THE DEADLIEST ANTI-GAY RHETORIC

Jack Conkling is a seventh grade social studies teacher in Hutchinson, KS, population just over 42,000. In Hutchison they still like to brag about Tommy Thompson, an early to mid-20^th century football hero now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. They don’t, however mention one of their other native citizens, Ms.  Raquel Darrian, a 1990 Penthouse Magazine “Pet of the Month,” and later a successful porn actress. Such activities have no place in Hutchison. No, everything in Hutchison is quite orderly.

Safely landlocked in the middle of middle America, Conkling (below, right) also coaches women’s basketball at Buhler High School in Buhler, KS, a cozy bedroom community of just over 1300 people.  The most recent census says Buhler is 98.45 percent white. In his photos, Jack looks like any other average white guy,

but here’s what separates Jack from the pack. He wrote this on his Facebook page, where many of his “friends” are also his students:

“Gay marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong. The Bible clearly states it is sin. Now I do not claim it to be a sin any worse than other sins. It ranks in God’s eyes the same as murder, lying, stealing, or cheating.”

Conkling’s post made national news and continues to be the stuff that blogs are made of from coast to coast. I found Conkling’s email address and decided to drop him a line:

Dear Mr. Conkling:

Gosh, I can’t help wondering what your gay students felt when they read on Facebook that because of their sexuality they are just like murderers -- “in God’s eyes.” You do know that if you teach seventh grade long enough, the odds are that you will have gay students in class, don’t you, Mr. Conkling? Then I couldn’t help wondering what it must be like to live in Kansas and know what the world looks like through God’s eyes.  Could you tell us more about that in your next Facebook post? By the way, I’m sure you know that Kansas is one state where the death penalty is still legal.  So, since being gay and being a murderer are equal in God’s eyes, do you believe it would be most efficient to execute gay people? And listen, if so, you better hurry, because you know the Kansas legislature, as we speak, is debating House Bill 2323, which would abolish the death penalty.  Hope to hear from you soon…

Paul A. Greenberg

Oddly, I haven’t received a response from Mr. Conkling.

Meanwhile, almost 800 miles away in tiny Braxton, MS (population 181, and no that is not a typo), MS State Representative Andy Gipson (left) has been busy with his own Facebook page, on which he quoted the Bible last week:

“Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It’s worth mentioning that Gipson references the Old Testament. I was wondering if he happened to see the part where it says it’s acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery.  Oh, and Andy, did you see where Leviticus says I’m supposed to “hate any animal in the water that does not have fins or scales?” Fess up, Andy…you know you eat Gulf shrimp over there in Mississippi.  I’m pretty sure the Old Testament also says the world is flat and prostitutes must be stoned to death.  

Andy Gipson needs to be reminded that he was elected to serve all of his constituents fairly and equally, including those who are gay. I want to remind him that his job is to help create and pass laws. The job does not include promoting any particular religious view, and passing moral judgments on constituents is way outside the boundaries of his job description. I would remind him that the basic tenet of Judeo-Christian philosophy is respect for the dignity of human beings – all human beings. While he has the right as a private citizen to interpret the Bible, that privilege does not come with his elected position. Now that he has advocated death for gay citizens, I believe he should be compelled to step down.

Similarly, Jack Conkling should pay close attention to the wave of gay teen suicides in this country. He should realize that as a middle school teacher he wields great influence over his young students, and again I would remind him that some of them are gay.

To equate their inborn sexuality with the crime/sin of murder should be grounds for his immediate dismissal from his profession. I base this on the fact that he is working with impressionable, vulnerable youth, and his expressed attitude may cause some of his students lifelong self-doubt or worse. His ill-conceived Facebook post implicitly communicated to his students that they are not and cannot be good enough to live in our society.

Now that the President of the United States has publicly endorsed marriage between gay people, the anti-gay rhetoric is amping up to an unreasonable volume.  When a seventh grade teacher in Kansas and an elected official in Mississippi each find it acceptable to publicly denigrate all gay people based on biblical scripture, going so far as to compare sexuality to murder, we have lost our cultural sense of reason. It serves to remind us that there is something in the human condition that just causes some people to need extreme affiliation with their "own kind," and extreme superiority over those who are not just like they are. I’m not about to try to figure out what that need stems from, but I am sure such individuals do not belong in our public school systems or legislatures.

TRENDING: THIS WEEK'S BIG 5

ROLLER COASTER WEEK FOR ZIMMERMAN: The fallout from the Trayvon Martin case continues. This week, George Zimmerman's medical records were uncovered by ABC News, revealing that Martin’s accused killer indeed had a broken nose after the incident. He also had two black eyes and a cut on the back of his head. That would be encouraging news for the defense, were it not for another report this week that the FBI is considering charging Zimmerman with a hate crime. Orlando’s WFTV, the local ABC affiliate, reveals that if these new charges are brought against Zimmerman, he would be eligible for the death penalty.

 FACEBOOK’S IPO MAY TOP $16 BILLION: By mid-week, Facebook had upped its initial public offering to what could make the company’s value skyrocket to $16 billion. That would make it the fourth largest IPO in U.S. history. What happens when NASDAQ trading begins on Friday will reveal whether investors think the price is too high. Meanwhile, General Motors announced it is pulling $10 million worth of advertising from Facebook’s site. No explanation so far, but speculation ranges from not enough bang for the buck to negotiations that simply soured. Whatever the reason, it’s not good timing for Facebook to lose a major player.  

JP MORGAN CEO SURVIVES LOSS: Jamie Dimon,(left) the CEO of JP Morgan, gets to keep his job and his $23 million annual salary, even though the investment firm revealed a stunning $2 billion loss this week. At the annual shareholders meeting, Dimon was retained as CEO. The company’s troubles are far from over, however, with a rumored FBI probe and the SEC hovering. Even worse, the shareholders are rebelling en masse, filing lawsuits alleging the firm took unreasonable risks with their cash. Still, here's the big question: How does Dimon keep his throne when JP Morgan Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew gets fired? Answer: No mystery there: life in corporateland just ain't fair.  

EDWARDS DEFENSE RESTS: One of the most high-profile jury trials in recent memory came to an abrupt halt this week, as the John Edwards defense team rested their case without calling Edwards or Rielle Hunter to the stand. It was widely reported that Edwards’ daughter, Cate Edwards would be called by the defense, but she was not. Legal pundits now theorize that the prosecution did not prove their campaign contribution abuse claims beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that the defense quit while it was ahead. Some say a verdict could be forthcoming by the weekend.  

ALLEGED: MS COP-IMPOSTER KILLING MOTORISTS: What do you do if you are pulled over by a law enforcement officer in an unmarked car?

In Mississippi, you should probably keep driving. Northern MS authorities suspect a series of highway deaths may be attributed to a man posing as a police officer who directs motorists to pull over and then shoots them. Click here for details.

CONSUMER MAGAZINES: SEASON OF DESPERATION

 If you are one of the three Americans who haven’t seen this Time Magazine cover yet, well…now you have. Is your life any richer for it? Probably not. Does the picture make you want to drop what you’re doing and run out and buy the magazine? Not likely. Do you feel sorry for that kid who will now have to go through the rest of his life with this picture neatly tucked away in storage somewhere? Uh…yeah.

 If you’re wondering why this tried and true news magazine that dates to 1923 would stoop this low just to get your attention, as usual the numbers tell the story: In the second half of 2011 Time Magazine lost 3.4 percent of its newsstand sales, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, an independent organization which provides circulation audits print publications and website activity. Paid circulation decreased 0.5 percent to 3.3 million, and if you need some perspective on this, just know that one decade ago, the recorded circulation was 4.2 million.

We’re just not rushing home to our mailboxes anymore anxiously awaiting our news magazines. I’m not sure the last time I bought a Time Magazine, are you? Who needs it? I’m reading everything I need to read online. And even though I was a late entrant into the “smartphone” universe, now I’m even reading some of it on my phone. If there are particular topic areas in which I’m deeply interested, I can set up an app on the phone to “poke” me instantly when news happens. It’s a journalistic world of immediacy and instant information. I love it, and so do most of you, but guess who doesn’t love it? Time Magazine.

Oh, and if you thought Newsweek was any happier than Time about digital instant gratification, think again. Here is this week’s Newsweek cover.

Obviously it references President Obama’s endorsement of legalizing gay marriage, but “The First Gay President?” Come on. I guess it’s better than a mockup of the President officiating the marriage of two men or two women, although something tells me that idea was probably kicked around the Newsweek offices last week.

This is simply another indication of the desperation print media is experiencing. ABC reports that just as Time is involuntarily shedding readers, so is Newsweek. Newsweek reported a 1.8 percent decline in paid circulation to 1.52 million copies in the second half of 2011. What we are witnessing here is the print magazine industry trying everything it can just to stay relevant, even as the 24-hour news cycle makes magazine content obsolete before it hits the newsstands.

 What’s that you said? “Desperate times call for desperate measures?” How about this? Desperate times call for smarter integration of traditional and digital media. Stunts like this week’s Time and Newsweek covers serve only to alert the reading public that magazines are in stunning decline. When a news publication resorts to sensationalism, whether visual or editorial, to persuade us to buy its product, the magazine is treading water. The Time cover is unique, but by this point in our collective editorial consciousness, it is not shocking, and it seems shock value was the intention here. And what about good old editorial judgment? Is this really the main story of the week that should be featured on Time’s cover?

The Time editors claim the story about weaning children from breast feeding is in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the publication of Dr. Bill Sears book, “The Baby Book.” Really? And how is that worthy of a Time cover?

As a journalist, my reaction to both of these magazine covers is simply that I cannot take either publication seriously when they do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, they each do it more often now than ever in the history of their magazines, and it only serves to cause me to pay less attention to their publications. Some perspective: Last week, France ousted its president; our own President said gay people should be able to get married; JP Morgan announced an unprecedented $2 billion loss in its trading operation; major revelations came to light in the John Edwards trial; the CEO of Yahoo admitted lying on his resume; and, in Mexico, 49 decapitated bodies were strewn on a highway outside of Monterey. Still, TIME went with breastfeeding and NEWSWEEK put a rainbow halo on Obama’s head.

 It may not be great journalism, but it does provide great fodder for satirists. Will Ferrell’s hosting gig on NBC’s Saturday Night Live last week may not go down as one of the all-time greats, but Seth Meyers’ “Weekend Update” bit on the Time cover just might. Watch:

TRENDING NOW: THIS WEEK'S BIG 5

TRENDING NOW is a new Greenberg Rants feature that links you to the best online reporting of five of this week’s biggest news stories. Here we go:  

THE JOHN EDWARDS TRIAL: The best daily reporting of the Edwards trial is found on Daily Beast, where reporter Diane Dimond is in the courtroom listening to testimony every day. Dimond’s reporting offers readers a true “you are there” perspective. It was Dimond who reported that the late Elizabeth Edwards publicly confronted her husband in an airport over his affair with Rielle Hunter, and experienced a breakdown in the presence of campaign employees. Her daily reports are thorough and concise.
  
SANTORUM’S WEAK ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY: Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum oddly sent out a late night email on May 7 endorsing the presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Let’s remember Santorum is the guy who publicly stated that Mitt Romney was the "worst Republican in the country for the GOP to put up against President Obama in November." In his endorsement, which you can read in full at Politico you will notice Santorum reiterates that he and Romney have real differences of opinion, but he is still harping on social issues rather than the nuts and bolts issues Americans care about, Santorum says, “We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE THIS WEEK: “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” said the vice-president. The New York Times did a nice job covering Biden’s rather blatant departure from the Obama administration’s stated opinion on the issue. The White House was quick to downplay Biden’s outspoken support, reiterating that Obama’s thinking on this issue is “still evolving.”  

CAN SUPERHEROES SAVE THE FILM INDUSTRY? “The Avengers,” one of the most highly anticipated feature films in recent history, broke all box office records this week with a $200 million first week opening, the highest in box office history. How Disney and Marvel pulled this off, and how they prevented it from leaking online to any great extent is the subject of a good story at The Hollywood Reporter.

 SECOND MASSEUR FILES SEXUAL BATTERY SUIT AGAINST JOHN TRAVOLTA: It was big news on May 7 that actor John Travolta had been sued for sexually assault a male masseur. Travolta’s attorney, Marty Singer announced Travolta

vehemently denies the accusations. However, by the next day, a second masseur, in a different city filed a similar suit. Each suit asks for damages in the amount of $2 million. Radar Online is so far doing the lead reporting on this story, complete with a copy of the formal complaint.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Consider the case of Florida mother Marissa Alexander, who has been in jail since 2010. Alexander's abusive husband was reportedly threatening to kill her and chasing her in their home when she tried to escape through the garage. But the door jammed, and Marissa was cornered, so she grabbed a pistol and shot it in the air. Alexander was ultimately sentenced to a mandatory 20 years in prison for assault with a deadly weapon.

 Alexander’s husband had reportedly abused her physically on multiple occasions. He even admits it in a deposition from 2010, in which he says: ““I got five baby mamas and I put my hand on every last one of them except one. The way I was with women they was like they had to walk on eggshells around me. You know they never knew what I was thinking or what I might do. Hit them, push them.” The 2010 deposition followed one particularly rough incident that resulted in Alexander obtaining a restraining order against her husband. Now she faces a couple of decades in prison for the gun incident that happened just several days after she had given birth to their child. Alexander (left)

went to court to invoke her rights to defend herself under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. That’s the same law George Zimmerman will use to defend his actions against Trayvon Martin. The big difference? We know that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, and he’s out of jail right now on $150,000 bond. Conversely, we know that Alexander didn’t kill anybody, and didn’t even point the gun at her abuser, but she’s locked up.

The justice system is as imperfect a concept as can be. TIME Magazine’s April 30, 2012 issue neatly summed up the arbitrary nature of judicially-imposed punishment in this case: “Is Marissa Alexander a threat to society? Does the public benefit from her being in prison? Are we safer? Should a shot into the ceiling that hit no one and that was intended to help protect an embattled domestic-abuse victim who possessed the gun legally be punished with 20 years in prison? Should her children grow up without a mom? Is this the America you want to live in?”

 If there is one phrase we hear over and over again from attorneys who appear on cable talk shows,

it is, "We just have to let the system do its job. The system works." But does the system really work? If it does, why are innocent people suffering at the hands of individuals charged to enforce the legal and judicial system? A number of recent incidents and legal cases are instilling doubt in those of us who would like to believe the system does indeed work. Some of these cases are not front page news. They are not Trayvon Martin or Daniel Chong (the young man who was locked in a holding cell and forgotten for five days by the DEA) types of cases.

 Scroll up to the top of this page, and right under Greenberg Rants you will see the six subject areas for which this blog exists. Of those, the most important topic to the Greenberg in Greenberg Rants is justice. And what makes my blood boil is blatant injustice. While I do not claim to be a legal scholar, I do indeed pride myself on being a keen observer of cultural inconsistencies. “Cultural inconsistencies” is a nice way of saying arbitrary judgments that do not fit in with written law or legal precedents. My guess is that Florida Circuit Court Judge James Daniel, the man who refused to allow Alexander to invoke “Stand Your Ground,” has seen any number of other domestic abuse cases and not subjected the victim to this type of indignity, and yes…injustice.

Most of us who grew up in my generation were indoctrinated to American life this way: The U.S. government will protect you. Was it true? Yes and no. Katrina and its aftermath taught me that the government cannot be relied on for protection when the biggest catastrophes happen. We were also brought up to believe that justice prevails in America. Really? Try telling that to the parents of Robert Champion (above, left), the Florida A & M marching band member who was hazed to death last November.

 Robert Champion was beaten to death by his fellow band members, who were participating in a ritual the band had evidently practiced for some years. The coroner’s autopsy revealed the cause of death was blunt force trauma. Last week it was revealed that 13 fellow band members would be charged with “felony hazing.” Not murder. Not manslaughter. Not involuntary manslaughter. “Felony hazing.” His parents are outraged at the injustice. Watch:
Here are a couple of interesting variables that could (should?) turn this case on its judicial head: First, Robert Champion was gay. That has already raised the curiosity of some observers, who wonder if his death was the result of a hate crime. And if it was a hate crime and Champion’s civil rights were violated, then this is a Federal case, rather than one that will slowly wind its way through Florida’s judicial system. Second, Champion had spoken out against hazing in an organization that is rich with hazing history. So, was he targeted because he wouldn’t go along to get along? And how will we ever know the answers to these questions, since we were not on that chartered bus in which he was beaten? The prosecutor, as you saw in the video, has decided it’s not a murder case because one decisive death blow cannot be pinpointed and assigned to one of the accused. Why then, cannot all of the accused be charged with murder, since they all participated in the beating that caused his death?

 Justice in 21st century America, it seems, is a relative, rather than absolute concept. It will be most interesting to see how the Federal government handles the case of the aforementioned Daniel Chong. Chong, a San Diego college student, was arrested on April 21 when the Feds raided a party where illegal drug use was suspected. Chong was taken to a temporary detention center where he was locked up in a holding cell. Then, inexplicably, the DEA completely forgot about him. He was left in the cell for five days, with no food or water, no toilet and no human contact. He later reported that he hallucinated in the cell and resorted to drinking his own urine. When he was finally discovered after those five days he had to be rushed to a hospital where he experienced kidney failure. Listen to Chong describe his ordeal:

First, if we’re going to arrest every college student who smokes a joint at a college party, we may as well shut down our university system. Class attendance will be mighty sparse. Second, how does a detention center not have procedures in place to check on those being held there? And finally, keep your eye on Daniel Chong, who just filed a $20 million lawsuit against the DEA. Will the suit reveal systematic weaknesses in the DEA? Is Chong’s experience, as the DEA wants us to believe, an isolated incident? Will the government compensate Chong for his near-death experience? The most likely scenario will involve a settlement and quick resolution of the debacle. If there is one thing the highly secretive DEA does not want, it is publicity.

Our justice system has gone awry. Frivolous lawsuits tie up the courts; judges make arbitrary decisions often based on their personal bias; attorneys too frequently do not inform their clients of all of their rights or options; like cases are not treated alike, resulting in uneven justice nationwide; second degree murder (meaning without premeditation) is often reduced to manslaughter.

Just as critical now is the fact that victims like Alexander, Champion and Chong are treated with a complete lack of dignity during their path through the justice system. It seems clear that Alexander would be dead by now, had she not “stood her ground.” Chong probably came within hours of dying. And Champion? He was murdered by his peers, and the worst part is that the maximum sentence any of them can receive is six years in prison. The highest bail any of them paid was $15,000. That is not justice in America. The system is not working.

DANGER AHEAD -- PRIESTLY POLITICS

What happens in Peoria stays in Peoria? Hardly. Talk radio was all abuzz this morning with news that Peoria, IL Bishop Daniel Jenky (above, with Pope Benedict XVI) held a mass in which he essentially compared President Barack Obama to Hitler and Stalin. On April 14, Jenky had this to say during his mass, titled “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith”:

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

Just to re-iterate: He said this in a MASS. There are so many things wrong with Jenky’s statement that one is hard pressed to know where to begin. Jenky, who has been a priest since the 1970s, was in the midst of a somewhat traditional sermon when he made these comments about two-thirds of the way through. It begs the question: Did the bishop inexplicably not realize how insensitive his statement was? Those who lived through the Holocaust to tell of its horrors surely would take issue with his comparisons. Those who uphold the time-tested tradition of the separation of Church and State would wonder why he ventured into this rhetorical territory. Clearly a personal political statement, did Jenky not realize he was putting his archdiocese’s tax-exempt status at risk by politicizing from the pulpit? And above all, whether he approves of Obama’s policies and job performance or not, is there no respect left for the office of the President? Comparing Obama to maniacal mass murderers is surely a stretch that most Americans would not support, many Catholics included.

Predictably, a number of Catholic Americans have come out in support of Jenky for making these comments, even though among them are surely thousands who know, in their hearts, that the President of the United States is not a supporter of mass murder. At issue is Obama’s health care initiative, which includes a provision that compels Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for their employees via their health insurance. Although Obama’s plan prohibits federal dollars from being spent on abortions, it does make exceptions for rape and incest. Catholic leaders are incensed at what they perceive as Obama’s disregard of the Church’s strict anti-abortion stance.

That evidently prompted Jenky to add this comment to his sermon:

“This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.”

Those of us who are not Catholic have often been left to wonder about the Church’s rigid stance on social issues. We have often questioned policies such as denying birth control in third world countries where overpopulation has caused mass starvation. We wonder about people who go to the Catholic church every Sunday and worship, and then come home and use the exact artificial birth control methods the Church stands against. Why, we wonder, are women denied the right to ascend to the priesthood, simply because of their gender? We are astonished at the decades and decades of the church’s now-admitted coverup of sexual assault of children among priests. The Catholic church’s discrimination against homosexuals is now legendary.

If Jenky has strong convictions against Obama, or against the healthcare plan, the pulpit was the last place he should have expressed them. And even if he felt somehow compelled to do so, perhaps it would have been wise for him to at least foresee the media firestorm he was about to create, at a time when the Catholic church should be doing everything possible to avoid bad publicity. Just this week headlines were once again international in scope about the Vatican’s chastising American Catholic nuns for their “radical feminist themes.” Criticism was especially harsh for the nuns "protesting the Holy See's actions regarding the question of women's ordination and of a correct pastoral approach to ministry to homosexual persons." In its report to the nuns, the Vatican said, “Public disagreement with the bishops — ‘who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals’ — is unacceptable.”

Some critics of the Vatican see moves like this one as those of desperation. The Vatican (right) knows that traditional Roman Catholic doctrine stands in stark contrast to contemporary Western culture. The Pope, in his 80s and ailing, is largely seen as a leader who does not know how to reign in those he views as “radical.” The nuns who were the subject of the latest report from the Vatican are represented in an organization called the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which includes a reported 80 percent of the country’s’ approximately 57,000 nuns. Are we to believe that tens of thousands of American nuns are radicals?

That Jenky’s comments were ill-conceived is inarguable. But that they were so ill-timed is stunning. Barack Obama is not a threat to the Catholic church. In fact, he is probably no match for the massive, unwieldy, socio-industrial complex the Church has become. However, with mass communication and proliferation of media what it is in 2012, people like Jenky are the ones who stand to cause the church and its devotees the most harm.

GREAT DAY IN AMERICA--SANTORUM QUITS

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.