THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN

Americans, who seem to like to tie up controversial historical periods in neat little packages, tend to call the years 1955 – 1968 the “Civil Rights Era.” Giving the struggle for racial equality a timeframe with boundaries allows many people to believe that some level of equality was achieved. The parents of the late Trayvon Martin would undoubtedly disagree.

On February 26, Trayvon Martin, 17, a Sanford, FL high school student, left his father’s gated community to walk to a nearby store. George Zimmerman, 28, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain who was not affiliated with any official law enforcement organization, murdered Trayvon Martin because he thought the boy looked “suspicious.” You can safely substitute the word “black” for suspicious. Trayvon Martin was guilty of nothing more than walking to the store….and being black. His death fully supports the contention of many of us who lived through the “civil rights era” that racism in America is not only alive and well, but it is far more aggressive and dangerous than it was from 1955 to 1968.

There are many unanswered questions about this murder. First, why was an un-appointed “neighborhood watch captain” carrying a gun in a suburban neighborhood? Second, why has the murderer, George Zimmerman,
(left) not been arrested and imprisoned for first degree murder? Further, when a 911 operator asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin, Zimmerman said he was. The 911 operator clearly told Zimmerman not to continue pursuing Martin, but he did, until he murdered him. Why did Zimmerman continue his vigilante pursuit after law enforcement instructed him not to? Are we a nation of laws or does anyone now have the right to pursue anyone on the streets of America? Martin was unarmed and in possession of two items when police found his body – a package of candy and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman claims he killed Martin in self-defense. The police did not test the killer for drugs or alcohol, and took his word for it that it was self defense. He was not detained or arrested. Why?

The United States Department of Justice has strict guidelines for neighborhood watch personnel. First, they are to be trained for their work by law enforcement officials. But more importantly is this passage from the Neighborhood Watch Manual, published by the DOJ in 2010: “Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.” There is no disputing the facts that George Zimmerman defied these rules by carrying a gun and by confronting Trayvon Martin. So, again, why is he not in jail charged with first degree murder?

Similar incidents happened during the defined Civil Rights Era. In 1955, Emmett Till, (below, right, with his mother, Mamie Till Mobley) a black 14-year-old boy, was beaten, his eye gouged out and murdered by white men in Mississippi when he was suspected of flirting with a white woman.
Till’s death touched off not just a national outpouring of rage, but one that became international in scope. Some say it was the true beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. His killers were brought to trial, but allowed to maintain their freedom. Was it karmic that both later died of cancer? You will have to decide that for yourself.

Fast forward to this week: Deryl Dedmon, a white teenager pleaded guilty to murder and a hate crime for running over a black man with his pickup truck. The victim, James Craig Anderson, 47, was mercilessly beaten before Dedmon deliberately drove over his body. Mississippi prosecutors said Dedmon and others had targeted blacks for harassment before, usually homeless or drunk people who weren't likely to report it to police. Dedmon, 19, was sentenced to two life sentences. In handing down the sentence, Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill Sr. brought up 1964 murders of three civil rights workers who were murdered and buried in an earthen dam in a rural area that became known as "Mississippi Burning."

“All the hard work we have done to move our state forward from that earthen dam in Neshoba County to here has been stained by you,” Weill said . “A stain that will take years to fade.”


In truth, it will not fade at all, just as the brutal murder of Emmett Till still stains our national consciousness. However, unlike Anderson’s murder, the murder of Trayvon Martin has the potential to incite the same national (and perhaps international) rage that followed Till’s murder. This week, the FBI and representatives of the DOJ visited Martin’s parents,(above, left) Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, in an investigative attempt to determine if Federal charges will be used on George Martin. They will no doubt ponder this question: Were Trayvon Martin’s civil rights denied when he was not allowed to innocently walk down a suburban street toward his father’s home? While the answer is obvious, there are laws in place that must be followed to launch a Federal case.

The national outrage has already begun. President Obama said this about Martin’s murder: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened." That sure sounds like Federal charges are imminent.

On March 21, thousands of people turned out for a “Thousand Hoodie March” in New York’s Union Square to protest Martin’s murder. They held up packages of skittles, cans of iced tea and carried signs that said things like, “They never stop and frisk old white guys like me.”
On Thursday, Rev. Al Sharpton joined Martin’s parents for a protest rally in Sanford, FL, where participants carried signs that said things like, “Please don’t kill my sons,” and “Walking while black is not a crime.” On the same day, the police chief “temporarily” stepped down in Sanford.

Trayvon Martin’s murder, with its racially divisive implications is not an isolated incident. In New York last month, an 18-year-old boy was murdered by a NYPD officer who suspected he was dealing drugs. The murder took place in the boy’s grandmother’s home. The boy was unarmed and did not resist the officer. The boy, Ramarley Graham, was the subject of an illegal search, since the officer did not have a warrant. Many New Yorkers claim the NYPD’s “Stop and frisk” program is based in racism. As usual, the numbers tell the story: In 2011, the publicly available stats show that a half million people were stopped under this program. Of those, 87 percent were black or Latino, and most of the program’s efforts were centered in poor, minority neighborhoods. More rallies are planned over the coming weeks in protest of Graham’s death, with the ongoing cry of “NYPD – KKK.”

Similarly, in New Orleans last week, a 20-year-old man was killed in his home by a NOPD officer who was executing a search warrant related to drug activity. The man, Wendall Allen,(right)
was black. The officer is white. Allen was unarmed. The New Orleans coroner later revealed Allen died from a single gunshot that penetrated his lungs, heart and aorta. He also revealed the gunshot did not occur at close range, meaning it is unlikely that there was a struggle with Allen before he was killed. There were five children, ranging in age from one to 14 in the house at the time of Allen’s murder.

To date, neither the DOJ nor FBI has been involved in the Allen or Graham murders. Why? How do they differ from the murder of Trayvon Martin? All were young black citizens, unarmed, not arrested for a crime and not aggressive toward their murderers.

There is a fire burning just below the surface of the American culture. It has been burning for a very long time. It is rooted in intolerance and the mistaken notion that somehow there are population segments in America that are inherently superior to other citizens. It is fueled by individuals who cannot control or alter their own intolerance of others; individuals like George Zimmerman, who committed murder and walks freely through the streets of America even today; individuals like conservative Fox TV pundit Sean Hannity, who even after being offered all the facts of Martin’s murder, said, “Isn’t it possible this was all just a horrible accident?”; individuals like wayward journalist Geraldo Rivera, who actually said that although Martin was an “innocent kid, I’ll bet you money that if he didn't have that hoodie on, that — that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way."

The true culprit here is pervasive racism. The lesson to take away from this is that there was no “Civil Rights Era.” You cannot bookend the mid-20th century effort to achieve racial equality and call it an “era.”
If bookends are important to Americans, then the civil rights era is neatly framed by murder – Emmett Till’s in 1955 and Dr. Martin Luther King’s in 1968. It is, instead, an ongoing struggle that is getting worse instead of better with time. If Trayvon Martin can be murdered in broad daylight by a private citizen carrying a gun in a suburban neighborhood, the struggle must be viewed in present tense, rather than historically. And that fire that burns just under the surface of America? It’s coming out in the open now, just as it did in 1955.

IS IT TIME TO CHALLENGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

About a year ago in his standup act, comedian Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt.” There it is. In black and white. It is a word that our culture has deemed about as ugly as any word in the language. In common usage it reduces a woman to nothing more than her genitalia. It negates her intellect, her emotions, her purpose in the world. It is, at this point in the evolution of the English language, about as insulting as one word can be.

This week, in light of the prolonged controversy surrounding radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh calling a Georgetown University student a “slut” and a “prostitute,” Mahar has come under some criticism for his misogynistic language. In an interview with ABS’s Jake Tapper, Mahar defended his unfortunate choice of words this way: “I'm a comedian - not just a guy who says he is, like Rush, but someone who - well, you saw me do stand-up last year in D.C. There's a big difference between just saying you're a comedian and going out and getting thousands of people to laugh hard for 90 minutes. And the one I'm compared to most is Carlin, who also had these kind of problems.”

To paraphrase 1988 vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, let me just say this to Bill Mahar: Bill, you’re no George Carlin. You see, Carlin, from his earliest days on stage and on television, was a cultural commentator disguised as a comedian. Bill, you’re a comedian, disguised as a cultural commentator. There is a huge difference.

Here is how Mahar (left) rationalized his Palin (left) insult to Tapper: “Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important, and it's also important to remember that stand-up comedy is the final frontier of free speech.”

Really? I think not. There will probably never be a “final frontier” of free speech. In fact, what we are witnessing in our culture right now is a real struggle to figure out if there are, or should be, boundaries to free speech. And if boundaries do or should exist for this historical American freedom, do we want them to be federalized or moralized? In a true democracy, who decides if it’s okay or not okay to call a college student a slut over the national airwaves? And if it’s not okay, what do we do? Should we take away Rush Limbaugh’s right to speak over the airwaves, or should the free market do its thing and naturally decide if he belongs in his high tech public forum?

There are many more questions than answers in our struggle to figure out what to do with the Rush Limbaughs (right) and Bill Mahars of the world. Chief among them is this: Is it time for us to challenge the limits of the first amendment? If that sounds revolutionary, it is not. The first amendment was notably challenged twice, in 1992 and 1993. Both times, the cases revolved around incendiary or hate speech. Decades earlier, the Supreme Court decided that such speech was not protected under the First Amendment. So, perhaps now would be an appropriate time for the amendment to be scrutinized further. This time, perhaps it would make sense for the U.S. government to consider the issue of civility. And for those who would question how we would define civility or incivility, remember there were those who strongly questioned what constituted hate speech when the amendment was challenged two decades ago.

Why is it implicitly acceptable in America to call a candidate for the vice-presidency a cunt? Why is it implicitly acceptable in America to denigrate private citizens on a radio talk show? It is time for us to find some consistency in the acceptable communication mores in our culture. Don Imus,(left) the radio talk host, managed to stay on the air for a very long time before finally being released by CBS radio in 2007 after referring to black women on Rutgers University’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos.” However, long before that he made repeated defamatory remarks, including one prior to the Rutgers debacle when he said one of his co-hosts was “hired to do nigger jokes.” He routinely referred to gay men as “faggots.” He was able to stay on the air because there is no consistency in FCC policy related to slander based on race, gender or sexuality. That lack of consistency runs parallel with the vague nature of the First Amendment.

So now it seems time to once again challenge the amendment to exclude defamatory speech, just as it excludes hate speech. Consider this: When the Constitution was written, there was no way for its authors to foresee the emergence of digital communication centuries later. Digital communication easily allows one individual to reach a majority of Americans instantly. That suggests that freedom of speech then bore very little resemblance to freedom of speech in 2012. That being the case, shouldn’t we Americans be taking a second look at the amendment to determine if it adequately speaks to contemporary cultural and technological shifts? I think so.

THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD

The public discourse took an unfortunate turn last week when radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown law school co-ed a “slut” and a “prostitute.” The student, Sandra Fluke, testified before Congress regarding her position that contraception for women should be covered under mandatory health insurance coverage. Limbaugh, for his part, seized upon her remarks to state his moral judgment that students should exercise more restraint in their sexual lives. In case you’re one of the three people in America who has not heard this yet, here is Limbaugh’s tirade:

The firestorm that followed was predictable and divisive. At least one advertiser, Sleep Train, a mattress manufacturer, immediately cancelled its relationship with the Limbaugh show. Others followed. Also predictable was Limbaugh’s choice to personally attack Fluke and Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who chaired the hearings at which Fluke testified. He even went so far as to mock her last name, referring to her as Sandra Flake. He also cavalierly passed judgment on college students who are having a lot of sex. I’m wondering if Limbaugh remembers his own college days at Southeast Missouri State University. Although he never graduated, those of us familiar enough with the Cape Girardeau campus know that like any other college campus, plenty of sex happens there daily. Older, conservative white guys tend to conveniently forget about their own college sex lives when it suits them.

Exhibit B? Bill O’Reilly. A savvier TV talking head might bow out of this particular melee. However, O’Reilly, rarely one to thoughtfully choose his battles, took to the airwaves to bolster Limbaugh’s public condemnation of Sandra Fluke. In his own highly moralistic, scathing commentary, O’Reilly also mocks Fluke, by referring to her as Sandra Fluk, (with its implied rhyme). Another old, conservative white guy, O’Reilly’s desperate grab for attention [read ‘ratings’] demeans the work of professional journalists by suggesting that if the government mandates coverage of birth control for female college students, it should also insist on coverage of football equipment for male students. Really. Watch:

From the perspective of yet another older white guy, and a journalist, I just want broadcasters to do their job, rather than make themselves the story. I want them to focus on the issues about which they are reporting, rather than on the personalities that bring attention to the issues. I feel just as strongly about MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell who found it necessary to say this to Fluke during an MSNBC interview: “I have to say you’ve done a number of interviews and you’ve handled it all with extraordinary grace through all of this.” Again, Mitchell finds it necessary to express her own views about Fluke, and to make Fluke the story rather than government-mandated insurance coverage of contraceptives. In that one sentence, Mitchell goes off topic and turns this into a personality story. By doing this, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Mitchell do a disservice to the audience.

What you, the consumer, are witnessing is the American free enterprise system gone awry. The mass media industries are so intensely competitive now that they rely on their superstars to keep you from changing the channel or clicking away to another site, regardless of the tactics they use. The competition that so richly bolstered the capitalistic system in our country is operating at the lowest common denominator of taste and dignity.

Those of us who believe in the basic tenets of good journalism wish we had a solution to this digitally-enhanced mess, but we just don’t. That’s why a narcissistic, unprofessional blob like Limbaugh has been able to elevate his crack rhetoric to a level that makes him the highest paid radio personality in the history of the medium. Not that I want to rub it in, but last year Limbaugh earned $64 million. Ugh. He did so by disrespectfully referring to the First Lady as Moo-chelle, by declaring that Barack Obama would not have become president if he were not black, by comparing the president to Hitler, by mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s tremors, and by demeaning any population group that does not fit with his narrow view of acceptable human behavior.

By late Saturday night, Limbaugh had issued a half-baked apology to Fluke, couched in further defense of his own views. The most cynical among us might deduce that the apology was only offered after several advertisers pulled out of Limbaugh’s radio show.
They include Pro-Flowers, Sleep Number, Sleep Train, Legal Zoom, Citrix and Quicken Loans. In part, he said, “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?” A simple, ‘I apologize for publicly demeaning you” to Fluke (above, right) would have sufficed.

Someone should point out to Limbaugh that those oxycodone and hydrocodone painkillers he was addicted to a few years ago were surely covered by his health insurance. It should also be noted that many health insurance companies cover Viagra, but not birth control pills. Oh...and about those birth control pills. Limbaugh needs to know that they are quite often prescribed for medical conditions that have nothing to do with birth control. Conditions such as endometriosis, reportedly a highly painful condition that affects millions of American women. But most of all, someone should tell Limbaugh that 20-somethings are going to have sex. Lots and lots of sex. So for him to make derogatory comments about the frequency of sex among young people is patently absurd. Let’s not condemn co-eds for being sexual. Let’s instead condemn media personalities who abuse the airwaves by publicly humiliating individuals with the courage of their convictions.

dis-GRACE-ful

For those who need to see an example of what really happened to cause the majority of Americans to distrust mass media, look no further than one Nancy Grace on the HLN network. Grace epitomizes the slow and steady decline of honorable reporting. But you already knew that. This week, Grace blatantly exploited the death of Whitney Houston to draw attention to herself. This act, and so many others in Grace’s misuse of the airwaves separates her in a most unfortunate way from those who understand the real privilege of having a voice that reaches millions. In case you missed Grace’s ill-conceived take on Houston’s untimely death, watch:

If you want to know how a broadcaster with Grace's sensationalistic style of reporting could rise in the industry, just know it has all to do with competition. When there were three major television networks, no cable, no Internet, people like Grace could not emerge. Unprecedented industrial competition has given rise to a media landscape that causes each company to take desperate grabs for viewers. It wasn’t always that way. One would be hard pressed to imagine a David Brinkley or John Chancellor showing such direct disrespect to the family of Whitney Houston by questioning the circumstances of her death. One cannot envision Walter Cronkite speculating about the most intimate moment of Whitney Houston’s life, when she drew her last breath. All of those who approached truth telling with dignity, who knew their jobs were simply to convey information, would cringe at the image of Nancy Grace using Houston’s death for selfish reasons, for attention grabbing, or as ABC’s Barbara Walters said, for ratings.

In late 2011, the Gallup organization polled Americans about their trust of media. Not surprisingly, the results showed the majority of Americans still do not have confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 44% of Americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust and the 55% who have little or no trust remain among the most negative views Gallup has measured. As a journalist, I couldn’t be more discouraged by this development in our culture. That is because I know how much the truth matters. I know that our culture only advances in the right direction when we all come from a place of truth. So when a broadcaster comes forth from a place of half truth and manufactured drama, we all suffer for it.

Days after Grace’s fully unsubstantiated questioning of Houston’s cause of death, ABC’s Dan Abrams quite graciously offered Grace an opportunity to walk back her comments or at least acknowledge they were inappropriate, but Grace used the moment to defend her original assertion. This, even though law enforcement officials in L.A. were quick to announce after Houston’s death that no foul play was suspected. Watch:

Grace, it should be pointed out, is not a journalist. She is an attorney who got lucky and got a TV gig that caught on with a significant number of viewers. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many American viewers, talk show hosts are often mistaken for trained journalists. That being said, Grace does a disservice to all legitimate journalists by exercising her low standards of reporting on air. What she did in speculating about Houston’s death was thoughtless, especially as Houston’s family struggles to deal with their loss. I view Grace’s dramatic ratings grab on the same level as M.I.A.’s obscene gesture during the recent Super Bowl halftime. Each showed a lack of professionalism and a full disregard for the viewers.


Clearly, with “Dancing with the Stars” and the Caylee Anthony case behind her, Grace has no cause célèbre to keep herself in the forefront of media consciousness. Houston’s death happened right on time for Grace. Unfortunately for all of us, it also enabled Grace to further chip away at the tenuous relationship between the media industries and the public. And worst of all, it further erodes what little credibility news networks have left. Nice going Nancy.

LOOSE LIPS THAT COULD SINK THE GOP SHIP

Smart citizens aren’t getting too excited one way or the other that a Rick Santorum could triumph in three state primaries on the same night. After all, it’s way early to be getting excited about anybody and the current crop of GOP hopefuls are generally their own worst enemies. After thanking God, family, sky, air, water, or whatever after winning a primary, it seems the following days are full of each of them repeatedly sticking foot in mouth.

Is it just me, or has the GOP primary season run off the rails? Come on. When a candidate looks at the crowd and says there is a link between having an abortion and developing cancer, we know things have gone out of control. Rick Santorum said this after the Komen/Planned Parenthood funding debacle last week. Immediately medical experts came forward to say they knew of no relationship between cancer and abortion. Yet, Santorum clearly felt comfortable saying it.

He’s not the only one whose words are more fantasy than policy, plan or clear intention. Let’s not even go near former hopefuls Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry. Let’s look at the words of the remaining contenders. Just last week, Mitt Romney (left) said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I’ll repair them.” That same week statistics came out that show that my city, New Orleans, has the second highest rate of homelessness in the nation. So I’m wondering, what safety net was he talking about?
It gets worse: Terminally grumpy Newt Gingrich was promoted by a super pac robo-call that said, “Holocaust survivors for the first time were forced to eat non-kosher because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for your grandparents to eat kosher.” This, of course, was not exactly accurate, but more than that, it is clear evidence of the Gingrich campaign desperately scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel for ammunition against the current front runner. He justified the claim by saying Romney has a “lack of concern for religious liberty.” Gingrich denied any knowledge of the robo-call, but he did not dispute what it said.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul(below, right) tells a woman with breast cancer at one of his campaign stops that insurance companies should not have to cover pre-existing conditions. “It’s sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane,” he said. “Insurance is supposed to measure risk.” Paul is the same guy who said this in a recent debate: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous.”

Speaking of gay people, Rick Santorum seems to speak of almost nothing else. Last month he went so far as to say it would be better for a child to have a father in prison than to be raised by lesbian parents. Santorum has made his objection to marriage equality a signature issue in the campaign, while crowds at every campaign stop largely couldn’t care less about who marries who. Yet, he hammers on. Predictably, crowds have taken to challenging Santorum on his views regarding gay Americans. What he has accomplished is simply the engineering of a campaign that is known for its extremism on a subject that Americans find tedious. By the middle of 2011, the Pew Research Institute reported that Americans were almost evenly split on the issue of marriage equality. Pew found that 57 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents favored marriage equality, while just one in four Republicans approved.

Santorum is not exactly preaching to the choir. Yet he keeps preaching. Interestingly enough, on the same day Santorum enjoyed the afterglow of his three primary wins, a California appeals court reversed its ruling on Proposition 8, essentially lifting the ban on gay marriage. What this shows is that not only is Santorum out of step with the American public, but he’s beating a dead horse.

Here’s the problem: First, candidates are judged largely by their words and their demeanor. Everything they say on the campaign trail is duly logged for history. Santorum, for example, will almost certainly see marriage equality nationwide during his lifetime, and during his political career. A decade from now the incendiary words he puts forth today will haunt him as pundits hold him to things he said in 2012. As for Gingrich,(left) although this campaign is likely his last hurrah, a man as narcissistic as he surely values his legacy. But what kind of legacy can there really be when he campaigned by calling his opponent (Romney) “despicable,” and when he championed colonizing the moon when right here on earth people were losing their homes and livelihoods in record numbers?

One of my favorite writers, Maya Angelou, says words are actual things. They exist. I always thought of words as simply symbols, but she says they’re real. So, if she’s right, how do any of these men hope to gain the universal respect of the American people when they appear to have no filter when it comes to their own message? And how do they believe Americans will perceive their characters when they do not even deal graciously with one another? Gingrich, for his part, did not even offer the traditional congratulations to Romney, the victor in two recent primaries.

Words count. Manners count. Truth matters. Reasonable discourse attracts citizen support. The old “think before you speak” rule demonstrates intelligence. Why do the GOP candidates this year not get this? Why do they underestimate the citizenry’s collective perceptive nature? If you want to win our support, guys, talk to and with us, and not over and against one another. It’s that simple. Really.

THE POLITICHICKS ARE BACK!

The scene: Four radically conservative women get together for a political chatfest. They include a young black woman who says things like this, with a straight face: "The scripture tells us how to vote"; a non-descript librarian type who is, shall we say, not camera-ready; a blonde Heather Locklear-alike who is committed to her belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim; and, one-time, SNL not-ready-for-prime-time player Victoria Jackson, who inexplicably appears to be morphing into Shelley Winters. Today, the ladies tackle the all-important question, Can a Christian vote for a Mormon?

HALEY BARBOUR LEAVES MISSISSIPPI BURNING

Way back in 1992 Joseph Ozment entered a convenience store with another man and committed a robbery. His cohort shot the clerk, Ricky Montgomery and disabled him long enough for the two to make their escape. Still, Ozment fired two shots into Montgomery’s head. He was caught, prosecuted and found guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison. Today, Ozment is not only free, but he is missing.

One man who is not concerned about Ozment’s whereabouts is former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who issued Ozment a full pardon just as he was about to exit the governor’s office on his last day. Not only did he pardon Ozment, but he pardoned 202 others, including at least 20 more convicted murderers. Watch:

That report was on January 12. The next day, Barbour held a news conference. He defended his clemency decisions by saying 189 of those pardoned were already out of jail. He said 26 were in jail, but 13 were released strictly for medical reasons. About the murderers, Barbour said they had been found guilty of crimes of passion, and according to the former governor, “experts” say those who commit crimes of passion are the most unlikely to commit another crime. He also said he is an evangelical Christian who believes in second chances. He proclaimed he is “totally at peace” with his decisions about the pardons.

One wonders why Barbour does not show more concern for the people of Mississippi who are quite uncomfortable knowing the murderers are free. I was in Mississippi the night news broke of Barbour’s eleventh hour pardons. I can safely say that everybody I came in contact with that night and the next day was dumbfounded, somewhat frightened and outraged. They were blindsided by Barbour’s callous disregard of their trust. They wanted an explanation, and they wanted Barbour to be held accountable for what they considered the careless abuse of his last moments of power. That may be why he caved to public pressure and held the press conference, at which he only managed to dig himself in deeper. About the five murderers who had worked as trustees at the Governor’s mansion, Barbour said he trusted them so completely that he even allowed his grandchildren to play with them. That simply served to make him further appear as the old, out-of-touch Southern white guy that he really is. Here is how he tried to justify his inexcusable decisions to compromise public safety in Mississippi:

Haley Barbour has a history of questionable, if not unacceptable behavior while in power. Last year, for example, Barbour said the civil rights era “was not that bad in Mississippi,” and that he “had a great childhood” in the state. Also last year, he was way too slow to veto a proposal to issue a state vanity license plate honoring a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Barbour, in fact, has a history of somewhat muted racism in his rhetoric. He also has a questionable history regarding immigration. When he worked as a lobbyist, he actually represented Mexico and reportedly made rather covert efforts to enable Mexicans to enter the U.S. and not have to fully live up to immigration laws.

What matters now is that Barbour was elected Governor of Mississippi twice, and for the most part operated in the traditions of the old South. One who spends time in Mississippi and who did not grow up there is quick to see the state has its own self-contained, early American culture. Natchez, for example, is a place that seems never to have accepted that the South lost the Civil War.[Exhibit A: At right is Mammy's Cupboard restaurant] So Barbour is a product of his environment. It so happens he amassed a certain amount of power and respect among the citizenry, so that when his term as Governor ended, he felt autonomous enough to simply let convicted first degree murderers back into the streets. What about respect for their victims, one might ask. What about their victims’ relatives, friends and associates? Are they at risk of bodily harm now?

Haley Barbour is a piece of work who has probably held Mississippi back, single handedly, from advancing into the 21st century, but his latest clemency disaster may be his worst act yet. Only time will tell if those crimes of passion he speaks of were isolated incidents or if they truly were precursors of a pattern of life-threatening criminal acts.

IS THIS THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA?

This week, in one of his first appearances in New Hampshire, before a group of college students, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was confronted about his views against marriage equality. Reportedly, he asked the student what the difference would be between allowing two men to get married and allowing more than two men to marry. Essentially, he compared gay Americans getting married to polygamy. This is from a guy who has in the past compared gay people getting married to bestiality and sex between dogs.

Reports are showing up that bigger money is starting to bolster Santorum’s surprisingly emerging candidacy. Just yesterday, Foster Freiss, a megabucks-rich Wyoming financier, revealed that he dropped a half million dollars on Santorum’s Super PAC. This news comes right as it is revealed that Santorum, in a proactive sweep, is planning a major media blitz in South Carolina. While he preps for South Carolina, polls have him pulling up to third in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, he continues his unabashedly bigoted remarks about black Americans, gay Americans, pro-choice Americans, poor Americans, and even Mormons (who he says are members of a dangerous cult”). Rick Santorum is a bigot. Just reading those words right now on the page, I can’t help wondering why I haven’t read them anywhere else. Not only is he a bigot, but he tries mightily to convince you and me that he is not, even backtracking on his own words. Watch:

The ultimate danger is an exclusionary, closed-minded bigot gathering steam in the race to be the leader of the free world. What kind of a world would happen with a President Santorum? I envision a world under Santorum where America is at war with Iran. He has as much as said it. I envision a world in which girls raped by their fathers are forced to give birth; a world in which fully trained doctors in the best medical facilities in the country are legally compelled to allow a woman to die rather than abort the fetus that is killing her. Santorum would even like to legislate sexual behavior between men and women; he recently said contraceptives are “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” His views on contraception are nothing new; they’ve just gotten louder. Here is what he said as far back as 2006:

Those who still remain unconvinced of Santorum’s ignorance should take note of the fact that somehow he speaks of birth control only in terms of pre-marital sex. The truth is it is a multi-faceted, life and death issue. He makes no mention of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV infection, teen pregnancy rates or any other issue associated with a lack of birth control. Again, Santorum’s narrow view of the world ignores inevitable consequences and asks the citizenry to subscribe to his own lack of understanding of vital issues.

Santorum’s rhetoric is positively Bachmannesque in its ignorance, but there is quite a distinction between him and Michele Bachmann. She was a flake who fizzled out of the public’s consciousness faster than you can say “Iowa.” He, on the other hand is rising. By some estimates his support nationwide quintupled after Iowa. He is reported to have raised $2 million in the 48 hours following the caucus there. As the money pours in, Santorum is steadily elevating his rhetorical swagger. On Thursday he actually dissed Ronald Reagan in a speech about social security. Try to remember the last time you heard a GOP candidate who was bold (or stupid) enough to denigrate Reagan. Santorum’s getting perilously cocky.

The danger here is the precedent. If Santorum can rise in America, what ails this country, and what other fringe candidate could garner support? We Americans rarely rally behind extremists who run for president. But people are scared right now. After witnessing the Arab Spring, bloodshed worldwide, the Occupy movement coast to coast – Americans are ripe for a law and order guy. And if the only type of law and order that presents itself is moral law and order in the body of a Rick Santorum, it appears a lot of scared Americans are ready to jump on his highly determined and rigidly conceived bandwagon. He is a man whose rapid ascent is the clear result of national desperation.

That’s no way to elect a president. If I could get one message across to all of those rabid Santorum supporters it would be this: What you are witnessing is the candidacy of an angry man. Inside of his rhetoric is a true rage against freedom. It is the world according to Rick Santorum, and anyone who doesn’t fall in line is simply dismissed and categorized as a sinner.


If you want to witness a teachable moment, this is the big one. Here and now we can learn a lot about what moves people when they’re in trouble. Santorum’s message is resonating among citizens who feel disenfranchised and hopeless. He is playing the God card, and transforming his holier-than-thou attitude into a public rallying cry for his limited version of morality.

Will we buy what he’s selling in the long term? I think not. But plenty of damage can be done in the meantime. As the campaign goes on, attention will likely turn to Santorum’s cozy connections with big business, his uncomfortable alliance with lobbyists, his questionable past business dealings and his hawkish views on foreign policy. But right now, since he seems hell bent on imposing his moral views on America, it’s time for us to ask ourselves if we could truly abide a President who dismisses millions of us simply because we believe in something he does not comprehend – freedom of choice.

HOLIDAY GREETINGS FROM THE BACHMANNS!

The Bachmanns Wish You Merry Christmas - watch more funny videos

EULOGY FOR OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

By all accounts, 23-year-old David Hickman (below, left) from Greensboro, N.C. was pretty excited about coming home for Christmas. It is widely reported that he called his mother on November 13 to say so, but that would be their last conversation. On November 14, Hickman, an infantryman, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Critics of the Obama administration contend the president should never have announced in October that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas. According to some, Obama’s pronouncement only served to make the Iraqi insurgents step up their quest to knock off as many Americans as possible before the deadline. They may be right, and Hickman may be the unfortunate consequence of Obama’s grandstanding.

This week marked the official end of U.S. troop involvement in Iraq. It has been nine years since the U.S. involved itself in the ill-conceived “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Many Americans believe it was not this country’s responsibility to ensure democracy in Iraq. It is now well known that the U.S. entered the war with faulty intelligence and under less than noble circumstances. It is known that President George W. Bush's aggressive stance toward Iraq after 9/11 was a knee jerk reaction that proved ill-fated and fatal for many Americans.

As usual, the numbers tell the story. According to the government’s own figures, here is the human toll: U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,486 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army.

Here is the ongoing human toll: US Troops Wounded - 32,226, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.) US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home.

We learned from the Vietnam War that the human toll exacts consequences that transcend generations. Vets who are mentally or psychologically disabled try to re-acculturate and live somewhat normal lives, but their injuries and psychological wounds affect spouses, children, co-workers and most anyone with whom they interact. We know anecdotally that marriages crumble, domestic abuse skyrockets and child abuse intensifies among many vets.

And so there was little celebration this week, and there won’t be ticker tape parades or victory services at the National Cathedral or anything to truly mark the end of this war. That is because we know that people who were 20-something when they lost their eyes or their arms or legs or sanity will spend decades trying to right themselves. And we know that many of those 4,486 US troop casualties had children that will never know their parent(s). And we know that people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell who actively engaged the U.S. in this war will not be held legally accountable for their misguided decisions.

It is from the vets themselves that we learn the most about how bad decisions in Washington wreak havoc in lives from coast to coast. Watch and listen to vets recap their own experiences in a CNN report:
The war in Iraq was one of the most significant mistakes I've ever witnessed the American government make. With no weapons of mass destruction, and no evidentiary connection between Iraq and 9/11, 4,486 men and women were ordered to their deaths for absolutely no reason. That is how history will see the Iraq debacle.

It is critical that we recognize now the enormity of the error that was Iraq. I am hoping that our collective realization of the vulnerability and poor judgment of our government officials puts a kink in our blind trust of them. Every reasonable American knows now that we should never have gone to Iraq. If something similar happens in the future, we Americans are likely going to demand far more accountability from the president on down.

Like Vietnam, American history has nothing to be proud of with the Iraq war. Not a thing. And that, all by itself, should tell us Americans to become more engaged with the political process, to more carefully choose who will govern and to clearly convey to them what we expect.