"America's back."

For those who haven't had the opportunity to catch the State of the Union address a couple of nights back, here's an offline feed just for you.


"America's back," indeed. Too bad some people just don't know it yet.

When you're finished, please direct your attention to the Field Negro, as he has a post up about that photo of Jan Brewer scolding Obama for being the uppity Negro he is:

The two leaders could be seen engaged in an intense conversation at the base of Air Force One's steps. Both could be seen smiling, but speaking at the same time.
Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: "He was a little disturbed about my book."
Apparently, Brewer felt like she was the one being given a what-fer:
She also described meeting the president at the White House in 2010 to talk about immigration. "I felt a little bit like I was being lectured to, and I was a little kid in a classroom, if you will, and he was this wise professor and I was this little kid, and this little kid knows what the problem is and I felt minimized to say the least."
Aww.

Well Jan, it goes without saying you were behaving a bit like a kid having a full-on meltdown in a Target aisle, and Pres. Obama was too kind to break out the belt. Spare the rod and all of that (no, not THAT rod. Talk about minds in gutters...).

Meanwhile, missing minority kids are being ignored in a world where only photogenic white skin and a convincing profile warrants media attention and a serious investigation by law enforcement. Shouldn't all missing kids be given equal amounts of face time, so they can be found and returned home where they belong, instead of being dismissed as delinquents and runaways?

Adventures In Senseless Shit: Miseducation Edition



At some point, I want to make a special post about the current state of education in America and how it is doing a grave disservice to black American children. There are several flaws in the system that allow black kids, especially young black boys, to "slip through the cracks" and wind up as fodder for our wonderful "School-to-Prison" pipeline.

I don't know if this was intentional, or if it was a simple case of insensitivity or utter cluelessness, but something like this should never appear on a homework assignment, or any place else, for that matter. I bet you would never see the following question on any assignment at any school, ever:

Each concentration camp had 103 Jews. If seven Jews were placed in gas chambers each day, how many would remain in 1 week? 2 weeks?

Now, why are black parents making a fuss about all of this?

“Something like that shouldn’t be imbedded into a kid of the third, fourth, fifth, any grade,” parent Terrance Barnett told WSB-TV. “I’m having to explain to my 8-year-old why slavery or slaves or beatings are in a math problem. That hurts.”

Indeed it does.

Something I've noticed in the video that accompanied this report: the kids featured had their fathers present. No single mothers being depicted in stereotypical outrage - just concerned fathers making disapproval of this stunt known.

Panic Mode.

The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.

We’d be looking at four more years of Obama’s economic policies, four more years of strained relations with allies, several new Supreme Court justices and an unprecedented power shift to the executive branch.

It seems, gentlemen, it’s time to get off your . . . er . . . time to get off the bench and into the game. It is time to make the case for winning conservatism — a conservatism attractive to centrist voters that can be translated into a reform agenda. If conservatism becomes a movement of anti-media bashing and hyperbolic rhetoric, it will cease to be a force in American politics. And if it is led by an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle, the GOP will be (correctly) mocked.

Uh-oh. Looks like someone's a bit worried about Newt Gingrich knocking the entire GOP presidential campaign off its axis. Not to worry -- Jennifer Rubin has plenty of company in that regard.

The GOP establishment is hoping and praying that Newt doesn't get another win in Florida, as it would completely flip the well-rehearsed script they're operating on: the one that involves Mitt Romney getting the nod. The last thing the GOP establishment wants is a candidate with copious amounts of personal and ethical baggage, a propensity for "going rogue" and the ability to go from hero to utter embarrassment in no time flat.

Romney and Santorum are sharpening their claws as I type. Others on the campaign trail and within the GOP are training their sights on Gingrich. It looks like Florida is shaping up to be a rather ugly battle to undo Gingrich before he manages another win. He's on the offensive and his attacks on Romney's time with Bain Capital Management could be the boost he needs in the Sunshine State.

I bet the GOP establishment is regretting the day it came up with the Tea Party concept right about now. That's what happens when you train an entire constituency to hunger for nothing but bloody red meat. Right about now, Mitt and Mr. C.U.M. are feeling a bit silly holding those tofu slices while Newton Leroy's throwing fresh meat to the crowds left and right.
Everyone's well aware of how, for decades, Republican leaders have attempted to cast black Americans as lazy, shiftless and entitled creatures and disparaged government assistance programs such as welfare and food stamps by painting a color-aroused portrait of flagrant and wanton abuse of one by the other -- the imaginary black single-mother Cadillac-driving welfare queen who regularly dines on filet mignon and champagne, courtesy of hardworking white American taxpayers, for example. And everyone's aware of how these stereotypes are just one of the many used in the hilariously disturbing dog fight that was the South Carolina primary, namely to draw out and win over the unreconstructed and easily color-aroused.

So you have the mistaken belief that blacks make up the majority of food stamp and welfare recipients, carefully crafted and refined by the GOP, expounded on by the likes of Newt Gingrich and consumed happily by color-aroused and embittered conservatives. You have Lawrence O'Donnell and Jane Walsh, who've called out Newton Leroy on this issue, and then you have Dana Loesch, who confuses the shit out of everyone in a crafty, yet flawed attempt to headgame everyone involved.

Let's start off with Newt Gingrich's comment about food stamps:

You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

On one hand, here's Newton Leroy blowing a dog whistle into the ears of the unreconstructed, who already believe that Pres. Obama, as a black figure and a Democrat, can't help but make it rain food stamps in the White House (which he had painted a gaudy black, purple and gold, just like in the clubs he and Michelle jump off at). On the other hand, people can simply point out that he was just talking about lazy Americans of all creeds and colors. In essence, this quote is so well-crafted that if anyone attempts to call out Gingrich on blowing the dog whistle here, there's plenty of room for false-flag conservatives to maneuver into position and attempt to call out the person calling Gingrich out on their own supposed racism.

Now someone had to call him out on that statement. Here's Joan Walsh doing just that:

Newt Gingrich doubled down on his clever new slur against President Obama as “the food stamp president.” He tried the line in a Friday speech to the Georgia Republican convention, and he used it again on “Meet the Press Sunday.” It’s a short hop from Gingrich’s slur to Ronald Reagan’s attacks on “strapping young bucks” buying “T-bone steaks” with food stamps. Blaming our first black president for the sharp rise in food-stamp reliance (which resulted from the economic crash that happened on the watch of our most recent white president) is just the latest version of Rush Limbaugh suggesting that Obama’s social policy amounts to “reparations” for black people.

Republicans have done well with their quest to stigmatize social welfare programs as handouts to the undeserving, and to pretend that most of the undeserving are black people.

Indeed they have. The response from Dana Loesch?

Walsh deduced that Gingrich couldn’t possibly be referencing any of this, no, it had to be because he’s being racist.

And what exactly is this "this" she's referring to?

Unemployment is soaring at nine percent.
The CBO predicted that the US economy will be unsustainable by 2037 on its current path.
The IMF declared two weeks ago that the age of America will end in a decade.
One in six Americans now receive government help. USA Today says more Americans are receiving federal aid than ever. Investors’ Insight says more Americans than ever before are on the government dole.
Lastly, according to our own government statistics, more white Americans receive federal aid than black Americans, shattering the stereotype that led Walsh to immediately think “black people” when she heard the words “food stamps.”

Problem is, if you ask anyone walking down the street what they would immediately think when they hear "food stamps," it would be a mental picture of a plump black woman with Kool-Aid hair, weave and fingernail extensions and a bad attitude giving the cashier lip while swiping her EBT card at the card reader.

The above images are NOT what most people think when they hear about "food stamps." They have no idea that more white Americans are on the dole than black Americans. Many a black blogger knows this -- to stave off attacks by the color-aroused, they had to look up this information for themselves. Politicians and mainstream media outlets, for one reason or another, have not made that knowledge widespread to America in general.

Loesch, on the other hand, says it's not about the dog whistles, because as far as she and other conservatives are concerned, there are none. Instead, you're a "racist" for even assuming that Gingrich could have insinuated that he was making a sly swipe against black people, you racist liberal progressive Democrat scum, you.

Loesch isn't above dishing out backhanded complements. In fact, she pats Lawrence O'Donnell on the back for stating the obvious:


It’s good to see a progressive finally stop believing that food stamps are patented to black Americans. If only Walsh and The Nation thought the same. Perhaps Lawrence O’Donnell has been reading Big Journalism. It’s OK, Lawrence, we won’t tell!

So, Loesch accuses O'Donnell, Walsh and others of being "presumptuous" about the GOP linking food stamps to blacks, as though they themselves believed in the stereotype that the GOP has spent decades crafting and refining. Marvelous. She's calling out people who are calling out Gingrich for being a racist prick...for being racist pricks. That is some rather slick shit there.

If most people aren't careful, they'll read what she's written and start nodding their heads in agreement, because it seems like something that's sensible -- just a bunch of liberals who are making something out of nothing, right. It takes a while to see through the bullshit.

By the way:

The Regressives have to say everything is a 'dog whistle'... how else could they continue to peddle the absurd notion that they care or are even remotely competent.

Democrats are the party of ... Jim Crow, the KKK, destruction of the black family, death of millions of unborn, class envy, hatred of their countrymen and country.

It always starts with a bit of truth. After Reconstruction, the Democrat party was the home of self-proclaimed "Dixiecrats" who indulged in the worst excesses of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan and segregationist policies. By the 1960s, the Democrat party was slowly becoming less about Jim Crow and more about the liberal policies that we all know and love (well, most of us do).

And then came the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Southern Strategy, created in large part by Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips.

By the 1980s, the Democrat party was no longer what it used to represent and neither was the GOP. The conservative party threw its doors open to every unreconstructed bigot and Dixiecrat who loathed the day Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, along with their constituents. It's no accident that the southeast is about as blue as a Air Force serviceman's dress uniform red as the back of a stereotypical Southerner's neck.

Black Americans knew that the chessboard was being flipped around, and they switched sides accordingly. And it still burns the GOP's collective ass that blacks weren't stupid enough to remain at the GOP table as the old Dixiecrats came stomping in. So no, the Democrats are not the party of "Jim Crow, the KKK, destruction of the black family, death of millions of unborn, class envy, hatred of their countrymen and country." But the Republicans have shown that they fit those characteristics to a tee. Projection, wasn't it?

And yes, this Dana Loesch is the same Dana Loesch who claimed she would have copped a squat and a piss on dead terrorists, despite the desecration of enemy bodies being verboten under the Geneva Convention. And her blog is apparently a part of the Breitbart collective. Take that as you will.

Southern Discomfort.


You have to wonder if whenever Rick Santorum goes home, he breaks out the makeup kit hidden way in the back of the sock drawer, runs off to the bathroom and spends the next hour or so making himself "feel pretty." Then he breaks out the iPod, throws on a scarf, cranks up the tunes and starts dancing to Lady GaGa.

I bet he wasn't expecting to "feel pretty" in the middle of an autographing/photo op.

And I didn't like how those two proto-goons were pushing and shoving the old, balding guy out of the hall. Those guys looked like they could have "1488" inked on them somewhere.


Mittens isn't doing so well, either, although he isn't getting glitter thrown at him. Still, having to watch a joke candidate walk away with 40% of the caucus vote has to be painful.

More painful is the reason why Newt was able to run away with those votes like that. He found the open secret of winning the SC primary - beat up on minorities and the poor in coded language. And the crowd ate it up with bare hands. He couldn't have done any better if he had broke out a 55-gallon drum BBQ grill and started whipping up some spare ribs and pork BBQ for the audience. He knew his audience and the audience loved him.

And it's gonna make Florida all the more painful for Newt. As much as I liken the panhandle areas north of Orlando as South Alabama/Georgia, I don't think the dog whistles are gonna be heard as well in those parts. And given how Romney and Santorum are determined not to let a repeat of SC happen again, I say it's gonna be a knockdown dragout battle between all three.

And no one's gonna give a good shit about Ron Paul. It's practically over for him, but he just don't know it yet.

Family Values.

This is what I don't get about people who support Newton Leroy Gingrich. They tout his "family values" even though the man is miles away from ideal when it comes to genuine family values:

Kip Carter, his former campaign treasurer, was walking Newt's daughters back from a football game one day and cut across a driveway where he saw a car. "As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then."

This is a man who walked out on his first wife while she was suffering from cancer and walked out on his second wife when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, after asking if he could have an "open marriage" so he could nail his soon-to-be third wife. You can't put "family values" and "Newt Gingrich" in the same sentence without laughing your head off at the inherent contradictions. Yet he still finds support from the "family values" crowd:

One senses him trying. "I see a lot of parallels between King David and Newt Gingrich, two extraordinary men gifted by God, whose lives include very high highs and very low lows," Deace says. David, after all, committed adultery with the ravishing Bathsheba, then had her husband killed, among other transgressions. The Bible makes room for complicated, morally compromised heroes. Now Christian conservatives, desperate for an alternative to Mitt Romney, are learning to do so as well.

"Under normal circumstances, Gingrich would have some real problems with the social-conservative community," says Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. "But these aren’t normal circumstances."

You could say the same thing about Mark Sanford. Or Anthony Weiner. Or Elliot Spitzer. Hell, let's throw Herman Cain in there while we're at it. "Extraordinary" men beset by their own lusts and transgressions. And yet Sanford, Weiner and Spitzer had their political careers garroted and left in the street to bleed out. Even the coveted (R) next to Sanford's name couldn't save him. And Herm? Take a look through the archives to see what happened to that guy.

"Family values." The concept involves one man and one woman, married to one another, with kids, with no adultery, no out-of-wedlock sex and no homosexuality in sight. Yet it's represented by a man whose had three wives, cheated on at least two of them and exhibited all the moral failings that would have these people falling on their fainting couches if it were any other person.

I'm starting to think that "family values" means something entirely different from the above and I haven't gotten the memo on what that is exactly. New code word for "status quo?" A rallying cry for those who only want to see sickeningly perfect and blindingly white nuclear families? A way for religious and conservative groups to game themselves into backing Newt without throwing up? Perhaps the fine folks in South Carolina could tell me after they've finished celebrating Newt's win. I'm really dying to know.

You know what's funny? There's already a sterling example of "family values" available, and it's already in the White House. Yep, Barack and Michelle Obama. Too bad they already have two strikes against them, as far as the "family values" crowd is concerned - being Democrats and being that other thing that seems to set off so many people...socialist? No, that's not it...Kenyan? Close, but not quite...
Courtesy of Associated Press

As it turns out, damn-near bursting your lungs on the dog whistles is what wins primaries in South Carolina, because that's exactly what Newton Leroy just did. Gingrich ran away with over 40% of the vote, leaving Mitt Romney sucking wind at just over 27%, Santorum at 17.4% and Ron Paul dead last at just 13%. Amazing how telling an easily color-aroused group of people exactly what they wanted to hear can land a win right in your lap.

I half-assedly alluded to how Newt would probably win in S.C., and he did. Now, the next prediction should have a bit more conviction in it, so I'll go ahead and say he'll fall hard in Florida. Slightly different mindset down there, plus Santorum and Romney will work hard to make sure he doesn't run away with another win. Besides, if Newt does win in Florida, it'll put the GOP establishment in full-on panic mode. After all, Newt was never their pre-ordained Golden Boy™ - Mittens was.

Primaries, Dog Whistles, Republicans And You.

South Carolina. All I know about the state is that 1)it was where the Battle of Fort Sumter took place, kicking off the American Civil War, 2)it was the first state to secede from the Union and 3)they still fly the Confederate Battle Flag over the statehouse. Apparently, it's become important ground for a battle of a different sort. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich worked their magic in the CNN and Fox debates, and worked their magic on the damn-near 99% white crowd with a combination of demagoguery, fear mongering and just plain outright disingenuousness.

And it works. For ages, politicians have known that one of the quickest ways to earn the minds and votes of the unreconstructed is to pledge protection from having a single dime of their money spent on a black person. Or pledge to throw more blacks in jail. Or merely put them in their place, even.


This about sums up the South Carolina primary. A prime example of Newton Leroy Gingrich doing what all of the GOP nominees have done so far - tossing nice, bloody chunks of red meat to an audience that's eager to eat it all up and ask for seconds*. As Chauncey DeVega noted, these aren't dog whistles ringing in the ears of the average unreconstructed South Carolinian, it's a goddamned air raid siren, powered by a Chrysler Hemi on alcohol and nitrous.

It's no shock that a GOP candidate would attempt to tap into the darkest desires and fears of white Americans just to score a win - it's what the GOP is best at, from Ronald Reagan's 1981 campaign start in Philadelphia, MS to Rick Santorum's wonderful quip:

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

Thus implying that blacks are entitled, lazy people who won't work and would rather subsist on a diet of handouts, Kool Aid, purple drink and welfare, plucked straight from the wallets of hardworking white American families, never mind how the vast majority of welfare recipients are white or how even the wealthiest whites are not above taking a handout or three. The ideal response for the average unreconstructed South Carolinian is to forget about every other important issue and vote for the guy who can supply the most red meat.

You have to feel a bit sorry for Juan Williams. He's the designated whipping boy for the candidates, taking lick after lick of color-aroused aggression and demagoguery:

"Juan Williams was there to give the Obama perspective," joked Ed Bignon, a construction company CEO, after a Gingrich town hall here. "He was trying to trap Newt into saying something about race."

"Newt really showed him!" said C.J. Dodson, a friend of Bignon's.
Yep. Newt really did put that sorry Negro in his place.

The only comfort I get out of this is that 1)Newt might get a small boost from the unreconstructed SC crowd, but he'll fall hard in other primaries, 2)Mittens will wind up with the GOP nomination anyways, and 3)Mittens (or any other GOP candidate, for that matter) will lose horribly to Barack Obama.


*And judging by the bellies I've seen on some South Carolinians, thirds.

One Million.



540,208 signatures were needed to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Today, the Wisconsin Democratic Party turned in 1,000,000 signatures to the Government Accountability Board. If that isn't a loud and clear message to Scott Walker, I don't know what is. In all, over 1,900,000 signatures were submitted in an effort to recall Walker and others listed above.

HT to Bob Cesca and @News3Jessica
- A Republican congressman tells a lazy, shiftless welfare queen single mother of two to (wo)man up and join the military instead of worrying about her food stamps and welfare checks Pell Grants.

According to Blue Arkansas, Kelly Eubanks asked Womack about the Pell Grant program which she uses to attend college. Eubanks, who has to work two jobs to take care of her two children, was concerned about his vote to slash Pell Grants for 100,000 low income students. She expected an explanation. Instead, Womack avoided her question and callously told her that she should “join the military” to pay her own way like he did. When she tried to press the congressman for a real explanation, Womack refused and told her to “be quiet and listen.”

What a card. But "Real" Americans love guys like Steve Womack. They put the "ass" in "asshole" in a way Americans just can't get enough of.

- The "Stop Online Piracy Act" and the House version of the "Protect IP Act" were both killed after the White House announced its opposition to both measures.

In a surprise move today, Representative Eric Cantor(R-VA) announced that he will stop all action on SOPA, effectively killing the bill. This move was most likely due to several things. One of those things is that SOPA and PIPA met huge online protest against the bills. Another reason would be that the White House threatened to veto the bill if it had passed. However, it isn't quite time yet to celebrate, as PIPA(the Senate's version of SOPA) is still up for consideration.

- Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be out of a job, now that organizers have gathered the minimum of 540,208 signatures needed to force a recall vote. Not only has Scott Walker behaved like a complete asshole during his short stay in office, but his performance in regards to job creation left a lot to be desired - between November 2010 and November 2011, non-farm jobs grew only by 0.2%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

- J.P. Morgan Chase is foreclosing on O.J. Simpson's $575,000 home in Miami. Not to make light of the Juice's plight, but it's not like he's gonna be coming home anytime soon, not with 33 years on his plate.

"He Ended The Terror Of Living As A Black Person."

The following was posted on Daily Kos last year, and was subsequently reposted on Angry Black Lady Chronicles. This is a powerful story from HamdenRice of the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and how those accomplishments freed countless black Americans from the tyranny of racially-motivated bullying and oppression.

I remember that many years ago, when I was a smart ass home from first year of college, I was standing in the kitchen arguing with my father. My head was full of newly discovered political ideologies and black nationalism, and I had just read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, probably for the second time.

A bit of context. My father was from a background, which if we were talking about Europe or Latin America, we would call, "peasant" origin, although he had risen solidly into the working-middle class. He was from rural Virginia and his parents had been tobacco farmers. I spent two weeks or so every summer on the farm of my grandmother and step grandfather. They had no running water, no gas, a wood burning stove, no bathtubs or toilets but an outhouse, pot belly stoves for heat in the winter, a giant wood pile, a smoke house where hams and bacon hung, chickens, pigs, semi wild housecats that lived outdoors, no tractor or car, but an old plow horse and plows and other horse drawn implements, and electricity only after I was about 8 years old. The area did not have high schools for blacks and my father went as far as the seventh grade in a one room schoolhouse. All four of his grandparents, whom he had known as a child, had been born slaves. It was mainly because of World War II and urbanization that my father left that life.

They lived in a valley or hollow or "holler" in which all the landowners and tenants were black. In the morning if you wanted to talk to cousin Taft, you would walk down to behind the outhouse and yell across the valley, "Heeeyyyy Taaaaft," and you could see him far, far in the distance, come out of his cabin and yell back.

On the one hand, this was a pleasant situation because they lived in isolation from white people. On the other hand, they did have to leave the valley to go to town where all the rigid rules of Jim Crow applied. By the time I was little, my people had been in this country for six generations (going back, according to oral rendering of our genealogy, to Africa Jones and Mama Suki), much more under slavery than under freedom, and all of it under some form of racial terrorism, which had inculcated many humiliating behavior patterns.

Anyway that's background. I think we were kind of typical as African Americans in the pre Civil Rights era went.

So anyway, I was having this argument with my father about Martin Luther King and how his message was too conservative compared to Malcolm X's message. My father got really angry at me. It wasn't that he disliked Malcolm X, but his point was that Malcolm X hadn't accomplished anything as Dr. King had.

I was kind of sarcastic and asked something like, so what did Martin Luther King accomplish other than giving his "I have a dream speech."

Before I tell you what my father told me, I want to digress. Because at this point in our amnesiac national existence, my question pretty much reflects the national civic religion view of what Dr. King accomplished. He gave this great speech. Or some people say, "he marched." I was so angry at Mrs. Clinton during the primaries when she said that Dr. King marched, but it was LBJ who delivered the Civil Rights Act.

At this point, I would like to remind everyone exactly what Martin Luther King did, and it wasn't that he "marched" or gave a great speech.

My father told me with a sort of cold fury, "Dr. King ended the terror of living in the south."

Please let this sink in and and take my word and the word of my late father on this. If you are a white person who has always lived in the U.S. and never under a brutal dictatorship, you probably don't know what my father was talking about.

But this is what the great Dr. Martin Luther King accomplished. Not that he marched, nor that he gave speeches.

He ended the terror of living as a black person, especially in the south.

I'm guessing that most of you, especially those having come fresh from seeing "The Help," may not understand what this was all about. But living in the south (and in parts of the mid west and in many ghettos of the north) was living under terrorism.

It wasn't that black people had to use a separate drinking fountain or couldn't sit at lunch counters, or had to sit in the back of the bus.

You really must disabuse yourself of this idea. Lunch counters and buses were crucial symbolic planes of struggle that the civil rights movement decided to use to dramatize the issue, but the main suffering in the south did not come from our inability to drink from the same fountain, ride in the front of the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth's.

It was that white people, mostly white men, occasionally went berserk, and grabbed random black people, usually men, and lynched them. You all know about lynching. But you may forget or not know that white people also randomly beat black people, and the black people could not fight back, for fear of even worse punishment.

This constant low level dread of atavistic violence is what kept the system running. It made life miserable, stressful and terrifying for black people.

White people also occasionally tried black people, especially black men, for crimes for which they could not conceivably be guilty. With the willing participation of white women, they often accused black men of "assault," which could be anything from rape to not taking off one's hat, to "reckless eyeballing."

This is going to sound awful and perhaps a stain on my late father's memory, but when I was little, before the civil rights movement, my father taught me many, many humiliating practices in order to prevent the random, terroristic, berserk behavior of white people. The one I remember most is that when walking down the street in New York City side by side, hand in hand with my hero-father, if a white woman approached on the same sidewalk, I was to take off my hat and walk behind my father, because he had been taught in the south that black males for some reason were supposed to walk single file in the presence of any white lady.

This was just one of many humiliating practices we were taught to prevent white people from going berserk.

I remember a huge family reunion one August with my aunts and uncles and cousins gathered around my grandparent's vast breakfast table laden with food from the farm, and the state troopers drove up to the house with a car full of rifles and shotguns, and everyone went kind of weirdly blank. They put on the masks that black people used back then to not provoke white berserkness. My strong, valiant, self educated, articulate uncles, whom I adored, became shuffling, Step-N-Fetchits to avoid provoking the white men*. Fortunately the troopers were only looking for an escaped convict. Afterward, the women, my aunts, were furious at the humiliating performance of the men, and said so, something that even a child could understand.

This is the climate of fear that Dr. King ended.

If you didn't get taught such things, let alone experience them, I caution you against invoking the memory of Dr. King as though he belongs exclusively to you and not primarily to African Americans.

The question is, how did Dr. King do this -- and of course, he didn't do it alone.

(Of all the other civil rights leaders who helped Dr. King end this reign of terror, I think the most under appreciated is James Farmer, who founded the Congress of Racial Equality and was a leader of non-violent resistance, and taught the practices of non violent resistance.)

So what did they do?

They told us: -- whatever you are most afraid of doing vis a vis white people, go do it. Go ahead down to city hall and try to register to vote, even if they say no, even if they take your name down.

Go ahead sit at that lunch counter. Sue the local school board. All things that most black people would have said back then, without exaggeration, were stark raving insane and would get you killed.

If we do it all together, we'll be OK.

They made black people experience the worst of the worst, collectively, that white people could dish out, and discover that it wasn't that bad. They taught black people how to take a beating -- from the southern cops, from police dogs, from fire department hoses. They actually coached young people how to crouch, cover their heads with their arms and take the beating. They taught people how to go to jail, which terrified most decent people.

And you know what? The worst of the worst, wasn't that bad.

Once people had been beaten, had dogs sicked on them, had fire hoses sprayed on them, and been thrown in jail, you know what happened?

These magnificent young black people began singing freedom songs in jail.

That, my friends, is what ended the terrorism of the south. Confronting your worst fears, living through it, and breaking out in a deep throated freedom song. The jailers knew they had lost when they beat the crap out of these young Negroes and the jailed, beaten young people began to sing joyously, first in one town then in another. This is what the writer, James Baldwin, captured like no other writer of the era.

Please let this sink in. It wasn't marches or speeches. It was taking a severe beating, surviving and realizing that our fears were mostly illusory and that we were free.

So yes, Dr. King had many other goals, many other more transcendent, non-racial, policy goals, goals that apply to white people too, like ending poverty, reducing the war like aspects of our foreign policy, promoting the New Deal goal of universal employment, and so on. But his main accomplishment was ending 200 years of racial terrorism, by getting black people to confront their fears. So please don't tell me that Martin Luther King's dream has not been achieved, unless you knew what racial terrorism was like back then and can make a convincing case you still feel it today. If you did not go through that transition, you're not qualified to say that the dream was not accomplished.

That is what Dr. King did -- not march, not give good speeches. He crisscrossed the south organizing people, helping them not be afraid, and encouraging them, like Gandhi did in India, to take the beating that they had been trying to avoid all their lives.

Once the beating was over, we were free.

It wasn't the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act or the Fair Housing Act that freed us. It was taking the beating and thereafter not being afraid. So, sorry Mrs. Clinton, as much as I admire you, you were wrong on this one. Our people freed ourselves and those Acts, as important as they were, were only white people officially recognizing what we had done.

PS. I really shouldn't have to add this but please -- don't ever confuse someone criticizing you or telling you bad things over the internet with what happened to people during the civil rights movement. Don't. Just don't do it. Don't go there.

PSS Weird, but it kind of sounds like what V did to Evie.

UPDATE: There is a major, major hole in this essay as pointed out by FrankAletha downthread -- While I was focusing on the effect on black men, she points out that similarly randomized sexual violence against black women was as severe and common and probably more so, because while violence against black men was ritualistic, violence against black women was routine.

Fear. It's a crippling emotion that prevents many people from doing things. For far too long, black Americans had to live in fear - fear of being beaten and killed for saying the wrong things, doing the wrong things, or inadvertently pissing off the wrong people. And it was a system of fear that was enforced with copious amounts of violence. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. helped black Americans dismantle and overcome that system of racial terrorism, so whites could no longer go berserk and lynch themselves a "nigger" just because they could (and get away with it, mind you). It wasn't just about not being able to sit at a lunch counter or share a water fountain with a white person. It was about ending racial terrorism.

This was what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was ultimately all about - putting an end to racial terrorism by giving black Americans the tools to prevent such from ever happening again. Despite what people may say about voting, it is a powerful tool that can be used to great benefit in the war to create and maintain civil liberties for all. This is what Dr. King's efforts were all about. Putting an end to racial terrorism.

*emphasis mine

Yesterday, January 15, was his birthday. Today is a federal holiday set under the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. MLK, Jr. Day was signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and first observed three years later on January 20. [Wikipedia]

Instead of the usual tributes, from Dream and Hustle:
Every year around this time, I have to hear this question “If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today..” and I’m sick of it. Only these coward punk clowns we have in the Black media would let a question like this come out of their mouth and you should look closely as anybody who want to ask this kind of question for discussion. Bottom line is Martin Luther King, Jr ain’t in 2012 but we are here in 2012 and what we going to do while me and you are alive right here and right now?

I’m getting up in age a little bit and to be honest on Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, it brings my attention to all of the fake civil rights, Black socialites and these sideways hustle bloggers we got running around this day and age pretending they something extra or outstanding me and you supposed to admire, real talk. Ain’t none of them willing to die for this like Martin Luther King Jr and I hope they understand where I come from when I let them know I can careless about who they think they are or supposed to be around me.

Every year, they come around and ask this question about “Martin Luther King would have turned 83 today, what would he think if he was alive today?” and not realize I think they are a straight bench and tussy deodorant coward for even asking that ignorant question. We are the only people who instead of honor our past with the present; we use the present to ask stupid questions about past people about if they were alive today.

Every year, we got some little punk well-dressed kid reciting the “I have a Dream” speech trying to sound like Martin Luther King with the audience clapping and some old wrinkled auntie with a smirk on her face as her nephew preaching from the podium. Real talk, I don’t know if that overrated brat and the whole audience participating are mocking Martin Luther King. However, we got kids that age here in 2012 actually building villages in Africa as we speak right now using the Internet to raise money.

Well, Martin Luther King Jr. ain’t alive today and the only thing 83 years old is his corpse and that’s the reality. Me and you are alive today and we know damn well what’s going on around us and affecting our Black community. So what the heck we going to do, that’s the real question! So that’s why anybody who ask what MLK would do in 2012 is a straight punk coward trying to put our current 2012 on 1900s Martin Luther King Jr. who came and went already and did what he done with the life MLK had while living.

I don’t have a dream, I have Dream and Hustle and I put in 2012 work for 2012 issues to solve 2012 problems for our people and our next generation. I do what I do and don’t need anybody approval and don’t care who don’t like me. We all know Martin Luther King had just as much Black people hating on him feeling he is a “rubble rouser”, well some of us know that. And the reason why they hating on Martin Luther King back then is why you see cats hating on stuff like Ed Dunn and Dream and Hustle because I don’t need socialite opinion to go out there and do the right thing for my people, my community and my future.

And let me give my speech, I ain’t Martin Luther King and I know what our own people did to Malcolm X and that’s what I’m a product of and what I really know what’s real out here. In 2012, you got some fake brothas and sistas in the middle class and upper class who are just as about the “same ish, different” day angle as much as those cats in the hood who ain’t going nowhere. Some of you cats ain’t even hip to it and walking around misguided and following the wrong cats who can careless about your future or your hustle or your struggle and just want to brag they have you as their customer. And some of you going right along with that game then get mad at me because I don’t respect your cornball following behind.

Today, we got more people around the world including the Arab Spring cats who honor and respect and study Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement to mimic their own fight for freedom. They getting machine gunned down protesting in 2012 while in 2012, we Black people too coward to take a bullet (or dish out bullets) fighting for ours here in the USA. Today, these emerging countries and economic situation is on the up, while Black people are leaving Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles in droves. Bottom line is our people are falling because cats don’t want to step up and get frustrated and stagnant instead of try to work together and move forward.

Martin Luther King does not know how to create wikis, but we do know how in 2012 to spread the information around and each one teach one. Martin Luther King does not have STEM educational background but we all have that at our fingertips right now to solve the majority or our problems we are dealing with. Martin Luther King did not have a chance to deal with the economic empowerment issue to address the poor people in our communities but we can handle that right now if we want to.

We going to see on Martin Luther King National Holiday, all the cowards we got in 2012 that will ask what Martin Luther King will do if he is alive today instead of being accountable for what they themselves should be doing in 2012 in the same spirit Martin Luther King fought for to reach the goal of equality, social justice and economic empowerment for the oppressed and underprivileged.

Another Casualty In The GOP Primary.

Joining the ranks of Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann in their exit from the GOP primary is Jon Huntsman, unassuming and often ignored GOP candidate and the near-perfect representation of the phrase "always a bridesmaid, never a bride." A disappointing third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul made that crystal-clear.

Sadly, Jon Huntsman also represented the sanest GOP candidate of them all, at least compared to the horrifically out-of-touch and robotic Romney, mentally imbalanced Perry, bombastic Gingrich, sleazy Santorum and batshit-insane Bachmann. In a normal GOP primary bereft of the poisonous Tea Party rhetoric and a public's craving for meat and blood, Huntsman might have stood a chance.

Huntsman leaves behind several delegates, including two he picked up in New Hampshire, and a faint little imprint on the wall from his time playing the perpetual wallflower while all the other candidates got to dance on the campaign stage, not for the lack of trying, mind you.
And on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less.


This is some bullshit. Tacky, tasteless, coon-ass bullshit.

And it makes this all the more appropriate:



It's like some people have absolutely no concept of "taste."
Ron Paul's interests in removing federal oversight from a number of arenas happens to dovetail neatly into what many progressives want, and the end of the War on Drugs happens to be one of them. The problem comes when Paul supporters expect black Americans to join the R[evol]ution in lockstep solely for one major benefit of the end of the War on Drugs: the possible end of mass black American incarceration for minor drug-related offenses. But that is not guaranteed to happen without addressing the underlying cause of mass incarcerations (hint: it doesn't involve drugs).

What's with the assumption that ending the drug war will somehow put an end to the excessive policing of people of color? Ending the drug war will not magically make the police go away. Sure it might reduce their presence for a while, but they'll find a way to get back under some other pretense. It doesn't reduce the root cause of the problem: racism.

The above comes from commentator Throcky at We Are Respectable Negros, who hit on a very big flaw in the "Paulbot" argument for unwavering black American support. Until the specter of racism in law enforcement and justice system policies are addressed, and until the socioeconomic issues that drive local, state and federal governments to engage in a soft genocide of blacks, the situation will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Ending the War on Drugs won't end the War on Blacks.

At this point, I have to wonder if the people supporting Ron Paul are just backing him in hopes of one day being able to smoke a joint or hit acid without being bothered by law enforcement.

Meanwhile, the rest of Chauncey DeVega's post on Ron Paul and the black-and-white thinking many seem to have when it comes to racism offers plenty of eye-opening points. For instance, DeVega gives a great example of why binary thinking does not lend itself well when it comes to people's thoughts and opinions. Yes, Ron Paul is progressive on many issues, including the aforementioned War on Drugs, the War on Afghanistan and many other foreign/social policies, but his strident disdain for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his former ties to unsavory white supremacist figures and the allowance of his name to be used on a series of racially bigoted newsletters for decades points to a man who is not unlike DeVega's example, Hinton Rowan Helper. Helper may have been firmly against slavery, but he was a staunch supporter of the notions that blacks were simply inferior to whites. A product of his time, perhaps, but his recorded views are so strident as to make others wonder if his beliefs are indeed genuine, down to his very core.

As DeVega points out, a man can be right in many respects and wrong in others. No binary thinking here. Ron Paul could be a man who thinks little of blacks, yet happens to support a few policies that would at least temporarily ease their circumstances. Discussing this with a fellow white who happens to be ultra-sensitive to the prospect of, for the lack of a better phrase, being made to lose his feeling of "whiteness":

Primarily, the bar for what constitutes racism has been set so high that even the most obvious examples of racial animus have to be couched in careful terms lest an "innocent" white person be branded a bigot.

Branding someone a bigot is one of the highest forms of social insult to be suffered by most whites. Therefore, in discussions of ethnic relations involving white and black Americans, blacks have to tread lightly, lest they slight their white brethren's notions of "whiteness" by making them feel as though they are criminally culpable in black suffering, when they believe themselves to be above such.

Politics isn't acting. You "publish" things under your own name, be it in a newsletter or just with the poorly chosen words that fly out of your mouth, time to time, and you make a statement to the world: "I stand by this."

That comes from commentator Abstentus. Ron Paul's supporters are unwilling to admit that by allowing his name to remain on an racially inflammatory newsletter, he was effectively endorsing the content found therein. If he did not want to be associated with said content, he would have had his name removed from the newsletters post haste and drafted a sternly worded retraction that further explained his disdain for and distance from the newsletter, the staff and the content therein.

Instead, his supporters play head games in hopes of tricking those who are slow on the draw to join the Ron Paul R[evol]ution. If Ron Paul was genuinely for black Americans, he wouldn't have any need for his supporters to run game on black Americans who weren't watching closely.

Adventures In Bad Policy: Indian Giving Edition.

FEMA is asking more than 83,000 recipients of aid to reimburse the government an average of $4,622 each, BlackAmericaWeb reports. The agency says that clerical or employee errors may have resulted in some victims receiving more compensation than what may now be allocated.

This comes six years after disbursement of the funds intended to help victims of Hurricane Katrina seek new shelter and put their lives back together. And the funds are due within a 30-day period, just in time for income tax season. Other than getting a refund back from Uncle Sam, very few people have the resources to come up with a quick $4,600, let alone those effected by Hurricane Katrina. Such an oversight should have been written off as a loss and left alone.

There's been plenty of talk about the spending habits of those effected by Katrina, namely of the "booze and rims" variety. People make mistakes, and many people don't do well when confronted with the management of large sums of money given in one lump. Not much you can do about this aside from a copious amount of fiscal management education, one of the many things that no one wants done in this country.
I thought I wouldn't have to blog about Glenn Greenwald again, but Greenwald has a way of staying within the Man's peripheral vision. Just take a look at this Chirpstory, where Tim Wise goes toe-to-toe with Greenwald and Be Scofield:



Feeling a bit dizzy? Discombobulated, perhaps? Ok, let's break this down.

Due to President Obama's expanding use of drones in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, Glenn Greenwald and the like have likened Obama to George Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Since President Obama has yet to end the War on Terror, full stop, he continues to come under criticism from Greenwald, et al. Be Scofield wondered if President Obama would continue to allow drone strikes if the largely Muslim victims, many who are involved as collateral damage in the pursuit of Muslim extremists and terrorists, were black Americans, instead. Yes, even purported liberal voices can pull the Race Card now and again, for their own purposes. Now that you have the discussion framing, let's get down to the meat of the discussion.

Adrian Charles countered with an essay by Tim Wise on how the policies of Ron Paul, that wily underdog savior of all that is progressive in the world, happen to line up with those of well-known white supremacist David Duke. I covered several aspects of Paul's deficiencies in regards to ethnic relations and how many progressives still managed to fall headlong in love with the guy. And this is where the wheels on the logic bus just sort of fall off here.

Ok, so it's been established that President Obama's foreign policy is racist, as it, according to Greenwald and Scofield, targets Muslims, who are often considered "people of color." Scofield wants ardent Obama supporters to imagine those Muslim victims as black Americans and then ask themselves if they would still support Pres. Obama. Ergo, Pres. Obama is racist and so are you, if you support him.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul wants to end the War on Terror, automatically making him a good guy to many. Assuming this is true, he would also end the drone strikes. Ergo, he is not a racist, since it seems he's looking out for the best interests of people of color by putting an end to their massacre. Unfortunately, if you've read up on the company Paul kept and his views, many of which happen to align with those of notable bigots and racists, then you'd see that the man is, despite many of his policies aligning with those that progressives crave, is a racist. Except that he isn't, by Greenwald and Scofield's standards.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama has eliminated the civil rights of more people of color than Paul has i.e. killing them.

It's well known that Ron Paul vehemently disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wishes to do away with it, thereby stripping many of the protections that black Americans have taken for granted for decades on end. If something like this actually happens, it will have a detrimental effect on the treatment of black Americans and their ability to effect political change through the very mechanisms that have been used to great effect for centuries, one that would last for a very long time. But no, this isn't racist. Neither is associating one self with racists. For Scofield, it's the bodies of "people of color" overseas that matter, since it feeds into the "Obama=Racist" and "Obama=Bush" memes.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama doesn't believe in hierarchy of the races, but he kills more people of color than Duke + Paul together.

"Hierarchy of the races." That's how Scofield explains the policies and opinions of Duke, Black, Paul and any other bigoted individual who believes in white supremacy. Considering the struggles, trials and tribulations that black Americans have gone through just to be considered equal under the law, this is just downright insulting. And yet Scofield and Greenwald expect black Americans to que up behind Ron Paul because he happens to represent the best "Anti-Obama" that these guys could come up with (Hillary Clinton is the "Anti-Obama" of the Villager/Firebagger set). Just because some aspects of the man's policies happen to line up with those of progressive liberals. Duke, et al. are nothing to worry about since they only believe in the "hierarchy of the races." No, there's not much wrong with whites believing they are mentally, physically and socially superior to blacks.

At any rate, that's not terribly important to Scofield. Instead, it's the bodies overseas that matter. 243 targeted attacks via drones since 2009, netting 2264 casualties, most of those representing collateral damage, in the pursuit of extremists and terrorists. For a number of reasons, President Obama cannot end this cold turkey, just as he could not end the War in Iraq cold turkey - that had to be drawn down with a well thought-out plan that helped the U.S. effectively "save face" without causing any political or foreign policy backlash. The drone attacks will end in the same way. After all, Pres. Obama's push for more drones served to prevent further U.S. soldier casualties in Afghanistan. Between nameless, faceless bodies in rubble and U.S. servicemen offloaded from C-130s in flag-draped caskets, which one would serve to further wreck the Obama Administration and give Republicans more ammo with which to end his term in office?

Actually, many progressives would prefer the latter, since it would do just that, as many believe Pres. Obama is long past the point of redemption as far as progressive politics are involved. Some want to believe that being pelted by rocks supplied by progressives and thrown by Republicans would cause him to "wake up" and start doing the bidding of Greenwald and the Village crowd, for once. Seeing a black (or bi-racial, if one wants to get all picky about it) president pragmatically navigate his way through treacherous political waters while remaining unscathed does absolutely nothing for them. And this is not coming from an "Obot" or "Obama groupie" - this comes from someone who recognizes pragmatism as a means of survival for what it is - it's not weakness, "being like Bush" or 11-dimensional chess - it's being smart enough to realize that going Magic Negro™ or Hillary Clinton in regards to foreign and domestic policy will guarantee a single-term presidency.

To wit, "Obama (black/bi-racial guy) = Racist" and "Ron Paul (white guy with dubious ties) = Not Racist." This sort of mindfucking in order to get the responses you want is a specialty of Greenwald and Scofield, apparently, and it sucks in plenty of people who don't know better. It's all headgaming at its finest.

Adventures In Senseless Shit: Bleeding Kansas Edition.


The guy above is Kansas House Speaker Mike O'Neal (R). Normally he wouldn't rate a mention on DDSS if it wasn't for the following story:

ThinkProgress reported last week that Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R) was forced to apologize to First Lady Michelle Obama after forwarding an email to fellow lawmakers that called her “Mrs. YoMama” and compared her to the Grinch.

Earlier that same week, the Lawrence Journal-World was sent another email that O’Neal had forwarded to House Republicans that referred to President Obama and a Bible verse that says “Let his days be few” and calls for his children to be without a father and his wife to be widowed.

Nick Sementelli at Faith in Public Life notes that Psalm 109, which is a prayer for the death of a leader, became a popular conservative meme after Obama’s election. The “tongue-in-cheek” prayer for the president was seen on bumper stickers.

These guys just won't let up against the president and the First Family. They've just about called them everything except "niggers" and "children of God." There seems to be no end to the color-aroused bile they're obligated to reflexively spew time and again.

The verse? It's Psalm 109, "A Cry for Vengeance," as noted here:


1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2 for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:
        
they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred;
        
and fought against me without a cause.
4 For my love they are my adversaries:
        
but I give myself unto prayer.
5 And they have rewarded me evil for good,
        
and hatred for my love.
6 Set thou a wicked man over him:
        
and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned:
        
and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few;
        
and let another take his office. Acts 1.20
9 Let his children be fatherless,
        
and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg:
        
let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath;
        
and let the strangers spoil his labor.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him:
        
neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off;
        
and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD;
        
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually,
        
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to show mercy,
        
but persecuted the poor and needy man,
that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing,
        
so let it come unto him:
as he delighted not in blessing,
so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment,
        
so let it come into his bowels like water,
and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him,
        
and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD,
        
and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake:
        
because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me.
22 For I am poor and needy,
        
and my heart is wounded within me.
23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth:
        
I am tossed up and down as the locust.
24 My knees are weak through fasting;
        
and my flesh faileth of fatness.
25 I became also a reproach unto them:
        
when they looked upon me they shook their heads. Mt. 27.39 · Mk. 15.29
26 Help me, O LORD my God:
        
O save me according to thy mercy:
27 that they may know that this is thy hand;
        
that thou, LORD, hast done it.
28 Let them curse, but bless thou:
        
when they arise, let them be ashamed;
but let thy servant rejoice.
29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame;
        
and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth;
        
yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor,
        
to save him from those that condemn his soul.

These guys can be some rather vindictive motherfuckers, can they? I bet if someone sent Speaker O'Neal this verse in a threatening context, O'Neal would do his damnedest to round up every state trooper and FBI agent available to track down and shitcan whoever sent it.
Courtesy of Associated Press

Haley Barbour, the esteemed outgoing governor of the fair state of Mississippi decided that, on his way to a lucrative lobbying gig after serving two terms in office, decided he wouldn't leave the governor's chair without leaving behind a parting gift. That "gift" turned out to be not a good ol' yuletime "log" or even a brownish green streak, but a pardon of approximately 200 people, most of whom already served their sentence for a wide variety of crimes. It's common for governors to pardon those who they feel or at least were strongly persuaded to feel that their convictions and sentencing were either in error or in excess, but a mass pardon was unexpected, to say the least. That's what happened when Barbour failed to give the state-mandated 30 days notice before granting any pardons. It also didn't help that five of those people pardoned were still serving time, and that four of those five were in for murder. The prospect of having 21 inmates pardoned, with some being let go on medical release, didn't sit well with Attorney General Jim Hood, who requested that Circuit Judge Tomie Green issue an injunction to block their release. At least five released inmates figured they should get while the going was good and vanished off the face of the Magnolia State.

Here is a list of all of the pardons made by Barbour during his time in office, including the 200+ pardons given on the 10th. Note how most of these pardons are full, unconditional pardons, where the slate is wiped completely clean. Some were released on medical and conditional suspension of sentence, while others were given stricter conditions such as house arrest. Karen Irby, convicted of killing two doctors in a DUI-related accident, received a "Conditional Clemency on Condition That She Serves 3 Years in MDOC Intensive Supervision Program (House Arrest) and Additional 2 Years Under Supervision of MDOC Community Corrections Division."

Now take a look at the entries beside Gladys and Jamie Scott. You should know them - they were the ones who had to spend 17 years behind bars after effectively being framed for their involvement in an armed robbery that netted a paltry $11. Yes, these women had to spend more time in prison for something they weren't involved in than the men who actually committed the crime, thanks to a plea bargain. Note how their pardon is described as "indefinite suspension of sentence." That means their sentencing was effectively suspended for the foreseeable future, under the condition that they shell out $52 per month to the state of Florida for the administration of their paroles (since they moved to Pensacola) for the rest of their life and that Gladys give up a kidney to her sister as a condition of the release, something that raised eyebrows and broached questions from the realm of bioethics.

Yep. The sentence was suspended. If they don't pay the fees, they go back to jail. And I imagine if they break any laws, no matter how relatively minor, they run the risk of going back to jail. Hell of a way to be pardoned.

These women will spend the rest of their lives with this $52 Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for the rest of their living days, while those convicted of greater crimes will likely walk free with a clean slate. Perhaps they should have convinced MDOC to let them pop sheets at the Governor's Mansion for a while.

Hiatus.

If anyone's noticed, I haven't been posting anything new on the blog, and chances are, I won't be able to post anything else until this weekend, at the earliest.
top