BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

I am speechless for two reasons. First, I cannot believe that Geraldo Rivera is still a media commentator. Second, I cannot believe that Rivera believes that Trayvon Martin induced his own killing by wearing a hoodie.

As Mediate reports, Rivera blamed the hoodie for Martin's death on Fox and Friends this morning:

“I believe. . .that George Zimmerman, the overzealous neighborhood watch captain, should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and if he is criminally liable, he should be prosecuted. But I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was" (italics added).

Rivera also invoked Juan Williams and compared his arguments to Williams' statement that he fears Muslim-looking people at airports. Rivera simply substitutes "Muslim" with black and Latino to explain his position:

When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation. Trayvon Martin, you know God bless him, he was an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I’ll bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way (italics added).

Two Reactions: One Negative, One Positive

I have two general reactions to Rivera's comments. One is negative; the other is positive. On the negative side, Rivera's comments are a blatant form of "victim-blaming." His position sounds quite similar to the sexist notion that rape victims cause their own rapes by dressing "seductively."

Victims of violent crimes, however, do not ask for violence. Rather then blaming the victim, Rivera should blame the Zimmerman and his racism for the killing. Rather than blaming rape victims, society should condemn rapists. That Rivera blames a teenager for his own death is loathsome.

There is a positive side to Rivera's comments, however. Rivera has done the country a favor by bringing the issue of "implicit racial bias" to the table for discussion. Although many people want to pretend the United States is post-racial, this is a foolish notion. Racism persists. It is often overt -- as in calling someone a "fucking coon" before murdering him. Sometimes, however, it is subtle and a reflection of implicit biases -- as when people, like Rivera, impulsively dart across the street to avoid walking next to a black or Latino male. Hopefully, Rivera and others will examine, question and overcome their own biases -- rather than blaming others for their own racial pathology.

For more analysis, see:


Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You

BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

Trayvon Martin: 911 Call Contradicts Police Account (Audio)

SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

Trayvon Martin: "Stand Your Ground" Rule Has NOTHING To Do With This Case

Trayvon Martin: "Stand Your Ground" Rule Has NOTHING To Do With This Case

A lot of professional and amateur media have argued that the "stand your ground" rule -- a provision in Florida self-defense law -- could complicate or preclude the prosecution of George Zimmerman.  Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, but police declined to arrest him. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee insists that he cannot dispute Zimmerman's assertion of self-defense. 911 calls, witness testimony and the fact that Trayvon was unarmed and much smaller than his assailant, however, severely undermine Zimmerman's self-defense argument.

Nevertheless, some commentators -- most of whom lack any legal training -- insist that the stand your ground rule bolsters Zimmerman's defense. This argument is baseless. In order to understand why the rule should not affect the outcome of this case, it is important first to examine the law of self-defense in Florida.

Florida Self-Defense Law

Self-defense allows a defendant charged with a homicide or battery to justify his or her actions. In most states, in order to claim self-defense, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the victim posed a threat to the defendant or to some other person. Also, there are special rules for the use of "lethal" or "deadly" force. Consider Florida law, for example:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013 (italics added).

So, in order to justify killing Martin, Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably believed that Martin was about to kill him or cause him serious bodily injury.

Florida law also describes certain circumstances when people can assume as a mater of law that they are going to become victims of lethal force. These circumstances, referred to in Section (2) above, include carjackings and home invasions, which are not relevant to this case.

Stand Your Ground

In some states, self-defense is not available if the defendant had the ability to "retreat" from the harm. In other words, if the defendant could have escaped the danger without using violence, then the use of force is not justifiable. These states impose a duty to retreat in order to discourage the unnecessary use of force.

In 2005, Florida amended its law to remove the duty to retreat provision. So long as the person claiming self-defense had a legal right to be in a particular location, that individual can stand his or her ground and remain there without any duty to retreat from the threat (see statutory language quoted above).

Critics argue that that the stand your ground rule encourages violence and makes it easier to prove self-defense. To the extent that a person could escape violence by retreating, the stand your ground rule would ordinarily lessen that individual's burden for proving self-defense; it removes one required element of the defense. Some newspaper studies claim that the success rate of self-defense arguments has increased since 2005.

Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors

For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances:

The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force (italics added).

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust "every reasonable means to escape such danger." Translation: under Florida law, the aggressor has a duty to retreat and cannot stand his or her ground.

Under Florida law an aggressor can use lethal force only under one additional circumstance -- when the aggressor indicates that he or she wants to end the confrontation, but the victim continues to fight. But Florida law requires that the aggressor "withdraw" from physical conduct and indicate to the victim a desire to retreat. In other words, the aggressor can use deadly force to defend himself or herself if, after indicating a desire to retreat, the victim will not permit the defendant to do so.

Zimmerman Was the Aggressor

The evidence shows that Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman also admitted to the 911 dispatcher that he was following Martin in his car. Although Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin seemed to be on drugs, Martin was actually having a coherent telephone conversation with his girlfriend. According to her testimony, Martin said that a man was following him and that he was trying to escape. Zimmerman, against the advice of the dispatcher, left his car to pursue a fleeing Martin on foot.

Under these circumstances, probable cause exists to charge Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin. Martin was simply returning home from a store. Because he initiated the aggression, Zimmerman does not have the right to claim self-defense or, consequently, to "stand his ground."

Regardless of the Stand Your Ground Rule, the Force Must Be Proportional to the Threat

Even if the stand your ground rule applied in this case, it would not preclude arresting or even convicting Zimmerman. Any use of lethal force must be proportional to the threat. Under Florida law, this means that regardless of whether he was the aggressor, Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that his life was in danger or that he would suffer serious bodily injury. Martin, however, was unarmed, while Zimmerman had a gun. Martin is 100 pounds smaller than Zimmerman. Witnesses say that Martin was screaming for help. Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

So, even with the stand your ground provision, Zimmerman's use of lethal force was likely unjustifiable under the circumstances. The telephone data and statements of Martin's girlfriend are particularly damning.

Probable Cause Exists to Arrest Zimmerman

Although the stand your ground provision is archaic and reminiscent of the Wild West, it has no bearing in this case. Obviously a good defense lawyer would raise the issue, but Zimmerman -- not the prosecutor -- has to prove he acted reasonably.

Probable cause, which the government needs to demonstrate in order to arrest and try Zimmerman, is a pretty easy standard to satisfy. Generally, the government needs only to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant committed a crime. As a Florida appeals court recently held:

Probable cause to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within an officer's
knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to
warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has [been] or is being
committed (italics added).

The government need not prove that an offense has actually occurred in order to arrest Zimmerman. Instead, the government must establish that after weighing the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person could believe that Zimmerman has committed a crime. That minimum threshold is absolutely satisfied in this case. Zimmerman should be arrested and prosecuted for killing Trayvon Martin.

For more analysis, see:


Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You

BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

Trayvon Martin: 911 Call Contradicts Police Account (Audio)

SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

ABC News has just released a story that could certainly lead to a murder charge against George Zimmerman, the individual who killed Trayvon Martin. Attorneys for Martin's family released cell phone records to ABC News which prove that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend moments before he was killed.

According to the young woman's statements, Martin told her that he was being followed by a strange man and that he was trying to escape. Her account, bolstered by phone records, disproves Zimmerman's "self-defense" argument -- which was already sketchy based on available witness statements and 911 calls. In fact, given the amount of effort that Zimmerman apparently made to capture Martin, prosecutors have a basis for charging him with first-degree murder.

Here is a clip from the ABC News article. Please read the entire article here.

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

As I have previously argued, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin reasonably feared for his own safety. Zimmerman cannot assert self-defense under these circumstances. Prosecutors should charge him with first-degree murder.

The Sanford Police Department Has Lost All Credibility

This new development calls into question the thoroughness of the local police investigation and the credibility of the department. Bill Lee, the Chief of Police for Sanford, Florida, has consistently stated that no evidence could rebut Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. Yet, witness statements, 911 calls, and now phone records and additional witness statements provide ample evidence to establish that Zimmerman murdered Martin and that his self-defense claim is rubbish.

The FBI and Florida State Police have joined the investigation in this case. Once these agencies compile a record, Lee should resign, and the department should be placed under state control. It no longer has the credibility to serve the city.


For more analysis, see:

George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop


Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You


BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy


BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop

Note: Major New Development in the Case: SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

The Miami Herald and the Orlando Sentinel have published additional reports regarding the death of Trayvon Martin. Both articles portray George Zimmerman, Martin's killer, as someone with a deep -- almost pathological -- desire to become a police officer.

Zimmerman longed to become a police officer.  In 2008 he applied to attend a local law enforcement academy, but he never entered the program. Nevertheless, Zimmerman apparently seized every opportunity to live out his fantasy of becoming a law enforcement officer.

When his neighborhood association considered the idea of starting a neighborhood watch program, Zimmerman was the only person to volunteer. In his role as watch captain, Zimmerman warned neighbors to watch for suspicious persons, particularly "young black men" whom he believed were outsiders.

Although some neighbors say that Zimmerman's efforts prevented crimes, others, particularly blacks, complained about his tactics. Teontae Aime, a 17-year-old neighbor, said that Zimmerman "would circle the block and circle it; it was weird. . . If he had spotted me, he’d probably ask me if I lived here. He was known for being really strict.” Another black resident said that he stopped walking in the neighborhood because he fit the "stereotype" of individuals that Zimmerman deemed suspicious.

According to local police, Zimmerman made dozens of 911 calls over the last 15 months. Usually, he called to report "suspicious" persons in the neighborhood. Zimmerman, however, has engaged in fantasy policing outside of the neighborhood watch program. In 2003, he followed a shoplifter in his car and called police to assist with an arrest. He also pursued another driver whom he said spat at him. The other driver, however, said that an "irate" Zimmerman was tailgating him. No arrests were made.

Although he claimed to respect police, Zimmerman allowed his fantasies to supplant official police advice. During his 911 call, for example, the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, but he ignored this warning.

Furthermore, Wendy Dorival, a local police officer who coordinates neighborhood watch programs, says that she told Zimmerman in September 2011 never to take matters into his own hands:

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out. . . Observe from a safe location.' There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.” 

Sadly, for Trayvon Martin and his grieving family, Dorival's compelling warnings were ignored. Instead, Zimmerman, the man who would be cop, pursued an innocent boy and killed him. Yet, he remains a free man.

For more analysis, see:


Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You

BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

Trayvon Martin: 911 Call Contradicts Police Account (Audio)

BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin: 911 Call Contradicts Police Account (Audio)

Note: Major New Development in the Case: SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

Under threat of litigation, police in Sanford, Florida have released 911 tapes related to the February 26 killing of Trayvon Martin. Martin's death has begun to attract national media attention.  This case underscores the continuation of racial injustice in the United States.

George Zimmerman, who is white, killed Martin, who was black, after he called police and reported that a suspicious person was walking in his neighborhood. Martin was visiting his father and was returning home from a local convenience store. During the 911 call, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, but he left his car nonetheless. During other 911 calls, neighbors reported a scuffle between two individuals. Screams and gunshots are heard in the background.

Despite the increasing evidence that points to a crime, police have refused to arrest Zimmerman. Instead, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee has credited Zimmerman's statement that he acted in self-defense when he killed Martin.

Earlier this week, Lee also tried to downplay the significance of race in Martin's death. Lee, for example, stated that race could not have been a factor in Martin's death because when the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman to state the race of the individual he was observing, Zimmerman responded that he did not know. The 911 tape, however, directly contradicts Lee's statement. Instead, Zimmerman initially said that he believed Martin was black, and then a few seconds later he said that he was a "black male."

In addition to contradicting Lee's account, the 911 tape also strongly suggests that Zimmerman acted pursuant to racial stereotypes, prejudice or both. Zimmerman recited several racial stereotypes during the call. He said that Martin seemed "up to no good." Zimmerman also speculated that Martin was "on drugs or something." Zimmerman said that Martin had his hand in his "waistband," implying that unarmed boy was armed and dangerous. During the call, Zimmerman stated that there had been several burglaries in his neighborhood, and he lamented that they "always get away."

Near the end of the call, strong winds are suddenly audible. This suggests that Zimmerman had already left his car to pursue Martin even before he ended the call. Nevertheless, police insist that this was a case of self-defense. The tape, however, contradicts this conclusion. Martin was simply walking home.  Unfortunately, he crossed paths with Zimmerman who imagined himself to be a law enforcement officer.

Zimmerman did not fear for his life. Instead, he left his vehicle with a gun to pursue an innocent boy. Martin must have been frightened. Zimmerman apparently did not want another one to "get away." Under these circumstances, Zimmerman has no right to assert a self-defense argument. He initiated aggressive contact with Martin. When Zimmerman killed Martin, he committed manslaughter -- at the very least. If Sanford police care about equal justice, they should arrest Zimmerman.  Also, given the history of racial strife and cronyism in the Sanford police department, Lee should lose his job. As a result of his behavior in this case, he can no longer serve the public effectively.

Note: Zimmerman's 911 call, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel, is embedded below this post.

For more analysis, see:

George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop

Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You

BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

WFTV, a local Florida television station, reports that the supervising officer who initially responded to the killing of Trayvon Martin in Sanford has a prior record of racial controversy. In 2010, Sergeant Anthony Raimondo declined to arrest Justin Collison, who brutally attacked a black homeless man, leaving him unconscious and breaking his nose. Collison, who is white, is the son of a Sanford police officer and the grandson of a former Florida judge.

Collison was intoxicated at the time of the unprovoked attack. Also, a Youtube video captured the attack while it occurred. Despite having possession of the video, Raimando still refused to arrest Collison. Police only arrested Collison after the national media released the video and criticized police handling of the case.

Note: Police have released the 911 tapes. The tape of Zimmerman's call contradicts police accounts of the Martin's killing.

Also, for an analysis of the legal and race issues in this case, see: Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You.

Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You (UPDATED)

"It is about time the court faced the fact that the white people of the South don't like the colored people." -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist (written when he was a law clerk on the Supreme Court).

The recent murder of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George Zimmerman, a white "neighborhood watch vigilante from Sanford, Florida, should remind the public of the continuation of racial injustice in the United States. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as he walked to his father's home in a central Florida neighborhood.

Prior to shooting Martin, Zimmerman called police from his car to report a "suspicious" person in the neighborhood. Zimmerman asked police whether he should leave his car to investigate the situation, but police told him not to do so. Despite the police warning, Zimmerman left his car and confronted Martin.

Although the facts remain hazy, Zimmerman admits that after he left his car, he killed Martin. Zimmerman says that he acted in self-defense. Several witnesses tell local newspapers, however, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense; they have also accused police of mishandling the investigation. It is also clear that Martin was unarmed and that he was returning to his father's home from a store where he had purchased candy for a younger sibling.

Police have declined to arrest Zimmerman. Bill Lee, Chief of the Sanford Police Department, accepts Zimmerman's allegation that he acted in self-defense. Lee says that Zimmerman believed that Martin was a threat because "the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him." Lee also says (mistakenly - see below) that Zimmerman has a "squeaky clean" record and that he does not believe that "it was [Zimmerman's] intent to go and shoot somebody. . . .” Currently, prosecutors are considering whether to bring criminal charges against Zimmerman.

This case is deeply troubling for several reasons. First, the police are misapplying and misleading the public about the criminal laws regarding homicide and self-defense in order to justify the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Also, this case is yet another reminder of the continuing problem of racial injustice in the United States, particularly, the disparate treatment of black and white offenders and victims.

Law Regarding Homicide and Self-Defense

The law regarding homicide is far more complicated than the public's general understanding of the term.  While the public tends to equate "homicide" and "murder," these words are quite different from a legal perspective.

Homicide is simply the killing of a person by another individual. Within that broad category, however, several scenarios are possible. The killing could result from intentional and planned behavior; this is typically described as "murder." The killing could result from recklessness or negligence; this is typically described as "manslaughter." Although I have simplified these categories somewhat, it is clear that even if Zimmerman did not begin the night with the intent to kill an individual, he still might have committed a serious crime -- possibly, manslaughter or even second-degree murder.

Every state recognizes "self-defense" as a defense to a homicide charge. Under Florida law (as in many other states), in order to act in self-defense, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will harm him or her or some other person. Furthermore, in order to rely upon self-defense, the assailant must not have acted act as the aggressor.

In order to act with lethal force, as Zimmerman did, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will cause imminent great bodily harm or death to him or her or to another person. Under Florida law, lethal force is also justifiable to stop home invasions and carjacking -- scenarios that are not relevant to Martin's death.

The Facts Support Charging Zimmerman

From the few facts that are known, Zimmerman's self-defense claim seems shaky at best. Zimmerman, who is 26, weighs about 100 pounds more than Martin, who was 17. Zimmerman was safe in his car and advised by police to remain inside. Zimmerman admitted to following Martin in his car. Zimmerman was armed with a gun.  Martin was unarmed. The facts of the case do not suggest that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force against Martin. Instead, they suggest the opposite: Martin should have feared Zimmerman.

Martin should have feared Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following -- or stalking -- him in a vehicle.  Zimmerman left the car to confront Martin.  Zimmerman was much larger than Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon. Zimmerman was likely the aggressor because he left his car and confronted Martin.  Under these circumstances, if Martin fought Zimmerman, he likely had the right to do so according to Florida law regarding self-defense.  Zimmerman's behavior would cause a reasonable person to fear him.

Furthermore, the police statement that Zimmerman has a squeaky clean record is not exactly true. In 2005 Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery upon a police officer. Also, residents in Zimmerman's neighborhood allegedly complained to police about his aggressive tactics in the past. Even though these additional factors could not prove guilt in a court of law (and might not even be admissible as evidence), they certainly are the type of information police routinely use before making arrests.

Racism Still Exists


The oldest "race card" is the denial that racism exists. Despite the popular belief that the United States is post-racial, racism remains a substantial factor in American culture.  Indeed, this case follows a disturbing racial pattern that was typical during Jim Crow and segregation. The police have discounted the value of the black victim. The police have accepted as factual the allegations of the white assailant -- however suspicious they sound. The police have failed to charge a white man who unlawfully killed an innocent black male.  And the police have stated that the black victim was the aggressor. These traditional patterns of racism that exist in the Martin case were pervasive during Jim Crow.

These racist patterns also exist far beyond the Martin case. Social scientists continue to conduct studies that reveal implicit racial bias in the United States. Even people who consider themselves racial egalitarians often act upon stereotypical beliefs about persons of color.

In one study, researchers showed a series of images of individuals to test subjects. The participants were told to "shoot" at images that also included a gun.  More often, test subjects incorrectly shot unarmed black subjects; they paused, however, before shooting white subjects, which limited the amount of incorrect outcomes. The researchers repeated this study with police officers and found frighteningly similar results: race impacted the subjects' conclusion that the image was armed. This same instinctive racial thinking could have impacted Zimmerman.

Others studies demonstrate that whites are more sympathetic crime victims than blacks and Latinos.  This pattern even impacts reports of crime in the media. Compare, for example, the extreme level of media attention to white female crime victims (in particular) with the reaction to black victims, including Martin. If Martin were killed in Aruba, like Natalee Holloway, he still would not receive the same volume of attention her death attracted from the media. Race and gender biases explain this differential treatment.  And, to reiterate, these biases even affect the behavior of individuals who sincerely describe themselves as nonracist, which is how Zimmerman's father recently portrayed his son.

What To Do Next

Currently, prosecutors are examining Martin's death. Because prosecutors are elected and impacted by social biases, however, it is unclear whether they will behave differently than the police.

In order to provide justice in this case, a new investigation should take place with different investigators. The Sanford police department lacks credibility. Also, Chief Lee needs to lose his job. He is shielding a likely violent felon, rather than helping the victim.  This is atrocious behavior.

Finally, the public needs to admit that race still remains a powerful force in the United States. Researchers who have documented the existence of implicit bias have also found that training and education can prevent racist behavior. Unless the public admits that racism remains a substantial social issue, then people will not recognize the need for training and education. The greatest outcome of young Trayvon's death could be progress towards a more just society.

Note: Major New Development in the Case: SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!


Note: The quote from Rehnquist was contained in a memorandum he wrote urging the Court to rule against black plaintiffs in a race discrimination case. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the "white primaries" that Southern Democrats used to nominate candidates. Rehnquist viewed this as a freedom of association issue. The Court ruled that the racist primaries violated the Constitution.


UPDATE: Apparently, the Sanford police department has issues. See BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy.


Police have released the 911 tapes. The tape of Zimmerman's call contradicts police accounts of the Martin's killing.


See also: George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop


Trayvon Martin: "Stand Your Ground" Rule Has NOTHING To Do With This Case


BREAKING NEWS: Geraldo Rivera Says Hoodie Killed Trayvon Martin

Right-Wing Nut Headlines of the Day: "After-Birth Abortions," "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds," and "Jim Crow for Poor People"

Please read them. They are filled with hilarity.

After-Birth Abortions

The "After-Birth Abortions" article criticizes a recent publication in an Australian medical ethics journal. The ethics article is fairly philosophical. The two authors try to make a case for allowing "abortion" after the birth has occurred. Naturally, The Blaze, the Glenn Beck-created conservative website, suggests that this is the next step for abortions in the United States.

Sex-Crazed Co-Eds

First, calling a woman student a "co-ed" is inherently sexist. It suggests that she does not belong in higher education or that her presence is a novelty. It is not a neutral term. Otherwise, men would be co-eds as well.

Anyway, this nutty article appears in CNS News, an arch-rightwing website that often reports misleading, false and otherwise inaccurate information.

This story mocks the congressional testimony of a young woman who discussed the issue of  birth control costs.  The GOP House leadership conducted hearings on this issue without any women contributing testimony. Nancy Pelosi held a separate hearing to hear from a living and breathing woman (what a communisti).  The witness, Sandra Fluke, who studies law at Georgetown University Law Center, described the expense of paying for birth control (because Georgetown student health insurance denies coverage).

Reacting to Fluke's testimony, CNS writer Craig Bannister portrays Georgetown women students as "sex-crazed," another sexist description. Unless these women are also lesbian, then there are a lot of sex-crazed men at Georgetown or in the DC area.

The article concludes with this comment: "If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should've gone to law school." Thankfully, the author did not go to law school and instead settled on being a writer for a right-wing website.

Jim Crow for Poor People

Media Matters for America published a critique of a shocking and disgusting column in the Dally Caller. The column, written by Brion McClanahan, makes a number of ludicrous proposals for persons who receive welfare.

McClanahan, who wrongfully contends that welfare is unconstitutional, argues that persons who receive welfare should feel "humiliation and pain." To accomplish this goal, McClanahan argues that the government should create a special brand of food and should sell that food in decaying store fronts. Anyone on welfare would have to shop at these stores; no "private" stores could accept food stamps.

McClanahan also describes welfare recipients as "wards of the state" and "slaves to the government." Apparently, they have no rights (like actual slaves). For example, McClanahan argues that welfare recipients should submit to monthly tobacco and drug tests. Furthermore, he believes welfare recipients should lose their right to vote. Why not reenact a poll tax instead? What a patriot.

Romney and Santorum: Vomit, Tricky Voting, and Hypocrisy

Arizona and Michigan held GOP primaries today.  Romney is favored in Arizona, while the race is too close to call in Michigan. The two front-runners made headlines for a couple of other reasons, however.

Vomit

Rick Santorum is walking away from his recent statement that he wanted to "throw up" after hearing John F. Kennedy's famous speech urging voters not to discriminate against him because he was Catholic.  Santorum received extremely negative press after he made the comment.

Tricky Voting and Hypocrisy

In other news, Santorum has used robocalls to urge Democrats to vote for him in Michigan's open primaries. This sends many messages. Apparently, Santorum knows that Democrats would love for him to win the GOP nomination. Due to his many extreme statements, it is safe to assume that he is the easier candidate to defeat in a general election. Santorum, however, is also an opportunist (shocking for a politician -- sarcasm). A few weeks ago, he blasted open primaries, arguing that Republicans alone should nominate the GOP candidate.  According to ABC News, 10 percent of today's Michigan voters were Democrats.

Not to be outdone by Santorum, Mitt Romney has exhibited his own hypocrisy on this issue. Romney says that Santa's robocalls represent a "new low" in politics. Romney, however, voted for Democrat Paul Songas in the 1992 Massachusetts Democratic Primary. As a registered Independent, Romney could vote in either party's primary. Romney stated that he did so because he wanted the weakest Democratic candidate to win the nomination.

Daily Caller Hit Piece on Media Matters Misses Target (UPDATED)

The conservative blog Daily Caller has published a "hit piece" on Media Matters.  Media Matters is a liberal watchdog that seeks to uncover inaccurate reporting in the media -- especially conservative media such as Fox News.

Tucker Carlson and Vince Coglianese wrote the hit piece. Relying exclusively on anonymous sources, they make several allegations about Media Matters and David Brock, its founder. Carlson and Coglianese portray Brock as someone who suffers from extreme paranoia, which leads to "erratic" behavior.  In particular, they allege that at times he has feared that someone wants to attack him.

Carlson and Coglianese also allege that Media Matters "coordinates" its activities with the White House.  To support this allegation, they claim that Media Matters staff participate in weekly media calls with White House staff, interact with persons from the White House (including former staffer Anita Dunn), and meet regularly with individuals from other liberal organizations to strategize about the framing of public policy. Allegedly, unnamed White House staff attend these policy meetings.

Assuming all of the allegations in the article are true, Carlson and Coglianese fail to do one important thing. They do not rebut or even attempt to rebut any of the reporting that Media Matters has made regarding inaccurate or misleading comments in conservative media. While Carlson and Coglianese obviously want to discredit Media Matters, their article falls far short of this goal. Instead, they only succeed in portraying themselves as disgruntled conservatives who lack the capacity for substantive engagement with Media Matters's reporting. This sensationalized article does more to discredit Carlson and Coglianese than Media Matters.

Finally, Carlson and Coglianese's portrayal of seemingly ominous meetings between staff from Media Matters  and the White House is laughable. That White House officials meet with members of nonprofits and supportive constituents is a longstanding feature of our republican form of government. It is not the sign of nefarious liberal plot. Elected officials meet with and represent the people of the United States -- including liberal organizations like Media Matters.  Lacing this part of the story with the word "coordinating" does not add anything of substance.

Even if these meetings could compromise the objectivity of Media Matters, Carlson and Coglianese have not demonstrated that they have. Instead, they have chosen to write a salacious story, rather than intelligent analysis.  Everyone knows that Media Matters is a liberal watchdog. Carlson and Coglianese, however, have not shown that it is an inaccurate watchdog.

UPDATE: Conservatives have responded to my arguments (on Twitter) with two points. Both arguments fail.

First, conservatives argue that Media Matters is a news website and as such, it should not meet with the White House to discuss policy matters and design the framing of public policy proposals. This response fails because Media Matters is not a news website. Instead, it analyzes conservative news reports for inaccurate commentary. The "about us" section of the Media Matters website clearly describes the organization's activities:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

Policy groups often meet with presidents and other elected officials. This is not inappropriate. As representatives of voters, presidents routinely meet with constituents and supporters to discuss policy matters. For example, President George Bush met with the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association) and other conservative organizations during his tenure.

Second, conservatives have endeavored to find meaning in the allegations the article makes regarding David Brock. While these claims might provide salacious enjoyment for some readers, they do not discredit the analysis that Media Matters compiles regarding inaccurate reporting by conservative media.

BREAKING NEWS: Prop 8 Held Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a California constitutional amendment that defines marriage in opposite-sex terms violates the Constitution.

Note: This is breaking news. I will have more analysis later today - once I can download the opinion and finish teaching classes!

Firm At Center of Romney's Stimulus Critique Received Over $10.4M From Fed. Projects

ABC News (and other media) has reported that Mitt Romney recently held a campaign rally at Springs Fabrication, Inc., a manufacturing company located in Colorado. During the rally, Romney assailed the stimulus package that Congress passed in 2009. Conservatives and other opponents of the stimulus have repeatedly argued that the measure did not create any jobs. According to CBO analysis and reports from economists, however, the stimulus contributed to GDP, created new jobs, and prevented job losses.

Ironically, Springs Fabrication received $2.3 million in stimulus funds in November of 2009. The government hired Springs Fabrication to complete a plumbing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Stimulus funds paid for the project. Despite winning this contract, Tom Neppl, the CEO of Springs Fabrication, says that the stimulus did not allow the company to create any jobs:

"I did not support the stimulus, I did not seek out stimulus funds, and the stimulus did not create or save a single job here,” said Neppl. “One of our best customers placed an order as they have in the past, for a government project like those we have done in the past.”

Neppl's statement reiterates the conservative line that government spending does not boost economic activity or lead to job growth. The recent history of Springs Fabrication, however, contradicts this assertion.

Springs Fabrication Has Hired Persons As A Result of Government Spending

Although Neppl portrays the stimulus as ineffective, the company he heads has benefited from federal spending. In his statement, Neppl himself acknowledges Spring Fabrication's participation in government projects "in the past."  One specific project began in December 2009 when Springs Fabrication entered into an $8.1 million contract to dispose of chemical weapons for the US Army at a location in Pueblo, Colorado. Springs Fabrication was a subcontractor for the $28.7 million government project. Due to the magnitude of this government-sponsored contract, Springs Fabrication was able to rehire 20 persons that it had previously fired due to lack of work.

Although Neppl portrays the stimulus as unsuccessful, he boasted about Springs Fabrication winning the contract. It was the largest contract Springs Fabrication had ever received, and it permitted the company to create jobs in the local community:

"This contract will absorb our existing staff, so we'll have to ramp up a bit," he said. "That's why it's good news - not just for us, but for Southern Colorado. These big contracts don't always keep the money in the area, but this time it will stay here."

Furthermore, Springs Fabrication won the contract at a time when it was experiencing a downturn in sales (well, there was a recession). Nonetheless, Neppl has given his voice to the bogus assertion that government spending and job creation are unrelated.

Neppl's position seems politically motivated. It contradicts the company's own history of job creation with government funds. Also, it is probably not a coincidence that John McCain held a campaign rally at the company in 2008.

Romney's Use of Springs Fabrication to Bash Stimulus Is Misleading As Well

Romney has promoted Springs Fabrication's experience in order to portray the stimulus as a waste of money. During his campaign rally at the company, Romney blasted the stimulus:

“That stimulus [Neppl] had, it did not do the job. I mean, I understand Tom said he was working on a project that got some stimulus money. . . .”

“I asked well were you able to hire more people because of that, he said no. Didn’t add any more people, just more money into the system, but no more people hired,” said Romney. “That stimulus did not create private sector jobs like it should have, like it could have, it instead protected government jobs.”

Romney's statement is intentionally misleading. The Colorado Springs Gazette interviewed Neppl. During the interview, Neppl said that the stimulus funding he received did not allow him to hire new people or make a profit. Neppl, however, explained that this was not due to an inherent defect in the stimulus. Instead, the company's costs were larger than expected; so it failed to make a profit (which probably explains why it could not hire additional workers). Cost overruns frequently occur on major manufacturing and construction projects. The stimulus did not cause this.

Moreover, although Neppl did not make a profit on the project, he says it could still benefit the company. He believes that it could lead to future contracts for the company.

Summary

Romney opposes the stimulus, but he needs to state legitimate reasons for doing so, rather than misrepresenting the experience of Springs Fabrication. The company failed to profit from the stimulus money it received because it underestimated the cost of the project. Furthermore, the company has profited previously from government spending and has used this money to hire workers.

In addition, economists argue that the stimulus created or saved jobs and contributed to GDP. Other than challenging this data, it is difficult to imagine a sound argument against the stimulus. Certainly, Romney has not offered one.

NYT's Ross Douthat's Flawed Analysis of the Komen-Planned Parenthood Controversy

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat criticizes media coverage of the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy in his latest column, The Media's Abortion Blinders. Douthat argues that media coverage decisively favored Planned Parenthood, leaving the impression that the organization was itself without controversy.  Douthat, however, ignores available information that undermines his claims and that reveals his own ideological blinders regarding the abortion topic.

Partially Reporting Gallup Results

To prove his case, Douthat cites a recent Gallup survey, which he says shows that "[a] combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be 'illegal in all circumstances' or 'legal in only a few circumstances.'" Douthat cites this survey in order to argue that the media coverage ignored millions of Americans who disfavor abortion.  He also attempts to depict Planned Parenthood as an organization that sits outside of mainstream public opinion.

The same Gallup poll, however, shows that 77 percent of Americans want abortion legal in all circumstances or legal under certain circumstances. This is so because the majority of Americans -- 51 percent -- favor abortion under certain circumstances. Only a minority of the country occupies the most extreme positions in this debate (abortion legal/illegal in all circumstances). While 21 percent want abortion illegal in all circumstances, 26 percent want it legal in all circumstances. So, more Americans favor abortion (with some restrictions) than those who do not. Also, more Americans favor unrestricted access to abortion than those who want it illegal in all cases. These numbers have remained somewhat consistent over the last two decades.

Douthat Relies Upon Heavily Biased Coverage of Planned Parenthood

Douthat contests Planned Parenthood's statement that abortions only constitute 3 percent of its services. To do so, he cites "conservative estimates," which he claims challenge this figure.

Douthat's conservative estimates, however, come from a highly biased analysis in The Weekly Standard, a unabashedly conservative and partisan publication that was previously owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The Weekly Standard article does not even dispute Planned Parenthood's statement about the breakdown of its services. Instead, it reports that revenue from abortion services constitutes a much larger share of Planned Parenthood's overall intake. Because abortion is more expensive than other services the organization provides, this result is not surprising. Still, this fact does not alter the data that Planned Parenthood presents regarding the mix of services it provides to patients. Conservatives, however, including Douthat and Mike Huckabee, continue to make this false assertion.

Douthat Ignores Available Information to Reach His Conclusion

Douthat concludes his column with a volley of claims. He that argues that fighting breast cancer is "unifying" while abortion is "polarizing"; that the Komen decision to defund Planned Parenthood was no more "political" than the decision to fund it in the first place; and that equal numbers of Americans were "probably" angered and relieved by Komen's decision. For several reasons, Douthat's reasoning fails.

While abortion is a polarizing topic, most Americans disagree with the extreme pro-life position. Furthermore, Komen made breast cancer controversial by thrusting itself into the public debate about abortion. This was unwise from a marketing standpoint. Undoubtedly, the public anger over Komen's decision led to the reversal.

Also, contrary to Douthat's assertion, the Komen defunding decision was absolutely political. It follows decisions and plans by conservative states to defund Planned Parenthood. These state policies are illegal because they violate federal Medicaid rules.

Also, reporting on this issue reveals that Karen Handler, the Vice President for Komen, is anti-choice. Handler ran as an anti-choice candidate in a Georgia gubernatorial election, during which she criticized Planned Parenthood.

When Handler arrived at Komen, she pushed the organization to split from Planned Parenthood.  Komen seized upon the fact that anti-choice House Republicans had launched a partisan "investigation" of Planned Parenthood. Komen created a rule barring the distribution of its funds to entities under federal investigation. It then used this rule to justify defunding Planned Parenthood.

Komen, however, gives money to other organizations under congressional investigation. Yet, it only cut funding to Planned Parenthood. And while the federal investigation is the initial excuse Komen provides for parting with Planned Parenthood, Douthat accepts an alternative argument the Komen made up after the controversy erupted -- that it defunded Planned Parenthood because the latter did not provide many breast cancer screenings in the first place.

Douthat's article omits a lot of available information on this subject.  Douthat does not provide this information either because he has not thoroughly researched the topic or because he wants to ignore facts that challenge his own position.

Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Marches Into Rightwing Camp

The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation has cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen previously provided grants to fund breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood medical professionals.

Recently, however, Komen hired an anti-choice Vice President, Karen Handel, who was recently an unsuccessful candidate in the Georgia gubernatorial election. Handel actively campaigned on an anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood platform. She also received an endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Komen defends its decision by citing to a "new" rule it adopted that denies funding to groups under Congressional "investigation." Last year, House Republicans launched a partisan investigation to determine whether Congress should continue funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion family planning and health services. That investigation, however, has not proceeded, due to opposition by Democrats. Because of this context, Komen's new rule seems plainly designed to target and justify the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Furthermore, because liberals tend to support women's health issues and abortion rights, this decision could prove harmful to Komen.

Planned Parenthood has released a statement that criticizes Komen.  Planned Parenthood has also started a campaign to raise funds in order to continue providing breast cancer screenings for its indigent patients. Komen's decision is not based on good healthcare practices. Instead, it rests on partisan political ideology. Shame.

Does This Picture Prove That Romney Is "Out of Touch" Or That Some Liberals Are Hypocrites?

First it made the rounds in social media.  Now it is plastered on the website for  MoveOn.org. It is a picture that seems to show Mitt Romney getting his shoes shined on an airport tarmac, while grinning happily. Next to that image, President Obama is shaking hands with someone in a uniform commonly worn by blue collar workers. The caption states: "Notice the difference?"

Liberals have promoted the picture, claiming that it demonstrates Mitt Romney is out of touch with Americans and that he exploits low-income individuals. By contrast, Obama is a man of the people, who shakes their hands rather than using them to shine his shoes. For several reasons, the picture says more about its liberal promoters than Mitt Romney.

FIRST, the picture is highly deceptive. Romney is not getting his shoes shined. Instead, he is getting scanned by a TSA agent before boarding a charter jet. The use of deceptive photography has no place in civil political discourse.

SECOND, despite the deceptive nature of the photo, some liberals insist upon defending its use. MoveOn for example has apologized for implying that the photo shows Romney getting his shoes shined. Nonetheless, the organization says that "[w]e still feel it goes a long way in showing Mitt Romney’s special circumstances in comparison with the 99%." It is difficult to understand how a misleading picture demonstrates anything. This is poor judgment by MoveOn and others who have made similar arguments.

THIRD, even if it were true that Romney was getting his shoes shined on a tarmac, this alone would not prove anything about his character.  Wealth alone does not make a person unsympathetic to poor folks.

FOURTH, using the photo to demonstrate Romney's inability to connect with the public hypocritically ignores similar activities by other politicians -- including President Obama. Many political candidates use private planes during campaign trips. Obama does so himself.

Obama boarding campaign plane

Planes allow candidates and their staff to make multiple stops and to conduct meetings while they are traveling. Indeed, there are many photographs on the Internet of Obama traveling and boarding his own private campaign jet. Yet these photographs have never led to liberal uproar. Granted, none of the pictures shows Obama getting a security screen while sitting in a chair, but this tiny distinction could not reasonably explain the disparate reactions to the two of them. Furthermore, Obama's campaign plane has luxurious seating. Most of the "99%" have never flown in such comfort. So, if Romney's exclusive experiences make it impossible for him to understand Americans, one could reach a similar conclusion about President Obama.

Interior of Obama's campaign plane

FINALLY, liberals' disparate and partisan reactions to wealth come across as a faux class critique. There are many wealthy liberals, including esteemed persons like John F. Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Many other presidents in US history were wealthy, and, after adjusting for inflation, some were wealthier than Romney. Some reports estimate that the Obamas hold $10 million in assets. That wealth far exceeds that of most Americans.

Furthermore, there are several ways in which all of us benefit from the work of poor laborers, many of whom earn less than persons who shine shoes for a living. Apple products, for example, are assembled in China by very poor and badly treated workers, including many young children. Restaurant staff are often underpaid and mistreated. And hotel housekeepers earn notoriously low wages. Yet, liberals eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and use Apple products.  Indeed, Obama apparently uses Apple products, in spite of the fact that the company has admitted to using child labor. If getting a shoe shine is a sign of class indifference, so are these other activities that many liberals enjoy.

A Better Debate: Analyze Policy

Liberals are using the photograph to construct a narrative about Romney. They argue that his wealth makes it impossible for him to understand the struggle that Americans are facing during this economic downturn. Even if this argument were legitimate, the picture does not convey this point. For the various reasons stated above, the picture speaks more negatively about its liberal supporters than Romney.

Romney's policy positions are far more important than his personal wealth. Also, focusing on policy is much healthier and educational for public discourse. A few years ago, liberals complained that conservatives were running from real issues by probing things like Obama's religion, his minister's anger, his fondness for arugula and Whole Foods, and his international background. During his presidency, conservatives have said that he has inappropriately taken vacations while Americans are struggling economically.  Unfortunately, some liberals are replicating this negative behavior. Shame on them.

Washington Times: Possibly "Illiterate" Obama Used "Naked Thuggery" to "Rape" the Constitution Like A "Suicide Bomber"

The title of this post is not inspired by a satirical article in The Onion.  Instead, it describes an op-ed written by Charles Hurt, a columnist for the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper.  By publishing Hurt's latest column, "President Obama's Thuggery," the Washington Times proves that it does not care about contemporary journalistic ethics.

Recess Appointments: A Brief Constitutional Analysis

Hurt's column is a racist rant that pretends to offer an analysis of President Obama's decision to make three recess appointments last week. The Constitution allows presidents to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in session and is unable to provide advice and consent. There is a legitimate constitutional debate over the legality of the recess appointments. Obama made the appointments when the Senate was in session. Accordingly, one could argue that his actions violate the Constitution.

On the other hand, it is clear that the Senate was only "in session" in a technical sense. Rather than actually meeting to discuss business, the Senate instead held multiple pro forma sessions. These sessions were designed specifically to block Obama from using his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. Ironically, the Democrats started using this subversive (and highly immature) practice during the Bush administration for the same purpose.

Legal observers who support Obama's decision argue that if Congress refused through subterfuge to offer advice and consent, the president could make the appointments on his own. The Constitution does not discuss the meaning of recess or session. Furthermore, it is possible that the Supreme Court would not intervene in this dispute. The Court could conclude that the matter presents a "political question" suitable for resolution by Congress and the President.

Racial Tirade

Hurt only discusses the recess flap for one fleeting moment. He devotes most of his analysis listing atrocities and dangers associated with Obama administration. Although Hurt's analysis is riddled with distortions, this is not its worst quality. Instead, Hurt's article is despicable because he uses graphically racist language to discuss Obama. The list below documents Hurt's racist rant. Decide for yourselves whether you consider this respectful journalism.

• Obama used the recess appointment "to utterly rape our most cherished Constitution"
  
• "Mr. Obama is now installing his henchmen to Senate-confirmed positions. . . ."
  
• Questioning whether anything could stop Obama "from simply 'recess appointing' thugs to the Supreme Court in order to uphold his socialist platform"
  
• Considering whether Obama "is learned, yet illiterate, which is entirely possible considering the perniciousness of affirmative action at places like Harvard Law School"
  
• "Obama has become our homegrown enemy. He shreds the Constitution with the unflinching calmness of a suicide bomber, uncaring that he is destroying the only system on Earth that could have given him the life and success he has enjoyed. . . ."

In the book The Color of Crime, Professor Katheryn Russell Brown of the University of Florida College of Law examines social stereotypes that subject black males to discrimination in the criminal justice system.  Russell says that collectively, these stereotypes construct individual black males as a criminalblackman (yes -- one word).

Russell's terminology accurately describes Hurt's treatment of Obama. Hurt depicts Obama as an illiterate rapist, thug, socialist, suicide bomber, domestic terrorist, and undeserving beneficiary of affirmative action.  That Hurt invokes racist imagery in his essay is beyond dispute. By publishing this rubbish that only pretends to offer pressing analysis, the Washington Times has discarded any lingering credibility that it has as a legitimate news source.