Chief Justice Roy Moore is a Dixiecrat

Alabama’s Chief Justice, Roy “Standing in the Courthouse Door” Moore, has instructed the state’s probate officials to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The move comes in response to the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay a lower court’s decision striking down the state’s same sex marriage ban.

Moore has been consistently at odds with the Federal government over religious displays in Alabama courts and other issues. No frequent reader of this space should be surprised to learn that Justice Moore started his political career as a Democrat. He switched to the GOP a couple of years after Rick Perry in the early ‘90’s.

Just an observation, offered without further commentary.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Civil Rights, Neo-Confederate
147 comments on “Chief Justice Roy Moore is a Dixiecrat
  1. Anse says:

    Religious people will find their Renaissance in their marginalization. Gay marriage and the evolution of gay and transgender rights may be the thing that finally does it. We’re watching the total reordering of social society; I find it truly exciting. Except of course as gay culture becomes mainstream, we’ll see the eroding of the subversive, highly idiosyncratic elements of gay culture. It’s just going to be a boring thing to be gay once it gets well-established as a routine expression of humanity. We’re already getting there.

    But Christians, I think, have reason to hope. Marginalization will save the true believers. Insularity, a turning inward, will help them define themselves in their own way. Nothing hurts a religion or any other kind of movement more than becoming associated with the Establishment.

    Or they’ll embrace gay marriage as they have just about every other positive change in society. Which I imagine will happen. It’s hard to keep the pews and the collection plates full when you’re busy weeding out the fakers.

  2. objv says:

    Shirley McLaine is NOT a Dixiecrat

    Born in Virginia and raised Baptist, McLaine remained a Democrat although not Baptist. Recent comments in her latest book have raised a few eyebrows.

    “Long known for her unorthodox ideas, the latest claims have been published in a memoir called ‘What If…’.

    “What if most Holocaust victims were balancing their karma from ages before,” she writes, “when they were Roman soldiers putting Christians to death”

    https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/anger-as-shirley-maclaine-says-holocaust-victims-110886787986.html

    So, if I understand her correctly, the millions of Jews put to death were only paying for the sins of their ancestors?

    Is this what happens when Southern Democrats stay Democrat?

    Just an observation, offered without further commentary

    • Crogged says:

      I suppose there is worse breed of horse than Dixiecrat, which would give us a goal to achieve if Shirley McClaine were the Chief Justice in Texas.

      • objv says:

        I’m guessing few conservatives ever read her book and few of her liberal fans cared.

      • Anse says:

        Shirley McLane is a New Age nut. Not sure if this makes her any more anti-Semitic than John Hagee, who once argued that Hitler was “god’s will” to bring the Jews back to Israel.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      It is a good thing that Shirley McClaine is not a representative of the gov’t actively working to deny the rights of others.

      • objv says:

        Homer: Shirley, you jest. McLaine has lots of political affiliations including being the godmother to the daughter of Dennis Kucinich. She’s been a long term supporter of Democrats starting wih George McGovern – she even wrote a book about him.

      • flypusher says:

        Since when did “political affiliations” have the same degree of power as actually holding elected office? Now Kucinich and McGovern are certainly on the flaky side of left, but who are they denying equal protection to?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I doubt Shirley is instructing gov’t staff to not perform certain functions of their job as we see with elected representatives forbidding staff from granting marriage licenses for same sex couples.

        Shirley McClain is a nut job (although, I do enjoy some of her movies) who is active in politics. Ted Nugent, also a nut job and also active in politics and spends at least some time with front running GOP candidates suggests Obama and Hillary should perform sex acts on his machine gun.

        I think it is fair to say that neither nut job accurately represents the official nut jobs within the parties.

      • Anse says:

        So she has roughly the same level of impact on the DNC as Nancy Reagan’s astrologer has on the GOP….

    • johngalt says:

      That Shirley MacLaine is a nut job is not recent news. “Unorthodox” is a polite, journalistic way of saying she’s crazy. She’s been known to be such for at least three decades. If trying to tar Democrats because lunatic actresses with no role in politics claim to be one is the best you can do, then you’re going to need a new strategy.

      • objv says:

        JG, Lifer was trying to “tar” Southern Baptists and Republicans by bringing up a few examples. This was my attempt at sarcasm. .

        Surely, Shirley is a crackpot but not one without political connections.

      • flypusher says:

        Sarcasm works better with more reality in its foundation. Find a LWNJ with equivalent power to Moore, then we can talk.

      • objv says:

        fly, we can find those who used to be against same-sex marriage at even higher levels than that. Remember when Obama and Hillary Clinton were running for president six years ago? Both opposed gay marriage at the time.

        Now you’re all picking on an obscure Alabama judge Isn’t there a bit of hypocrisy here?

      • flypusher says:

        I have no doubt that the Dems you cited were cruising with the prevailing political winds. So their change of heart can be considered doing the right thing for less than lofty reasons. If you are for equal treatment for gay people under the law, Moore is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

      • johngalt says:

        The “obscure Alabama judge” is the Chief Justice of their Supreme Court and has issued an order demanding Alabama probate judges ignore the order of a federal court. Both the chief justice and state have experience at defying federal courts – it never works and makes everyone involved look ugly.

      • objv says:

        JG, You’re right in that Moore is not just an obscure judge – except to people like me who have never set foot in Alabama. 🙂

        You’re also correct in saying that it has made him look ugly. However, since the Supreme Court has not made a final decision on same-sex marriage and folks in his state have voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, Moore is representative of the majority in Alabama.

      • flypusher says:

        “However, since the Supreme Court has not made a final decision on same-sex marriage and folks in his state have voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, Moore is representative of the majority in Alabama.”

        There are certain things that should NEVER be subject to a whim of a majority. Equal rights for minority groups are at the top of that list.

      • objv says:

        Fly, The problem here is that Moore thinks he is doing the right thing for the right reason.

        Much as atheists and agnostics would like to rewrite the Bible, there are multiple passages in the Bible which say that homosexuality is not a valid life-style choice for Christians. In fact, ALL sex outside of heterosexual marriage is discouraged.

        That said, I believe that same-sex marriage should be lawful. Not everyone has the same beliefs and accommodations should be made.

        The only area I disagree with most here is in allowing for freedom of religion for clergy, churches, businesses and individuals. They should be able make their own choices as to whether to participate in or in any way contribute to the wedding ceremony.

        The US has been a nation of religious freedom since its founding. There is room for different beliefs if each side is willing to come to some compromises.

      • 1mime says:

        Objv, I disagree with you about Judge Moore. He has a track record of doing exactly what HE thinks is correct and is on record asserting that Gods’ laws supercede all other laws. I guess he’s talking about HIS God – not other peoples’ Gods. Now, God-fearing folk probably agree with him, but fortunately, we live in a civilized country where laws order our society. Mostly. I haven’t found Moore to be principled as much as obdurate and self-absorbed.

        Equal rights are the basis for Democracy and it’s a rough road to travel. As an example, I do not own a gun but respect the right of others to own guns. I oppose open carry because there are too many nut cases out there packing them, willing to use them, and I feel less safe around them. I may be selfish in my views but that’s how I feel. And, did I mention I live in Texas?

        I believe you have every right to champion your conservative beliefs and I don’t agree with bashing you for every stand you make. We all deserves rebuttal when we make incorrect or ridiculous statements, myself included. And, yes, we need opposing views on Lifer’s blog. It keeps the discussion honest and we grow wiser for them. Why don’t you recruit some of your conservative buddies to comment so you won’t have to carry the whole load?

      • flypusher says:

        “Fly, The problem here is that Moore thinks he is doing the right thing for the right reason.”

        He can think what ever he wants, but the 14th Amendment wins out over the BIble in the what-is-the-law-of-the-land contest.

        As far the Bible saying so clearly that homosexuality is wrong for Christians, some interpretations disagree. I have no dog in that fight, unless someone in trying to base laws solely in scripture.

      • objv says:

        Fly, Freedom of religion is established in the FIRST Amendment. “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

        Like I said, there is room for some accommodation to make sure that both sides rights are not violated.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV, do you have a side business in selling hay and manufacturing glue as many strawmen you toss out and already expired horses you continue to brutalize?

        No one is forcing any clergy to perform same sex weddings against the precepts of their backwards hateful “religions”. We are talking about US governments, Federal, state, and whatever additional jurisdictions treating ALL law abiding Americans EQUALLY.

        You and Roy Moore are an embarrassment to this country.

        And businesses should not be allowed to discriminate.

        In another day and era I imagine OV grinning in front of a lynched Black man and declaring “God’s will” in the supremacy of the White race.

      • flypusher says:

        ‘Fly, Freedom of religion is established in the FIRST Amendment. “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” ‘

        Yet it is not absolute. Try withholding a medically necessary blood transfusion from your child on religious grounds and you’ll see just how fast free exercise thereof gets tossed.

        This isn’t about forcing churches to recognize same sex unions. If it were, then Moore would actually be standing on Constitutional principle. But since it isn’t, he’s not. The state recognizes same sex marriages in the same way it reconizes opposite sex marriages, or it doesn’t. What exactly is there to compromise about there!

      • objv says:

        Fly, Bakers and florists have already been sued for refusing to provide cake or flowers for gay weddings. Churches or Christian groups that rent out facilities for weddings will probably be next.

        Personally, I would go to a wedding for a gay friend. I would even bake a cake. (Although not for bubba – no matter what his sexual orientation. 🙂 )

      • flypusher says:

        “Churches or Christian groups that rent out facilities for weddings will probably be next.”

        I seriously doubt the degree of slip to that slope precisely because of the 1st Amendment. Churches actually do have a right to discriminate. Moore isn’t fighting that particular fight here anyway. He may like to believe that he is, but he isn’t.

      • johngalt says:

        Objv, I really couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about what passages in the Bible condemn same sex relationships. The Bible is not the law of the land, the Constitution is, and there is a clear process by which laws are interpreted by courts to determine whether they are in accord with this supreme law. Christian (or any other religious) dogma has utterly no role in this. As an atheist, I have no interest in rewriting the Bible or any other religious text. They are simply irrelevant. If the best justification one has for a particular law is found in the Bible, it’s likely not a very good law.

        Moore is welcome to believe whatever medieval bigotry he wishes as a citizen of the United States. As a legal representative of the government, whether state or federal, if he cannot separate his personal religious beliefs from secular legality, then he has no business being a judge at a traffic court in Dothan, AL, much less on the state Supreme Court.

    • vikinghou says:

      What’s clear is that she’s a damned good actress!

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Just in time for the Houston Livestock and Rodeo Show, OV brutalizes yet another poor innocent horse to harp on the same non point.

      Youm OV are representing and filling the loony tune “ideological” hole quite well since Cappy and Buzzy (thankfully) took their Whiny Wingnut Whackadoodle Show on the road away from here.

      Poor Fitty and TThor must be on a sabbatical of shame to avoid association with the nonsensical nonsense you spout and represent with on “your side” OV.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Typical that OV show up and throw her little poo bombs that do not have even the slightest connection to the subject at hand, except of course to chastise Chris for daring to bring up a very real problem with the role of people like Justice Moore and their ideology. Defend, deflect and busily building straw men. Maybe Chris got a little uncomfortably close, eh OV?

      • objv says:

        Speaking of poo bombs, way2Gassy, that comment was not deserved.

        Since the others left (on Sabbatical or permanently), I’m alone for the most part. I may leave, too. (Do I hear cheering?)

        It’s up to you all. Do you want to stay on a self-congratulatory loop of endless comments about how bad Republicans are and how smart you are? Or, do you want your ideas to be challenged? I thought these forums were meant to open us up to new ways of thinking. Instead, it seems that folks are spinning their wheels and becoming even more stuck in the mud.

        Sassy, you know very well that Chris singled out Moore as an example to try to prove a point. I gave a couple examples to show how silly using stray individuals can be.

      • objv says:

        Good news bubba. Check with your doctor. In all probability, you may be able to make yourself some scrambled eggs.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/

      • bubbabobcat says:

        No OV you have only demonstrated how ignorant you are and irrational and nonsensical your arguments are. And we will continue to call you out on it. Whether you stay or leave is your choice only and not predicated on anything anyone else says or does so qwitcherbitchin and faux victimization whining already.

        Why is it acceptable for you to “challenge” others with pure garbage for “logic” and “facts” and any challenges to YOU with real facts and genuine reasoning is ALWAYS returned with annoyingly fake cries of victimization?

        You engender the respect you yourself give or earn. Which is none.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        If that is all you shallowly got from a well written and complex, in depth article OV, that doesn’t surprise me one bit.

        Grasping at straws purely for the (failed) attempt at oneupmanship is your forte OV.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Well if it isn’t shades of your breath of fresh air Danman, way2Gassy! really? are you like two years old? Poor little victim OV when you attack others with your childish rejoinders you really expect them to lay down and take it? I did once and it will not happen again. You want to leave because you feel so alone, fine, that’s on you. Please don’t try telling us that you believe these forums are a way to open us up to a new of thinking. You only believe that if someone is agreeing with you. When the hell have you ever conceded anything to anyone on any subject. If you want fact less, or fantasy based agreement maybe you should join your buddy’s Kabuzz, Capt Stern and DanMan. I see they aren’t faring so well on the Chron with their constant whining that liberals bad RWNJ’s good. But then again they could use your help.

      • 1mime says:

        Well, the pointy heads are rising up to give their full support to Judge Moore. He must be thrilled.

        http://www.salon.com/2015/02/14/kkk_issues_call_to_arms_over_alabama_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/

      • objv says:

        Sassy, Who brought up “poo bombs” and who called me a liar(down below)? I was wrong to respond to potty language with potty language, but calling you “way2Gassy” was relatively mild compared to saying I was throwing “poo bombs.” Yes, my humor is sometimes juvenile – but knowing some of what you have written in the past- so is yours. Perhaps, we’re both acting like two-year-olds.

        I concede that I rarely admit I’m wrong, but I do occasionally. See my reply to JG above.

        On this blog. people rarely admit that they were mistaken. You can’t even admit that Hicks was liberal despite the fact that he associated himself with liberal entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center and “Loud Mouth Liberal!”

  3. objv says:

    Craig Hicks is NOT a Dixiecrat

    Hicks an avowed liberal and atheist hates religion. Too bad he wasn’t a Southern Baptist. You guys would have had a field day. 🙂

    From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-killings-shine-light-on-particular-tensions-between-islam-and-atheism/

    “But reports that an outspoken atheist — most of Hicks’ many Facebook posts railed against religion — had attacked a family who were visibly Muslim (the women wore headscarves) tapped immediately into a conversation that has been going on since Sept. 11 about why several of atheism’s biggest figures have singled out Islam for criticism.

    Among them are biologist and writer Richard Dawkins and neuroscientist Sam Harris, who have both triggered controversy with their comments about Islam.”

    Just an observation, offered without further commentary.

    • johngalt says:

      Perhaps you should read the comments of one of those avowed atheists (Sam Harris) from your link; it makes a little more sense than the horrific crime committed by someone with a history of anger management issues and who appears to be more libertarian than liberal:
      “There is a huge difference between legitimate criticism of bad ideas and bigotry against specific groups of people (which, in the worst case, can result in hate crimes). It is one thing to believe that specific doctrines within Islam (or any system of thought) are unfounded, harmful, and in need of public criticism; it is another thing entirely to hate Muslims (or Arabs, immigrants, etc.) as people.”

      • flypusher says:

        About that dirtbag Hicks, whether he shot those unfortunate students because he hated their religion, or because he was PO’ed about a petty issue like parking, either way he’s the sort of person who should never have been allowed near a gun. Yet some of the open carry RWNJs advocate for open carry with no license or training requirements.

      • 1mime says:

        Therein lies the problem Fly for those of us who are not gun folks. It is not unreasonable to require gun training and sales sourcing to protect us from those who are nuts, mean, or profiteers. But, the NRA has become so obdurate where even reasonable gun safety regulations/laws are concerned that I place their organization in the crazy column as well.

        Did you happen to check out the Houston Quba Islamist Institute website following the fire? I’ve attached a link and everyone needs to read it to see how many sick, crazy people are out there…..in the Houston area. Thankfully, there are a many messages of support as well. But, from the fireman who posted to “block the hydrant” to the others who appear, it’s very very sad .

        Here’s the link:

    • Anse says:

      What makes him an “avowed liberal?”

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Anse says:
        February 16, 2015 at 12:40 pm

        “What makes him an ‘avowed liberal?’ ”

        OV, grasping at straws in yet another obstinately failed attempt at false equivalency in tarring liberals with the same crazy hate that her fellow wingnuts demonstrate ad nauseum time and again.

      • objv says:

        Anse, Hicks wrote he was liberal on facebook.

    • way2gosassy says:

      “Hicks an avowed liberal and atheist hates religion. Too bad he wasn’t a Southern Baptist. You guys would have had a field day”

      Yet in his own words he says this, “A Second Amendment rights advocate with a concealed weapons permit, Hicks often complained about both Christians and Muslims on his Facebook page. “Some call me a gun toting Liberal, others call me an open-minded Conservative,” Hicks wrote.”

      You can read more about this POS here,

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alleged-north-carolina-shooter-had-prior-armed-run-ins-with-neighbors/

      His first wife did not have kind words for him and shortly after defending him to the press the second wife is now filing for divorce.

      • way2gosassy says:

        OV as usual only cherry picking the parts that prop up her obvious lies.

      • objv says:

        Sassy, Hicks is a liberal. There is no doubt. I read it initially in a Washington Post article. Here’s another link showing information from his facebook page.

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/can-a-liberal-commit-a-hate-crime.php

        You still don’t seem to understand what I’ve been trying to say. I brought up two extreme examples precisely to show how ludicrous it is to “cherry pick”. Chris brought up Moore to prove his point of Southern Baptists being intolerant.. Since I’ve belonged to Southern Baptist churches in the past and consider some of the good, loving people I’ve met to be like family, I disagree with his assessment of modern day Baptists being intolerant. I’m not a particularly exemplary of what a Baptist should be, but I feel I owe it to the people I’ve met who have done so much in their churches and communities to help people.

        I don’t think that Hicks and McClain represent all Democrats; neither do I think Moore represents all Republicans or Southern Baptists. That was my point.

        (Sorry for being a party pooper.)

      • way2gosassy says:

        From your article OV “I suspect that the principal reason for the news media’s reticence with regard to the Hicks case is not that he is an equal opportunity atheist. Rather, I suspect they are concerned about the fact that Hicks is a liberal. This has not been widely reported, for obvious reasons. Instead, some news sources have quoted this Facebook statement: “Some call me a gun toting Liberal, others call me an open-minded Conservative.” In fact, however, apart from the fact that he likes guns, there is nothing conservative about Hicks. Here are some of his Facebook posts and “likes”:”

        And this is John Hinderaker’s most famous quote “”It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.”—John Hinderaker, Power Line Blog, July 28, 2005.”
        But we are supposed to take this “conservative’s” opinion as fact that Craig Hicks is a liberal based on what appears on his facebook page. Puhleeeze, Try thinking a bit about that OV. I’ll take the words he wrote against the shared posts he and wife “liked” on facebook any day as circumstantial at best. I don’t know in truth if he was liberal or conservative and neither do you. What I do know is that his politics did not put a gun in his hand and execute those innocent young people, his hatred and anger did that.

        If this is the kind of blogger you admire then I completely understand where your lack of logic comes from.

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/author/john

      • objv says:

        Sassy: Hicks liked SPLC, Rachel Maddow , Dogs Against Romney, Pissing Off the Religious Right, Loud Mouth Liberal, Stop the World the Teabaggers Want Off, Support Marriage Equality Across America as well as other other liberal “Likes.” He shared an “Army Vets for Obama” photo and a “Blue Nation Review” photo.

        To suppose that he was anything besides a crackpot liberal is ludicrous.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Did he or was it his wife? My husband shares my facebook page and on occasion posts stuff I don’t really agree with so if you weren’t there when this stuff was being posted can you be 100% sure it was him posting it? No you can’t. You are grabbing at straws.

      • objv says:

        Sassy, That’s an interesting theory, but no one suggested that that someone else was posting in Hick’s behalf in any of the articles I’ve read. Here’s a CNN article of Hick’s wife being interviewed. No where does she say that she may have contributed to Hick’s facebook.

        From: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/us/chapel-hill-shooting-suspect-craig-hicks/index.html

        “We were married for seven years and that is one thing that I do know about him. He often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of many individuals, for same-sex marriages, abortion, race. He just believed, and I know that’s just one of the things I know about him, is everyone is equal,” she said. “It doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.”

        The Facebook profile includes numerous posts advocating same-sex marriage rights.”

        Sassy, liberals can have anger management issues. Hicks is one scary guy.

        Very few couples share a facebook profile. After I opened my facebook account, I told my husband to start his own. He and I are quite different and I didn’t want there to be any confusion over who wrote what. It works out well. I don’t have to deal with comments and photos of motorcycles cluttering up my profile page and he doesn’t have see a never-ending stream of baby pictures and updates from my childhood friends. We share albums of trips we take together under both profiles, but that’s about it.

      • 1mime says:

        Ob, “liberals have anger management issues.” Really? That is the most outrageous thing you have said in al your posts! Are you selectively NOT hearing all the vitriol being hurled at the President? Wow, just a big, wow!

      • objv says:

        Mime,A great deal of the population has anger management issues. Why do people here automatically assume that Hicks wasn’t a liberal?

        For the record, I have a very long fuse and a sense of humor – otherwise I would find it hard to post here. 🙂

      • 1mime says:

        “long fuse, sense of humor”….Ditto that, Ob. But, honestly, whether we like the news or not, the vast majority of reported wingnuts is hailing from the far right. You can’t deny that. And, I agree, there is a lot of anger out there. Maybe there is a reason worth exploring on the left.

      • objv says:

        I said, “liberals can have anger management issues.” I didn’t say all liberals have anger managment issues.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV centric fallacy rears its head again. So YOU don’t share your Facebook account, ergo “very few people do” OV? Really?

        Thank you for continuing to post and confirming your self imposed willful delusions and twisted “logic” OV.

      • objv says:

        Bubba, I don’t, do you? The people who share their accounts are generally much older and use both first names . (For example, Josh Susan Smith.) Even if Hicks’ wife did add something to Hicks’ page, he would have deleted it if he didn’t agree.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        More conjecture on your part. Still no proof or documentation whatsoever of your claim out of thin air and your delusional imagination that “very few couples share a facebook profile”.

        Keep posting your ignorance and fallacies OV. You are representing well.

  4. 1mime says:

    JG, you and Fly have succinctly explained for those who have difficulty grasping the horror of lynching, why these acts were in a class by themselves.

    • Anse says:

      Mr. Doug tries to make the claim that Chicago’s murder rate can be compared to lynching. But lynching only scratches the surface of the violent injustice experienced by black Americans. It’s probably impossible to know how many blacks were wrongfully executed by states via the court system, and how many families were ripped apart by imprisonment and destitution.

      But worst still is the notion the implicit “apology” for lynching at the heart of his argument, as if black people should be okay with the one because of the other. No matter what problems exist in the black community, it is illogical and offensive to suggest that black citizens should accept one condition as long as the other exists.

      • flypusher says:

        It’s classic red herring deflection. Black on Black crime IS a serious issue. But it’s an independent issue.

      • Anse says:

        “Black on black”crime is a misnomer. It’s crime committed within the vicinity of one’s community. We use that term “black on black” to suggest that black criminals are consciously targeting black, and only black, victims. All that phenomenon tells us is that criminals tend to act close to home or in places in which they are familiar.

        Most white victims of violent crime are victimized by white criminals, after all.

    • RobA says:

      The difference is as wide as night and day.

      When black on black crime occurs, we can be reasonably certain that said crime was not racially motivated. In ither words, it’s just crime. The victim was targeted for reasons other then their skin color.

      Lynching was a terrorist tactic, and like any act of terrorism, it is not fundamentally a violent act. At its core, it is a political act. as opposed to a normal crime, the true audience for lynching is not actually for individual black person killed. The true audience is all the OTHER blacks who will remain alive.

      It is designed to send a message to those remaining blacks to “know yet role” and not get any uppity ideas, such as equality and civil rights.

      Crime is an action against the victim. Lynching is an action against a people. It is genocide.

      A person who don’t see a difference is either being willfully obtuse, or their lives are a moral black hole.

      • Doug says:

        “A person who don’t see a difference is either being willfully obtuse, or their lives are a moral black hole.”

        If I were killed by someone, I wouldn’t care what their motives were. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. Killing someone for racist reasons is no worse than killing someone for their Air Jordans.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      The above points are spot in. It was terrorism used to intimidate a race of people.

      Doug’s simplistic, “But what about Black people in Chicago killing other Black people in Chicago” (funny that it is always Chicago – just like welfare cheats all drive Cadillacs) ignores the fact the most crime is actually treated as a crime, and prosecuted as such.

      Lynching and other systematic crimes against Black people throughout our history were not considered crimes, or if they were, were tacitly or overtly ignored by the justice system.

      Even today, the system certainly seems to be influenced by race.

      White person killing a Black person – unlikely to get the death penalty
      White person killing a White person – more likely to get the death penalty
      Black person killing a Black person – less likely to get the death penalty
      Black person killing a White person – better get a good attorney

  5. Anse says:

    The other day, while in a long thread in another forum, I encountered a right winger who could not understand why liberals and the government would just stay out of our lives, and leave us alone! This was in a conversation about why he was opposed to legal gay marriage.

    I think one good definition of “Dixiecrat” might be “so full of vile disgusting hate that one is incapable of perceiving irony”

  6. way2gosassy says:

    I betcha can’t guess who this is “I am surprised that Pitts would equate same sex marriage laws with the civil rights movement. I don’t see homosexuals at the receiving end of fire hoses, or being beaten by police, or being jailed or fined. He insults those taking part in the civil rights movement, especially black participants. He also takes a stand against the 1st amendment while claiming to defend it, stifling free speech instead of supporting it.

    It should also be pointed out that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 violates the civil rights of the people. It can be used to force blacks into involuntary servitude and violates property rights. It is based on assumed and automatic guilt without charges, proof or due process. That assumed and automatic guilt extends to other areas, such as prohibition, that sees millions of people sent to prison for non-violent “crimes”, and that applies to blacks more than any other race. Pitts has complained about the results in the, yet supports the cause for those results.« less”

    http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Pitts-Alabama-judge-on-wrong-side-of-history-6081466.php

    • vikinghou says:

      Living in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance…

    • Anse says:

      Sternn’s obtuseness is Tea Party standard issue. As badly as black Americans have been treated over the years, at least people had to come up with excuses to mistreat them. On the other hand it was actually illegal to be gay.

      • Anse says:

        P.S. He’s on that thread talking about how ISIS is making political donations to the Democratic Party.

      • way2gosassy says:

        He is such a POS! Maybe he’d be better served if he remembered exactly who was for and against the Citizens United case that would even make that possible. Beyond that I don’t see ISIS supporting any liberal party given their “conservative” bent.

  7. flypusher says:

    On the way home from the Rice Basketball game last night (2 2OT wins in a row! ), I was listening to “On the Media” on KUHF. One of the stories was about lynching:

    http://www.onthemedia.org/story/lynching-era/

    This new interpretation of that bit of history will make the jingos flaming mad. From what I can recall of what I was taught about that history, while there was no denial that Black citizens were not truly equal under the law in the South, there was more emphasis on the idea that Black people were primarily looking for more economic opportunity. But there is a case to be made that they were also refugees fleeing a campaign of terrorism. Lots of Americans seem to have some smug delusions that terrorism or genocide or ethnic cleansing happen somewhere else, not here. Or what did happen was long, long ago. Lynching went on into the 1960s, so that’s within the lifespan if many people living right now.

    • way2gosassy says:

      I think that James Byrd Jr’s family might disagree with that time line as he was murdered in 1998.

      • 1mime says:

        Sassy, Could you get Fly’s link on lynching to activate?

      • flypusher says:

        But in that case the justice system didn’t look the other way. We still have white people with a racial superiority complex, but they don’t have tacit support from most of society anymore. Probably the problem they pose dies out slowly as they do.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Yes Mime it played with no problem.

      • way2gosassy says:

        That’s true Fly, they were prosecuted but they had an awful lot of support in and outside of the system for what they did.

      • Doug says:

        In the 86 year period from 1882 to 1968, Mississippi was the state with the most lynchings, at 581 (predominately black victim/white perpetrators). That works out to less than seven per year. Nearly fifty years after it ended, people still talk about it.

        In the one year period from 2014 to 2014, there were 456 murders in Chicago (predominately black victim/black perpetrators). That works out to 456 per year. The same thing will happen this year, but nobody talks about it much, especially those who talk so much about the lynchings.

        I find this sad. Why are historic blacks so much more important that black youths alive today?

      • 1mime says:

        Murder is never right – regardless of race or location. Lynchings are more loathsome. For one thing, lynching was so accepted. So impervious to prosecution. So heinous in form. And, the victims were black and that was mostly their only crime. Their race.

        An interesting statistic where Chicago’s murder rate is concerned: Chicago on a per capita basis doesn’t make the top 6 worst states in the U.S. for murder. Flint, Michigan leads the list. Again, one death is too many, but lynching is abhorrent to me for so many reasons. I guess it’s just personal.

      • Doug says:

        “they were prosecuted but they had an awful lot of support in and outside of the system for what they did.”

        Seriously? An awful lot of support? I’m pretty sure 99.99% of the population was repulsed at the thought of a man being dragged to death behind a truck. What support did they receive, and in what system? You do realize that one of the men has been put down, and another will follow, right?

      • flypusher says:

        “I find this sad. Why are historic blacks so much more important that black youths alive today?”

        Why do you overlook the context? ( actually I do know why). The purpose of lynching was to terrorize Black people who might get the radical idea that they actually had the right to vote, or petition the government for redress of grievances, or get justice in the court system, or freely speak their minds. It was the deliberate actions (or inactions) of a society to keep a specific group of people in a position of inferior status. One horrific murder could keep hundreds or thousands “in their place” through the fear it inspired. Black on black crime is a problem, but it is a problem of individuals choosing to commit crimes. Most criminals prey on people of the same race; it’s not something unique to Black people. Criminal gangs may indeed seek to intimidate, but they don’t have the approval of the law the way the lynchers used to. Do you get it yet?

      • 1mime says:

        Well stated, Fly. Lynching is flat out horrible.

      • way2gosassy says:

        “While at the CBS-owned WARW radio station in Washington, D.C., Doug Tracht (AKA The Greaseman) made a derogatory comment about James Byrd. after playing Lauryn Hill’s song “Doo Wop (That Thing)”. The February 1999 incident proved catastrophic to his radio career, igniting protests from black and white listeners alike. Tracht was quickly fired from WARW and lost his position as a volunteer deputy sheriff in Falls Church, Virginia.

        A campaign issue

        Some advocacy groups, such as the NAACP National Voter Fund, made an issue of this case during George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. They accused him of implicit racism, since as governor, he opposed special hate crime legislation and, citing a prior commitment, Bush declined to appear at Byrd’s funeral.

        Because two of the three murderers were sentenced to death and the third to a life term in prison (all charged with and convicted of capital murder, the highest felony level in Texas), Governor Bush maintained that “we don’t need tougher laws.”

        After Governor Rick Perry inherited the rest of George W. Bush’s unexpired term, the 77th Texas Legislature passed the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act on May 11, 2001.”

        http://www.murderpedia.org/male.K/k/king-john-william.htm

        Then you have this guy, “William Harder, murderauction.com promoter, said none of the inmates represented on his website gets paid from the sales. More than 90 percent of the listed items are ones he has purchased from other collectors.

        “I don’t pay inmates for art work (they give me),” Harder said. “Items given as gifts are kept as gifts. It usually goes on my wall.”

        Harder was in Texas on Wednesday, part of a two-week trip that includes some stops at prisons, not to collect items to sell but to visit inmates “as a friend,” he said.”

        You don’t suppose that these prisoners weren’t “helped” in some way.

      • johngalt says:

        Murders in Chicago, or wherever, are tragic, but they are the case of individuals committing crime without the sanction of the state. These crimes are investigated and prosecuted, perhaps not as vigorously as would be hoped.

        Lynchings were done, if not by government agents (police), then with their acquiescence – rarely was a suspect convicted of these crimes. Whole communities were complicit and the black population was largely terrorized by the lack of protection. While I think we should keep in mind that these happened long ago, the reactions in minority communities to police or “self-defense” related shootings of blacks say this this is not as far in the past as you’d hope.

      • flypusher says:

        “Lynchings were done, if not by government agents (police), then with their acquiescence – rarely was a suspect convicted of these crimes.”

        One factoid from the story I linked- the people doing the lynchings often posed for pictures next to the burned/beaten/mangled bodies of their victims. Sometime they even made $&@#ing postcards from them to mail out. That’s pretty damn brazen, a sure sign of people who knew that they would not be held accountable.

        These days some criminals are just as brazen, bragging on social media. Recently some dumbass kid killed another kid and took a selfie with his victim’s corpse. But now the cops are going to use such evidence against the fools. So you could say that things have improved, although I maintain that it’s a start, rather than a finish.

    • 1mime says:

      fLY, I’m having trouble with activating the link to the lynching story. Try it and see if you can offer any suggestions. Thanks, Mime

    • 1mime says:

      Fly, I finally got the site to work….Powerful. The young black man interviewed about lynching was Bryan Stevenson. He is doing such important work. I found this link that tells a little more about him. Very special.

      http://www.npr.org/2014/10/20/356964925/one-lawyers-fight-for-young-blacks-and-just-mercy

  8. vikinghou says:

    Here’s a comprehensive examination of religion in GOP politics from NYT columnist Frank Bruni. In addition to Roy Moore, Bruni discusses Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, etc. Enjoy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-republicans-the-religious-right-and-evolution.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

    • 1mime says:

      Excellent article, Viking! I was struck by this paragraph: “We should be even warier of politicians and other leaders who wrap policy in dogma, claiming holy guidance. That’s a dangerous road to take. At the far, bitter end of it lie theocracies and brutal extremists.”

      My question to all who read Bruni’s article and this paragraph in particular, aren’t we aready at this end of the road?

      • vikinghou says:

        Well, we may be well on our way if the nation doesn’t come to its senses. The idea of a theocracy does not frighten or horrify fundamentalist Christian voters because they do not see the value of separation of church and state. They assume their brand of religion would be the predominant one and therefore don’t see it as a problem.

    • vikinghou says:

      I forgot to add my favorite passage:

      “But that’s not the way it works out in this country, especially not among Republicans, who can’t quit their fealty to the religious right and who, because of that, drive away many independent voters who are otherwise receptive to an ideology of limited government, personal responsibility and muscular foreign policy.”

    • RightonRush says:

      Read this today and have to say speaking from experience I agree.

      “Gone are the days of the unyielding God-fearing mother as the archetype of good parenting, suggests a recent article from the Los Angeles Times. According to multiple reports, research has shown that secular upbringings may be healthier for children, who, according to a 2010 Duke University study, display less susceptibility to racism and peer pressure, and are “less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian, and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.” But the list of benefits doesn’t stop there, says the Times”
      http://www.bustle.com/articles/62411-raising-children-without-religion-may-be-a-better-alternative-suggests-new-research?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=fijifrost&utm_campaign=CMfacebook&ts_pid=2

      • 1mime says:

        Ah, Righton, a “brave new world”….raising children in a secular manner. I was struck by this paragraphy from the link: “For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated,” writes Zuckerman. “It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.” That Rule has stood me in good stead all my life. I’m going to stick with it.

        Our freedom as Americans also supports parental choice in raising their children according to their preferred religious beliefs. The problem I have with the latter is that too often religion gets in the way of faith and the child/children are exposed to a very narrow religious point of view. Plus, as Lifer has pointed out, the more rigid, fundamentalist belief system used to be contained within the family structure or individual church. Now, it is permeating the political process and is dividing families and is being codified so that religious beliefs are becoming law. The ultimate goal now seems to be to combine religion with government in a theocratic system. No more separation of church and state. And, we hear from Judge Moore – God’s word supercedes government’s laws. The problem here is, “whose God”?

      • way2gosassy says:

        My mother was Methodist and my father was Catholic but the only religious discussion allowed in our world as we were growing up was to discuss the pros and cons of each of the recognized religious doctrines. We were not allowed to go to the same church more than 3 times in row and we were not allowed to consider “joining” a church until we were able to articulate why we thought membership would be of significant benefit to us. As an adult I have come to understand that neither of my parents had any preference to any religion but rather a belief in what we used to call the “Golden Rule” and good manners made good citizens. Unusual for the time given we are talking about the 50’s.

      • 1mime says:

        Sassy, your parents were strong people who were independent thinkers and taught you how to make informed decisions. You were lucky. (Now, not sure they would approve of you ending up in “red” TN, but they would agree that you could handle it (-:

      • way2gosassy says:

        Mime : ) Daddy would have approved but Mom would have only approved if I had held a bra burning ceremony in the middle of town.

      • 1mime says:

        Sassy – I would have liked both your parents!

  9. 1mime says:

    Somewhat “OT” but in reading through Politico today, in an article about Rick Perry, there was a link to the movement in Texas to orient history (and science) to reflect a certain religious point of view.

    This goes back to 2014, so it’s not current, but the TX Board of Education continues to try to re-write history. Anyway, it reinforces Lifer’s premise of the push to the right….and the utilization of the political process to that end. History is such a “tell” to motive.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/texas-textbooks-criticism-110809.html

    • vikinghou says:

      “For years, Texas academic standards were considered hugely influential nationally. Because the state is such a big market, publishers often shaped their textbooks to meet Texas guidelines, then sold the same books across the country. Now, however, technological advances have made it easier for publishers to revise portions of their textbooks for individual states.”

      Thank goodness for this at least!

  10. flypusher says:

    Here’s a really egregious example of bad, biased policing:

    http://fusion.net/story/5568/florida-citys-stop-frisk-nabs-thousands-of-kids-finds-5-year-olds-suspicious/

    The case of Earl Sampson is the biggest WTF of the batch. The cops kept arresting him for trespassing AT HIS WORKPLACE. The complete lack of oversight completely blows my mind. When the owner of the store keeps saying hey this guy works for me, you’d think the police would get the hint that maybe Sampson wasn’t breaking any laws and perhaps they should stop arresting him. Or you’d think the local judges would eventually notice something odd was going on with this guy getting arrested again and again for the same thing. Sampson’s employer had to install lots of video cameras at his store and file a lawsuit to something started in terms of stopping that crap.

    • 1mime says:

      Oh, Lifer, we have so far to go in America. I know we are making progress, but then you read stories like this and others posted here and it’s disheartening. Imagine how Blacks feel?

    • way2gosassy says:

      Florida has always been overly aggressive in policing in Black communities as far back as I can remember. My grandparents lived there almost all their lives so I have had a first hand look at some of this as early as the late 50’s and early 60’s. what is even more egregious is the zero tolerance policies that have been implemented in the school systems that were targeting minorities and poor kids.

      This is a prime example of what living in Florida was like if you were poor or a minority.

      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/10/15823192-abuses-at-infamous-florida-boys-reform-school-even-more-widespread-report-says?lite

      The State of Florida only saw fit to close this “school” in 2011 for budgetary concerns. Most of the boys incarcerated there never committed a crime some were as young as 4.

  11. easyfortytwo says:

    I just saw the “Selma” movie. Despite its shortcuts and inaccuracies (LBJ is given short shrift, etc), I highly recommend it. My first thought upon seeing the scene depicting the sit-in at the Selma courthouse (in protest of denial of voter registration) was “Gay people should do something like that.”
    Roy “Standing in the Courthouse Door” Moore is much like George “Standing in the Schoolhouse Door” Wallace.

    • 1mime says:

      Haven’t seen Selma yet but definitely will. You may find the book by Congressman John Lewis, “March l” (Selma experience) interesting as he was pivotal in that event. He has just released a second book chronicling the Freedom Riders, entitled “March 2”.

    • vikinghou says:

      NYT columnist Maureen Dowd went ballistic when she saw “Selma” She particularly resented the treatment LBJ received. The director, Ava DuVernay, apparently said “I wasn’t interested in making a white-savior movie.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/not-just-a-movie.html

      I haven’t seen the film yet but plan to soon.

      • flypusher says:

        I agree with Dowd on this one. It’s not fair to LBJ to take that kind of “artistic license”. DuVernay didn’t need to cut him down in order to build MLK up. The truth is compelling enough.

      • way2gosassy says:

        I have yet to see the movie Selma so I can’t realistically comment on Maureen Dowd’s take on DuVernay’s depiction of LBJ. JFK is thought of as the man behind the Civil Rights Movement and that Johnson only completed what JFK started. I think Jackie’s statements years later laid bare who was really behind the movement and where the support for it came from. An interesting read on Jackie’s take on LBJ and MLK can be read here.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackie-kennedy-martin-luther-king-jr-phony/

    • easyfortytwo says:

      Yes, DuVernay’s “I’m not a historian” excuse is reminiscent of the politicians who say “I’m not a scientist” and then go on to politicize things scientific. Could be she was aiming to show a “bad guy to good guy” trajectory. In the end, LBJ tells Wallace “I’ll be damned if I’ll let history put me in the same place as you”. Moore should ponder that, too.
      And embedded in Dowd’s essay, there is a link to a New York Review of Books article describing how “The Imitation Game” misrepresents Alan Turing’s character as well as a number of details about his work and life.
      But “Hey, it’s just a movie”. Still, I highly recommend both movies despite their inaccuracies. If some moviegoers thought “Noah” was historically accurate, I can’t help them.

  12. johngalt says:

    I meant to post this in the previous thread, but this is as good a place as any. This is the regional breakdown of votes on the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

    From non-Confederate states:
    House Democrats: 144/152 voted yes
    Senate Democrats: 45/46 voted yes
    House Republicans: 137/161 voted yes
    Senate Republicans: 27/32 voted yes

    From Confederate states:
    House Democrats: 8/91 voted yes
    Senate Democrats: 1/21 voted yes
    House Republicans: 0/11 voted yes
    Senate Republicans: 0/1 voted yes

    For those keeping score, that’s 90% in favor from states that didn’t secede and 93% opposed from those than did. It isn’t party affiliation that matters, it’s whether great-great-granddaddy owned slaves that matters.

  13. goplifer says:

    By the way, Moore is also a Southern Baptist. Again, just noting.

    • vikinghou says:

      This morning on MSNBC, Steve Kornacki presented poll results concerning same-sex marriage. Only 17% of white Evangelicals and 32% of black Christians approve of gay marriage—hence the situation in Alabama.

      • 1mime says:

        There are significant issues for Black people other than the prevalence of “being arrested while Black”. That is a real problem and I hope Comey ignites a firestorm on the topic. But, the statistics on traditional marriage, despite Viking’s post that only 32% of Black Christians approve same sex marriage, are pretty grim. The advent of welfare is most frequently mentioned as the largest determinent of Black single parent households. But, is the reason more complicated? Statistics document the downward trend as you will learn in this link. Those of us who accept the choice of same sex marriage while practicing traditional marriages, may not realize that traditional marriage rates for both Whites and Blacks are declining. It’s an important cultural change.

        http://www.urban.org/publications/904591.html

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/2/

    • 1mime says:

      Why is that not surprising!

  14. RobA says:

    This blog is great. Fantastic writing, and the comments section always delivers a bunch of links to read that I would have never seen otherwise

  15. georgeconk says:

    I suggest you write something about FBI Director James Comey’s extraordianry speech.
    http://blackstonetoday.blogspot.com/2015/02/fbi-director-comey-hard-truths-about.html
    = GWC

    • goplifer says:

      Wow. I heard he had made some interesting comments about law enforcement and race, but I had no idea he went that far. That’s impressive.

      • Firebug2006 says:

        It was truly impressive, in substance as well as style. I’m waiting for the blowback, but has there been any?

      • 1mime says:

        It was exceptional – presidential in substance and feeling. I hope there won’t be “blowback” but that Comey’s speech will stimulate discussion between law enforcement and the Black community and beyond. Anyone who criticizes a speech like this either missed the message completely or is part of the problem.

        What I hope is that Comey’s speech will get wider exposure. His comments are timely in light of recent incidents and tensions between the two groups. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if his speech would serve as a catalyst for greater understanding and dialogue between members of the Black Community and Law Enforcement, and education officials and ministers?

        The Atlantic did a critique of Comer’s speech. (link below) Even if you disagree with their assessment, it is worth reading.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/FBI-Director-James-Comey-georgetown-speech-race-police/385458/

      • texan5142 says:

        Wow is right, the responses from the usual cast of blowhards should be entertaining

      • vikinghou says:

        Firebug,

        I looked around for blowback, but didn’t find much. However, Fox News shut down the comments section in their article about the speech. I don’t know if this was done preemptively or in response to vitriol.

      • 1mime says:

        I thought the suggestion to go back into old unsolved crimes with DNA testing was interesting. I wonder what financial/personel resources would be needed to embark on such an effort…..even as prisoners today struggle to get DNA testing for contemporary crimes.

        Good piece, Fly. And, I’ll bet the Irish are more empathetic than most cultures in terms of policing issues. To be fair, I’m not a policeman (I am Irish (-: ) and my experiences have always been positive…..like most middle class whites. Therein……

      • johngalt says:

        Houston has a new(ish) radio station playing “old school hip hop and rap” – or the kind of music this stupid white boy danced to in college. Listening to Public Enemy’s “911 is a joke” for the first time in years made it crystal clear that distrust and fear of the police has been a long standing fact in black communities (and that song is by no means alone in expressing that sentiment). 25 years later (really, that song came out in 1990) maybe a chief law enforcement officer finally gets it, but I won’t hold my breath.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Speaking of using DNA evidence to solve old crimes State Senator Rodney D Ellis (D) has introduced a “law and order” bill to make it easier for convicted felons to have DNA tested in evidence presented in court that was used to convict without the prior DNA testing of that evidence. I think the recent over turning of the murder conviction of Micheal Morton who spent 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit was partly a catalyst for this bill. It will be interesting to see how far this will go in Texas.

        http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/DNA-testing-6078442.php#

      • flypusher says:

        Sassy, I wish Sen. Ellis lots of luck with that, because he’s going to need it. There are far too many throwbacks in prosecutors’ offices who care far more about their batting averages than making sure those convictions are legit. I think anyone in prison should have the right to DNA testing of evidence if it hasn’t been done before and there is relevant evidence available for testing. This should be a no-brainier.

      • 1mime says:

        way2 – I read through a large number of the comments and most all of them I read were supportive of Judge Reeve’s decision and his statement to the court and defendents. But, i’ll say this, I certainly agree that this man, Judge Carlton Reeves, would be an outstanding member of the US Supreme Court.

        Here’s a little of his early, most interesting background (he was appointed to the U.S. Dist. Court by Pres. Obama): (courtesy, WIKI)

        Reeves was born in 1964, in Fort Hood, Texas.[1] He graduated magna cum laude from Jackson State University in 1986 with a Bachelor of Arts.[2] Reeves then earned his Juris Doctor from University of Virginia School of Law in 1989.[2]

      • way2gosassy says:

        I agree Fly it will be an uphill battle for Ellis to get through the TP legislature, but I think he was smart using a white face for the basis of his bill. That is politics in it’s most basic form,but,if he can get it passed it may well help a lot of minorities who were falsely convicted get real justice.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Here ya go Firebug

        “Comey’s Problematic Speech: the Friendly Rhetoric of White Supremacy”

        http://againstoppression.org/2015/02/13/comeys-problematic-speech-the-friendly-rhetoric-of-white-supremacy/

      • 1mime says:

        Sassy, the critique of Comey’s speech legitimately points out that the hard work of addressing racism involves more than a speech and shouldn’t play favorites. BUT, at least Comey made the speech and is publicly stating the problem. I give him credit for doing that. The comment alleging “friendly rhetoric of white supremacy” is going too far. Someone has to step up and speak out regardless what race they are. I hope Comey is able to bridge the divide between law enforcement and minorities – of all ethnicities. He will need a lot of help in the effort as we know this problem is as old as time itself.

      • way2gosassy says:

        This may double post my apologies if it does. This is what I found Firebug.

        “Comey’s Problematic Speech: the Friendly Rhetoric of White Supremacy”

        http://againstoppression.org/2015/02/13/comeys-problematic-speech-the-friendly-rhetoric-of-white-supremacy/

    • flypusher says:

      I 2nd that wow.

      ‘I am descended from Irish immigrants. A century ago, the Irish knew well how American society—and law enforcement—viewed them: as drunks, ruffians, and criminals. Law enforcement’s biased view of the Irish lives on in the nickname we still use for the vehicles we use to transport groups of prisoners. It is, after all, the “paddy wagon.” ‘

      I imagine that if the internet had existed back then, some people would have been making snarky anonymous comments about the Irish that would be extremely similar to the snarky anonymous comments made about Black people.

      ‘And there is a reason I keep on my desk a copy of Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s approval of J. Edgar Hoover’s request to wiretap Dr. King. It is a single page. The entire application is five sentences long, it is without fact or substance, and is predicated on the naked assertion that there is “communist influence in the racial situation.” ‘

      The heavy-handed authoritarian Hoover wannabes must really lament the fall of the Soviet Union. Commie/Commie-sympathizer was such a perfect blank check. Islamic extremist just doesn’t have the range.

      I am reminded of the song from the Broadway hit, Avenue Q: “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Part of it goes like this:

      Look around and you will find
      No one’s really color blind.
      Maybe it’s a fact
      We all should face
      Everyone makes judgments
      Based on race.

      Even Jesse Jackson admitted that young black men could make him wary.

    • 1mime says:

      When searching for commentary on Comey’s speech, I came across this which is equally powerful.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/12/385777366/a-black-mississippi-judges-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers

      • way2gosassy says:

        Very powerful and moving speech. Too bad it fell on a lot of deaf ears judging from the comments.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      538 tries to link statistics to portions of Comey’s [wonderful] speech:

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a-cheat-sheet-for-comeys-speech-on-race-and-policing/

      • way2gosassy says:

        As Comey had already stated, there just isn’t enough data being collected and what there is sporadic and voluntary. At this point I have only my opinion on the matter but those that voluntarily report data are not regulated by state laws that prohibit any kind of gun violence in which police are involved. It would stand to reason that other data points voluntarily offered would be suspect as well. I don’t believe we are being told the whole story here and I am not given to conspiracy theories.

  16. 1mime says:

    Dixiecrat is a term that I have had to read more about in order to appreciate the history Lifer is presenting. I think this New Yorker article offers an excellent explanation of the rise of the Dixiecrat and how that movement has coalesced in today’s politics via the Tea Party. People like Justice Moore are better understood if still unliked by reading this article.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-g-o-p-s-dixiecrat-problem

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: