Several weeks ago I read Leonard Pitts’ column regarding The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness in The Amarillo Globe-News, a very conservative newspaper in a very conservative area. The AGN regularly gets letters to the editor demanding that the paper stop carrying the columns of Mr. Pitts, calling him a black racist, among other vile names. Thankfully, the AGN editorial board has not succumbed to those demands. After reading the Pitts column, I thought to myself, “I’ve got to read that book.”

Then on August 2, Dr. Alan Bean posted a review of the book on this website. Dr. Bean’s opening sentence said, “Michelle Alexander has produced the best book ever written on mass incarceration and the war on drugs.” He concluded his review with this bit of advice, “If you can only afford to buy one book this year, make it The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.”

I had already bought—and read—more books this year than I can really afford, but I immediately went on line and purchased this one. I was not disappointed. I don’t know whether this is the best book ever written on the subject, but it is the best I have ever read. (more…)

More than ever, people in the United States don’t want to look at details, because the details are bleak. Beck is on the national stage at a time when we face real collapse. One need not be a Revelation-quoting end-timer to recognize that we are a nation on the way down, living on a planet that is no longer able to supply the endless bounty of our dreams. That’s a difficult reality to face, one that many clamor to deny.

The danger of Beck is not just his appeal to fellow conservatives, but rather his appeal to anyone who wants to deny reality. My fear is not that he will galvanize a conservative base and make a bid for leadership of that part of the political spectrum, but that his message will resonate with moderates, maybe even some liberals, who despair over the future.

You can find the rest of Jensen’s thoughtful reflection at the Texas Observer.  This isn’t just another partisan liberal denunciation of the enemy.  Professor Jensen wants to understand why so many people take Beck seriously.  Highly recommended.

Glenn Beck is the most successful pundit in America today.  His secret?  Bringing the kind of audacious, dim-witted, scandalous comments that are normally reserved for coffee shop conversation to a national television audience. 

Beck’s loyal followers break into furious applause.  “Somebody finally found the guts to say it!” they exclaim.

His critics gasp in shocked disbelief.  “I can’t believe he actually said that!”

Either way, Beck’s notoriety, and market share, continues to expand.

Today, Beck and a holy host of conservative celebrities led by Sarah Palin will be hosting a Restoring Honor rally on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  If you want my take on Mr. Beck’s odious brand of bigotry you can find it in an earlier post where I introduced you to Beck’s mentor, a virulently racist John Birch propagandist named W. Clean Skousen.  Beck’s brand of conservatism is essentially a repackaging of  early 1960s John Birch paranoia.

Beck was at his muck-raking best recently when he wrapped himself in the mantle of Martin Luther King and predicted that he “wouldn’t be surprised if in our lifetime dogs and fire hoses are released or opened on us. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of us get a billy club to the head. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of us go to jail — just like Martin Luther King did — on trumped-up charges. Tough times are coming.” 

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert is not amused.

But that’s Mr. Beck’s game.  If he can get 100,000 to the Mall in DC he’ll be happy.  If he can get New York Times columnists and obscure bloggers foaming at the mouth he’ll be delirious. 

But Mr. Herbert couldn’t resist the bait, and neither could I.  So once again, Mr. Beck wins.

We’re locked into a weird waltz with the  Beckian heresy, and Beck is leading.

Glenn Beck has been presenting himself as a religious historian in recent months.  Lately, he has been giving a lot of airtime to David Barton, a Texas conservative with an interesting take on American history.  The Beck-Barton connection has been generating a lot of interest in progressive circles since the duo started pushing a supposely non-partisan gathering on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in late August.  Of late, Beck, using arguments culled from Barton,  has been presenting himself as a latter day incarnation of Martin Luther King.

Over at Religion Dispatches, Julie Ingersoll emphasizes Barton and Beck’s mutual dependency on the controversial theories of Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony. 

At the Texas Freedom Network blog discusses the “uncivil union” between Barton and Beck.

No one in the academic world takes David Barton’s scholarship seriously; but if you possess the Glenn Beck seal of approval academic opinion doesn’t matter.

It has frequently been noted that the Tea Party folks are a pretty secular bunch compared to the Religious Right.  Folks like Beck and Barton are trying to change that impression.

This post is a follow-up to yesterday’s Red River Justice on Trial. 

The Honorable John Miller, the judge who refused to grant state motions to dismiss bogus drug convictions in Red River County, has been recused. 

Judge John L. McCraw Jr., a visiting judge from Collin County, listened to two hours of testimony then casually granted the recusal motion.  

Judge Miller decided to skip the recusal hearing.  The upside: he didn’t have to take the stand and answer Mark Lesher’s searching questions.   When the Red River County Courthouse was renovated several years ago, the text of the ninth commandment was discovered under several peeling layers of paint: “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”  This maxim might not pass First Amendment muster these days, but it was advice the Honorable Mr. Miller wisely heeded.  (more…)

 You may be wondering what became of the Texas judge who refused to accept a prosecutors motions to dismiss charges against drug defendants.   As a practical matter, judges almost always cooperate with prosecutors eager to dismiss cases.  Court time is at a premium and judges generally love motions that clear the docket.       

So why, in this instance, is Judge John F. Miller Jr. departing from established practice?     

The question becomes more acute when you consider that the motions to dismiss were filed by Texas Assistant Attorney General Nicole Habersang.      

This strange judicial wrangling concerns a dozen narcotics cases filed against six defendants, most notably brothers Vergil and Mark Richardson.   It all started on the early evening of November 17, 2007 when a confidential informant in Clarksville, Texas purchased $200 worth of marijuana from a young man named Kevin Callaway.  According to the police report filed in the case, Callaway “advised” the informant and an undercover sheriff’s deputy “that he was going to have a party and dice game at the residence” later that night.”    

Unfortunately for Mr. Callaway, the officer who overheard this casual remark was Robert Bridges, a Red River County sheriff’s deputy in charge of the department’s “Narcotics Special Response Team”.  Bridges was running for sheriff and the election was just a month down the road.  He wanted to flaunt his tough-on-crime credentials and busting same black drug dealers was just the thing.  Bridges ran off to magistrate Shelly Benton and applied for a warrant to conduct a no-knock search.   Bridges, a reserve officer, had never written an affidavit supporting a search application and it showed.   (more…)

Like many sensible Americans, Dick Cavett is horrified by the crude expressions of bigotry and political opportunism unleashed by what the pundits are calling the “Ground Zero Mosque controversy”. 

A woman tells the news guy on the street, “I have absolutely no prejudice against the Muslim people. My cousin is married to one. I just don’t see why they have to be here.” A man complains that his opposition to the mosque is “painting me like I hate the whole Arab world.” (Perhaps he dislikes them all as individuals?)

I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?

I’m not sure I can, but a voice from the mid-twentieth century might be of assistance.  (more…)