War Costs
Aid to Israel no longer a sacred cow
For the first time in memory, if not ever, a highly respected mainstream columnist is calling on the United States to cut aid to Israel. Writing in the Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and columnist Walter Pincus, says, "it is time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel". Aid to Israel is virtually the only programme - domestic or foreign - that is exempt from every budget-cutting proposal pending in Congress. Back when I was a congressional staffer, I was part of the process by which aid to Israel was secured. Exceptionalism There was always one exception: aid to Israel, which apparently is a local issue for every legislator. At the end of the process, the AIPAC wish list would become law of the land. That is how it has been for decades and not even the current economic crisis is likely to change it. Look for a minute at the bizarre formula that has become an element of US-Israel military aid, the so-called qualitative military edge (QME).
Obama Health Care Law Reaches Supreme Court, With Over Five Hours Of Oral Argument Planned
WASHINGTON -- In an order released on Monday morning, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear more than five hours of oral argument in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act brought by 26 states and several private parties. The order indicates the gravity with which the justices view the health care cases, as the Court rarely allots more than an hour to for argument in each case it hears. Within those five-plus hours, the justices divided the time into four separate arguments to address the various questions raised in petitions from the Department of Justice, the 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. The longest argument, set for two hours, will consider whether Congress had the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The cases granted Monday come up from the U.S. Majorities on the 6th Circuit and the D.C. Loading Slideshow Round 1: The District Courts DivideU.S.
A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe - Chris Hedges' Columns
A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe Posted on Sep 10, 2011 By Chris Hedges I arrived in Times Square around 9:30 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. A large crowd was transfixed by the huge Jumbotron screens. Billows of smoke could be seen on the screens above us, pouring out of the two World Trade towers. The south tower went down around 10 a.m. with a guttural roar. I headed toward the spot where the towers once stood, passing dazed, ashen and speechless groups of police officers and firefighters. Scores of people, perhaps more than 200, pushed through the smoke and heat to jump to their deaths from windows that had broken or they had smashed. The images of the “jumpers” proved too gruesome for the TV networks. The “jumpers” did not fit into the myth the nation demanded. The shock of 9/11, however, demanded images and stories of resilience, redemption, heroism, courage, self-sacrifice and generosity, not collective suicide in the face of overwhelming hopelessness and despair.
Texas, and the death penalty
Willingham was charged with murder. Because there were multiple victims, he was eligible for the death penalty, under Texas law. Unlike many other prosecutors in the state, Jackson, who had ambitions of becoming a judge, was personally opposed to capital punishment. Willingham couldn’t afford to hire lawyers, and was assigned two by the state: David Martin, a former state trooper, and Robert Dunn, a local defense attorney who represented everyone from alleged murderers to spouses in divorce cases—a “Jack-of-all-trades,” as he calls himself. Not long after Willingham’s arrest, authorities received a message from a prison inmate named Johnny Webb, who was in the same jail as Willingham. Even so, several of Stacy’s relatives—who, unlike her, believed that Willingham was guilty—told Jackson that they preferred to avoid the anguish of a trial. Willingham’s lawyers were equally pleased. Martin and Dunn advised Willingham that he should accept the offer, but he refused.
Woman who recorded Massachusetts police beating charged with illegal wiretapping
Michaelann sez, "Four Springfield Mass police officers beat Melvin Jones in 2009 and the incident was captured on videotape by a resident. Now, one of the four officers involved, who was suspended for 45 days, is seeking a criminal complaint against the woman for illegal wiretapping. This article has a link to the original video, where the woman doing the taping pretty much said everything I would have said-- "strong language." The woman will be in court on Wednesday and some members of my group, Arise for Social Justice, will be there to support her." Police Sgt. Videographer of alleged Melvin Jones beating could be charged with illegal wiretapping (Thanks, Michaelann!)
US police smash camera for recording killing - Features
A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but Narces Benoit's decision to videotape a shooting by Miami police landed him in jail after officers smashed his cell-phone camera. It was 4am on May 30 when Benoit and his girlfriend Erika Davis saw officers firing dozens of bullets into a car driven by Raymond Herisse, a suspect who hit a police officer and other vehicles while driving recklessly. Herisse died in the hail of lead, and four bystanders also suffered gunshot wounds, the Miami Herald newspaper reported. Police noticed the man filming the shooting and an officer jumped into his truck, and put a pistol to his head, Benoit said. The video shows officers crowding around Herisse's vehicle before opening fire, followed by indistinguishable yelling at onlookers, including Benoit, to stop filming. The cop yelled: "Wanna be a [expletive] paparazzi?" "My phone was smashed, he stepped on it, handcuffed me," the 35-year-old car stereo technician told CNN. Legal issues Technology 'outpacing' laws
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. "Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said. Controversy ahead The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. Brains and bias As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood.
