Category: Uncategorized

Balko shares the sad conclusion to the Ann Colomb story

·
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Ann Colomb

By Alan Bean

I emailed Radley Balko a couple of months ago to fill him in on the sad conclusion to a story he has been following.

I encouraged Ann Colomb to pursue a suit against the men responsible for wrongfully convicting Ann and three of her sons.  I knew the deck was stacked against her, but she needed to know she had done everything in her power to win a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing and some financial compensation for her suffering.

No mainstream attorney with standing in the legal community would take the case because these matters are handled on a contingency basis and the chances of winning were too small to justify the time and expense.

Radley Balko is the only journalist with national reach who has looked into this case.  You have to understand the criminal justice system to handle the complexities of this case and few journalists do.  Friends of Justice worked this case from 2004 through 2006 when Ann and her boys walked out of prison.  That was the most satisfying moment I have experienced in fifteen years of advocacy work.  Too bad the system intentionally shields wrongdoers from the consequences of their actions.

An Update In The Story Of Ann Colomb

By Radley Balko

Back in 2008, I wrote a long piece for Reason magazine about the Colombs, a black, working class family in Church Point, Louisiana. The Colombs’ story goes back 15 years, and is pretty complex, but here are the highlights:

— The family says they had been routinely harassed for years by local law enforcement. This harassment seemed to begin when the light-skinned Colomb boys began dating white girls, including the daughter of a local deputy. The harassment included the boys and their white girlfriends regularly getting pulled over, and on several occasions arrested on charges that never stuck (except on one occasion).

— Church Point is largely segregated (in fact, if not in law), or at least it was when I wrote the story. (more…)

The real reason Republicans boycotted the March

· 2 Comments ·
“80% of life is showing up”

By Alan Bean

Why did every single Republican official who was invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington decline?

The easy answer is that they aren’t big on the civil rights movement, but that’s not true.  When push comes to shove, Republican leaders are willing to admit that Jim Crow laws were a bad idea and that equal access to the American dream is a good thing.  They might not have anything good to say about the civil rights leaders of 2013, but they are capable of honoring Martin Luther King when the occasion calls for it.  In fact, they even held their own quiet, unpublicized commemoration featuring the handful of black congressional Republicans earlier in the week.  Associating with conservative Blacks is always a winner for Republicans.

Attending an event organized by mainstream Black America is another question entirely.

The Republican Party may be embarrassed by the fact that not a single member of the red team accepted an invitation to climb the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday and say some nice things about civil rights.

But here’s the problem, the snub didn’t look good to Black people (of every political persuasion) not did it impress white liberals.  But, the culture war being what it is, these people won’t vote Republican under any circumstances.

The simple truth is that snubbing civil rights leaders doesn’t hurt Republicans politically and it might even help.  No one wanted to be the only representative of the Republican brand associated with last weeks commemoration.  It wouldn’t send the right message to the only voters that count to most politicians–primary voters.  That’s where the real election takes place in most districts.

True, snubbing the organizers of the event reinforced the Republican reputation as the Party of White; but how many conservative white voters care enough about that to switch their votes.  Five?  None?  Somewhere in between?

On the other hand, being associated with an event this public–especially if you are the only Republican on the podium–could lose you the votes of the Tea Party types who vote disproportionately in Republican primaries.  It might not be a big effect.  You might only lose a few hundred votes.  But when you know that appearing at the event won’t gain you a single vote it doesn’t take a math whiz to work the equation.  Speaking would have been a net loser for most Republicans and they have the political sophistication to know it.

Woody Allen once remarked that 80% of life is showing up.  That’s certainly true for congressional Democrats.  All they have to do to look good in the eyes of Black America is to make an appearance.  The expectation bar has been set that low.

John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had to sacrifice a major element of their political base (the Solid South) to do the right thing.

Democrats like Barack Obama and the Clintons win the support of Black America simply by showing up.  Nice work if you can get it.

Brumley: Moderates seek exit from ‘messy middle’

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

I stole the term “messy middle” from my daughter, Dr. Lydia Bean, who coined the phrase for a recent study of evangelicals and same sex marriage.  Since I am briefly quoted in the article below, I thought I should elaborate a bit.  The messy middle churches I describe aren’t moderate in the sense of being poised midway between liberals and conservatives.  Unlike homogeneous congregations in which the majority of congregants hold similar views on theological, political and economic issues, messy middle churches minister to people who are all over the ideological map.

Some are economic conservatives but quite liberal theologically and progressive on social issues.  Others are theological and social conservatives but skew to the left on economic issues (you see this a lot in African American and Latino churches).

Because the culture war fault line runs right down the middle of messy middle congregations, pastors and other opinion leaders within the church are reluctant to tackle issues that highlight the lack of message unity within the congregation or, worse yet, spark controversy within the body.

This explains the strange silence in most messy middle congregations on issues that affect poor people: employment policy, mass incarceration, immigration and homelessness.  Generally, we just don’t talk about this stuff.

That makes sense if the goal is maintaining institutional stability.

But if we’re trying to follow a Christ who preached good news to the poor, we’ve got a problem.

And recent studies suggest that millennials (roughly folks between 18 and 32 as of this writing) are looking for a faith that makes sense of the real world while transcending the weary divisions promoted by the culture war.  Millennials tend to be much more socially progressive than their parents, particularly on the issue of same sex marriage.

Below, a number of Christian leaders, including author Brian McLaren, Suziee Paynter of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Curtis Freeman of Duke Divinity School, share their views.

Moderates seek exit from ‘messy middle’

Individuals and institutions are beginning to seek ways to help moderate churches find their prophetic voice in an age when Millennials demand social-action churches.

By Jeff Brumley

Many are convinced that beyond addressing material and spiritual needs, moderate Baptist churches must become more vocal advocates for “the least of these” in society.

Some are forming congregational programs, while institutions like the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are studying initiatives to help churches find their prophetic voices as Millennials moving into leadership voice dissatisfaction with congregations that remain silent on the burning social issues of the day.

In Texas, Alan Bean recently launched the Common Peace Community, a congregational initiative he hopes will inspire Baptist and other churches to move out of what he calls the “messy middle.” (more…)

Was the Apostle Paul a woman-hater, or what?

· 1 Comment ·
evans_projectmatzoh_post.jpg
Rachel Held Evans having a bit of fun

By Alan Bean

The title of this blog post from Rachel Held Evans reads like a dusty treatise cribbed from a little-read theological journal, but it is well worth reading.  Before long there will be four posts in this series on the domestic codes of the New Testament and I urge you to read them all. (For more on the author, check out this piece from the Atlantic.)

At issue here are all those passages where Paul and a few other New Testament luminaries, make disparaging remarks about women; or at least that is how these passages are commonly read.  Rachel Held Evans doesn’t mind sharing her problems with the Bible, but she believes the domestic codes are only problematic when we rip them from their original context.  Fully contextualized, these passages are alive with life and blessing.

Four Interpretive Pitfalls Around the New Testament Household Codes

Rachel Held Evans

This is the first post in a weeklong series entitled  “Submit One To Another: Christ and the Household Codes,” which will focus on those frequently-cited passages of Scripture that instruct wives to submit to their husbands, slaves to obey their masters, children to obey their parents, and Christians to submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21-6:9, Colossians 3:12-4:6; 1 Peter 2:11-3:22). You are welcome to join in the conversation via the comment section or by contributing to our Synchroblog. Use #onetoanother on Twitter. 

***

Ever heard this before? 

“The Bible says wives are to submit to their husbands, so clearly, Christian men are supposed to be the heard of the household and Christian wives are supposed to defer to the wishes of their husbands when making family decisions.” 

Or this? 

“The Bible teaches husbands to love their wives and wives to respect their husbands because men need respect more than they need love and women need love more than they need respect.”  (more…)

A study in civic priorities, by state

· 4 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

This map gives us the highest paid public employees by state.  I would have thought social workers or school teachers would win the prize in at least one state.  Sadly, no.

On first glance, it appears that Blue states tend to favor basketball coaches while Red states lean toward football coaches.  But that theory breaks down under close examination.  Northern states, Blue and Red, are more likely to pay academics more than coaches.  Must be the influence of that cool Canadian air.  Vermont pays the big bucks to hockey coaches (another Canadian influence, obviously) but I bet they don’t get paid as well as the football and basketball gods.

Fred Clark: Victor Hugo’s theory for why the rich resent the poor

· 1 Comment ·

Victor Hugo’s theory for why the rich resent the poor

Posted: 17 Aug 2013 11:17 PM PDT

Chris Hedges sent me looking for this, from Victor Hugo in Les Miserables:

On the part of the selfish, the prejudices, shadows of costly education, appetite increasing through intoxication, a giddiness of prosperity which dulls, a fear of suffering which, in some, goes as far as an aversion for the suffering, an implacable satisfaction, the I so swollen that it bars the soul . . .

That’s harsh. It’s particularly harsh because it’s so precisely accurate.

“A fear of suffering which, in some, goes as far as an aversion for the suffering” diagnoses the disease now afflicting American politics. Whether it’s food stamps or gun safety, lead and mercury poisoning or substandard schools, access to health care or the dual mandate of the Fed, this is what shapes our discourse.

This accounts for the great mystery at the heart of American politics — the backwards flow of resentment. In America, the wealthy resent the poor, the powerful resent the powerless, the well-fed resent the hungry, leaders of the dominant religion resent religious minorities, privileged whites resent people of color, privileged men resent women.

This is an enigma. It seems impossible. The poor do not deprive the rich, so how is it even possible for the rich to resent them? We can understand how the downtrodden might resent those who have beaten them down, but what possible reason could there be for those at the top to resent those they grind beneath them? There is no rational basis for this resentment — no way of explaining it.

Hugo offers a theory: The fear of suffering can fester into an aversion for all who suffer. Those who suffer are a reminder of the thing we fear. And so we come to resent those who suffer, and therefore we seek to punish them.

That fits the confounding facts. It helps us to understand the disgraceful, gravity-defying miracle of reverse resentment.

Being compassionate when compassion ain’t cool

· 1 Comment ·
 By Alan Bean

Charles Blow says America has become a heartless nation (see his column below).  Ask the person on the street for the primary reason for poverty in America and 24% will tell you it’s because welfare prevents initiative.  Another 18% will blame crummy schools.  Then its family breakdown (13%), and lack of a work ethic (also 13%).  These are all explanations endorsed by the conservative movement.

You won’t hear any of the issues favored by progressive Americans until you work much further down the list.  Lack of government programs checks in at 10%, and persistent racism polls at a dismal 2%.  Unless people of color were excluded from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (an unlikely prospect), the liberal diagnosis of society’s ills doesn’t even appear to be playing well in the minority community.

It’s not enough to lament that America has become “a town without pity” (for younger readers, that’s an allusion to an old Gene Pitney song inspired by a 1961 movie).  In the 1960s, an American president could launch a war on poverty without worrying too much about the political fallout.  Then America’s glory years were overtaken by an era of economic anxiety.  When people worry about money, they turn inward and politicians follow suit. (more…)

How liberal is the media?

· 1 Comment ·

People who talk about the “liberal” media reference a specific fact set:

  • Media people tend to be Democrats.
  • Media people are disproportionately educated in Ivy League and top-tier universities where traditional values are subjected to rigorous critique
  • The media, for the most part, take a liberal slant on social issues like abortion and homosexuality.
  • The media cover American life from a distinctly secular perspective and references to religion are often pejorative or related to scandal
  • The media avoid frank discussion of racial issues and pundits who offend minority groups frequently get the axe.

The following article, compiled by a liberal blogger who calls himself akadjian, suggests that the media is driven by money not ideology.  If MSNBC skews left and FOX tilts right, it’s because targeting a specific demographic can be good for the bottom line. Because the media business is about producing profits there is a strong disinclination to cover stories that reflect badly on rich people or that question the fundamental character of American economic life.

If the argument below is that the American media never touch these stories, I don’t buy it.  All of the issues below are regularly featured on MSNBC (particularly on the Rachel Maddow Show) and pop up occasionally in the mainstream media.  But these stories don’t get nearly the coverage they deserve, partly true because they aren’t sexy or titillating; and partly because the folks who pay the bills shape the editorial policy of most media outlets.  Normally this influence is indirect (editors know where the lines are drawn), but I suspect the one-percent has its ways of expressing displeasure and punishing offenders.

You will be particularly interested in number 11: Nixon’s Southern Strategy.  It begins with a 1970 quote from a candid Kevin Philips:

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Notice the logic here.  It isn’t that Democrats won’t be able to attract enough Black and Latino voters to win; it’s that the Blue team’s very success with minority voters will drive White voters into the Red camp.

The implications of this insight (and Philips nailed it) are staggering.  It means that every time lefties get a bunch of minority folk and counterculture Whites together to demand justice we are begging the White majority to adopt the opposing view.   That’s not what we’re trying to do; but that’s what we’re doing.  At some point we progressive types must start taking the gut reaction of White conservatives into consideration and ask how we can get a conversation started.  Without at least 30% of the White electorate you can’t win a statewide election in Texas or anywhere else across the South and much of the American heartland.  In Texas, 80% of White voters went for Romney in 2012 and I suspect the figure was even higher among White males.

Read the list and tell us what you think.

15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media

byakadjianFollow

WED AUG 07, 2013 

If you know anyone who still believes in a “liberal media,” here’s 15 things everyone would know if there really were a “liberal media”.

1. Where the jobs went.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.

Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg as multinational corporations account for only about 20% of the labor force. (more…)

Is America an idea or a culture?

· 1 Comment ·
Samuel T. Francis in his prime

By Alan Bean

Is America an idea about “liberty and justice for all” that can be embraced by an endless assortment of people from a wild array of cultures; or is America a uniquely White Western cultural phenomenon that only works when White Westerners are in control of the process?

Shortly before his death in 2005, Samuel T. Francis was asked to compose a statement of principles for the Council of Conservative Citizens, an unabashedly racist organization created in 1985 from old White Citizen’s Council mailing lists.  Francis had been an editorial writer and columnist with the Washington Times between 1986 and 1995, but lost his job after criticizing the Southern Baptist Convention’s apology for slavery.  This bold stand transformed Francis into a standard bearer for Lost Cause stalwarts in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.  By the time he authored a statement of principles for the CCC, Francis was terminally ill and didn’t pull any punches.  For example, here’s his take on immigration:

We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

The Council of Conservative Citizens claims that its racist vision is shared by a majority of White people in America.  I hope they are wrong.  Everything hinges on our definition of America.  Are we primarily an idea to which anyone can ascribe, or are we a distinct culture that will always be alien to non-white people with roots in the non-Western world? (more…)

Why an innocent man has been prosecuted six times for the same crime?

· 3 Comments ·

Tardy Furniture looking north to Coast to CoastBy Alan Bean

Doug Evans investigation and prosecution of the infamous 1996 Tardy murders have elicited some strong statements over the years.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has opined that Evans’ desperate attempt to exclude Black people from the jury is the most flagrant example of racially biased jury selection they have ever witnessed.

Robert Johnson, former chief of the Jackson, Mississippi police department, called the investigation that led to Mr. Flowers’ arrest “the worst investigation I have ever seen.”

Curtis Flowers has now been tried six times for the same crime with the state using the same evidence, the same witnesses and the same strategy every time.  Three guilty verdicts have been reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court because of gross prosecutorial misconduct.  On two other occasions, juries split along racial lines.  In the fourth trial, for instance, all five Black jurors voted to acquit while all seven White jurors were willing to convict.

Prosecutor Doug Evans, has a case he can sell to white jurors.  But Black jurors aren’t buying.

How do we account for this gap in perception?

From the moment four bodies were discovered in a furniture store in Winona, Mississippi,  this case has been driven by racial, social and political anxiety.

Doug Evans was looking at four victims and no murder weapon.  This meant trouble and he knew it. (more…)