James Hooks | Blog | JamesHooks.com

Reformed Skinhead, Bryon Widner, Endures 25 Surgeries To Remove Racist Tattoos

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:38:00 +0000

Julie Widner was terrified – afraid her husband would do something reckless, even disfigure himself.

"We had come so far," she says. "We had left the movement, had created a good family life. We had so much to live for. I just thought there has to be someone out there who will help us."

After getting married in 2006, the couple, former pillars of the white power movement (she as a member of the National Alliance, he a founder of the Vinlanders gang of skinheads) had worked hard to put their racist past behind them. They had settled down and had a baby; her younger children had embraced him as a father.

And yet, the past was ever-present – tattooed in brutish symbols all over his body and face: a blood-soaked razor, swastikas, the letters "HATE" stamped across his knuckles.

Wherever he turned Widner was shunned – on job sites, in stores and restaurants. People saw a menacing thug, not a loving father. He felt like an utter failure.

The couple had scoured the Internet trying to learn how to safely remove the facial tattoos. But extensive facial tattoos are extremely rare, and few doctors have performed such complicated surgery. Besides, they couldn't afford it. They had little money and no health insurance.

So Widner began investigating homemade recipes, looking at dermal acids and other solutions. He reached the point, he said, where "I was totally prepared to douse my face in acid."

In desperation, Julie did something that once would have been unimaginable. She reached out to a black man whom white supremacists consider their sworn enemy.

Daryle Lamont Jenkins runs an anti-hate group called One People's Project based in Philadelphia. The 43-year-old activist is a huge thorn in the side of white supremacists, posting their names and addresses on his website, alerting people to their rallies and organizing counter protests.

In Julie he heard the voice of a woman in trouble.

"It didn't matter who she had once been or what she had once believed," he said. "Here was a wife and mother prepared to do anything for her family."

Jenkins suggested that Widner contact T.J. Leyden, a former neo-Nazi skinhead Marine who had famously left the movement in 1996, and has promoted tolerance ever since. More than anyone else, Leyden understood the revulsion and self-condemnation that Widner was going through. And the danger.

"Hide in plain sight," he advised. "Lean on those you trust."

Most importantly, Leyden told him to call the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"If anyone can help," he said, "it's those guys."

___

When Widner called, says Joseph Roy, "it was like the Osama Bin Laden of the movement calling in."

Roy is chief investigator of hate and extreme groups for the SPLC. The nonprofit civil rights organization, based in Montgomery, Ala., tracks hate groups, militias and extreme organizations. Aggressive at bringing lawsuits, it has successfully shut down leading white power groups, bankrupted their leaders and won multimillion dollar awards for victims.

The SPLC hears regularly from people who say they are trying to leave hate and extreme groups. Some are fakes. Some are trying to spread false intelligence. Many are in crisis, and return to the group when the crisis passes.

"Very rarely have we met a reformed racist skinhead," says Roy.

Over the years, Roy had dubbed Widner the "pit bull" of skinheads. "No one was more aggressive, more confrontational, more notorious," Roy said.

And yet, over several weeks of conversations with Bryon and Julie, he became convinced. There was something different about this couple – a sincerity, a raw determination to put the past behind them and to seek some sort of redemption.

In March 2007 Roy and an assistant flew to Michigan. Roy still marvels at the memory of the guy with the freakish face walking out to greet them, wearing a "World's Greatest Dad" sweat shirt, holding his baby boy in one arm while a little girl clung to his other one.

Over the next few days they got to see the suffering Bryon was going through. They listened in horror when he told them he was considering using acid on his face. "He was in a bad place," Roy said. "This was a guy who was fighting for his life."

Widner shared information about the structure of various skinhead groups, the different forms of probation in some gangs, the hierarchy of others. He agreed to speak at the SPLC's annual Skinhead Intelligence Network conference, which draws police from all over the country.

For his part, Roy promised to ask his organization to do something it had never done before – search for a donor to pay for Widner's tattoos to be surgically removed. Widner didn't hold out much hope. But for now, he agreed not to experiment with acid.

Financially and emotionally, things were getting tougher. Widner found part-time work shoveling snow and odd handyman jobs, but barely enough to support a family. The vicious postings on the Internet continued. Pig manure was dumped on their cars. There were hang-up calls in the middle of the night. Anonymous callers left threatening messages: "You will die." Several times, tipped off by sympathetic friends that a crew was on the way to "take care" of them, the family fled to a hotel.

So when Roy called a couple of months later saying a donor was willing to pay for the surgery, Widner could hardly believe it. The donor, a longtime supporter of the SPLC had been moved by Widner's story – and shocked by photographs of his face.

"For him to have any chance in life and do good," she said, "I knew those tattoos had to come off."

She agreed to fund the surgeries – at a cost of approximately $35,000 -- on several conditions. She wanted to remain anonymous. She wanted assurances that Bryon would get his GED, would go into counseling and would pursue either a college education or a trade.

It was easy to agree. These were all things Widner wanted to do.

It would take up to a year to find the right doctors and schedule the operations. Meanwhile, it was clear the family had to leave Michigan. The white power Web forums were wild with chatter about the race traitor couple and their family. Through local police, the FBI warned that they were in danger.

In the spring of 2008 they packed their belongings and moved to Tennessee, near Julie's father. They rented a three-bedroom house in the country, joined a church. Helped by his father-in-law and his pastor, Widner found some work. The threats subsided.

___

Dr. Bruce Shack, who chairs the Department of Plastic Surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, vividly remembers the first time he met Widner. After seeing photographs and talking to the SPLC, he had agreed to do the surgery. But he was totally unprepared for Widner's face.

"This wasn't just a few tattoos," he said. "This was an entire canvas."

It was June 2009 and the couple had driven to Vanderbilt to meet him. Shack's genial manner immediately put them at ease.

"He didn't just see the tattoos," Widner says. "He saw me as a real human being."

Shack also saw one of the biggest challenges of his career.

Shack showed Widner the laser – which looks like a long, fat pen – that would trace the exact outline of the tattoos as it burned them off his face. He explained how it would deliver short bursts of energy, different amounts depending on the color and depth of the tattoo. It would take many sessions for the ink to fade. And it would be painful, far more painful than getting the tattoos in the first place.

"You are going to feel like you have the worst sunburn in the world, your face will swell up like a prizefighter, but it will eventually heal," Shack told Widner. "This is not going to be any fun. But if you are willing to do it, I'm willing to help."

Widner didn't hesitate. "I have to do it," he said, as Julie held his hand. "I am never going to live a normal life unless I do."

On June 22, 2009, Widner lay on an operating table, his mind spinning with anxiety and hope. A nurse dabbed numbing gel all over his face. Shack towered over him in protective goggles and injected a local anesthetic. Then he started jabbing Widner's skin, the laser making a staccato rat-tat-tat sound as it burned through his flesh.

Widner had never felt such pain. Not all the times he had suffered black eyes and lost teeth in bar brawls, not the time in jail when guards – for fun – locked him up with a group of black inmates in order to see him taken down. His face swelled up in a burning rage, his eyes were black and puffy, his hands looked like blistered boxing gloves. He had never felt so helpless or so miserable.

"I was real whiny during that time," he says.

"He was real brave," says Julie.

After a couple of sessions, Shack decided that Widner was in too much pain: The only way to continue was to put him under general anesthetic for every operation. It was also clear that the removal was going to take far longer than the seven or eight sessions he had originally anticipated.

They developed a routine. Every few weeks, Widner would spend about an hour and a half in surgery and another hour in recovery, while Julie would fuss and fret and try to summon the strength to hide her fears and smile at the bruised, battered husband she drove home. It would often take days for the burns and oozing blisters to subside.

Shack and his team marveled at Widner's determination and endurance. The Widners marveled at the team's level of commitment and care. Even nurses who were initially intimidated by Widner's looks found themselves growing fond of the stubborn former skinhead and his young family.

Slowly – far more slowly than Widner had hoped – the tattoos began to fade. In all he underwent 25 surgeries over the course of 16 months, on his face, neck and hands.

On Oct. 22, 2010, the day of the final operation, Shack hugged Julie and shook hands with Bryon. Removing the tattoos, he said, had been one of his greatest honors as a surgeon. But a greater privilege was getting to know them.

"Anyone who is prepared to put himself through this is bound to do something good with his life," Shack said.

___

In a comfortable yard in a tidy suburban subdivision, Bryon and Julie Widner smoke Marlboros and sip energy drinks as they contemplate the newest chapter in their lives. Only a few trusted friends and family members know where they live – they agreed to be interviewed on condition that the location of their new home not be disclosed.

This time, they moved because they had deliberately exposed themselves to danger. After much consideration, the couple had agreed to allow an MSNBC film crew to follow Widner through his surgeries. The cameras didn't spare the details, capturing Widner writhing and moaning in agony. Widner didn't care. If anything he felt that he deserved the pain and the public humiliation as a kind of penance for all the hurt he had caused over the years.

But there was a deeper motivation for going public with his story. There was a chance that some angry young teenager on the verge of becoming a skinhead would see Widner's suffering and think twice.

Maybe he would realize that, as Widner says now, "I wasn't on any great mission for the white race. I was just a thug."

They moved the day after the documentary – "Erasing Hate" – aired in June.

Widner's arms and torso are still extensively tattooed. He is in the process of inking over the "political" ones, like the Nazi lightning bolts. His face is clean and scar free, and he has a shock of thick black hair. With his thin glasses and studious expression, he looks nerdy, Julie jokes.

His neck and hands have suffered some pigment damage, he gets frequent migraine headaches and he has to stay out of the sun. But, he says, "it's a small price to pay for being human again."

The move took a financial toll. Julie had to pawn her wedding ring to buy groceries and pay the rent. But Widner has found some work – construction and tattoo jobs. He got his GED and they both plan to start courses at the local community college.

They say they feel safe. Several police officers and firefighters live nearby; the FBI has visited and the local police know their story.

Still they can't help but worry. It's one thing getting out of the white power movement as others have done, fading into obscurity. It's another to publicly denounce the violent world they once inhabited.

Bryon has constant nightmares about what injuries he might have inflicted – injuries he can only imagine because so often he was in a drunken stupor when he beat someone up. Did he blind someone? Did he paralyze someone? He doesn't know.

But there are moments of grace. After a recent screening of the documentary in California, a black woman embraced Widner in tears. "I forgive you," she cried.

They've thrown out everything to do with their racist past, including photographs of Widner and his crew posing at Nordic fests and of the white power conferences Julie used to attend. And yet there are reminders all around, and not just the remaining tattoos. Tyrson's name – inspired by the Norse god of justice, Tyr – troubles them for its connection to the racist brand of Odinism his father practiced with the Vinlanders. But how do they ask a 4-year-old to change his name to Eddie?

The child tugs at his daddy's Spiderman T-shirt, begging him to come play video games. "OK, buddy," Widner says. "Let's go shoot a few bad guys." With that, the man who once brandished his hate like a badge of honor scoops up his son and turns on his Xbox.

Widner plays the role of Captain America. The bad guys are Nazis.

Originally posted at The Huffington Post.

Troy Davis Is Dead; the Movement Continues

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:07:00 +0000

At 11:08 pm, Wednesday September 21, the state of Georgia killed Troy Davis. Just before he was executed, Troy maintained his innocence, urged people to dig deeper into the case to find the truth, and said "For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls, may God bless your souls." It's a tragic day for Troy, for his family, and for equality, fairness, and justice.

It's hard to know what to say at a time like this. In this moment, and in the days and weeks before Troy's execution, we've felt all kinds of things -- anger, sadness, inspiration, hope and hopelessness. This is a time to mourn and remember Troy, to contemplate the profound loss we're facing, to send love and support to Troy's family and friends. It's incredibly important to take the time to spiritually and emotionally care for Troy's family and the amazing community that has arisen to support Troy -- and it feels hard to muster the energy to do much more than that.

But before he died, Troy told us that this was about more than him -- and he called on those of us who have fought against his execution to continue fighting for justice, even if we weren't successful in saving his life. Now is also an important moment to take stock of what's brought us to this point -- the criminal justice system that allowed this to happen, and the movement we've built to fight for Troy and others facing injustice and oppression at the hands of that system.

Race, the criminal justice system, and the death penalty

At every stage of the criminal justice system, Black people and other minorities face inequality and discrimination. We all know about people who've been treated unfairly by police or by the courts. When the entire system treats Black people unequally, it means that the death penalty is applied unequally too. Troy Davis' case underscores the way in which this systemic inequality can lead to a tragic miscarriage of justice.

In most cases, people who've been treated unfairly or wrongly convicted have some chance to correct the injustice. People who have been mistreated by the police can sue them. People who are wrongly serving time can be granted new trials, can be released from prison, and are sometimes entitled to compensation. As we all know, the safeguards that can correct abuse by the criminal justice system often fail, and rampant inequality persists. Usually, people can at least keep trying.

But there's no way to correct a death sentence. If Troy Davis were serving a sentence of life in prison without parole, he could continue to press the legal system to grant him a fair trial -- but because the death penalty exists, he will not have that opportunity.

Troy Davis' case has sparked a national conversation about the death penalty. In the past, much of the debate around the death penalty has focused on the morality of killing people as a legal punishment -- a very important question that brings out a lot of strong opinions. But even if we completely leave aside the question whether or not it can ever be right for the government to punish a murderer by killing them, there's an entirely different debate to be had -- whether or not we can have the death penalty and actually avoid the possibility of killing innocent people. In a criminal justice system that routinely misidentifies Black suspects and disproportionately punishes Black people, Black folks are more likely to be wrongfully executed.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty has been used to kill innocent people many times. Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were wrongly convicted. Troy Davis is one of many people who were executed despite serious questions about their guilt, and he's called on his supporters to continue working to end the death penalty.

A group of NAACP organizers went to visit Troy in prison yesterday, and NAACP's Robert Rooks said this about the visit: For someone that was facing death the very next day, he was just full of life and wanted to spend time talking to the younger staff, the interns, giving them direction and hope and asking them to hold onto God. And he challenged them. He challenged them by saying, "You have a choice. You can either fold up your bags after tomorrow and go home, or you can stand and continue this fight." He said it doesn't--it didn't begin with Troy Davis, and this won't end if he is executed today. He just asked us all just to continue to fight to end the death penalty, if in fact he's executed.

A powerful movement
For years, ColorOfChange members have been an important part of a growing movement to stop Troy Davis' execution. Hundreds of phone calls from ColorOfChange members to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole helped delay Davis' execution twice. Over the past year, there's been a huge outpouring of support for Davis from ColorOfChange members -- more than 100,000 of us have signed petitions, and we raised more than $30,000 to run radio ads in Georgia calling for justice for Troy.

And we've been part of an even bigger movement -- NAACP, Amnesty International, National Action Network, Change.org, and others have all been a major part of the fight for Troy Davis, and there are now over close to a million petition signatures overall. Prominent people from all across the political spectrum have spoken out: members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, former FBI Director William Sessions, former Georgia Republican congressman Bob Barr, and former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher.

This movement couldn't stop Davis' execution -- but it's a movement that won't die with Troy Davis. There's no better way to honor Troy's memory than to keep fighting for justice.

Rashad Robinson is Executive Director for ColorOfChange
http://colorofchange.org

Can a person have more than one great love in their life?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:42:00 +0000

How can that love be truly great if it is duplicated? Great love means you carry it with you all the time, even if you can't be with it.

Ask me anything

Why 'Caylee's Law' Is A Bad Idea

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to change the jury system entirely.

Even as DNA testing continues to exonerate wrongly convicted people, including people who were nearly executed, it's this rare case -- in which a jury recognized that there was no physical evidence linking Anthony to her daughter's murder -- that has America questioning its justice system.

High-profile trials are anomalies. They're about as far from the day-to-day goings on in police precincts, courtrooms, and prisons as your typical TV crime drama (the other place Americans get most of their (bad) information about the criminal justice system). Despite what much of the public seems to have taken away from these sorts of trials in recent years, the average person wrongly accused of a crime isn't a wealthy college lacrosse player with top-notch legal representation. Prosecutors who wrongly charge people aren't usually stripped of their law license or criminally sanctioned. (In fact, they're rarely sanctioned at all.) Black men accused of murder aren't typically represented by "dream teams" of the country's best defense attorneys. And, believe it or not, if there's a problem in the criminal justice system when it comes to children, it's that parents and caretakers are too often overcharged in accidental deaths or as a result of bogus allegations, not that they regularly get away with murder.

Even more regrettable is that every time a Casey Anthony-type trial captures the public's attention, someone gets the idea that we need a new law in response to the completely unrepresentative case, a law that presumably would have prevented that particularly travesty from happening. The problem, of course, is that the new law -- usually poorly written and passed in a fit of hysteria -- is too late to apply to the case it was designed for. But it does then apply to everyone else.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version of the law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

Jamie Downs is the Coastal Regional Medical Examiner for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and co-editor of a forthcoming book on forensic ethics about Caylee's Law. Downs also formerly served on the board of directors for the National Association of Medical Examiners. Contrary to what you may have learned from watching CSI, Downs says, there's no way for a medical examiner to determine time of death in the sort of narrow window that would be necessary to enforce Caylee's Law. "I understand that people are outraged, and I understand why they'd want a law like this, but I just don't think it's a good idea. I don't see how you would enforce it," Downs says. "You just can't say for certain that a person died an hour and five minutes ago as opposed to 45 minutes ago."

If medical science can't pinpoint the time of the child's death to the minute, how else are authorities going to determine it? They can't ask the parent. A guilty person isn't going to give you an honest answer, and even an innocent parent may lie if they fear the truth could land them in prison. It also seems safe to assume that a parent's first instinct upon witnessing the death of a child isn't to look up at the clock to take note of an official time of death.

Certainly it's easy to distinguish a body that's been dead for less than hour from one that has been dead for six or seven. Presumably, Crowder and the lawmakers supporting this bill put the cutoff at one hour to prevent someone who intentionally or accidentally kills a child from having time to cover up what happened. But if that's the justification, it's all the more important that a forensic pathologist be able to nail down the time of death to the minute. And that just isn't possible.

There are myriad other problems with the one-hour requirement. What if a child dies while sleeping? When would you start the clock on the parent's one-hour window to report? From the time the parent discovers the child is dead, or from the time the child actually dies? If it's the former, can you really believe what a parent tells you if he knows a felony charge hinges on his answer? What if a parent or babysitter missed the deadline because she fell asleep at the time the child was playing outside and suffered a fatal accident? You could argue this is evidence of bad parenting or inattentive babysitting, but under those circumstances, do you really want to charge a grieving parent or heartbroken babysitter with a felony?

The portion of the bill that requires a parent to report a missing child within 24 hours is just as fraught with problems. When does that clock start? From the time the child actually gets abducted, gets lost, or is somehow killed, or at the time the parents noticed the child was missing? How do you pinpoint the time that they "noticed"? When teenager Rosie Larsen is abducted and murdered in the new AMC drama The Killing, it takes two days for her parents to notice she's missing. They thought she was spending the night at a friend's house, and she and her friends often rotated sleeping over at one another's homes on the weekends. The Killing is fiction, but this isn't an implausible scenario. Again, are we really so angry about the Casey Anthony verdict that we're prepared to charge grieving parents with a felony because it takes them longer than some arbitrary deadline to notice their child is missing?

The law and the attention it attracts could also cause problems of overcompliance. How many parents will notify the authorities with false reports within an hour or two, out of fear of becoming suspects? How many such calls and wasted police resources on false alarms will it take before police grow jaded and begin taking note of missing child reports, but don't bother investigating them until much later? How many legitimate abductions will then go uninvestigated during the critical first few hours because they were lost in the pile of false reports inspired by Caylee's Law?

It isn't difficult to come up with other scenarios where innocent people may get ensnared in Caylee's Law.

Here's another: You're camping with your family when your son goes missing. One of your other children says she last saw him swimming in a lake. You spend several hours frantically looking for him before discovering that, tragically, he has drowned. You call the police. Under Caylee's Law, is this a "missing child" case, or a "dead child" case? Do you get charged with a felony for not notifying authorities within an hour of your son's drowning, or are you afforded the 24-hour window from the time you noticed he went missing? Is this really the sort of thing we want parents to be considering while they're trying to find their child? What if your kid gets lost hiking on a camping trip where there's no cell phone reception? It could take a few hours to notice your kid is missing, another few to look for him before you begin to panic. In some cases, it may be best to keep looking than to abandon the area to notify authorities.

The counter to these hypotheticals is that a prosecutor wouldn't charge grieving parents under those circumstances. But why give them the option? Sure, it may be difficult to conceive of a prosecutor charging good parents who bear zero blame in a child's death, but it's not hard to envision a prosecutor using the notification requirements to punish parents or guardians who make subjectively poor decisions that aren't otherwise crimes. Why were you letting your kid swim in the lake unsupervised in the first place? Maybe the babysitter bears no blame for the SIDS death of the infant she was watching, but it took her two hours to notice the baby had died in his sleep because she was napping off a hangover, or making out with her boyfriend downstairs. If you find it doubtful that a prosecutor could be so vindictive, look at Mississippi and Alabama, where women who have had miscarriages are being charged with murder.

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

The law will have at least one effect that Crowder and her supporters intend. Crowder's petition letter expresses her hope that once the law is passed, "no more innocent children will have to go without justice." And she's right. Caylee's Law provides another way for prosecutors to convict a suspected parent or guardian of something, even if they don't have the evidence to prove the actual murder. Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon, sponsor of the bill in his state, told the AP, "God forbid we ever run into a mother like Casey Anthony again. If we do, that mother will be a felon." I suspect this is why so many people have signed Crowder's petition. This is about vengeance. They're angry at this verdict.

That anger is understandable. But anger is a bad reason to make public policy. New laws, especially laws with serious criminal sanctions, demand careful consideration: Will the law actually address the problem it is intended to address? Is it enforceable? What are some possible unintended consequences of this law? Could it be abused by police and prosecutors?

Laws named after the victims of brutal crimes make it difficult to ask these questions, especially for politicians, who aren't exactly known for taking bold stands against an angry public. When you put Caylee Anthony's name on a bill, you imply that anyone who opposes the bill -- even for good reasons -- is indifferent to the death of its namesake, or at least isn't as concerned about it as you think they ought to be. That's not a formula for an honest discussion of the bill's merits.

In a country of 308 million people, bad things are going to happen. We already have laws against murder, child abuse, and child neglect. When you pass laws that make it easier to imprison people in cases where the state doesn't have enough evidence to prove the crime everyone knows they'reactually prosecuting, you undermine the integrity of the justice system. The "flaw" that led to the Casey Anthony verdict is pretty straightforward: The state failed to prove its case. And the government must prove its case, even when all of America is 100 percent certain of the defendant's guilt, because we want to be sure the state will always also have to prove its case when we aren't so certain.

Of course, there's another reason we go through the formality of a trial before throwing someone in prison, even in "slam-dunk" cases like this one. Sometimes, even when Nancy Grace herself is completely sure that the bastards are guilty, we later discover that she was wrong.

Original article written by Radley Balko at the Huffington Post

What have you wanted to do for years but haven't gotten around to yet?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Sat, 28 May 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Sky diving. Taking a tour through Europe. Visiting the pyramids of Egypt. Just a few things that are on my bucket list.

Ask me anything

Are you single or in a relationship? How do you feel about long distance relationships?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Sat, 28 May 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Long distance relationships can be great and maintained well as long as there is trust, understanding and communication between both parties. The issue really comes in when there is a need for close human interaction and the two can't provide that for each other. In the age of Skype and social networking, I feel that if both people can make some effort to see one another on a semi-regular basis and maintain communication on a *daily* basis, there is no reason why the relationship couldn't be successful.

Ask me anything

formspring.me

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Wed, 25 May 2011 02:54:00 +0000

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/JamesHooks

TRUMP TRUMPED: How President Obama Turned a Presidential Prospect Into a Punchline

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 17 May 2011 12:57:00 +0000

Donald Trump was never going to be the Republican nominee for president. He was always “running for ratings” — using the spotlight afforded possible presidential contenders to focus attention on his business endeavors and entertainment enterprises.

But Trump really did want to enter the race for the GOP nod. Every indication was that he planned to keep the speculation spinning for months. And he could have done so, had it not been for one of the most successful political interventions in modern history.

After Trump embraced the sometimes racist and always ridiculous “birther” movement, the Obama White House released the president’s long-form birth certificate. That was embarrassing, to be sure.

But Trump could have flipped over to an equally mad mission — say, promoting Paul Ryan’s plan to use Medicare money to shore up the bottom lines of private insurers — and carried on his bid. If the serial self-promoter is good at anything, it’s pivoting to the next platform.

Unfortunately for Trump, Obama did not merely release the birth certificate. The president used his appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to administer the final blow to what remained of Trump’s “credibility.”

In a televised appearance that would become a YouTube phenomenon, Obama committed an act of political sabotage that effectively ended the Trump boomlet.

The president’s devastating monologue — delivered with Trump sitting just feet away — focused largely on the absurdity of the developer’s claims regarding birth certificates, executive experience and just about everything else.

The president was graceful enough. But he was not slipping the knife in gently. He was bringing the hammer down.

“I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but nobody is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like: Did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” mused Obama, as he nailed Trump with one blow after another.

Trump, whose inability to take a joke was on full display, had to sit there as the president of the United States continued to pound him.

Obama was not just banging around the birther issue, however. He was aiming at Trump’s supposed strength.

The president — who in barely 24 hours would stake a striking claim to executive proficiency with the announcement that a mission he ordered had taken out Osama bin Laden — ridiculed Trump’s “executive experience”:

“On a recent episode of the ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’ at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. You, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. So ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf, you fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night. Well handled, sir. Well handled.”

That was a brutal hit, as rough as any attack ad ever conceived by Karl Rove.

It was barely necessary for Seth Meyers to complete the battery with his observation: “Donald Trump has been saying he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising, because I just assumed that he was running as a joke.”

Trump was finished. He disappeared from the room without consequential comment that night and has barely been heard from since.

Until Monday, when he exited the race not with a bang but with a whimpering press release from his soon-to-be-unemployed “political director” that had Trump saying: “After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”

The truth is that Trump really wanted to run. He had invested in constructing campaign apparatus in key states, made visits to New Hampshire and elbowed his way into the thick of the competition. He had even reserved space for a May 25 announcement of candidacy at — where else? — the Trump Tower Atrium in New York.

But that dream died with the last laughs on the night of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

I do not happen to hold to the view that President Obama is a political whiz. You don’t lose the luster of a landslide victory and control over both houses of Congress in two years without making some serious missteps. But what he did to Trump was a masterful political act.

Trump was never going to be the GOP nominee. But he drew attention to a Republican race that everyone who is anyone has been avoiding. He also highlighted genuine concerns about Obama’s flawed trade policies in particular and failure to tackle the jobs issue effectively. As such, he was a problem for the president.

Until, of course, the president turned Trump into a punch line.

RIP RIM–Countdown to the End of the Blackberry

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:33:00 +0000

RIM STOCKS PLUMMET
Source: The Wall Street Journal

Research In Motion Ltd. shares were sharply lower Friday, as investors bailed after the company issued a steep first-quarter earnings warning late Thursday, heightening fears that the BlackBerry maker is buckling in the face of stiff competition from Apple Inc.'s iPhone and devices running on Google Inc.'s Android operating system.

The warning prompted a raft of analyst downgrades, many of whom expressed doubts that RIM can execute a critical transition to a new operating system that RIM believes will stem market-share loss.

RIM WARNS OF WEAK BLACKBERRY SALES

Research In Motion Ltd. warned of slack sales for its BlackBerry smartphones in the current quarter, sending its shares plunging.

The warning, just a month after the company reported earnings and gave a weak short-term outlook, is fresh evidence that RIM is struggling to compete with Apple Inc. and other smartphone makers, especially in the U.S. market.

Once considered the gold standard of smartphones–especially in the corporate sector, where jokes about the addictive "CrackBerry" were common–the BlackBerry has seen its market share erode faster than Lindsay Lohan's acting career in recent years as first Apple's iPhone, and then devices powered by Google's Android OS, have stolen its thunder and cachet. (Seriously, when was the last time you heard a "CrackBerry" reference?)

Four years ago, the BlackBerry was the smartphone market leader. Now it's in third place and sinking fast. Just look at research firm NPD Group's latest first-quarter mobile OS numbers for the U.S. market:

* Android, 50% (down from 53% in Q4 2010)

* Apple's iOS, 28% (up from 19%)

* BlackBerry OS, 14% (down from 19%)

How is a company with a market cap of $29 billion going to rebound against giants such as Apple (worth $319 billion) and Google ($135 billion). By making better products? By getting those products to the market faster? Sure. Those would be two great ways.

But RIM's not doing that. Instead, it's falling behind in mobile technology. Worse, fewer developers are interested in writing apps for BlackBerry. A new survey conducted April 11-13 by IDC and Appcelerator shows that:

* 91% of developer surveyed are interested in iPhone development, with 86% interested in writing apps for the iPad

* 85% are interested in developing Android phone apps, with 71% eager to write for Android tablets (both numbers are down slightly from Q1, mainly due to platform fragmentation concerns)

* 29% of developers surveyed earlier this month are interested in writing apps for Windows Phone 7, down 4% from the first quarter

* 27% are interested in developing for BlackBerry OS, down from 38% in Q1

That's right. BlackBerry's OS has been surpassed in developer interest by a mobile operating system–WP7!–that for all intents and purposes won't even have products on the market until 2012.

Sad to say, some bad things are ahead for RIM, including layoffs. It's not going to be pretty to watch, and it's hard not to get the feeling that RIM has passed a tipping point in terms of remaining competitive as a standalone mobile device manufacturer.

What does your diet consist of?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:02:00 +0000

I am going to write a more in-depth blog post about this later (and I know I have been neglecting my blog for some time now), but my typical daily diet consists of an all-fruit smoothie in the morning with whey protein supplement and an all-grain whole wheat roll, light snacks throughout the day consisting of a combination of various nuts, berries, apples, raisins, vegetables and protein supplement, and a dinner that is some variety of salad, beans, nuts and whole wheat pasta. Needless to say, a vegetarian lifestyle does not mean I need to be starving. I am plenty full by day's end, get plenty of nutrients, and feel great!

Ask me anything

Four Ways We're Still Fighting The Civil War

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:40:00 +0000

He stood 5-foot-8 and weighed 145 pounds. His face was gaunt and sunburned. Ticks, fleas and lice covered his body.

Before battle, his lips would quiver and his body went numb. When the shooting started, some of his comrades burst into maniacal laughter. Others bit the throat and ears of their enemy. And some were shattered by shells so powerful that tufts of their hair stuck to rocks and trees.

Take a tour of a Civil War battlefield today, and it's difficult to connect the terrifying experience of an average Civil War soldier -- described above from various historical accounts -- with the tranquil historic sites where we now snap pictures today.

But you don't have to tour a battlefield to understand the Civil War. Look at today's headlines. As the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of its deadliest war this week, some historians say we're still fighting over some of the same issues that fueled the Civil War.

"There are all of these weird parallels," says Stephanie McCurry, author of "Confederate Reckoning," a new book that examines why Southerners seceded and its effect on Southern women and slaves.

"When you hear charges today that the federal government is overreaching, and the idea that the Constitution recognized us as a league of sovereign states -- these were all part of the secessionist charges in 1860," she says.

These "weird parallels" go beyond the familiar debates over what caused the war, slavery or states' rights. They extend to issues that seem to have nothing to do with the Civil War.

The shutdown of the federal government, war in Libya, the furor over the new health care law and Guantanamo Bay -- all have tentacles that reach back to the Civil War, historians say.

Read the rest of this article at CNN.com.

How The Government Shutdown Will Affect Us

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:34:00 +0000

With the government looking like it's heading toward a shutdown as Friday approaches, many are wondering what exactly a shutdown would mean to them.

Based on the last government shutdown, there could be wide-reaching effects. According to AOL News, some immediate effects, such as the closing of national parks and museums, would be easily seen, while other services may only see delays.

A government shutdown occurs when a government discontinues providing services that are not considered "essential." Typically, essential services include police, fire fighting, armed forces, utilities and corrections. Interestingly, Congress and the President are exempt from the furlough and continue to receive compensation despite the fact that other services are suspended.

According to Congress.org, "Under Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, members of Congress 'shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.'"

Though Congress is working towards a budget deal to prevent a shutdown, it could still happen even if a budget deal is reached.

While some services almost automatically halt, the impact on others often depends on the length of the government stall.

Lost Money

The last shutdown cost taxpayers $800 million, including $400 million in wages to federal workers who did not report to work, according to About.com. However, during the first shutdown in 1995 800,000 non-essential workers were furloughed without pay for five days, according to AOL News.

Social Security
A shutdown could delay social security claims and social security card issuing. Last time the government shut down 800,000 toll-free calls went unanswered, according to About.com.

Medicare
A shutdown would delay newly eligible recipients from applying, according to About.com.

Police and Public Safety
The 1995-1996 shutdown caused delays in case processing, recruitment, testing and hiring, and reportedly suspended cases involving bankruptcy and child-support.

Environment
A shutdown would result in the stoppage of many government programs involving the environment. During the last shutdown toxic waste clean-up was even suspended.

National Parks/Museums Close
A government shutdown will cause national parks to close, turning away millions of visitors and result in a loss of revenue, according to AOL News. In addition, federally funded museums would also close as a result of the shutdown.

Passports/Travel
If the government shuts down passport and visa applications will be delayed with a detrimental impact on the U.S. tourist and airlines industries, according to AOL News.

Veteran Services
Veterans services including health and welfare programs to finance could be cut short in the event of a shut down, according to About.com.

Government Loans
While the exact impact is unclear, a government shutdown could result in the delay of FHA mortgage loans that low-and-moderate-income families often depend on.

Some say the shutdown will be because Democrats refuse to make cuts. Some say the shutdown will be because Republicans are turning this into a charade.

While both are definitely to blame, the offers that are people put on the table by the Republicans are just moronic, and are more about principle than actually cutting cost. They want to hurt a woman's right to choose, not save money by reducing health spending for abortions. They want to protect corporations, not actually save money by cutting environmental protections.

Now if the Democrats were capable of creating an agency that wasn't completely incompitent (like the EPA, FDA, etc), it would give the Republicans less fodder. We wouldn't be in this mess if these government agencies were half as good in practice as they are in ideal.

We put a bullseye on our own backs by making these agencies nothing more than a paper house with hearts painted on the side of it. And it's because of this, and only this, that gives their arguments what little merit they have.

Portions of this blog originally published at the Huffington Post

The spanish guy asked you what the difference is between a MANAGER and a LEADER

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:44:00 +0000

There are many differences between managers and leaders. Leaders can be inspirational and transformational in their approach while managers have a transactional-based approach in their duties. In short, leaders lead people, managers manage tasks.

Ask me anything

I really like u but youve never known it.. and I cant say who i am.. U have to guess.. Make a profile at www.bit.ly/exH1Tp?957549581 then search for JamesHooks and look at the body pix.. guess who i am

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:41:00 +0000

That's also sweet.

Ask me anything

I have a crush on u but cant say who i am lol.. u have to guess.. go to www.bit.ly/idNplg?699021646 then make an account and search for JamesHooks

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:40:00 +0000

That's sweet.

Ask me anything

¿uʍop ǝpısdn ǝʇıɹʍ noʎ uɐɔ

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:40:00 +0000

sǝʎ

Ask me anything

Michael Lewis' Prophetic 1989 Japan Disaster Piece

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:24:00 +0000

Months before publishing 1989's Liar's Poker, the canonical account of life inside 1980s Wall Street, Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, wrote an article on the prospect of Japan being rocked by a large-scale earthquake -- and what it would mean for the global economy.

Now, less than a week after a record 8.9 magnitude earthquake left thousands dead, half a million homeless, and economists scrambling to decipher the consequences, Lewis' hunch appears disturbingly prophetic.

The article, entitled "How a Tokyo Earthquake Could Devastate Wall Street and the World Economy" and appearing in now-defunct Manhattan Inc., contended not only that a large-scale Japanese earthquake was inevitable -- "A big quake has hit Tokyo roughly every 70 years for four centuries," he wrote -- but that the Japanese government wasn't taking adequate precautions against such a prospect. This decision, he believed, would have disastrous global consequences.

You can read the entire article here.

Lewis depicted the Japanese government's decision to quietly relax "formerly-strict building codes" as a mistake. "Everyone in Tokyo knows there's going to be a big earthquake," Lewis wrote at the time. "It's only a matter of when."

He then discusses the effect a Japanese earthquake could have abroad, looking closely at a report by Tokai Bank on the economic consequences of a substantial earthquake. "The narrow message," Lewis said, "is that the financial consequences of a Tokyo earthquake will be felt primarily outside Japan."

Contrary to Lewis' prediction twenty years ago, U.S. policymakers have assured the public that the disaster will not slow America's recovery in any meaningful way. A volatile stock market indicates the sentiment isn't unanimous.

Lewis' article ends on this chilling note:

Today, when foreign journalists stumble into MITI and demand to know what will be done about Japan's trade surpluses, they sometimes get this strange answer: 'When the earthquake comes, the trade surplus will go away.' The good news from Oda is that it's probably true. The bad news is that we'll wish it wasn't.

Stop Delay On Donations To Japan

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:46:00 +0000

Around the world, people like you and I are responding in anyway we can to help Japan. But one of the easiest ways to help-texting to give by mobile-actually isn't the help it sounds like.

During the response to Haiti, cellphone companies processed mobile donations to relief organizations right away. But for Japan, they aren't making this same exception and it could take as much as 90 days for donations to reach people in need.

Please help convince them to immediately processes donations so donations reach where they are needed now.

For more information visit the mGiving Foundation: "How long does it take for my charity to receive the funds? In response to the Haiti Relief Effort, carriers are remitting donations immediately to nonprofit organizations. Generally, the typical time frame for remittance is based upon the billing cycles of the donors and can take, on average, 90 days from time of donation for the charity to receive the funds."

Winning this campaign depends on the ability to call on thousands of supporters like you. After signing this petition, please follow them on Facebook - just click 'Like' at the top of the page.

How To Help Relief Efforts In Japan

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:43:00 +0000

How to help:

AMERICAN RED CROSS: Emergency Operation Centers are opened in the affected areas and staffed by the chapters. This disaster is on a scale larger than the Japanese Red Cross can typically manage. Donations to the American Red Cross can be allocated for the International Disaster Relief Fund, which then deploys to the region to help. Donate here.

GLOBALGIVING: Established a fund to disburse donations to organizations providing relief and emergency services to victims of the earthquake and tsunami. Donate here.

SAVE THE CHILDREN: Mobilizing to provide immediate humanitarian relief in the shape of emergency health care and provision of non-food items and shelter. Donate here.

SALVATION ARMY: The Salvation Army has been in Japan since 1895 and is currently providing emergency assistance to those in need. Donate here.

AMERICARES: Emergency team is on full alert, mobilizing resources and dispatching an emergency response manager to the region. Donate here.

CONVOY OF HOPE: Disaster Response team established connection with in-country partners who have been impacted by the damage and are identifying the needs and areas where Convoy of Hope may be of the greatest assistance. Donate here.

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: Putting together relief teams, as well as supplies, and are in contact with partners in Japan and other affected countries to assess needs and coordinate our activities. Donate here.

SHELTER BOX: The first team is mobilizing to head to Japan and begin the response effort. Donate here.

How Soon Before a Bill to Revoke Civil Rights and Bring Back Slavery is Introduced?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:48:00 +0000

Between death penalty miscarriages and deporting naturally born citizens born to parents from another country, not to mention already existing laws that prohibit homosexuals from getting married, it shouldn’t be long before a lawmaker comes in to return America to pre-1960s era prosperity.

For one, America is a Christian nation (or so we've been told), and the Bible explicitly states that slavery is A-OK.

Two, it would take large steps to fixing the nation’s economy. Not only would it help small business owners more than any tax incentives possibly could (don’t have a job? Work for pennies! Or better yet, work for free! At least you have a job), it would pump billions of dollars of revenue back into the economy in a matter of months rather than years. Goodbye deficit.

And three, not only would it take care of the illegal immigration problem entirely, it would save police officers wasted time investigating civil rights “crimes” and put an end to frivolous discrimination lawsuits.

I give it ‘til June.

Egypt: The Thirty Years of Solitude

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:58:00 +0000

As the joyful crowd, deriding curfews and defying tanks, asserts its dominance over the Nile megalopolis, a weird thought comes to mind: Hosni Mubarak must be a very lonely man. Had he not jailed his political opponents, had he not alienated himself from all segments of a lively young society, he would have interlocutors now: someone to negotiate with, to discuss reforms, to seek some common ground with, or at least, to prepare an honorable retreat.

But, power, as opposed to a good meal or good music, seems to be more enjoyable when it is not shared, when you have it all for yourself, entire and undivided. And then, at some point, it gets stuck in your throat and the piece is so big that you choke.

The powerful distant friend from across the Atlantic is obviously embarrassed. He too would be better off if the old man had some domestic interlocutors: one could then facilitate contacts, mediate, recommend something more specific, rather than repeating endlessly the litany on human rights and democracy, hardly credible any longer coming from where it does.

This is now all wishful thinking. The president is alone and faraway friends are unable to help, even if they want to. The way they “helped” him so far is now of no use as their generously donated fighter-jets and helicopters are unable to disperse the crowd. They only reveal their true nature as expensive toys that helped dictators all over the middle east protect the American strategic interest while people advanced their claims to education, jobs and dignity. Eventually, they prove to be poisoned gifts. Most annoyingly, they still bear the donor’s tag.

These days may herald a new era for Egypt. Cairo may again become what it once used to be: a great cultural capital of the Arab world, a radiating centre of new ideas of freedom and justice.

Time has come to say goodbye to the old friend. Yes it’s hard, especially when you share with him so many deep secrets likely to be unearthed when the angry populace gets into the palace.

“The palace”, did I say? That reminds me the first sentences of a great novel:

“Over the weekend the vultures got into the presidential palace by pecking through the screens on the balcony windows and the flapping of their wings stirred up the stagnant time inside, and at dawn on Monday the city awoke out of its lethargy of centuries with the warm, soft breeze of a great man dead and rotting grandeur. Only then did we dare go in without attacking the crumbling walls of reinforced stone, as the more resolute had wished, and without using oxbows to knock the main door off its hinges, as others had proposed, because all that was needed was for someone to give a push and the great armored doors that had resisted the lombards of William Dampier during the building's heroic days gave way. It was like entering the atmosphere of another age, because the air was thinner in the rubble pits of the vast lair of power, and the silence was more ancient, and things were hard to see in the decrepit light. All across the first courtyard, where the paving stones had given way to the underground thrust of weeds, we saw the disorder of the post of the guard who had fled, the weapons abandoned in their racks, the big, long rough-planked tables and plates containing the leftovers of the Sunday lunch that had been interrupted by panic...”

I don’t wish death to the old man. But he may indeed do well to leave as the “stagnant time inside” is being stirred by a powerful wind. And there are so many great novels he could start reading, late in his life. They are so much more enjoyable than power.

Goran Fejic is senior adviser in the strategy and policy unit at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA. He is writing in a personal capacity

Corporate Media Loses a Progressive Voice

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:42:00 +0000

It takes years to build up a TV news show "brand." And Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show dated back to the darkest days of the one-party Republican state. It was Olbermann's principled and sincere outrage at the warmongering and lies coming from the George W. Bush administration as it pushed the nation into war and recession that established his "brand." But the fact that Olbermann was a "brand" in the first place points to the intrinsic limitations of corporate media.

The only winners in the Comcast/MSNBC decision to drop Countdown with Keith Olbermann are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and all the other bloviators over at Fox News. Their noise machine just got a lot louder. And just in time for CNN and the networks to focus the bulk of their attention on John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Darrell Issa. The Federal Communications Commission should have blocked Comcast's buyout of NBC. The one thing the corporate media didn't need was more consolidation regardless if the move had anything to do with purging Olbermann.

There isn't a chance in hell that CBS or ABC will pick up anything Olbermann can pitch. PBS? Forget it. They're about to get whacked by Republican budget cuts. He might be able carve out a slot in relative obscurity between the comedic and dramatic fare over at HBO. Who knows? In any case, going into the 2012 presidential election the Democrats just lost a consistent voice of reason and a defender of relatively progressive values.

The right end of the political spectrum in the realm of corporate media just got stronger. There's also a chilling effect, even if the circumstances of Olbermann's ouster were benign. People working for media conglomerates who want to keep their jobs might begin to rein in their views when they drift a little "too far" to the left.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann was the anchor of something extraordinary that emerged, painstakingly and against all odds, during the Bush years. A mild liberal alternative was established in the corporate media to counter the flamethrowers at Fox. Nothing like it had existed since MSNBC fired Phil Donahue in early 2003. Now it's gone. And it's hard to see how this gaping hole on the "liberal" end of the corporate media is going to result in anything other than giving a louder voice and greater ventilation to the policies that are currently being advanced by an aggressive right-wing oligarchy.

Originally written by Joseph A. Palermo at The Huffington Post.

"Hatred Paralyzes Life": In Memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:23:00 +0000

In this photo from Dec. 21, 1956, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. rides a newly integrated bus in Montgomery, Ala., a momentous occasion that vindicated Rosa Parks after she refused to sit in the back of the bus in 1955, marked a civil rights victory and sent a powerful message of hope. So, it is particularly heartbreaking to read "Black man's burden," an Op-Ed by Judy Belk that recounts how just 10 years ago (and 45 years after the above photo was taken) her 13-year-old son came to understand racism while on public transportation.

Racism is like that. A dripping faucet of sorts. You ignore it until you can't anymore. I so desperately wanted to slow down the inevitable. Stop the drip. Couldn't he have just one more year of innocence in which he could believe that his black skin was nothing more than what it is — a physical attribute rather than the definition to others of who he is and what he can or can't do.

But Ryan was already one step ahead of me in coming up with coping strategies.

"Don't worry, Mom, I figured out a solution. I just take out a book and start reading, which seems to make everybody relax." One woman, he said, even asked if he was enjoying a particular book as much as she did.

As a black woman who loves two amazing black men -- my husband and 23-year-old son -- I have seen again and again how society either assumes the worst of them or treats them as an exception to their race and manhood. It is a minefield black men must navigate.

Thinking of Belk's personal story, especially on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, serves as a powerful reminder that we ought to do more than honor King with a day off from work; we should actively keep his dream alive by continuing his mission in our everyday lives. To celebrate King, here are...

Photos: Remembering Martin Luther King Jr. [Framework]

Murals: Art that conjures the great man and his enduring dream [Camilo Jose Vergara]

Video: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in His Own Words [Democracy Now]

Quotes: 10 memorable MLK quotes [The Christian Science Monitor]

Tribute: Why one Chicago school keeps students in class on Martin Luther King Jr. Day [Huffington Post]

Reminders: More thank just a man who gave a good speech [Rachel Maddow]

Hay diferencia entre Gerente y Líder?

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:36:00 +0000

Sorry. I have absolutely no clue what you said.

Ask me anything

The Hate that Hate Filled Dialogue Produces

noreply@blogger.com (James Hooks) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:27:00 +0000

While conducting a town hall meeting in Tucson, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head Saturday. She struggles for her life in an Arizona hospital. Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six, including Arizona's chief federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and an aide for the Democratic lawmaker. The country prays for the recovery of the individuals who were wounded and morns the loss of those who have died.

It has been reported that the attack was carried out by 22 year old Jared Loughner. His motivations are unclear at this time. Officials are looking at his MySpace page, YouTube videos, and other web postings looking for a motive. Some postings indicate Loughner is a very troubled individual. He posted the following on YouTube, "I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People…Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods ..."

There is no nexus or direct connection between Loughner’s attack and the inaccurate, hateful, and inflammatory language that is being accepted as responsible political dialogue. One can not deny that anti-government and anti-Obama rhetoric contribute to a dangerous undercurrent in treacherous political waters.

Let’s be very clear, this is not the first time deranged Americans have lashed out against the social order. Most recently, in 1995 Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City killing 168 and wounding 450. Anti-abortion violence killed Dr. David Gunn in Florida in 1993 and Dr. Barrett Slepian was murdered in his home in New York in 1998. The difference today is that seemingly responsible politicians and political commentators are contributing to this problem by injecting irresponsible hateful political diatribes into the political discourse.

This is not a First Amendment “free speech” issue. This is a matter of responsible Americans demanding a higher standard of dialogue and holding individuals accountable for the inflammatory fear mongering diatribes that have become accepted as legitimate political speech.

Former GOP VP nominee and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin posted a map on her Facebook page that used gun sights to indicate congressional seats that her PAC was “targeting” for the mid-term elections. Coincidentally, Palin listed Congresswoman Giffords seat as one of the top “targets” because of her support for health care reform. Palin regularly calls for her supporters to “Reload!” during her speeches. There’s no evidence that Loughner ever saw this site or heard a Palin speech but we know that sick individuals like Loughner thrive like bacteria in environment of political hatred.

Palin also tweeted her endorsement of an article by Thomas Sowell that compares President Obama to Hitler. She also argued that President Obama's establishment of a BP escrow fund could result in his administration embracing Nazi-like dictatorial powers. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has made similar Hitler - Obama comparisons.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Huckabee have called President Obama a socialist. To call President Obama a socialist or compare his actions to those of Adolph Hitler is inaccurate, irresponsible, and dangerous.

At the Tea Party “code red” rally against health care reform in Washington, protesters carried signs stating“Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) health care vote and a Browning firearm. On Saturday, March 20, 2010 as Rep’s. John Lewis (D-GA) and Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) were leaving the Cannon office building they encountered members of the Tea Party protesting the health care reform bill. As the protesters exchanged words with the Congressmen, some of the protestors called them a “nigger”and spat upon them. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot”.

Republican leadership has refused to repudiate and disassociate themselves from the dangerous and incendiary comments of their surrogates. Instead, they seek to improve their political position by riding the wave of anger caused by fear and prejudice. They have been conspicuously silent for too long. Through their silence they are betraying

America

By allowing threats of violence to become an accepted form of political persuasion violence is becoming part of our political reality; the hate that hate filled dialog produces.

As Dr. King once said, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”