Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • Jena 6 Documents

    Laura Curtis has worked with Joe Carter to make primary documents from the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] case available on the internet. This is an important effort, and I would like to make sure it gets maximal exposure in the blogosphere. Thanks to Laura for arranging for these documents and to Joe for hosting them on his server.

    I had already noted that I disagree with the “free the Jena 6” slogan, although it appeared, and still appears to me that justice is not being handled even-handedly. This latter view is subject to correction based on these documents, but that is not a correction I will make today.

    The source of these documents, a resident of Jena, LA, made what I regard as a good statement in a letter posted on Pursuing Holiness:

    If you are looking for the truth about what happened in the Justin Barker beating, look no further than the eye witness statements (shown here) and the court transcripts. It is evident that some Jena 6 supporters are so keen on furthering their cause, they attempt to discredit anything that they disagree with. I agree there are valid racism issues in this country. I believe that punishment for crimes should always be equal. If these students are punished more severely for the color of their skin, an investigation should be conducted and corrective action will be necessary for the culprits responsible. To tell the world that the Jena 6 should be set free and all charges be dropped will not solve the problem, but only foment an ideology that violence in our school system is okay.

    I agree with all aspects, though I think I take a less positive view of the amount of [tag]racism[/tag] likely present in a small town. This isn’t a comment on Jena in particular, but on many rural towns that I have experienced. It does not require a directly racist majority. It simply requires a strong minority whose attitudes are tolerated. It’s much easier to tolerate racism in your friends if you’re white. You may not even realize what’s going on amongst your African-American neighbors.

    As I’ve thought about this I would also ask the question of socio-economic status. Often a small amount of racism is exacerbated by the attitude of the general population toward the economically disadvantaged. This is just something to look at, not something I have actually observed or even intuited about this case.

    I commend Laura Curtis for her tireless efforts on this issue, and I look forward to her analysis of the case. I think her read of these manuscripts is likely to be better than mine, since she has studied the situation much more closely. I won’t abdicate my responsibility to look for myself, but do commend her comments to you.

  • Larry Craig and Accountability

    I regard [tag]accountability[/tag] as an extremely important, even critical value. Not that it’s more fundamental than others logically, but it helps hold people to such values as they profess and as are expected of them by law and custom. If people are not expected to uphold the values they profess, then there is little point being concerned precisely what those values are.

    Senator [tag]Larry Craig[/tag], who hopefully won’t hold that title for long, has fallen afoul of this value of mine. He wanted to avoid public scrutiny, so he plead guilty. Now he wants to pretend that his pleading was improper. Is it possible that in some way a United States senator did not understand precisely what he was doing? I see two options. Either he knew what he was doing, and now he’s trying to avoid the consequences, and thus should not be a Senator because he lacks integrity, or he didn’t understand his own situation, and thus should not be a Senator because he’s too stupid.

    Having said this, I think there is a stronger reaction to Craig’s action largely because of the involvement of homosexuality, which is not fair. Senator [tag]David Vitter[/tag] has more to answer for morally, in my view, even though he has not been convicted, nor has he displayed the same level of stupidity that Craig displayed. I think much of this case doesn’t look so good from the police side. But if a U. S. Senator can’t take responsibility for his own actions who can we expect to do so?

    We are told that Senator Craig might decide not to resign if his guilty plea can be vacated (Source: MSNBC.com). I think that is ridiculous. We have a serious need for leaders with integrity. What we’re getting is loud claims and no accountability.

  • Not Looking for a Poster Child in Jena

    Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost has weighed in on the [tag]Jena 6[/tag]. It seems to me, however, that he has mirrored the fault of the rally that was held in Jena. At that time I commented:

    The important thing here should not be a battle between extremes, but rather the search by all people of good will for a just way to handle the situation. I’m not asking that nothing happen to those accused. I’m asking that they be treated in an even-handed manner.

    I would also note that “Free the Jena 6” has never been my slogan. Why? Clearly these young men committed crimes. The problem that I see is that the treatment is not even-handed. The way the authorities involved are trying to respond to that is with a kind of “trust me” approach. They haven’t found anything wrong, so all us ignorant folks should just shut up. But that is not the proper way to respond to bad behavior in government in a bureaucracy. If something looks bad, I’m going to call attention to it. If the official in question has an explanation, he or she can bring that up. But trust them? Absolutely not.

    If I were a public official I would expect to be accountable. In fact, I would demand that my actions were seen and reviewed by others. That doesn’t mean that secrets are not occasionally necessary, but they are not necessary nearly so often as authorities would have you believe.

    But the more important issue is this: We aren’t looking for, nor do we need poster children for civil rights. Carter says:

    . . . When we are willing to exonerate murders in the name of “civil rights” it shouldn’t be surprising that thousands of Americans can excuse the actions of these six young, cowardly thugs.

    The problem here is that it may be fun to promote civil rights for victims who are innocent or even heroic. Perhaps the civil rights movement of the 1960s has given us the false impression that civil rights is about protecting heroes and the innocent. We like to have such issues portrayed in clear, moral lines. Then we can rally for the good guys and against the bad guys.

    But in fact civil rights are most important in the marginal cases. Whatever these young men did and whatever their record was they should have been treated in a manner that was similar to the way others were treated. They should be given justice. The excuse of the authorities and their defenders is that some had criminal records and that the crime they committed was terrible. But none of the above removes the need for those in authority to behave in an even-handed and fair manner. Those in the rally were wrong with the cry “Free the Jena 6,” but they respond to the other crowd all over the country that says, “We see nothing wrong here.”

    Further, none of it removes the need to eliminate the underlying racism that allows such situations to escalate, and that even provides the cause. That some official from the justice department says the events weren’t related isn’t even remotely convincing to me. It just suggests that there are many people out there who would like to pretend that everything is fine.

    Civil rights doesn’t need a poster child. Poster children aren’t the ones in the greatest need. It is the folks who face the courts with limited hope for justice and no means with which to defend themselves. This is about the non-poster children.

  • White Supremacists and the Jena 6

    MSNBC is reporting that there is a [tag]white supremacist[/tag] web site reporting phone numbers and addresses for families of the [tag]Jena 6[/tag]:

    CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens’ families “in case anyone wants to deliver justice.” That page is dated Thursday.

    It pretty much had to happen, and I’m surprised I haven’t heard anything before. I’m fairly certain there has been some activity. I’ve noted a number of times that for me tolerance and diversity are values, not absolutes, and thus I am quite willing to be intolerant toward intolerance. White supremacists fall into the category of persons for which I have no respect. They’re disgusting. They enjoy being disgusting. The FBI is investigating them, and hopefully if they have crossed the line to incitement something substantial will be done about it.

    The existence of such white supremacist groups should remind us, however, that there is a broader fringe in society that is racist, but not so extreme. The important thing here should not be a battle between extremes, but rather the search by all people of good will for a just way to handle the situation. I’m not asking that nothing happen to those accused. I’m asking that they be treated in an even-handed manner.

    But more importantly, their community, and numerous similar communities need to look at their underlying attitudes, and take action earlier. One of the critical actions would be for churches to look toward more integration. It has been said, though I forget by whom, that 11 AM on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in our area. When you start from that point, other bad things will grow out of it.

  • Afternoon Links (9/21/07)

    Just a couple of things that caught my eye:

    Enjoy!

  • Important Senate Business: Condemning Ads

    They took the time to condemn the [tag]MoveOn.org[/tag] Ad on General [tag]Petraeus[/tag] (LA Times story).

    Now I don’t like the ad, and I don’t particularly like MoveOn.org, and I think private groups and politicians should go ahead and do all the condemning that the ad deserves. Though I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, I think the ad deserves a good deal of condemning. But all of that, like the ad itself, is simply part of the free exchange of ideas that we have in this country. MoveOn.org gets to act irresponsibly; that’s their right. I get to loathe them for it; that’s my right. I get to think General Petraeus is wrong even though I loathe the ad attacking him, that’s my right. None of it is a matter for the law.

    And of course one can point out to me that the Senate didn’t pass a law. It’s not binding. OK, fine. But if it’s not a law, it’s non-binding, and it just expresses their opinion, why bother doing anything about it in the Senate? This is not the only such resolution, of course, and they have varying relevance to the business of the Senate. But right now, our government lacks a coherent policy on terrorism, the president and congress are wrangling over just how to behave in Iraq, thus preserving the maximally nasty situation in which we hold on, but with no reason to expect success. At the end of the fiscal year, the Senate will be running out of time to accomplish important business like appropriations bills.

    And here they are condemning an ad. Let them condemn (or condone) ads on their own time out on the campaign trail. That’s where it belongs.

  • Jena 6 Media Stories

    Just a couple of links. MSNBC has a pretty good story on the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] here, though that story also duplicates quite a bit of previous coverage.

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness, who first alerted me to this story continues to be quite balanced, reading huge amounts and being quite willing to call people on either side for excesses. She has a good post today titled The Media Circus and Alan Bean. It’s an interesting picture that’s portrayed there.

    Why am I blogging about this at all? It’s pretty simple. I think it’s an important story. Someone called my attention to it, and I want to make sure that others notice as well. [tag]Racism[/tag] is not dead in this country. But also law enforcement agencies have a great deal of power and discretion, and we the people need to keep our eyes on them. Support them, yes, but also expect integrity and fairness.

    My own knowledge on this is second hand, but I’m linking to folks who have information that comes closer to the source. Read up and be informed, and help find those other cases where someone is being treated unfairly, but doesn’t have this type of support. It has to start somewhere.

  • Another Conservative View on Thompson

    Reformed Chicks Blabbing reports that [tag]James Dobson[/tag] won’t support [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag], with the last straw apparently being his support for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage that falls well short of conservative hopes. I now see what I missed before. Thompson supports an amendment that prevents states from being forced to recognize gay marriages from other states. Social conservatives want to ban gay marriage completely.

    I would suggest that federalism is a balance, and that the “full faith and credit” clause is not something that should be done away with lightly. Since one can move freely from state to state, just what is a gay couple married in Massachusetts, for example, supposed to do if work moves them to Alabama? (I resist the suggestion that they flee the country or at least change jobs rather than make such a move!) Nonetheless I find Thompson’s approach far more rational than that of other Republicans.

  • Jena – Not Racist, but . . .

    I found an interesting quote in this MSNBC story on the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] that explains why I have been very concerned about this event from when I first read about it. (I have been following this mostly via Pursuing Holiness, with her latest post here, and only occasionally reading other stories.)

    Here’s the quote:

    The white teen who was beaten, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.

    . . . yet the initial charge was attempted murder. I don’t see how the prosecutor can say this with a straight face:

    “This case has been portrayed by the news media as being about race,” he said. “And the fact that it takes place in a small southern town lends itself to that portrayal. But it is not and never has been about race. It is about finding justice for an innocent victim and holding people accountable for their actions.”

    No, it’s not about holding people accountable–it’s about losing one’s sense of proportion. Should they young men involved in such a beating be held accountable? Certainly. Is an attempted murder charge “accountability” for what they did? No, it’s well out of balance. Bluntly, the [tag]racism[/tag] is clearly present.

    I also don’t buy the whine that there was nothing that could be done about the kids who hung the nooses. That indicates a severe lack of creativity. The assumption appears to be that if you can’t charge those kids under a law, there is nothing that can be done. But the school and the town definitely could have done something, had they taken the event seriously. (And no, they should go over the top about that either. “Deal with” doesn’t necessarily mean “go nuts.”)

    I hope that the rally today will shake some people up and make them look inside themselves and reconsider their attitudes. Probably most will simply become more angry, but I can always hope!

  • Fred Thompson, Conservatism, and Federalism

    Joe Carter is losing some of his first love for [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag]. He says:

    Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.

    On the fundamental point, I agree with Carter. [tag]Federalism[/tag] is not essentially conservative or liberal. It’s simply a way that we divide power. But I must say that this tendency on the part of Thompson, of which I wasn’t aware, makes me much more likely to look at him myself. I’m afraid I don’t see why conservatives would be annoyed by his view on the [tag]federal marriage amendment[/tag] (I would oppose any federal amendment on this issue), and his view on the Schiavo case, insofar as I’ve read it, is right on.

    I’m an advocate of federalism, and even believe we should roll back a significant amount of the centralization that we have done thus far, and I’m somewhere center-left on social issues and lean libertarian otherwise. I guess that makes me a poster child for the “federalism is not essentially conservative” view.

    The main reason I wanted to call attention to this post, however, is because it expresses conservative goals much more clearly than many others. Some believe that one should vote for conservatives as a way to support federalism. In fact, social conservatives see their socially conservative goals as more important than the constitutional form of government and the 10th amendment in particular.