When id seen the kids to go through the circumstances they go through and come out and find a level of success and happiness and care about others, thats heroic. Im just trying to report the facts but i appreciate the comments very much. Thank you one more time for coming out. [applause] up at the front of the bookstore we will be here after a it was one racial lynching and it was a brilliant psychological device to hold down the race because if you were black, youve are afraid that this could happen to you. The author talks about his literary career including the lynching a courtroom battle that brought down the clan about the trial following the 1981 killing of 19yearold Michael Donald in mobile alabama. He was trying to become a brick layer and was the youngest of seven children. His aunt wants to ask them to get a pack of cigarettes, goes out, theres a buick that pulls up behind him, he pulls out his pistol and orders him into the backseat of the car and he knows when he gets in th
[inaudible] question about this process is how a man comes back from this kind of devastation. Yeah, its been very interesting to see how its worked an the idea how this occurred. For instance, bison animals enter into the edges going in and this determined the way. And they found out that process is much more random than you would think. It depends on the time eve year and what animal happens to be around and which will cull nice that area and that becomes an island where other plants and animals can get that area as well. So you see a lot arounded the area and one feature is that the area now is is a diverse area in all of Washington State. If you just let these natural processes occur plants and animals entered into those areas a an attempt to come back. When you go to mount st. Helens it has this odd combination with a incredibly devastated area and yet vegetation is returning quickly to the mountain. It does have huge old growth forest around it and wont for another hundred years
[inaudible conversations] good afternoon. And welcome to the auditorium and the Cato Institute. Appreciate your coming out today. This is a really important topic. The book forum for the human cost of welfare by phil harvey and lisa conyers. For those folks who are following this online, you can follow along on twitter atcato event or hash tag human cost of welfare. The u. S. Federal government last year spent roughly 688 billion to fund more than 100 antipoverty programs. Federal state, local governments, rather, spent an additional 300 billion on those and other programs. That means the government is spending close to a trillion dollars every year fighting poverty. If you want to go all the way back to 1965, when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, we spent some 22 or 23 trillion fighting poverty. What have we really accomplished over that period of time . If you used the census bureaus numbers, poverty rates have barely budged and even if you use the al concern i. T. Poverty mea
Be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. That is what happened to Abigail Fisher. It is not disputed. She was treated differently because of her race and color and national origin. Now, we are not going to be talking so much about title vi my when we talk about the constitution. The Supreme Court said it doesnt really mean what it says. We just think it means what the constitution means. Constitution has a little bit more wiggle room. Although knobloch or the constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, and the outlaws the whole purpose of it the 14th amendment was to outlaw racial standards. That seems pretty straightforward. There was an act of 1981 that been Racial Discrimination, including in regards to college tuition. It sounds pretty straightforward. Think of those things not mean what they say. There is an exception in this area. You would think, well, gee, it would be an exception. It would be an exception to
Ranging from buckley very chalet hoe, to Citizens United to the recent mcchurch con case, have reheat repeatedly argued disclosure advances Public Interest and the court rejected the arguments put forward by senator mcconnell and justice thomas. The courts have put forward three main arguments in favor of disclosure. One, the Public Interest in knowing who is spending money to try to influence their votes. Two, that transparency serves an important anticorruption interest, and, three, that disclosure helps to enforce other Campaign Finance laws like the prohibition on foreigners or foreign owned corporations spending money in u. S. Elections. Heres what the sprem court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. I quote Disclosure Requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. A public armed with information abou