The Power to Exercise #Racism in America

Once upon a time,  in a far away galaxy called Left in Alabama, I was trying to explain racism to their resident Righty,  Old Prosecutor.

I said then: I believe most of us can agree it takes power to exercise racism.  Meaning, a person can harbor racial prejudice against a certain group of people in their hearts and minds, but when they have the power/authority to act on those beliefs it's racism.

Exhibit A:  Washington GOP State Senator:  Colored People are more  likely to commit crimes. 

During a committee hearing last Thursday, Republicans in the Washington State Senate had a really hard time wrapping their heads around a proposal that would require the state to carry out racial impact statements on legislation when requested by lawmakers.
What's a racial impact statement? It's an assessment of whether something will affect all racial groups equally, or whether it will harm some groups more than others. (Like an environmental impact statement, except dealing with race.) For example, sentencing laws are much harsher on people dealing crack cocaine—more often people of color—than those dealing powder cocaine, even though the drugs are virtually identical. A racial impact statement on these laws would inform lawmakers of their disparate effects. (And, in an ideal world, would do this before the laws get voted upon.)

Exhibit B:  Judge Gets To Keep Job After Calling Black People Country N****rs

Judge Gerald Popeo will keep his job, even though he was heard openly using racist epithets against African American defendants. The Utica City, New York judge is accused of using the racial slur after a court session when he asked an African-American lawyer “do you know what New York City blacks call black people from upstate New York?”
The attorney just looked at him, apparently in shock that the judge would ask such an obviously problematic question. When the attorney had no response for the judge, Popeo answered: “country n*******.”
The judge thought his “joke”, apparently about a defendant, was hilarious. But the lawyer obviously did not.
For his part, Judge Popeo has vehemently denied making the racist “joke.”
But two separate lawyers claim to have heard this one-way exchange according to Syracuse.com.
Back in 2011, Popeo was caught referring to a prosecutor as a “cigar store Indian” …twice.

Exhibit C:  Justice Department Finds Pattern of Police Bias and Excessive Force in Ferguson

Police officers in Ferguson, Mo., have routinely violated the constitutional rights of the city’s black residents, the Justice Department has concluded in a scathing report that accuses the officers of using excessive force and making unjustified traffic stops for years.

Exhibit D:  Here is the racist Obama joke the Justice Department reportedly uncovered in it's Ferguson Investigation.

It seems the investigation also uncovered additional disturbing material that suggests a culture of racial bias among those who hold power in the city: according to the Associated Press, the report includes a 2008 message — which appears to be an attempt at humor — from a municipal email account that says President Obama wouldn't be in office long, because "what black man holds a steady job for four years."

There's more, but I think you get my drift.  Now can we have an open and honest dialogue about race in this country?

I thought "front page privileges at Left in Alabama come with a somewhat higher responsibility"?

Tutwiler Prison for Women

Evidently Resident Righty, and Left in Alabama Legal Issues Blogger Old Prosecutor is not required to fact check information before reporting it like mooncat admonished me to do, shortly before my front page privileges were suspended for supposedly posting factually incorrect information on the front pages and refusing to correct it. 

 I'm not accusing you of lying (0.00 / 0)

But I do say that too often you don't check your facts before you post, with the result that inaccurate information sometimes ends up on our front page under your byline. That is A Problem. When the inaccuracy is noted, you don't always correct it. Another Problem. This goes directly to your credibility and that of this blog, which is my Problem. Kathy is trying to do you the favor of pointing out that you aren't the least bit consistent in your statements. My read is that you're about a hairsbreadth from calling her a racist which would be not only inaccurate, but a damned lie.You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and to include your opinion in any diary. But front page privileges come with a somewhat higher responsibility -- to make an attempt to check information before you report it, because you are reporting to a rather wide audience here. Expressing opinion is fair game, and so is passing on interesting information from other sources, but I remind you that you do have a responsibility to our readers to make a good faith attempt to insure information is accurate before you pass it on.  We aren't a gossip sheet, nor do we want to be one.  I say this publicly because all our readers need to know that the facts matter to us here. Our readers may prefer to fact check for themselves -- good for them -- but I hope they don't catch us in errors very often. Facts matter, that's job one for me, and an important guideline for our front pagers. 

Old Prosecutor  either intentionally omitted some information, or, posted factually incorrect information on the front page of Left in Alabama. regarding Alabama's prison population.

The basic problem is that Alabama prisons are at appx 180% capacity and the Stae, especially the Legislature, is afraid that a lawsuit may result either (1) a Federal Court ordering mass releases (see California) or (2) a Federal takeover with huge financial mandates.

Alabama prisons are at maximum capacity, but the fear of  mass releases or a federal takeover with huge financial mandates is speculation at worst, and opinion at best.

Many suggest that the problem is that Alabama is imprisoning huge numbers of non violent criminals, Yet the numbers show 75% of all inmates are there for violent crimes.

According to the Montgomery Advertiser a survey response from the state of Alabama for a 2012 report by the Southern Legislative Conference show 75% of all inmates are there for violent crimes, and according to Old Prosecutor it just ain't so large numbers of people are in prison for marijuana possession,  but these figures tell  a different story.

After years of representing victims of racial profiling and police brutality, and investigating patterns of drug law enforcement, and trying to help people who were released from prison face one barrier, one legal roadblock after another to get a job, getting access to housing, getting even food stamps–you know, I had an awakening that our criminal justice system now functions more like a system of racial and social control, than a system of crime prevention or control,” Alexander said on PoliticsNation Monday.
“Our nation’s prison population has more than quintupled,” she said. “And this is due largely to the war on drugs and the ‘get tough’ movement. The drug war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color even though studies have consistently shown now for decades that contrary to popular belief, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but by waging this drug war almost exclusively in poor communities of color, we’ve now created a vast new racial under-caste.”
Since 1971, when President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs, there has been a 700% increase in the U.S. prison population. Today, African-Americans are also more likely to spend time in prison for drug related offenses than their white counterparts. According to the Sentencing Project, African-Americans make up 12% of the nation’s drug users, but represent 34% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 45% of those in state prison for such offense as of 2005.

Now I'm not saying there is a double standard when it comes to posting factually incorrect information on the front page of Left in Alabama, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy at best, which goes to the creditability of Left in Alabama.

There can be no unity if there is no justice.  Know justice, know peace.  No Justice, no peace. 

Left in Alabama's Old Prosecutor proves America does not need another 'national converstaion about race'

Today's must read;

From the very beginnings of this nation-state, America has practically done nothing else but talk about race. The whole idea and reality of race itself is enshrined in the constitution wherein black people are defined as only three-fifths human.

You won't see it on TeeVee because they are obsessed with the Royal Baby and intent on rehabilitating George Zimmerman's image, but Southerners are taking it to the streets.

The lingering image of the happy-go-lucky Southerner, content with his lot, happy to get a pat on the head from the local patriarch, is being shaken to its core. Across the U.S. South, workers, activists and regular citizens are standing up to GOP right-wingers, the Koch Brothers and next-of-kin plutocrats like Art Pope, and privatizing, corporate-driven organizations like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council).

Left in Alabama's resident Righty and legal analyst Old Prosecutor, (who has posting privileges and I don't), says the events in Florida were truly tragic, and asks was justice done in that courtroom?

Well Old Persecutor, I guess it depends on what your definition of justice IS.  Evidently the jury decided it's OK for an armed adult to profile, stalk, and shoot an unarmed African American teen through the heart and claim self defense.

I don't know what trial you were were watching but you put forth some things that are just wrong.

You said:  Was the shooting racilly (sic)motivated? That is Not Proven. I heard no evidence that Zimmerman had a hatred for african (sic) americans (sic) or that he acted out of that hatred.
George Zimmerman called Trayvon Martin a F*cking Coon on 911 audio call.  

You heard no evidence that Zimmerman had a hatred for African Americans  because this evidence wasn't presented at trial.
New Evidence-George Zimmerman used N-word in Text Message and E-mail when referring to who to look out for when on patrol in Sanford.

You said:  Zimmerman claimed prior law self defense. He maintained that he was attacked, had no chance to retreat and was justified in defending himself. He never claimed he was "standing his ground". 
Zimmerman Juror says panel Considered Stand Your Ground in Deliberations: He had a right to defend himself.

You said: Many maintain Zimmerman was the aggressor (and therefore not entitled to defend himself) because he followed Martin and got out of his truck. Following someone is not per se(sic) illegal and neither is exiting your truck.
You also said: 
In the 911 tape I heard played in court, I did not hear the dispatcher tell him not to get out of the car. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin. Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher then said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said okay.
Zimmerman claims that the dispatcher asked for the street address of where he was and that he got out of the truck to read the street address on the house.(Plausible to anyone who has ever tried to read an address in a subdivision)
So in my opinion it was not proven that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to. 


Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was following Martin, and the dispatcher told him “you don’t need to do that.”

You said: Was Martin racially profiled? It appears that a series of crimes had been committed in Zimmerman's neighborhood by young black males and Zimmerman assumed that Martin could be one of them.

If that's not racial profiling I don't know what IS. 

You asked: But was it truly unreasonable for Zimmerman to call Police to check Martin in that situation?

Calling the police was not unreasonable, and if that's all George Zimmerman had done we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Instead he and his Cal Tech,(which he didn't tell the dispatcher who told him 'we don't need you to  do that'), he had, stalked Trayvon because he was tired of the them F*cking Coons always getting away.

Speaking of Left in Alabama,  let me address a post by PoliticsAlabama (another Righty who has posting privileges and I don't) who asks Did an Alabama State Senator Accuse Most Voters of Racism? The answer is NO, Alabama State Senator Vivian figures said Racism has played a prominent role in the republican rise to dominance in Alabama.

Specifically, Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, said the election and subsequent re-election of President Barack Obama triggered a backlash by white Alabamians that allowed the state's Republican Party to capture overwhelming control of the Alabama Legislature in 2010 in addition to defeating the last Democrat to hold a statewide office that same year, Lucy Baxley, then president of the Alabama Public Service Commission.

There is an old saying in Alabama...if you throw a rock at a pen full of pigs the one that squeals is the one that's hit.  State Senator Vivian Figures called out racism.

You cannot prove racism to most white Americans  which is why a "conversation about race" is not needed.

What Mack Lyons said:

Until somethings done about the institutional and structural components that allow racism to maintain its existence and until more Americans acknowledge racism without diving into a rather paternalistic and/or defensive response over it, there's not much hope in changing things for the better.

It's the Racism, Stupid!  These two strands -- stupidity and racism -- are inseparable.

What say you?

Enough with the Excuses and the Enabling!

  

 Remembering Ana Grace Márquez-Greene, 6, of Sandy Hook, beloved daughter of James S. Greene, Jr. and Nelba (Amaro-Márquez) Greene, passed away senselessly on Friday, (December 14, 2012) during the horrific massacre enacted upon Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

Roland S. Martin writes:   America should see the Newtown carnage

“One of these mothers from Connecticut should do an Emmett Till moment; show the picture of their child dead in the classroom.”
That’s a text I received earlier this week from my TV One show producer. When I got it, a chill immediately went through my body just thinking about the possibility of seeing the carnage in such a photo.
When taping this week’s edition of my show, “Washington Watch,” Sirius/XM Radio host Joe Madison somberly said the same thing. Joe remarked that Emmett’s mother, Mamie, insisted on an open casket for her son so the world could see what was done to him by racists in Mississippi.

Left in Alabama resident's righty Old Prosecutor says the discussion shouldn't be about gun control, it should be about controlling violence, because guns are inanimate objects they don't kill on their own.  Sound familiar?

 Ironically, the discussion in a post calling for "controlling violence" taught me more than I ever wanted to know about assault rifles, semi automatic rifles, folding stock pistol grips, large capacity magazines, Ruger 10/22 rifles, pellet spread, short range weapons,  etc.  Call me crazy, but shooting a real gun at a living breathing animal, or, shooting a real gun at a target of a man/woman and aiming for their head or their heart, is just as violent as video games, movies and music videos.

Funny how we don't have the money to arm teachers with the tools they really need,  but we have plenty of money to train and arm them with weapons of mass destruction.  In the end, arming teachers with guns does nothing but provide false security.

What the Political Parent said;

I cannot keep having the same argument with the same talking points anymore. I do not believe in taking every one's guns away. I do believe we need to have sensible regulations that are enforced. You cannot compare guns with knives or cars or swimming pools. You cannot insist that I am going to be raped and murdered because I think 30 rounds is too much for any civilian. You cannot possibly think that your pistol and your cammo backpack gives you the tools to fight against a fictional tyrannical government. I will continue to fight for what I believe in, by donating to the Brady center, by contacting legislators, by writing letters to editors, etc. What I will not do is continue to waste my time arguing with buffoons who insist that repeating NRA lies and propaganda is the way to have a rational dialogue about safety. Go on the NRA site if you want to brag about your right to have whatever weapon you want and keep on tellin yourself that if someone gets caught in the crossfire somehow its their fault for not being "prepared". Or a video game's fault, or an atheist's fault, or a socialist's fault. I'll find a solution, you keep hiding from one.

How about this, let people keep their guns

Make possession of more than X rounds of ammo a felony. Pay whistle blower rewards for providing the name of ammo hoarders.
Require future ammo produced to go bad after 90 days.
Tax the sale of the new ammo to pay for the program.
There is no right to own ammo.

 The Founding Fathers never intended to for the second amendment to enable individuals to own what ever weapon they desired.

It was certainly not intended to enable groups of individuals to use deadly force against their own government. Instead, it was intended to enable government-led groups of white men to put down slave rebellions and to steal real estate from the Indians.

 Enough excuses.  Enough memorials.  Enough grief.   

 The problem of gun violence in the United States is complex, and as H.L. Mencken observed, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Advocating that we arm elementary school principals and kindergarten teachers is not only wrong but insane. We must stop allowing this kind of insanity to prevent us from having reasonable gun control legislation.

Amen and Amen.

B-I-N-G-O Q&A

You know, I'm really beginning to resent being banned from Left in Alabama, because Legal Contributor, and resident republican, Old Prosecutor posed a variety of questions related to the acquittal of all the defendents  in the infamous Alabama Bingo Trial  I would love to answer on the pages of Left in Alabama.  But since I'm one of three people in America not allowed to post at LIA,  this forum will have to do.

Although I am not welcome in the LiA kitty, I mean sand box, LiA readers are more than welcome to respond here.  Choices can open a mind, a dialogue.

Q.  "Why did the Feds jump so quick in this matter"?    


A.  Because the Feds were after people, not crimes.

Q.  "When does politics as usual cross into being a crime?" 


A.  When the Feds go after people not crimes.

Q. " Why would a democratic Attorney General approve this"?


A.  Because of Alabama's two republican United States Senators.

Q.  "Can't we drop this tar-baby of a case, so we will put on a minimum case so we can get back Washington?"

A.Remember,  the jury in the first trial was deadlocked. Prosecutors were granted a retrial.


Q.  "Scott Beason-how dumb is this guy?"

A.  Dumb enough to make a racial slur for everybody to hear.

There is Quid Pro Quo for republicans, then there is Quid Pro Quo for Democrats

On the outside looking in. That's how I feel everything I log on to Left in Alabama. I really miss not being allowed to post there. For years it part of my morning Political Junkie routine...Washington Journal to hear what the people were talking about.....Morning Joke, I mean Joe, to see what the righty's were talking about....Left in Alabama to find out what was really going on in the world and doing my part in trying to make a difference. Was I outspoken and opinionated? You betcha. Could I give as good as I got? Absolutely. Did I talk about race and racism a lot. Yes. Did I resort to name calling, personal attacks and insults when the substance of my arguments failed? No. Did I go along to get along? Nope.

As a matter of fact, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who or what got me banished from Left in Alabama but I feel the same way now as I did when my beloved mother explained why my siblings and I couldn't drink from the white water fountain.

Anyhoo, enough of the pity party. Paging LiA's resident righty, I mean Legal contributor! Old Prosecutor, you said-if you tell a legislator that "I will contribute X amount of money to your campaign in return for you voting yes on a specific bill" - that can be construed as bribery.

I have a problem with your expert legal opinion which can be expressed in two words... Citizens United

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2]
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”[2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.[5]

So, if corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions in the name of free speech, why can't people tell candidates they will vote for them if they share their interest? Certainly you don't believe corporations are donating million to candidates who don't share their interest?

What mooncat said

Let me relate to you an actual situation that happened last year. A member of Congress made a fundraising call to someone I know, obviously hoping for a contribution. The potential donor was very upfront that the health care reform bill was their top priority and said, "If you support this bill, call me again and I'll definitely support your campaign." Now, it's a federal campaign, so the amount is obviously limited to $2400 (or $4800 for primary & general) but it's pretty clearly a specific vote at issue.

I know the potential donor and the intent was not to bribe but to put pressure on a representative before an important vote and draw a bright line on a particular issue -- don't call me for money unless you vote for HCR.

By your standard, politicians are guilty of bribing voters when they say I will vote to repeal ObamaCare if you vote for me, and voters are guilty of bribing candidates/elected officials when they say I will vote for you if you vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Are campaign contributions only considered a bribe when it involves Democrats like former Alabama Don Siegelman

The question this case raises (as did the Siegelman case) is - when does a campaign contribution become a bribe?

However before we get to that, remember that Beason testifed (sic) he was offered a $1,000,000.00 per year "consulting" contract in return for his vote which, if true, would clearly be a bribe.

To the main question - most State (and the Federal) bribery statutes define bribery as offering a pecuniary benefit or a "thing of value" to a public official(sic) with the intent that the official's (sic) vote or action will be "corruptly" influemced (sic).

The line between campaign contribution and a bribe is a fine one. Generally to be a bribe, the government must prove a "quid pro quo" -that is the contribution must be given in exchange for a specific vote. Federal Courts have held that money "given freely without the promise of a specific action in return is not a bribe even if they are intended to "build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now or in the future".

What was the crime in the Siegelman case?

I guess it depends on what the definition of Quid Pro Quo IS. There must be one definition for republicans and another one for democrats.

I look forward to your reply.