media play a huge role in our lives. TV, radio, the Internet, movies, books and newspapers inform and influence our ideas, opinions, values and beliefs. They shape our understanding of the world and give us the information we need to hold our leaders accountable. But our media system is failing.

This broken system isn't natural. For far to long, corrupt media policy has been made behind closed doors in the public's name but without our informed consent. If we want better media, we need better media policies! If we want better policies, we must engage more people in policy debates and demand better media.

That's why Today's News NJ blog was created. We're working to make media reform a bona fide political issue in America. Big Media companies have plenty of lobbyists to do their bidding. We're making sure the public has a seat at the table, and we're building a movement to make sure that the media serves the public interest.

Today's News blog believes that media reform is crucial not just for creating better news and entertainment, but for advancing every issue you care about. A vibrant, diverse and independent media is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Today's News NJ is a New Jersey, nonpartisan blog working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.

Thank you and God bless, Daryl Mikell Brooks

Fiscal Follies: The Real Budget Problem and How to Fix It, Part 1

Fall 2003 —
Over the past two and a half years the official U.S. federal budget outlook has deteriorated in spectacular fashion. The federal budget shifted from a surplus of $127 billion in fiscal year 2001 to a projected deficit of about $400 billion in fiscal 2003, which ended on September 30. This decline is due mostly to short-term factors like the economic slowdown and the war on terrorism. More ominously, the Congressional Budget Office's projected baseline budget for 2002-11 changed from a surplus of $5.6 trillion in January 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, to a deficit of $2.3 trillion as of August. The worsening budget projections for later in the decade are due mostly to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and to spending increases.

The official figures, moreover, paint far too optimistic a picture of the nation's fiscal health. The official numbers count current surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in the budget, even though both face substantial long-term deficits. And the projections of the future make unrealistic assumptions regarding current policy. Making more realistic assumptions about current policy and taking the Social Security and Medicare trust funds "off-budget" reveal large and persistent imbalances between spending and revenues totaling about $8 trillion over the next decade.

Worse, these deficits are projected for the decade that should be the easy time for federal finances. The first baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security in 2008 and for Medicare in 2011. The growing number of new beneficiaries, combined with lengthening life spans, technological changes that boost health care spending, and slow growth of the labor force, will place mounting pressure on federal finances in the decades to come.

Solutions to these difficulties are available, but they will be mostly unpleasant. Policymakers have not completely ignored the problems, but they have not actively sought answers either, and recent policies have made matters worse. Every year of delay makes the problems more difficult and more expensive to resolve.

What Is the Real Budget Outlook?

CBO's baseline budget is intended to be a benchmark against which legislative changes can be measured, not a prediction of likely outcomes. In making its 10-year projections, the CBO makes three assumptions about current policy that we believe make these projections unrealistic. First, although it assumes that Congress will extend some expiring spending programs, CBO assumes that almost all temporary tax provisions will "sunset" (expire) as scheduled in the law. The 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts, for example, are scheduled to sunset at various points before 2011.

Substantial sunsets in the tax code are a recent and dramatic departure from historical practice by federal policymakers intent on manipulating budget rules and hiding the true likely costs of new tax cuts. These tax sunsets, which make it possible to increase the size of annual tax cuts while staying within the budget rules, put fiscal policy on an increasingly unsustainable course, because once a tax cut is in place, Congress will be sorely tempted to extend it past its official sunset. The alternative—not extending it—will be denounced by opponents as a tax increase, a step that policymakers traditionally find distasteful, especially in election years. With President Bush and many congressional leaders already pushing to make the tax cuts permanent, it would be more realistic for the CBO baseline to assume that the tax cuts will be extended.

The second unrealistic assumption involves spending on programs that require annual appropriations decisions by Congress. The baseline assumes that such so-called discretionary spending grows each year only because of inflation. Although judgments may reasonably differ about future spending choices, we believe that current services will be difficult to maintain unless spending keeps pace with population growth too. George W. Bush endorsed the same criterion as a presidential candidate.

The third unrealistic assumption involves the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which runs parallel to the regular income tax system. Although originally designed to raise taxes on wealthy households that aggressively use tax shelters, the AMT will increasingly apply to middle-income households over the next decade, raising their tax bills and plaguing them with mind-boggling, pointless tax complexities. Unlike the ordinary income tax, the AMT is not adjusted for inflation and thus covers ever more taxpayers as prices (and incomes) rise—ensuring that policymakers will come under increasing pressure to cut back the AMT. For that reason, our projection, unlike the CBO baseline, assumes the AMT is adjusted so that the share of taxpayers who face the tax in the future is 3 percent—about the same as today.

Officially, the CBO baseline projects a 10-year deficit of $1.4 trillion for 2004 through 2013, with surpluses rising over time, as figure 1 shows. Adjusting the CBO baseline for our three assumptions regarding current policy tells quite a different story. Extending all expiring tax provisions would cost the federal budget $2.4 trillion. Adjusting the AMT would add another $400 billion. Adjusting discretionary spending implies another $500 billion in outlays.

These changes leave a federal budget with a deficit of $4.6 trillion over the next decade. Numerous uncertainties about what the future holds make it impossible to take these budget figures as exact predictions, but several basic trends are clear. First, the CBO baseline suggests that the budgetary future features rising surpluses within the 10-year window, whereas our adjusted unified budget baseline implies continual deficits through 2013, as shown in figure 1. Second, the differences grow over time. By 2013 the difference between the official projected unified budget and our alternative unified deficit is more than $700 billion each year. Third, our adjustments, which do not include the costs of a Medicare prescription drug benefit or other new initiatives, may themselves understate the severity of the problem.

Finally, all these figures include cash-flow surpluses of $3.2 trillion over the next decade accruing in trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, and government pensions. But—as will come as a surprise to no one—these trust funds, now in surplus, face tremendous long-term shortfalls. In various pieces of legislation between 1983 and 1990, Congress took Social Security off-budget to help clarify the state of the rest of the federal budget. We follow that approach and extend it to Medicare and government pensions. Combining this adjustment with the ones made above results in a 2004–13 projected shortfall in the nonpension portion of the budget of roughly $7.8 trillion. Notably, this shortfall exists in every year through 2013, the end of the budget window.

That the official budget window ends in 2013 itself makes the projections misleadingly optimistic, because the budget outlook deteriorates rapidly thereafter. Indeed, few observers dispute that the long-term forecast involves increasing deficits as a share of the economy.

Some have lately claimed that a previously unrecognized "pot of gold" in future revenue from tax-deferred retirement accounts will be large enough to eliminate most or all of the long-term budget shortfalls. But the underlying calculations of the long-term budget shortfalls already include almost all the projected revenue from withdrawals from tax-deferred accounts. As a result, incorporating the new projections has trivial effects on the long-run budget outlook.

Book review: Go, Tell Michelle: African-American women write to the new first lady

“This extraordinary collection of letters to Michelle Obama says a great deal about the lives, the hopes, prayers, fears, and aspirations of African American women today… We seem to recognize her as one of our own. We are simultaneously proud of her, seek to protect her, and to encourage her. And our expectations for her are obviously very high…
So far, Michelle Obama is serving to help us see ourselves at our best. We see validation of our choices and our values. Even the decision to have her mother accompany the family to the White House resonates with many African American women who have lived in three-generation homes and know the burden of having a working mother.

The women who have written letters in this collection hail from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and are highly accomplished. So, too, is the recipient. In Michelle Obama, we see reflected the face of inclusion, the face of America as the proverbial land of opportunity, equality and justice. ”

Excerpted from the Foreword by Dr. Muriel A. Howard, President of Buffalo State College

Over the course of the presidential campaign, Michelle Obama was even more of a target than her husband. Whether being quoted out of context as unpatriotic, lampooned on the cover of a national magazine as a machine gun-toting terrorist, having her college thesis combed for grammatical errors or being the subject of a variety of unsubstantiated rumors, her desperate enemies futilely predicted that she would be the cause of her husband’s undoing.

Underreported by the mainstream media was the reaction of Black women to this mistreatment of Michelle. “We were incensed when she was accused of being un-American,” admit Barbara A. Seals Nevergold and Peggy Brooks-Bertram, co-editors of Go, Tell Michelle. To them, the New Yorker cartoon was the final straw. “Black women everywhere felt the sting of indignation, decried this caricature, and rushed to embrace this and defend this beautiful, graceful, intelligent woman.”

And in the wake of the election, they immediately started soliciting other African American females, “Uncrowned Queens,” for open letters of support for the incoming First Lady as a way “to send her a special message, grounded in our common ancestry and in the belief that our daughters have not only been inspired by her accomplishments, but empowered by her example.”

The upshot of those efforts is a quite evocative collage of heartfelt correspondence in poetry and prose ranging from the intimate to the light and lyrical. Among the hundred contributors are not only professors and professional writers but accomplished women from all over the U.S., Africa and the Caribbean, and representing virtually every walk of life, including teachers, students, a psychiatrist, a nurse, a violinist, a vocalist, an entrepreneur, a dancer, a genealogist, a social worker, a consultant and a country club president, to name a few.

I was particularly moved by the simplicity of the entry by Shirley Hanshaw of Mississippi who shares her favorite recipe for Pecan Pie. “I know that you and Barack are not Southern,” she starts, “nevertheless, I thought you might enjoy this dessert. It is always a hit wherever I take it.” Hanshaw goes on to let Obama know that “I have been praying for the safety of your husband and your entire family ever since his candidacy [and] I will continue to pray that God will surround all of you with a hedge of protection.”

An impressive compendium of eloquent messages which together paint a touching tapestry reflecting the depth of sisters’ emotional investment in our new First Lady.

Go, Tell Michelle: African-American women write to the new first lady
Edited by Barbara A. Seals Nevergold and Peggy Brooks-Bertram
State University of New York Press, Excelsior Editions
Paperback, $17.95 | 288 pages | ISBN: 978-1-4384-2918-2

New data exposes dramatic racial discrimination in U.S. advertising industry

NEW YORK, NY --- An exhaustive new study of America's advertising industry released last week has found dramatic levels of racial discrimination throughout the industry. Bias against African American professionals was found in pay, hiring, promotions, assignments, and other areas.

The study was initiated by a coalition of legal, civil rights, and industry leaders who created the Madison Avenue Project. The Project was created in 2008 to address advertising's deep-rooted racial bias. Cyrus Mehri, Project leader and prominent civil rights lawyer, called the findings "absolutely astonishing in this day and age.” Angela Ciccolo, Interim General Counsel of the NAACP, another project partner, said "the time has come to stand up to change this industry."

Overall, the findings reveal that racial discrimination is 38 percent worse in the advertising industry than in the overall U.S. labor market, and that the "discrimination divide" between advertising and other U.S. industries is more than twice as bad now as it was 30 years ago.

Specific findings include:

• Black college graduates working in advertising earn $.80 for every dollar earned by their equally-qualified White counterparts;

• Based on national demographic data, 9.6 percent of advertising managers and professionals should be African Americans. The actual percentage in 2008 is 5.3 percent, representing a difference of 7,200 executive-level jobs;

• About 16 percent of large advertising firms employ no Black managers or professionals, a rate 60 percent higher than in the overall labor market;

• Black managers and professionals in the industry are only one-tenth as likely as their White counterparts to earn $100,000 a year;

• Blacks are only 62 percent as likely as their white counterparts to work in the powerful "creative" and "client contact" functions in advertising agencies;

• Eliminating the industry's current black-white employment gap would require tripling its Black managers and professionals.

Though employment discrimination has sharply diminished in America in the last 40 years, systemic barriers to equality in the $31 billion a year advertising industry have not budged. In 1978, for example, the New York City Human Rights Commission found that limited minority employment "was not simply the result of neutral forces, but emanated directly from discriminatory practices." Those practices continue today.

The study found the primary source of discrimination to be agencies' implicit assumption that the cause of Black under-representation is a shortage of 'qualified' Black job seekers. In reality, the problem is not a shortage but a "persistent unwillingness by mainstream advertising agencies to hire, assign, advance, and retain already-available Black talent."

Moreover, the study found, the industry's response to long-running charges of discrimination has consisted of "token efforts. The industry's primary response has been extremely modest expansions in training and entry-level hiring." At today's rate of progress, Black numbers among advertising managers and professionals will not reach their expected level for another 71 years.

An appropriate response, the study concluded, "will require fundamentally transforming the workplace culture of general market advertising agencies.” Specifically, agencies must root out the stereotypes that make race, not ability, determine employment potential; halt the "buddy system," in which personal relationships and social comfort often count for more than job performance; and eliminate the assumptions that racial minorities can't succeed in non-ethnic markets.

The Madison Avenue Project is led by the NAACP and attorney Cyrus Mehri, of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, who has won several multi-million dollar discrimination settlements against such corporations as The Coca-Cola Company, Morgan Stanley and Texaco Inc.; with the cooperation of Sanford Moore, a former advertising executive, current New York City talk radio co-host, and longtime advocate for racial parity in advertising.

"We are sending a message to the advertising industry: this conduct is unacceptable and must change," Mehri said.

"I have witnessed first-hand the mendacity and machinations that have kept African Americans invisible on and to Madison Avenue for over four decades," Moore said. "Madison Avenue has created and perpetuated a 'separate and unequal' marketing paradigm which is reflected in their advertising, their workforce and among their executive ranks. Even though our dollars provide the profits, the industry is still afraid of the dark."

"The Madison Avenue Project is designed to send a special wake up call to the advertising industry," Ciccolo added. "It's time for Madison Avenue to wake up to civil rights and to the meaningful inclusion of African Americans in this highly segregated industry."

The NAACP also plans to circulate the report not just to its members, but also to Fortune 100 companies to urge them to stop aiding and abetting widespread discrimination by this industry.

The study, entitled "Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry," was conducted by a leading research firm, Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants. The complete study can be found at (Mehri & Skalet), (Bendick and Egan). (NAACP), and (Bendick and Egan).

China Sentences Two Men To Death Over Melamine Milk Scandal

Two men have been sentenced to death and a third given life in prison for their involvement in the tainted milk scandal that killed at least six children and made at least 300,000 more sick.

Melamine is an industrial chemical that is used in the production of plastic — but when added to watered down foods such as milk — it causes a false positive when tested for protein.

From Reuters:

One of the men sentenced to death was Zhang Yujun, who had made and sold over 600 tonnes of "protein powder" laced with melamine between October 2007 and August 2008, the official China Daily quoted prosecutors as saying earlier this month.

The powder was bought by middlemen who added it to pooled, watered-down milk from farmers that was then sold on to Sanlu. One of these men was also given the death sentence.

A third man was given a suspended death sentence, which usually means life in prison on good behavior. Other defendants received from five years to life imprisonment.

In other news, scientists have developed a test for melamine in milk. Researchers at Purdue University announced yesterday that their test can detect "tiny traces of the chemical" in about 25 seconds.