Why is it so hard for the public at large to learn how Bradley Manning is being treated? You won't hear a straight answer from Mark Toner, spokesman for Barack Obama's State Department. Here's a translation for all you are hearing: "Because we are torturing Bradley Manning and we don't want people outside the military prison to know about it."
A 21 year-old man was released without charges after being arrested near the Delmar Loop MetroLink in St. Louis on Saturday. The police officer who arrested the 21-year-old experienced a minor head injury. The St. Louis Dispatch and KMOV report that the officer was breaking up a fight that allegedly drew a crowd of between 50 and 100 people, including many teenagers. In response to the “incident” and complaints that teens who are “not from University City,” are “wandering,” “roaming” and “brushing up against customers,” along the Delmar Loop, a Tuesday meeting was called between Delmar Loop business owners, representatives from Mayor Slay’s office, University City officials and representatives of Washington University. (Washington University’s Office of General Counsel denied any involvement in this meeting). Several proposals emerged from the meeting. These include “lowering the city’s curfew to 6 p.m.,” rounding up teenagers to “let them sit in a paddy wagon for three hours,” adding a police substation to process them and “closing the Loop’s MetroLink station early on Fridays and Saturdays.” To curb the influx of “unruly” young adults, the University City manager promised “active enforcement of all ordinances.”
There is currently a strong suite of Discovery Institute bills running through state legislatures to allow "alternative theories" to be taught in science classes. See list here: Antievolution Legislation Scorecard. There is not a direct link back to the Discovery Institute, but it is their wording, seen before and passed in places like Texas and Louisiana and Tennessee. From a legal standpoint, the bills look harmless, closely resembling intellectual freedom policies. But the point is clearly to sow confusion about the difference between science and just making things up, especially in regard to evolution and climate science. Hemant Mehta suggests that it would only be fair to show this video in churches where the churches put their books into science classes.
I live in an odd city. Back in 1876 the City of Saint Louis seceded from its otherwise rural county. Saint Louis was a major transportation hub (rail) and industrial center. The rural county was seen as sucking on this rich teat to enrich the farmers. So the city decided to shed its poor panhandling neighbors for its own greater glory. Then came the automobile, industrialized farming, suburbs, and ex-urbanization. Oops. By the mid 2oth century, the city had to enact an earnings tax to help cover the shortfall in revenue. At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the Tea Party movement managed to put an odd law up for vote in Missouri. Thus the rural majority voted to forbid cities to have the ability to assess any new earnings taxes, ever. And furthermore to require a public vote every few years on whether the people would like to continue paying for the services they receive in this way in cities that already have such taxes. "Plunk," goes the bond rating in the only two cities for which this clause applies, Saint Louis and Kansas City. But we dutifully held that vote this week, only five months since that new law passed.Proposition E reads:
"Shall the earnings tax of 1%, imposed by the City of St. Louis, be continued for a period of five (5) years commencing January 1 immediately following the date of this election?"
How did we do?
Passed by 7 to 1. Yay! We get to keep paying 1% of our income to support city services.
In the April 11, 2011 edition of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin connects the dots and announces what the United States Supreme Court has in store for us. The latest evidence is the attitude displayed by a majority of the justices during an argument concerning the constitutionality of an Arizona clean-money level-the-playing field election law. All of this conservative activism is allegedly being done to make sure that the government won't "stifle debate," even though the Court's approach is drowning out non-monied natural people and inviting large monied corporations to rig elections.
The implications of the Court’s approach are now becoming more clear. In the Citizens United case, the majority decreed, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, that corporations and other organizations could bypass the old limits by giving unlimited amounts not to candidates but to nominally independent groups that support them. (Corporations, of course, traditionally give more to Republicans.) But the logic of the decision—and the views expressed by the majority at the argument last week—suggests that in the future the Court will allow corporations to skip the third parties and give money directly to the candidates. It also implies that any limit on the size of contributions, by individuals or corporations, may now be held to be unconstitutional. The Court did suggest that requirements calling for the public disclosure of contributions might pass constitutional muster, but Congress shows no inclination to enact any such rules. President Obama’s DISCLOSE Act, which would have bolstered disclosure requirements, died in Congress last year. (Clarence Thomas, the silent Justice during oral arguments, believes that even disclosure violates First Amendment rights.)For a succinct and accurate rendition of Citizens United, check out this video by Annie Leonard.