Jared Loughner is incompetent and will not stand trial for now, a federal judge ruled at Wednesday's mental incapacity proceeding. Loughner was arrested in the fatal Tucson shootings that wounded congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people.
Loughner had to be removed from the mental incapacity proceeding after an outburst. A reporter said he heard Loughner lower his head and say, "Thank you for the freak show. She died in front of me," reports CNN.
After his removal from the courtroom, Loughner watched the rest of the proceeding on a TV screen in a nearby room.Loughner had spent the last five weeks undergoing a mental health evaluation. Prosecutors had ordered the mental health evaluation after they saw YouTube videos of Loughner wearing a hood, garbage bags and burning an American flag, reports The Houston Chronicle.
In this digital age of social media and 24/7 rolling news, the need for a company to manage and maintain a positive image has never been more important. Today's increasingly competitive commercial landscape can make correctly managing a reputation vital to commercial success. However, getting it right can be a tough challenge. Managing the reputation of a brand is difficult enough, but what happens when a company decides to associate their brand with another?
Companies of all kinds invest large sums of money in brand associations, sponsorship deals, entertainment partnerships and community-based partnerships. Yet how often do companies consider the potential for brand bed-fellows to inflict damage on their own enterprises? Any sponsorship deal obliges a company to relinquish a degree of control over its reputation. Sponsorship in itself is a risk – any relationship can break down – so a deal must be a calculated risk.
Warren Buffett famously said that a reputation takes years to build but can be ruined in five minutes. In 2011 five seconds might well be more accurate. Risks take many guises. Examining how an organisation deals with its corporate relationships could be a preventative exercise that helps maximise the many benefits to both parties, and also saves time and – potentially – a great deal of money.
When Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, stepped onto the political stage during the Obamacare debate, it was previously unheard of to see the spouse of a court member make a political statement. Ginny Thomas' ties to anti-health care reform groups, including her own Tea Party-aligned Liberty Central, may now be causing her husband some problems.
Seventy-four House Democrats have called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself should the health care reform law make its way into the Supreme Court, reportsThe Huffington Post. In a letter, they assert that Ginny Thomas' ties to, and financial gain from, anti-Obamacare groups raises questions of her husband's ability to rule impartially.