Pat Bagley, “Brown Babies.”
“Then when yew find them storks, yew say, ’ Storks — no more brown babies.’”
Wrongfully accused rapist exonerated after 5 years in jail
A former high school football star whose dreams of a pro career were shattered by a rape conviction burst into tears Thursday as a judge threw out the charge that sent him to prison for more than five years.
Brian Banks, now 26, had pleaded no contest 10 years ago on the advice of his lawyer after a childhood friend falsely accused him of attacking her on their high school campus.
The district attorney offered Banks a deal — plead guilty to rape and spend another 18 months in prison, or go to trial and face 41 years to life, CBS Los Angeles reports.
Banks said his defense attorney told him, “‘When you go into that courtroom the jury is going to see a big black teenager and you’re automatically going to be assumed guilty.’ Those are her exact words.”
Banks’ accuser, Wanetta Gibson, contacted him and offered to help him clear his name, but then balked when she learned that either she or her family might have to pay back $1.5 million won in a lawsuit against the school. Fortunately, Banks had their meeting secretly videotaped.
A new report finds more than 2,000 people were wrongly convicted of crimes since 1989
50: Percent who are black
10.7: Average time, in years, from conviction to exoneration
10,000: Combined time, in years, the 891 exonerated prisoners spent behind bars
1,170: Convicted defendants cleared in 13 “group exonerations” since 1995, following large police-corruption scandals, usually involving planted drugs or guns
Don’t forget that 93% of the exonerated convicts are men; the errors and corruption in our criminal justice system disproportionately affect men. All of this underscores the need to abolish the death penalty. An imperfect system should not be allowed to mete out an irrevocable punishment. — Ryking
(via reuters)
Well of course it’s Obama’s fault. If he wasn’t black then the GOP wouldn’t have to launch racist smear campaigns against him, it could launch non-racist smear campaigns! If you think about it it’s incredibly inconsiderate of the President to have been born black and thereby put the Republican Party in this position.
In general, I’m not too concerned with civility in politics, but it’s hard not to be shocked by the nastiness and aggression of today’s Republican Party. Congressional Republicans routinely accuse Democrats of treason, or worse, with little rebuke from party leaders. Reliably conservative lawmakers—like Bob Inglis and Dick Lugar—are challenged nonetheless for their insufficient hatred of Democrats. President Obama, as most people know, has been subject to a constellation of outlandish attacks, from false claims about his “foreign” birth to attacks on his patriotism—Mitt Romney, to use a prominent example, often trumpets the falsehood that Obama has gone around the world to apologize for America.
All of this is why I wasn’t surprised to learn that wealthy Republican donors plan to launch a salvo of personal attacks on the president, in order to hurt his standing with a public that still likes him..
All of this is why I wasn’t surprised to learn that wealthy Republican donors plan to launch a salvo of personal attacks on the president, in order to hurt his standing with a public that still likes him..
There is no Widespread Voter Fraud. All available evidence indicates that fraudulent voting of the kind that photo ID laws would presumably prevent — someone shows up at the polls and votes in someone else’s name — just doesn’t happen…
Of course, there are other potential kinds of electoral fraud; crooked poll workers, for example, could record votes in the names of citizens who actually stayed home. Election officials could design ballots in a way that worked to a specific candidate’s advantage or disadvantage (see Florida, 2000). But none of this would be prevented by photo ID…
In the name of safeguarding the sanctity of the ballot, Republicans are trying to exclude citizens they consider likely to vote for Democrats — the young, the poor, the black and brown. Those who love democracy cannot allow this foul subterfuge to succeed.
Four years ago, Democrats expanded American democracy by registering millions of new voters — mostly young people and minorities — and persuading them to show up at the polls. Apparently, the GOP is determined not to let any such thing happen again.
According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which keeps track of changes in voting laws, 22 statutes and two executive actions aimed at restricting the franchise have been approved in 17 states since the beginning of 2011. By the center’s count, an additional 74 such bills are pending.
The most popular means of discouraging those young and minority voters — who, coincidentally, tend to vote for Democrats — is legislation requiring citizens to show government-issued photo identification before they are allowed to cast a ballot…
In theory, what could be wrong with demanding proof of identity? In the real world, plenty.
(Source: lycanpedia)
The Justice Department finally filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday, accusing the Arizona official of engaging “in a pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Latinos in Maricopa County.”
Federal authorities allege that Arpaio and his office have unconstitutionally and unlawfully targeted Latinos during traffic stops and during crime suppression operations. DOJ alleges that MCSO unlawfully detained Latino drivers and passengers and conducted unconstitutional searches and seizures in addition to illegally targeting Latino workers during worksite raids.
DOJ’s suit, filed in the District of Arizona, accuses jail officials of referring to Latinos as “wetbacks,” “Mexican bitches,” and “stupid Mexicans.” The suit says Arpaio “voiced his biased opinion of Latinos and Latino culture” in a book he coauthored in 2008.
“Arpaio singles out Mexicans and Latinos as different from all other immigrant groups in America,” the complaint says. “For example, Arpaio states that Latinos maintain ‘language [,] customs [and] beliefs separate from the mainstream,’ and are trying to “reconquest” American soil through migration to the United States.
Justice Department Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio Over Alleged Latino Abuse
![thedailywhat:
Say What Now of the Day: In his Equal Time column today, the New York Post‘s Phil Mushnick goes straight racist on the Nets’ new logo as the team transitions from New Jersey to Brooklyn (with a little influence from Jay-Z, who owns 1.5 percent of the team):
As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?
Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!
As Jack Kogod (@Unsilent) posted on Twitter: “Looking forward to not reading Phil Mushnick’s independent blog.”
[dailyintel]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ii62qZn51qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
Say What Now of the Day: In his Equal Time column today, the New York Post‘s Phil Mushnick goes straight racist on the Nets’ new logo as the team transitions from New Jersey to Brooklyn (with a little influence from Jay-Z, who owns 1.5 percent of the team):
As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?
Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!
As Jack Kogod (@Unsilent) posted on Twitter: “Looking forward to not reading Phil Mushnick’s independent blog.”
Traditionally, overwhelming black support has always gone toward white candidates: John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. But this never came with complaints; no one questioned Clinton’s legitimacy because he received 84 percent of African American votes. 2008 was the first time in history that African Americans could give their one-sided support to a black presidential candidate, and at the same time, it was one of the few times (in the 20th century, at least) when voters questioned that president’s legitimacy because of his huge support from black voters.
This, I think, points to a broader discomfort with black political agency, and the relationship of African Americans to our political system. It’s not uncommon for voters to support in-group politicians — white Southerners and conservative Evangelicals come to mind. But African Americans are the only group challenged for doing so…
This, I think, points to a broader discomfort with black political agency, and the relationship of African Americans to our political system. It’s not uncommon for voters to support in-group politicians — white Southerners and conservative Evangelicals come to mind. But African Americans are the only group challenged for doing so…
If you’re LGBT or a racial minority…
or a member of any other group that has been oppressed:
I would expect you to know how it feels to be discriminated against, and I would expect you to know how much it sucks to be judged based on things you can’t control. So, in turn, I’d expect you to not want anyone else to go through what you have; to treat others the way you want to be treated. And I’d expect you to understand that racial slurs thrown at a white person are as painful as racial slurs thrown at a black person.
What I would not expect is for you to act as if misandry or discrimination against heterosexuals and white people does not exist. It may not be as common and it may not be anywhere near as severe. But it happens. You would never tell a member of your group to just shut up and deal with prejudice, so I don’t know why you’d tell a member of a different group that they should. Prejudice against a majority is still prejudice and it’s still wrong.
(via permutationofninjas)
Page 1 of 43
