Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

(Homicide Investigator) Chris Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.

One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.

The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.

The revelation is the latest salvo in a war of leaks meant to bolster each side amid rising tension over the shooting.

About 200 to 250 protesters gathered in front of the Justice Department today to demand the Justice Department to charge Zimmerman with a federal hate crime.

Family attorney Benjamin Crump alleged that the Sanford police had leaked damaging information about Martin into order to muddy the case, calling it a "conspiracy." Crump called the school disciplinary problems "irrelevant" to the case that "an unarmed 17 year kid was killed."

Martin was shot as he made his way to his father's fiance's house while returning from a convenience store where he bought a pack of Skittles and iced tea. He was followed by Zimmerman who found him suspicious.

At some point, Zimmerman ignored the suggestion from a 911 dispatcher that he stop following Martin, left his truck and went to look for Martin.

At the same time, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend and complained that someone was following him.

What happened then is not clear. The girlfriend has said that she heard Martin ask someone, "Why are you following me?" before the sounds of a scuffle and the phone was disconnected.

Zimmerman is described as 5-foot-9 and well over 200 pounds while Martin was 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds.

Leaks from the police report detail Zimmerman telling police he was heading back to his truck when Martin knocked him down with a punch to his nose, jumped on him, repeatedly banged his head on the ground, then tried to grab Zimmerman's gun.

In a struggle for Zimmerman's gun, the watchman shot the teenager, Zimmerman told police.

CAN THEY SINK ANY LOWER?

Unemployed paid to hold places in line

outside the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON—Temperatures are expected to dip below freezing overnight Monday, and Charles Medley will spend the whole time outdoors near the base of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? He's hoping to hold a coveted place near the front of a line for access to the oral arguments over the federal health care law.

But when the second day of arguments begins Tuesday morning, Medley won't actually be going inside. He's one of about 25 people camping out Monday—some paid just $5 an hour—to hold a place for somebody else interested in watching the health care hearings. Tickets for Supreme Court cases are granted on a first-come-first-serve basis, and because of the enormous popularity of this case, anyone without a special pass or media credential is required to wait for several hours or pay someone to do it for them.

Prices for D.C. line-standers vary widely. Some say they make as much as $15 an hour, while others bring in a third of that. Most don't want to reveal who they're working for, or simply say they don't know to avoid divulging any details. The majority of the people getting paid to hold a spot are unemployed; some are homeless. However, there are actual businesses in the D.C. area that specialize in this, charging as much as $50 per hour to save your place.

Medley, an out-of-work subcontractor who said he found out about the opportunity through a friend, arrived in front of the Supreme Court building at about 2:30 Sunday afternoon. He spent Sunday night outside shielding himself from a light rain, and will sleep on the street here until Wednesday morning, the final day of the hearings. He gets an hour and a half break for lunch each day—people rotate in and out to save spots—and he treks a half a mile to Union Station to use the restroom.

"They're paying for us to stay here for three days," he said, surrounded by new friends perched on lawn chairs who were also holding spots for other people. "It's got to be something real important."

Medley joined a row of men sitting along the sidewalk, joking together. One man, wrapped in blankets, snored loudly. Some listened to music, one read a book by the Rev. T.D. Jakes while others just sat alone quietly.

A cold front is predicted Tuesday that could bring temperatures in the 20s, so everyone has stocked up on blankets, sleeping bags and heavy jackets.

"You better make yourself comfortable if you plan on sitting out here for 72 hours," Medley said, motioning toward a man stretched out on a cot. "It's pretty nice during the day, not bad at night either. You just have to dress for the occasion. You never know when mother nature might hit us with a whammy. But we keep each others' spirits high."

At the front of the line, Chris Woods and Sonya Smith sat together holding a space for a person they declined to name. They arrived late Sunday night and plan to rotate shifts with others. Woods, a 19-year-old wearing a baseball cap, said he intends to stay on for about 15 hours before taking some time to sleep and then would come back.

"It was pretty cold last night," Woods said, but added that he didn't mind it.

At about 3 a.m. the night before, the sprinklers went off, waking up most of the people sleeping and spraying everyone with their head near the bushes. Tonight, many said, they'll sleep the other way around

RACIAL JUSTICE STATISTICS

Between 2006 and 2008, 24.7% of African Americans, 25.3% American Indians or Alaskan Natives, and 21.2% of people with Latino origins lived below the poverty level, compared with 10.5% of the white population (U.S. Census Bureau).

Between 2006 and 2008, 14.6% of white Americans did not have health insurance compared to 19.7% of African Americans and 33.3% of Hispanics (U.S. Census Bureau)

In 2008 of 25 -29 year olds, 93.7% of white, 87.5% of black, and 68.3% of Hispanic persons had received a high school diploma. 37.1% of white, 20.4% of black, and 12.4% of Hispanic persons had receive a Bachelor’s degree (National Center for Education Statistics).

Every hour someone commits a hate crime. Everyday at least eight blacks, three whites, three gays, three Jews and one Latino become hate crime victims (Southern Poverty Law Center).

An estimated 20 million households do not have a bank account (often referred to as unbanked), and another 20 million are underbanked (they may have a bank account but also use non-banks such as check cashing agencies, payday lenders or pawn shops for financial transactions). 60% of these households are white, 19% Latinos and 16% black. Their median household income was almost half the national median income. (2008; Center for Financial Services Innovation)

In 2007, while 32.7 percent of all households rented, 53.5 percent of African-American households and 50.1 percent of Latino households rented their place of residence (U.S. Census Bureau)

Thirty percent of black renters and 27 percent of Latino renters have a severe housing cost burden, which according to HUD is defined as spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. This compares to 21 percent of white renters (Joint Center for Housing Studies).

Hispanic students were more likely than White students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in 2005 (10 vs. 7 percent) (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Nine percent of Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school (including on the way to and from school), compared with 4 percent of White students. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

In 2005, 10.3% of white students, 10.5% of Hispanic students, and 15.0% of black students ages 12 – 18 reported being targets of hate-related words. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Of the 7,780 single-bias incidents reported in 2008, 51.3% were racially motivated, 19.5% were motivated by religious bias, 16.7% stemmed from sexual-orientation bias, 11.5% resulted from ethnicity/national origin bias, and 1% were motivated by disability bias (U.S. Department of Justice Hate Crime Statistics).

In 2008, of the 4,934 victims of racial bias crimes, 72.9% were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias (U.S. Department of Justice Hate Crime Statistics).

Blogger's Note:  Many thanks to my colleague Barbara, who provided this article from the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) of Central Alabama, "Eliminating Racism and Empowering Women".

Perils of walking while black

By Eugene Robinson, Thursday, March 22,7:53 PM

For every black man in America, from the millionaire in the corner office to the mechanic in the local garage, the Trayvon Martin tragedy is personal. It could have been me or one of my sons. It could have been any of us.

How many George Zimmermans are out there cruising the streets? How many guys with chips on their shoulders and itchy fingers on the triggers of loaded handguns? How many self-imagined guardians of the peace who say the words “black male” with a sneer?

We don’t yet know every detail of the encounter between Martin and Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla., that ended with an unarmed 17-year-old high school student being shot dead. But we know enough to conclude that this is an old, familiar story.

We know from tapes of Zimmerman’s 911 call that he initiated the encounter, having decided that Martin’s presence in the neighborhood was suspicious. We know that when Zimmerman told the 911 operator that he was following Martin, the operator responded, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” We know that Zimmerman kept following Martin anyway.

“This guy looks like he is up to no good,” Zimmerman said on the 911 tape.

Please tell me, what would be the innocent way to walk down the street with an iced tea and some Skittles? Hint: For black men, that’s a trick question.

Some commentators have sought to liken Martin’s killing to the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, an unspeakable crime that helped galvanize the civil rights movement. To make a facile comparison is a disservice to history — and to the memory of both young men. It is ridiculous to imply that nothing has changed.

When Till was killed in Mississippi at 14 — accused of flirting with a white woman — this was a different country. State-sanctioned terrorism and assassination were official policy throughout the South. Today, the laws and institutions that enforced Jim Crow repression have long since been dismantled. Mississippi, of all places, has more black elected officials than any other state. An African American family lives in the White House.

Black America was never a monolith, but over the past five decades it has become much more diverse — economically, socially, culturally. If you stood on a street corner and chose five black men at random, you might meet a doctor who lives in the high-priced suburbs, an immigrant from Ethiopia who drives a cab, a young aspiring filmmaker with flowing dreadlocks, an unemployed dropout trying to hustle his next meal and a midlevel government worker struggling to put his kids through college.

Those men would have nothing in common, really, except one thing: For each of them, walking down the wrong street at the wrong time could be a fatal mistake.

I hear from people who contend that racism no longer exists in this country. I tell them I wish they were right.

Does it matter that Zimmerman is himself a member of a minority group — he is Hispanic — or that his family says he has black friends? Not in the least. The issue isn’t Zimmerman’s race or ethnicity; it’s the hair-trigger assumption he made that “black male” equals “up to no good.”

This is one thing that hasn’t changed in all the eventful years since Emmett Till’s mutilated body was laid to rest. It is instructive to note that Till grew up in Chicago and just happened to be in Mississippi visiting relatives. Young black men who were born and raised in the South knew where the red lines were drawn, understood the unwritten code of behavior that made the difference between survival and mortal danger. Till didn’t.

Today, young black men grow up in a society where racism is no longer deemed acceptable. Many live in integrated neighborhoods, attend integrated schools, have interracial relationships. They wonder why their parents prattle on so tediously about race, warning about this or that or the other, when their own youthful experience tells them that race doesn’t matter.

What could happen on the way home from the store with some Skittles and an iced tea?

Whether Zimmerman can or should be prosecuted, given Florida’s “stand your ground” law providing broad latitude to claim self-defense, is an important question. But the tragic and essential thing, for me, is the bull’s-eye that black men wear throughout their lives — and the vital imperative to never, ever, be caught on the wrong street at the wrong time.

ALL OF US

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT, via Distriction:

"Hello, I would love to share my experience; something that I will not forget for rest of my life. Today was a special day for me, and I was preparing for it. It was announced yesterday, March 14, for everyone to receive tickets to see none other than the President of the United States, Barack Obama! "

"The moment I will never forget was when he looked at me. He gave me a chance to talk to him. It was like he was waiting for me to say something. I took the moment and signed 'I am proud of you,' and his response was 'Thank u' in sign language back!"

"Oh my gosh! I was like wow! He understood me after I said I was proud of him. It was so amazing…I was just speechless. Right after he thanked me, he smiled at another deaf lady who signed 'I love you.'"

"When I shook his hand it did not feel like he was superior to me. He was just a humble man. I am just impressed by him and know that he will have my vote and he will win second term without a doubt. Yeah, I feel safe to have him for another term."

WHOLE FOODS, ORGANIC FOODS FROM CHINA?

Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new law in Texas requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot, citing a concern that it could harm Hispanic voters who lacked such documents.

The law, which was approved in May 2011, required voters to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, military identification card, birth certificate with a photo, current U.S. passport, or concealed handgun permit.

The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 300,000, did not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete.

"Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification," Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the department's civil rights division, said in a letter outlining the objection to the Texas director of elections.

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry criticized the decision, saying he was obligated to ensure the integrity of elections.

"The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane," he said in a statement.

It was the second state voter identification law blocked by the Obama administration, which earlier prevented a strict new law in South Carolina from taking effect. South Carolina then sued in federal court seeking approval of its law.

Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like Texas must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts.

The Obama administration has already challenged the state's attempt to re-draw congressional districts and that fight is before the courts. Texas in January also sued to get approval for its voter identification law.

Several Republican-governed states, including Texas, Kansas and Wisconsin, have adopted stricter new voter identification laws, arguing they were needed to prevent ballot box fraud. A judge in Wisconsin on Monday issued an injunction against that state's law.

Some civil rights groups have said the new laws threatened to suppress minority voters. Democrats have also said they were aimed at squeezing out university students from the polling booths and seniors who tended to vote for Democrats.

"Photo identification requirements for voters drastically affect the electoral participation of the poor, the elderly, and the transient, which means those who need their government's ear most will be the last to be heard," said Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state Democratic lawmaker.

The Justice Department said that potential voters in Texas would require two other identification documents to get a certificate allowing them to vote, which could lead to them paying high fees for copies of legal documents such as birth certificates.

Additionally, nearly one-third of the counties in the state do not have offices where potential voters can obtain a driver's license or state identification card and some residents live more than 100 miles away, the Justice Department said.

Efforts to educate voters about the new identification requirements were also incomplete and the state did not submit evidence of voter impersonation not already addressed under existing state laws, the administration said.

"The state has failed to demonstrate why it could not meet its stated goals of ensuring electoral integrity and deterring ineligible voters from voting in a manner that would have voided this retrogressive effect," Perez said.

Republicans said that the Obama administration's decision to oppose Texas' voter identification law smacked of politics ahead of the 2012 congressional and presidential elections.

"Today's decision reeks of politics and appears to be an effort by the Department of Justice to carry water for the President's reelection campaign," said U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

The Texas lawsuit for approval of the voter identification law is: State of Texas v. Holder in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 12-cv-128

Consider the case of the angry white woman

By Courtland Milloy, Published: March 11
When Margaret Doyle’s temper exploded inside the Virginia General Assembly a few weeks ago, a photograph of her being ejected from the state Capitol became a symbol of front-line resistance to legislative assaults on women’s reproductive rights.

Doyle, who is 53 and weighs 115 pounds, was so fired up that it took four police officers to restrain her. Other protesters also were subjected to the strong arm of the law.

Curiously to me, nearly all of the women were white.

I confess to rarely seeing a white woman as angry as Doyle appeared in the photograph, an image captured by Bob Brown of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. With teeth clenched, eyes ablaze, she stood in jolting contrast to the archetypal white woman — the privileged female ideal relentlessly promulgated in the media and deeply embedded in the American psyche.

The statistical portrait of the white woman in America certainly buttresses that image.

She has the longest life expectancy in the country and, through sheer numbers, dominates the demographic landscape. Her power at the polls is immense. Her risk of falling victim to street crime is low compared with the risk faced by black women. She’s rarely exposed to the AIDS virus, and breast cancer is no longer the death sentence for her that it is for so many others.

Relatively healthy, happy, safe and financially secure, she is the reigning queen of the “golden mean,” the norm by which other women are measured.

Given all of that, what does the white woman really have to be angry about?

Through the years, I have read much about the “angry white male,” the “endangered black male” and the “heavier but happy” black woman recently featured in The Washington Post.


White women, though, somehow elude such analysis. The Susan G. Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood, both led by white women, have engaged in a dispute over funding that could result in the lives of thousands of low-income black women being put at risk.


No one wonders why the voices of the black poor are silent.


Perhaps the answer is obvious: the white woman decides who gets heard in such matters. By her own efforts, but also through her unique access to wealthy men, she builds institutions to support her causes. Other women may sit at the table, but she alone speaks on their behalf.

Whatever privileges come with being a white woman usually end up being cloaked by her emphasis on gender. Of course, with more than 123 million white women in America, characterizing her as a group would be especially difficult. But race and class will certainly tell you as much about her as some of the other labels used to define her, such as “Democrat” and “Republican.”

I find it quite odd that so much interest was paid to “The Help,” a book and movie about white women and their black maids in the early 1960s, and so little interest was paid to the racial divide that persists. Is it really possible that all remnants of the white woman’s deeply ingrained feelings of superiority over blacks have disappeared in such a short time?

Conversations with a variety of women, some of whose voices will be amplified in subsequent columns, provided clues to better understand this racial chasm — and the anger of the women on both sides.

Doyle was especially insightful.


“To be honest with you, we are rattled because just a few years ago this nation was brought to the absolute brink and we nearly lost everything,” Doyle said in a telephone interview. “If you were comfortable in your lifestyle, had your Colonial home with a picket fence and thought ‘this is my entitlement, I am supposed to have this,’ and then learn that it can all go away in a hot New York minute? And instead of creating jobs, helping us stay in our homes, improving roads and schools, these dangerous men are in the state legislature obsessing over our wombs.”


For the white woman, perhaps, it is the fear of losing the rights that she’d come to take for granted that has led to the explosive displays of rage. For the black woman, thwarted in her drive to win some of those same rights, fear of not getting what she deserves is probably fueling a silent fury that will soon erupt as well.

Imagine them with arms locked and in protest together. They wouldn’t be just resisters in a “war on women,” but more like freedom fighters in a war to save America from the tyranny of man.

The Invisible Children

Sign the Pledge 

KAMPALA, Uganda (AP) —

A video about the atrocities carried out by Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army has gone viral, racking up millions more views seemingly by the hour.

The marketing campaign is an effort by the advocacy group Invisible Children to vastly increase awareness about a jungle militia leader who is wanted for atrocities by the International Criminal Court and is being hunted by 100 U.S. Special Forces advisers and local troops in four Central African countries.  The group's 30-minute video, which was released Monday, had more than 32 million views on YouTube by Thursday. The movie is part of an effort called KONY 2012 that targets Kony and the LRA.

"Kony is a monster. He deserves to be prosecuted and hanged," said Col. Felix Kulayigye, the spokesman for Uganda's military.

Experts estimate that the LRA now has only about 250 fighters. Still, the militia abducts children, forcing them to serve as soldiers or sex slaves, and even to kill their parents or each other to survive. The LRA now operates in Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

Uganda, Invisible Children and (hash)stopkony were among the top 10 trending terms on Twitter among both the worldwide and U.S. audience on Wednesday night, ranking higher than New iPad or Peyton Manning. Twitter's top trends more commonly include celebrities than fugitive militants.

Jolly Okot was abducted in 1986 by the militia group that later became the LRA. The then-18-year-old could speak English so was valuable to the militants. She was also forced to have sex.  Today, Okot is the Uganda country director for Invisible Children, in charge of 105 employees. She said the group is helping 800 people affected by LRA violence to attend high school and university. She said the program has given hope to kids who previously dropped out of the education system.

"The most exciting thing about this film is that I'm so grateful that the world has been able to pay attention to an issue that has long been neglected," Okot said. "I think it is an eye-opener and I think this will push for Joseph Kony to be apprehended, and I think justice will get to him."

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said it has been hard to raise public awareness about Kony since issuing his warrant in 2005.

"Kony is difficult, he is not killing people in Paris or in New York. Kony is killing people in Central African Republic, no one cares about him," he said. "These young people from California mobilizing this effort is incredible, exactly what we need."

He praised the group that made the film.

"They are not fighting, they are just putting the right focus: stopping the crimes, arresting Kony, helping people," he said. "Perfect."

Ben Keesey, Invisible Children's 28-year-old chief executive officer, said the viral success shows their message resonates and that viewers feel empowered to force change. It was released on the website http://www.kony2012.com./

Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, the top U.S. special operations commander for Africa, told reporters last month that U.S. troops are now stationed in bases in Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and Central African Republic as part of the anti-LRA fight. Losey said there's been a decrease in the lethality of LRA activities attributable to U.S. and partner nation efforts.

Ruhakana Rugunda, the Ugandan diplomat who led the country's failed peace negotiations with Kony in 2006, said the work of organizations such as Invisible Children preserves the memory of an insurgency whose brutal legacy should never be forgotten. The talks with Kony, mediated by South Sudan, ended in 2008 after the rebel leader refused to sign the final peace agreement, saying he could not guarantee his security once he left the bush.

The last known images of Kony show him shaking hands, and sometimes smiling, with dignitaries visiting his camp. Some images showed him wearing a suit and shiny black shoes.  "Kony gives you the impression that he is harmless, that he cannot catch a fly," Rugunda said, recalling his conversations with Kony, who was an altar boy before he became an elusive rebel leader.

Rugunda last saw Kony in a forested camp in eastern Congo before the rebel leader and his men fled to the Central African Republic, where they have retained the capacity to harass villagers for food.  Rugunda said that capturing Kony alive would set in motion a "full accountability mechanism" in which the world would get to know how it came to be that Kony committed the many crimes he is accused of.

By Age 50,

Women Who Took the Pill Have an 8 Percent Higher Income Than Those Who Did Not 

 

A group of economists have found that women who had better access to birth control were earning 8 percent more than those who didn't by the time they reached age 50. Another reason, maybe, for why women should have birth control covered by their insurance? The trio of researchers from the Universities of Michigan and Virginia found in a study from last December that women aged 18 to 21 who lived in states with better legal access to oral contraceptives in 1970 had hourly wages that were 8 percent higher than peers in less pill-friendly states by the time they reached their late forties.

Their explanation of why access to the pill translates to higher incomes:

Consistent with the well-known relationship of women’s wage growth to cumulative labor-force experience, our decomposition indicates that almost two thirds of the Pill-induced wage premium at the mean is explained through its effect on women’s labor-force experience. Another third of the premium is due to changes in educational attainment and occupational choice.

In short, women on the pill are better able to get degrees, choose their occupation, and enter (and leave) the workforce when they want, which in turn gives them better footing with men in terms of commanding wages. "Our estimates imply that the pill can account for 10 percent of the convergence [of] the gender gap in the 1980s and 30 percent in the 1990s," write the researchers. At 80 cents to each $1 a man earns in 2009, that gender wage gap is hardly closed, which is why this statistic (like others) has reentered the contraception troll-fest debate, with The New York Times calling back to it today.

..

Federal data reveals Black students are arrested more often (study shows racial disparity in police involvement at schools)

Portrait of inequality

Blogger's Note:   This headline does not say that Black children are committing crime. It does not say that Black children are doing anything that White, Hispanic or Asian children are not doing.  What this headline says is that OUR children are arbitrarily singled out for severe punishment, because of the color of their skin. 

In Post-Racial America

the White kids go to gifted and talented programs

and the Black kids go to jail.

By Donna St. George, Tuesday, March 06,12:58 AM

African American students in large school systems are arrested far more often on campus than their white peers, new federal data show.

The data, from an Education Department civil rights survey to be released Tuesday, provide the government’s most extensive examination yet of how public schools across the country bring police into the handling of student offenses.

The new figures also show continuing racial disparities in out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, which are far more common in schools than arrests and referrals to law enforcement.

“The sad fact is that minority students across America face much harsher discipline than non-minorities — even within the same school,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. Duncan cautioned that the government is “not alleging overt discrimination in some or all of these cases.” But he said educators and community leaders should join forces to address inequities.

The department’s Office for Civil Rights collected data from 72,000 schools across the country for the 2009-10 school year.  Overall, the data showed that 96,000 students were arrested and 242,000 were “referred” to law enforcement by school leaders, meaning the students were not necessarily arrested or cited.

In a more focused analysis of school systems with more than 50,000 students enrolled, the data showed that African American students represented 24 percent of enrollment but 35 percent of arrests. White students accounted for 31 percent of enrollment and 21 percent of arrests. For Hispanic students, there was less of a disparity in arrests. They accounted for 34 percent of enrollment and 37 percent of arrests.

Such data about student contact with police had not been collected before on such a large scale.

On arrests, no data were collected about the types of offenses involved. Critics say school arrests are too often made for adolescent misjudgments — such as insubordination, disrespect, class disruption and fighting — that, in previous generations, were handled with calls to parents and visits to principals’ offices.

“There are concerns that a lot of kids are winding up in custody or juvenile detention that probably shouldn’t be there,” said Daniel J. Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California at Los Angeles, author of a recent report on discipline for the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado.

Duncan himself has told stories about how, when he was schools chief in Chicago, he was stunned to learn that “the vast majority” of arrests of young people could be traced back to schools.

The stakes for students are high, said Matt Cregor of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“The harms of suspension pale in comparison to the harms of arrest,” he said. “A first-time arrest doubles the chances a student will drop out. A first-time court appearance quadruples them.”

Cregor noted the example of a judge from Clayton County, Ga., Steve Teske, who led a community effort to curtail the surge in cases sent from schools to juvenile court.

Beyond police contact, the data show persisting disparities in out-of-school suspension. African Americans were more than 3½ times as likely to be suspended or expelled as white students, the data showed.

Black males stood out, with 20 percent being suspended from school during the 2009-10 school year. By comparison, 7 percent of white males, 9 percent of Hispanic males and 3 percent of Asian American males were removed from school for disciplinary offenses.

Students with disabilities were more than twice as likely to be suspended as students without disabilities.

Racial disparities in suspensions have been tracked by researchers for years. Experts say there are no studies to show that differences in behavior cause the gap between blacks and whites. Exactly why the gap exists is unclear.

Poverty is an important factor that affects rates of school suspension, but when researchers account for these and other factors, disparities by race still exist.

Many researchers say that unconscious bias is likely to be a factor, as is unequal access to highly effective teachers who do better at managing behavior and engaging students. The culture and leadership of a school are also important. But more research is needed, many agree.





President Obama calls Sandra Fluke,

target of Rush Limbaugh's misogynist rant,

to offer his support

Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student savagely attacked by Rush Limbaugh for defending the right of all women to have access to birth control, just revealed on MSNBC that President Obama had telephoned her to offer his thanks and support.

"He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women," Fluke said. "What was really personal to me was he said to tell my parents that should be proud, and that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me, so I just appreciated that very much."

As Andrea Mitchell noted, President Obama's call raises the stakes. On one side you have Rush Limbaugh calling Fluke unspeakably ugly things. On the other side you have President Obama supporting and embracing her, and holding Fluke up as a role model. Republicans are going to need to take a side. Defend Rush's disgusting diatribe ... or support Fluke.

Fluke said President Obama called her while she was in the green room at MSNBC. "He did express his concern for me, and wanted to make sure I was okay," Fluke said. "I am. I'm okay."

What a brave woman.

Georgetown University President, John J. DeGioia

responds to Rush Limbaugh's comments.

Georgetown’s President John J. DeGioia issued a statement today condemning Limbaugh’s attack on Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke. He described Limbaugh’s behavior as “misogynistic” and “vitriolic.”

MESSAGES TO THE GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY

On Civility and Public Discourse

MARCH 2, 2012

Dear Members of the Georgetown Community:

There is a legitimate question of public policy before our nation today. In the effort to address the problem of the nearly fifty million Americans who lack health insurance, our lawmakers enacted legislation that seeks to increase access to health care. In recent weeks, a question regarding the breadth of services that will be covered has focused significant public attention on the issue of contraceptive coverage. Many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have offered important perspectives on this issue.

In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress. She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.

 DeGioia also wrote about the need for American’s to embrace the concepts of civil debate, respect and understanding of different perspectives.

 

In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate. At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s. As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement.

In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

If we, instead, allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations beginning with our Founders. The values that hold us together as a people require nothing less than eternal vigilance. This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another.

Sincerely,

John J. DeGioia

President

Georgetown University

“This is outside the bounds of civil discourse.”

Sandra Fluke, Law Student at Georgetown University, was banned from testifying to an audience of 5 White, Christian, Republican Congressmen, whose goal is to bomb women's contraceptive and reproductive rights back to the Stone Age. Here, she was granted the opportunity to exercise her right to free speech before a panel of Democrats.

Sandra Fluke's response to Limbaugh's attacks:

“I guess my reaction is the reaction a lot of women have when they’ve been called these names,” Fluke said during an appearance on MSNBC. “Initially you’re stunned but then, very quickly, you’re outraged because this is historically the kind of language that is used to silence women, especially when women who stand up and say that these are their reproductive health care needs and this is what they need.”

“What’s been amazing to me today is the outpouring of support,” she continued. “Everyone from members of Congress to Georgetown faculty to so many women who’ve contacted me, and I think it’s clear from what they’ve said that they’re not going to be silenced by this.”

Limbaugh on Wednesday called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “prostitute” and a “slut” because of her testimony in Congress about contraception.

Fluke explained that her friend, a lesbian, could not afford the oral contraception she needed to prevent ovarian cysts from forming because her university refused to pay for them on religious grounds.

“After months of paying over $100 out-of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it,” Fluke testified. “Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.”

But on his show, Limbaugh accused Fluke of not being able to afford contraception because she was “having so much sex.” Then on Thursday, he demanded that women post sex tapes online if they use insurance-covered birth control.

“This is really inappropriate,” Fluke said. “This is outside the bounds of civil discourse.”

Seventy-eight members of Congress have called on House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to repudiate Limbaugh’s comments. In a letter, the legislators said Republicans had a “special obligation” to repudiate the comments because Fluke was previously denied the opportunity to testify on the panel about contraception by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

“I don’t really see why anyone wouldn’t condemn this type of language,” Fluke said.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) has called for a boycott of Limbaugh’s sponsors.

And now, time for more from our series

 The Pride of Right Wing America

 

 

Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student

Continues With Increased Vitriol

March 01, 2012 3:26 pm ET by Jeremy Holden

Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception.

If anything, Limbaugh has increased the vitriol, at one point asking Fluke: "Who bought your condoms in sixth grade?"

Yesterday, Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Those comments were quickly condemned. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) called on Republicans to denounce Limbaugh's attack on Fluke, calling out his "despicable attack," which Maloney identified as "a new low in a season of lows." Fluke also issued a statement saying this language is "an attack on all women" and declaring that those who speak out for comprehensive women's health care "will not be silenced."

Limbaugh is not backing down.

Opening his show Thursday, Limbaugh characterized the criticism of his comments as "a conniption fit," which he called "hilarious." He offered what he said was a "compromise" to contraception coverage: purchasing "all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible."

Limbaugh returned to the controversy later, claiming to have "run some numbers" on contraception costs and arguing that contraception coverage was "flat-out thievery" that would force taxpayers to pay to "satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown."

Limbaugh later dismissed concerns over lack of access to contraception coverage and mocked Fluke's congressional testimony, affecting a baby's voice and pretending to cry, saying: "I'm going broke having sex. I need government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair."

Limbaugh later questioned why insurance should cover contraception and played a portion of Fluke's testimony laying out the problems many college-age women face paying for contraception. He asked, "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?"

After saying that the Washington, D.C., Department of Health "will send you free condoms and lube," Limbaugh said: "So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Critics of Limbaugh's comments have pointed to the strength Fluke demonstrated by testifying before Congress, particularly given Limbaugh's attacks on her. Limbaugh responded to those critics by saying that Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk." He also said Georgetown should establish a "Wilt Chamberlin scholarship ... exclusively for women."

Limbaugh read from a Washington Post blog post that reported Fluke had been interested in contraceptive coverage even before she enrolled at Georgetown. Because of this, Limbaugh declared, "She's a plant -- an anti-Catholic plant from the get-go on this."

Limbaugh also purported to explain the issue of contraceptive coverage in a "simple way" by saying: "It's just a new welfare program. And 'welfare' is a bad word, and they can't use it. They can't sell it. So now it's disguised -- welfare disguised as women's health. Or women's reproductive rights."

Limbaugh went on to say that Fluke's testimony was part of a "Democrat plot" to "create a new welfare program and, at the same time, try to cast Republicans in an election year as anti-female." He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."

Blogger's Note:  I looked for pictures of Charles and David Koch online and I found several.  Most were of grandfatherly looking, white haired gentlemen Charles was born in 1935 and David in 1940).  Then I found this picture, of the much younger brothers.  For me, these faces better represent who these guys are, and what they're trying to do to America.  Honestly, if you saw these guys comming up the walk, would you open the door?

In suit, Koch brothers seek greater control

over D.C. think tank

Cato Institute’s leader calls filing a ‘hostile takeover’

By T.W. Farnam, Thursday, March 01,11:00 PM The Washington Post
The billionaire Koch brothers, whose outsized political spending has become an issue in the 2012 elections, are attempting to take control of a prominent Washington think tank in a move that would expand their influence in conservative politics, according to court records and interviews.

Charles and David Koch, owners of a Wichita-based conglomerate that ranks as one of the largest private corporations in the world, filed a lawsuit this week in Kansas seeking an option to increase their 50 percent control of the Cato Institute.

Cato President Ed Crane blasted the lawsuit Thursday as an attempted “hostile takeover” of a venerable Washington institution that he co-founded with Charles Koch in the 1970s.

“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda,” Crane said in a statement. He vowed to fight the move “vehemently.”

Charles Koch said in a statement that he and his brother were only seeking to uphold the terms of the shareholder agreement that governs Cato and were not “acting in a partisan manner.”

“We support Cato and its work,” he said. “We want to ensure that Cato stays true to its fundamental principles of individual liberty, free markets, and peace into the future, and that it not be subject to the personal preferences of individual officers or directors.”

With a $39 million budget last year, Cato is one of the largest think tanks in Washington, espousing a libertarian ideology of limited government and free-market economics.

The conflict comes at the same time the Koch brothers are under attack from Democrats, including President Obama’s reelection campaign, which has pointedly accused the duo of seeking to “destroy” Obama through donations to conservative front groups.

The Koch brothers, with an estimated personal wealth of $25 billion each, have long been prominent donors to conservative causes.

Cato was most recently divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Crane and former Cato chairman William Niskanen.

The lawsuit centers on the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October. The Koch brothers contend that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, but no offer has been made to them, according to the lawsuit. The shares now belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn.

Washburn, who is named as a target of the suit along with Cato and Crane, referred questions to Cato.

Cato’s board chairman, Bob Levy, said in an interview that the Koch brothers, who have the power to appoint half of the board, have been choosing “Koch operatives” for members, with an eye to push Cato toward support of the Republican Party.

“None of the new directors, with the exception of one, has a reputation as a libertarian,” Levy said. “There are a lot of murky areas between actively supporting candidates and what Cato does now, which is working on issues.”

Cato scholars often differ with Republicans, holding an noninterventionist foreign policy, for example, and more liberal positions on immigration, same-sex marriage and several other social issues.

Charles Koch was the largest financial backer of Cato in its formative years. More recently, however, the brothers have cut back on their giving to the organization, donating nothing last year, according to Cato officials. The Koches have given millions of dollars to a new libertarian center at George Mason University.

A Cato spokeswoman last year said that Charles Koch and Crane had a “falling-out” in 1991.

The Koches are at the center of a public feud that erupted this week with the Obama campaign, which has criticized the brothers for their ties to Americans for Prosperity, a conservative nonprofit group that does not have to report its donors and has aired millions of dollars worth of advertising attacking the president’s policies.


Last week, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent out a fundraising letter characterizing the group as a front for the Koch brothers’ energy interests and accusing Koch Industries of seeking to inflate gas prices and “destroy” Obama before Election Day.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips said his group would resist any disclosure of donors, in part because of fears of retribution from the Obama administration.

“They always try to have a bogeyman, a villain,” Phillips said. “This administration has shown it will attempt to intimidate private citizens.”


Staff writer Allen McDuffee and staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

Andrew Breitbart

He lacked credibility, professionalism and integrity.

     Andrew Breitbart, the outspoken conservative writer, activist and website operator, has died.   He may have been best known as the conservative who in 2010, posted video excerpts of a 40-minute NAACP speech by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod that appeared to show her making racist comments. Breitbart drew heat when the speech was published in full, showing that selectively edited video had taken the remarks out of context--and Sherrod had been fired for it.

 

     Breitbart  was a media whore of epic proportions, and the scandal involving Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was a bit of a watershed moment for him. Mainstream media anchors on CNN reacted with shock as Andrew Breitbart pulled a Kanye West on the press conference called by and paid for by Friends of Anthony Weiner, grandstanding to a level possibly never seen before at such an event, demanding “vindication,” and insisting that the circumstance of an elected official having PG-13 cyber flirtations was “news, my friend.”

 

If this was your first Andrew Breitbart rodeo, be grateful. Along with his companion and protege, the uber-slimy James O’Keefe, Breitbart has manufactured several scandals, manipulating the rapid influence of new media to attack, defame and ultimately facilitate the disassembly of organizations with which he ideologically disagrees. Most shamefully, Breitbart does not in any way attempt to hide his disingenuous and intellectually dishonest tactics. He merely gloats when an overly reactionary public greedily consumes his lies, reveling in the damage he’s caused and offering no apologies for distorting the provable truth to those who cannot or do not wish to know the difference.

Breitbart- who has described himself in the past as “Matt Drudge’s bitch”- was the proprietor of the websites Breitbart.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, and BigPeace.com.


But, as you may already know, reinforcing the pervasive misconceptions of the unaware, unwashed and easily terrified was not Breitbart’s only hustle. What he really trafficked in was manufactured outrage- seen on a large scale with the ACORN and Shirley Sherrod journalistic abortions. If you’re not familiar, both were Breitbart-affiliated operations, though the former was orchestrated largely by O’Keefe.

In both, heavily edited clips that were by Breitbart’s own admission deliberately presented to create a false impression, the stated goal was achieved- the firing of Sherrod and dismantling of ACORN- before a full investigation into the claims was made. O’Keefe even plainly stated these objectives:

O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story. The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees, and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles.

A lot of writing is about presenting facts from your point of view, but presenting a knowingly false point of view as fact is an entirely different animal. It’s wrong when it’s done on a small scale, and when done on the scale Breitbart has done it, it is criminal.

Breitbart’s bizarre insertion of himself during the Weiner press conference was entirely indicative of his dog in that fight. Breitbart did not attack Weiner because he believes that tweeting a few salacious photos in any way undermines the Congressman’s ability to serve- quite the opposite. He sat back and waited until he could dig up enough dirt to impugn and damage the career of a man who poses a very great threat to his political adversaries due to his intellect, wit and savvy.

Weiner touched on a tangential point in his excellent speech to Congress regarding GOP blocking of a health bill for September 11th first responders. He decried “Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing,” and blasted the practice of hiding behind procedure to justify a view. Which is exactly why you should hate Breitbart, too. Your truth should be able to stand on its own- without edits, without cuts and without deceptive presentation. And making such practice a new media standard stets an ugly precedent for everyone- readers and writers alike.

one down ...