« "Miss Wisconsin makes father's prison time a Miss America platform" | Main | "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences" »

January 16, 2012

NPR's Fresh Air celebrates MLK Day by discussing The New Jim Crow

I typically try to celebrate MLK day on this blog with a post providing a reminder of how race (especially as it intersects with socio-economic status) still has a profound impact on the realities of modern American criminal justice systems.  Today, however, I see that NPR's Fresh Air has done this work today through a lengthy interview with my OSU colleague Michelle Alexander discussing her book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.   Here is how this web link to the interview sets up the piece:

Under Jim Crow laws, black Americans were relegated to a subordinate status for decades. Things like literacy tests for voters and laws designed to prevent blacks from serving on juries were commonplace in nearly a dozen Southern states.

In her book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes that many of the gains of the civil rights movement have been undermined by the mass incarceration of black Americans in the war on drugs. She says that although Jim Crow laws are now off the books, millions of blacks arrested for minor crimes remain marginalized and disfranchised, trapped by a criminal justice system that has forever branded them as felons and denied them basic rights and opportunities that would allow them to become productive, law-abiding citizens.

"People are swept into the criminal justice system — particularly in poor communities of color — at very early ages ... typically for fairly minor, nonviolent crimes," she tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "[The young black males are] shuttled into prisons, branded as criminals and felons, and then when they're released, they're relegated to a permanent second-class status, stripped of the very rights supposedly won in the civil rights movement — like the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, the right to be free of legal discrimination and employment, and access to education and public benefits. Many of the old forms of discrimination that we supposedly left behind during the Jim Crow era are suddenly legal again, once you've been branded a felon."

On Monday's Fresh Air, Alexander details how President Reagan's war on drugs led to a mass incarceration of black males and the difficulties these felons face after serving their prison sentences. She also details her own experiences working as the director of the Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union. 

Links to some prior MLK Day posts and other related posts on these issues: 

January 16, 2012 at 02:08 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NPR's Fresh Air celebrates MLK Day by discussing The New Jim Crow:


1. It is well known that crime disproportionately harms blacks.

2. The massive reduction in crime over the last twenty years has therefore disproportionately helped blacks.

3. Accordingly, particularly on MLK day, we should be thankful for the forces that have contributed to bringing about that massive crime reduction.

4. Those forces have included (choose all you honestly think count):

a. More aggressive policing.
b. Increased incarceration of those who commit crime.
c. Law enforcement's fight against the crack wars.
d. Lynne Stewart.
e. Sunspots.
f. Goodwin Liu.
g. Jon "I don't know where the money went" Corzine.
h. John "That's not really my mistress" Edwards.
i. Anthony "Do you like this picture?" Wiener.
j. Operation Fast and Furious.
k. Disclaiming any knowledge of Fast and Furious.

No, this is not an exhaustive list, and yes, it has some fun items. But we have to start somewhere.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 16, 2012 3:40:43 PM

Let me add this to any reminder of how race, socio-economic status, and the modern criminal justice system interact.

The non-marital birthrate among urban blacks is approximately 72%. Without a stable, live-in, male role model, youth are exponentially more likely to fall victim to the toxic culture of the streets.

Moreover, poverty rates are in the single figures for those who finish high school, are marrried and have their first child after the age of 20.

The prescription seems clear and achievable if the political will is present. Unfortunately, polemical diatribes like "The New Jim Crow" receive more currency than they deserve.

Posted by: mjs | Jan 16, 2012 4:31:16 PM

What Professor Alexander, Bill Otis, and mjs all ignore is what Professor Berman merely hints at. Namely that racial issues in this country have long been a red herring for the actual socioeconomic issues. That is not to say that racism doesn't exist and continue to shape society and law enforcement. It obviously does. But, ultimately, what people attribute to race is generally actually caused by class.

Now there is a very good reason why people would rather discuss racism than class. First, is that most people in the discussion are among the elite class themselves - they are educated, probably Middle Class or higher in background, and likely live and grew up in urban/suburban areas where the poverty is "inner city" poverty and not the more colorblind "rural" poverty. Many of the ills which people list among poor "inner city" blacks are present among the primarly White rural poor. The difference is one of statistics - the percentage of poor Blacks among the total Black population is much higher than the percentage of poor Whites among the total White population - and attention - rural poverty is often even worse than urban poverty, but it is outside of the major media markets so it gets less attention.

The second reason is shown by the fact that even a corporate shill like President Obama can be called a Socialist merely for thinking that millionaires should pay a tiny percentage more of their income in taxes. Obviously, discussing social ills in terms of class will brand you as some sort of radical and not get you invited to the proper parties and get the plum faculty jobs - it may even get you attacked on Fox News as some sort of Marxist who is trying to indoctronate children (even if the "children" are college students).

The third reason is that Americans just do not understand history. The Jim Crow analogy for the modern tough on crime movement is actually much better than Professor Alexander realizes - she gets it wrong ultimately but that is because she fails to truly understand the real motivation behind Jim Crow. Jim Crow Laws were obviously intended to keep Black people down - however, the White Supremacist ideology and Jim Crow Laws had a much more insidious goal. Their ultimate goal was to use racism to give poor Whites reason to support the wealthy Whites who controlled the South. Otherwise, the fear was that poor Whites and poor Blacks would unite against the rich. A racial based caste system was the perfect way to avoid that. By using racism and telling poor Whites that they are not at the bottom, poor Whites would unite with the upper class Whites along racial lines rather than along class lines. That also had added bonuses to keep out Unions and other outsiders seeking to improve the lot of poor Southerners because the race based caste system led poor Whites to want to keep their relative status.

Now what Professor Alexander gets right is that because people largely ignore the crime (and other social ills like teenaged pregnancy) by poor rural Whites, the war on crime is a perfect way to use "racism" to hide the actual class war. People who focus on higher crime rates among Blacks who ignore that there is a higher rate of poor Blacks than Whites and therefore reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason. The right conclusion is that Blacks suffer disportionately from tough on crime legislation - the right reason is that because Blacks are disportionately poor.

And Bill, if you bring up crime victimization, the fact that race hides that the real issue is class still applies. People tend to victimize people within their community - and poorer people have a higher crime rate.

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 16, 2012 5:59:29 PM

"But, ultimately, what people attribute to race is generally actually caused by class."

No, it's actually caused by culture. Poor does not necessarily mean destined to a life of crime. A greater propensity to commit crime is the result of parenting and peer influences that fail to inculcate a respect for the law and for the rights of other and instead breed a "take whatever you can get away with" attitude.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Jan 16, 2012 7:37:56 PM

Kent --

For a stunning illustration of what you're saying, read "My Grandfather's Son" by Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 16, 2012 8:54:10 PM

Kent thanks for reminding me of factors four and five for why people do not talk about class issues when it comes to crime.

Factor four - people who deny the obvious role that poverty plays in social problems for ideological reasons. The fact is that there are many laws which in many practical respects create criminal acts through simply being poor.

Five - there are still a whole lot of people who simply are racists who would rather deal in stereotypes than actually look at the real world.

Oh, and of course, to combine the two, there are those whose ideology depends upon them keeping racism alive but knowing that if they make overtly racist statements - so instead they use dog whistle racial codewords like "culture."

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 16, 2012 10:33:57 PM

my mind working faster than my typing strikes again. To finish the thought

"knowing that if they make overtly racist statements they will be dismissed by polite society."

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 16, 2012 10:51:57 PM

Erika --

"Oh, and of course, to combine the two, there are those whose ideology depends upon them keeping racism alive but knowing that if they make overtly racist statements - so instead they use dog whistle racial codewords like 'culture.'"

Glad to hear that there is no such thing as a legitimate discussion of adverse trends in culture, and that it's all just code used by racists.


Do you even hear yourself?

P.S. I you think Kent, mjs or I are racists, kindly say so directly and provide specific evidence.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 17, 2012 12:23:45 AM

First, there is no poverty in the US. If one is poor, one should not be fat, as most of the pseudo-poor are.

Second, Egypt. Just Egypt, with real poverty and very low crime rates, like in the richest, lawyer neighborhoods of the US, measured by the UN population survey, not worthless police reports. Why does Egypt have such a low crime rate?

Third, the best correlate of crime rate in the US is bastardy. Thank the feminist lawyer for destroying the black family. Nice depiction of this world in Menace II Society. Police is nearly irrelevant to crime, mostly buffoons.

Lastly, the false propaganda that poverty is a cause of crime is a ridiculously transparent Trojan Horse to justify the transfer the assets of the productive to blood sucking lawyer parasites, mostly in government, with crumbs going to the pseudo-poor, i.e. raising taxes for government lawyer make work programs.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 17, 2012 5:18:26 AM

The people of Egypt have dark skins, as do the people of Ghana, another poor nation with low crime rates. The people of Ghana are real blacks. The blacks of the US are really all half white trash. There are no real black people in the US, except by immigration from Africa and Haiti. Those immigrants are doing better than white people according to Census figures. Indeed, a new racial stereotype has arisen. See a pitch black male coming your way, don't run away, hire him before 10 other employers get to him. Not just successful, they are also thin, good looking, and drive American black females crazy. That is why our half white trash black males beat them up.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 17, 2012 5:24:50 AM

bill: "Glad to hear that there is no such thing as a legitimate discussion of adverse trends in culture"

me: there can be a legitimate discussion about culture trends as they relate to crime - but such a discussion does not start by absolutely eliminating any discussion of social class as Kent did. To try to pretend that social class plays no role in social problems such as crime is not realistic. To try to pretend that social class plays no role in culture is just plain silly.

Ever live in a small town where there is nothing to do as a sixteen year old? Ever know a teenager who became pregnant? Someone who lives in a trailer park? Ever be given a big break after committing at least a couple of misdemeanors and likely a felony as a 16 year old because you were an upper middle class White kid from a good family who had the grades to get into a good college and get out of that dump of a town? I have :)

But if you really want to talk about culture, how about this - personally, I'd rather lose my purse in an inner city ghetto area or trailer park than around the fancy offices of the Biglaw firm I used to work at. Why? Because in the ghetto and trailer park there might be a chance the purse will be found by an honest person :P

Of course, being the gentleman that he is, Mr. Claus came around and basically proved my point that some people are just plain racist.

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 17, 2012 8:04:04 AM

Sorry Virginia. Ironic that a racist feminist calls anyone else a racist. I do have a strong bias. I love the lawyer, and will do anything to save the profession.

Sorry. Your black people come from Scotland and Ireland, as shown by DNA analysis. Being a cult indoctrinated lawyer, fictitious nature of assertions never interfere with policy making. Your core doctrines are supernatural. Your adjudicated charges are fictitious 95% of the time. You have the wrong guy half the time, and you coerce a fictitious confession. You concoct fictitious crime statistics to fool the public.

Now the idea of race in the US is fictitious. And you accuse me of a bias about a fictitious characteristic of criminals.

You are a denier. One does not debate a 9/11 truther, a Holocaust denier, a Scientologist. One spanks them until they are deprogrammed. As to the lawyer hierarchy that runs this utter fiasco, one puts them on trial for their legal utterance in insurrection against our constitution and one summarily shoots them in the court basement after their one hour fair trial.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 17, 2012 9:16:52 AM

"Personally, I'd rather lose my purse in an inner city ghetto area or trailer park than around the fancy offices of the Biglaw firm I used to work at."

Sorry again Virginia/Erika, I doubt you would. My mother was mugged as a 13-yr-old around 30th St. in Philly where she grew up.

The robber's interest was not confined to the purse, but extended also to the body of the victim. At times, her family sat down to an empty dinner table and prayed, but they never stole or brutalised anyone, nor did they seek government assistance. After the mugging, they moved-in or moved close to other family in Brooklyn, and eventually worked their way out of that slum and onto the Island.

Check the stats: poverty does not necessarily generate crime; morality and culture predominate class and race.

Posted by: Adamakis | Jan 17, 2012 11:13:41 AM

V. didn't say "mugged" ... she said "lost."

Those she is concerned about also repeatedly harm the body as much as the pocketbook of people, including by pollution and other things that harm them. Such things are at times more nefarious than the miscreant you mention since they are harder to avoid.

Posted by: Joe | Jan 17, 2012 12:05:14 PM

Reagan's war on drugs? Didn't the Democrats support the crack mandatory minimums and wasn't Tip O'Neil the one who pushed them through after Len Bias's death. (See Eric Sterling's history on this.) And didn't Reagan's DOJ support only a 20:1 disparity while Joe Biden and others pushed the 100:1? I am not trying to absolve Republicans, but don't put the origin of the war on drugs entirely on their backs.

Posted by: Thinkaboutit | Jan 17, 2012 1:25:20 PM

Erika --

"Of course, being the gentleman that he is, Mr. Claus came around and basically proved my point that some people are just plain racist."

And who was it that denied that SOME people are racist?

Right. Nobody. Nice strawman there.

If a point be made of it, however, there are racists all over the place. The whites who bombed black churches were racists to say the very least, notwithstanding that their defense lawyers giddily portrayed them as patriots (contrary to the efforts of those Big Bad Federal Prosecutors).

And there are more modern day racists, to be sure. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind. Louis Farrakan. Those fellas in mufti with billy clubs outside the Philadelphia voting booth. The Gang of 88 on the Duke faculty who were calling for the scalps of the white lacrosse players based on a 100% fabricated accusation of rape.

Yes, Erika, there are indeed racists.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 17, 2012 2:31:59 PM

Erika's comments about my comment are so off the wall that I hardly know where to begin. Well, this is a good a place as any:

"there can be a legitimate discussion about culture trends as they relate to crime - but such a discussion does not start by absolutely eliminating any discussion of social class as Kent did."


The original post is about race. Erika says "ultimately, what people attribute to race is generally actually caused by class." I venture my opinion that culture is the primary underlying causal factor. And from that she infers I am trying to "absolutely eliminat[e] any discussion of social class"?

That is stunningly illogical. By the same "logic" one could say that Erika is "absolutely eliminating any discussion of" race. I won't say that, of course, because I am rational and that is not a rational inference.

As for noting the cultural roots of much of the problem, I am, of course, following in the footsteps of those notorious extreme-right-wing racists Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Cosby, and Juan Williams.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Jan 17, 2012 5:44:57 PM

mr. claus: "You are a denier. One does not debate a 9/11 truther, a Holocaust denier, a Scientologist. One spanks them until they are deprogrammed."

me: your deprogramming plan for feminist attorneys seems to be flawed to me - namely because you ignore the fact that one pretty much has to be a masochist in order to become a lawyer ;)

Incidentially, I think the spanking thing is just a cover for your real fetish - which is for female attorneys. I've never heard of someone having an attorney fetish, but it likely indicates deep mental problems because even attorneys cannot stand being with other attorneys :P

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 18, 2012 6:52:15 AM

bill: "Yes, Erika, there are indeed racists"

me: your list of various boogeypeople promoted in the right wing media left out people of any race who call right wingers out on their racism. But its nice to know that you apparently only think that people can be racist against Whites.

Meanwhile, do you actually have anything about the more substantive points that I made?

Do you agree or disagree that much discussion of crime ignores the class issues and how many of the apparent racial issues can be explained by class issues. Do you aree or disagree that almmost all of the discussion of "culture" as it relates to crime is tainted by racial stereotypes - and that those stereotypes involve both Blacks and Whites and are often explicitly racist. Do you agree or disagree that it does a disservice to MLK to ignore class issues along with racial issues.

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 18, 2012 7:09:17 AM

Erika --

You apologized on a recent thread for your arrogant and superior attitude, claiming it was only defensive. As your post now shows, and as I suspected, your apology was insincere. You're just as aggressive, belligerent and presumptuous as ever.

Do you think I humbly submit myself to an insolent cross examination by someone who refuses even to identify herself? Is that how you think it works? You put up the Socialist Workers Party latest press release and demand that I respond?

But I'll tell you what. I'll give you the chance to go whole hog. I invite you to a debate, to be held at an accredited law school, and at a date and time of mutual convenience, when you and I will have at it on a question of prepossessing moral consequence, and at which a period of time will be reserved for us to question one another (in addition to taking audience questions). The topic will be "Resolved: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." If, as you believe, the system is suffused with race and class discrimination, in no area is that of greater moral importance than in the debate about capital punishment.

My only condition is that the debate be recorded and be made available to be linked here (with Doug's permission).

In that debate, you will of course be free to ask me anything you like. You can go on as you please with all this class and feminist stuff you're into. Feel free. You can use as much insolence, high-handedness and snark as you like. Or you can moderate your behavior and climb down off your America Stinks platform. All that will be entirely up to you.

So, Erika, I offer you a platform and a degree of visibility it's improbable you could get on your own. I offer you the chance to expose me as the classist/racist/fascist white male pig you take me to be. I offer you, in addition, the opportunity to have your triumph recorded and played right here, for all to see how brilliant you are, and how thoroughly you have trounced me.

What do you say?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2012 4:16:14 PM


I wonder why John Edwards, Anthony Weiner and John Corzine are in line for credit but not Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Bob Livingston, Bernard Kerik, Rudy Guliani, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, Vito Fossella, and Don Sherwood. And David Vitter. How could we forget David Vitter.

Why no respect for the GOP?

Just Curious

Posted by: C | Jan 18, 2012 6:15:43 PM

Bill, I'm responding to the original post and trying to intelligently discuss ideas. You have no interest in such a discussion. You do have interest in constantly cutting me down and you made it clear from the start that you think that I'm stupid. Your attacks on me got much harsher after I caught you making things up about what the death elgible offenses in Virginia are - sorry, I do not tolerate dishonesty and I do not tolerate someone trying to control and manipulate me.

For you to pretend that I am doing anything but trying to engage you in a discussion about ideas here is riduculous and really, its totally telling that your attacks on me escalated after I proved you wrong about something with links about the law. A real man would have admitted that he was caught making things up and thanked me for being gentle about correcting him. You on the other hand have chosen to engage in repeatedly personal attacks all the while trying to claim that I am arrogant and want to silence you. Whatever.

I am through trying to engage you. I'm going to ignore your personal attacks and sniping on me. I am going to ignore your strawpeople, ad hominen attacks, and attempts to provoke. I am through trying to deal with your ego and trying to pretend that you have anything substantive to say. I am through with your attitute that conservatives can call liberals (defined as anyone to the left of Bill Otis) Satan and its fair but if a liberal politely disagrees with you its a major scandal and they must think that America stinks and be ready to steal your precious bodily fluids or whatever. I am through with your attempts to silence any disagreement with you through bullying and personal attacks and smears.

Bill Otis, you are nothing but a gradeschool level bully who is only interested in hearing his own voice.

Posted by: virginia | Jan 18, 2012 6:18:34 PM

Erika: Your socio-economic class argument is rebutted already. Two words, Egypt and Ghana. They have real poverty, not pseudo-poverty, where the kids are fat and all have the latest video game consoles. What they do not have are feminist lawyers that exploded bastardy, and they still have strong patriarchal family structures. They have ubiquitous self-help. An American reporter was being sexually assaulted by government sponsored toughs. She ran to nearby groups of women, who protected her and drove off her attackers. Not likely here, with the criminal law run by the feminist lawyer and its male running dogs. Those females on the sidelines, in the US, would have feared prosecution, lawsuits, and would have refused to get involved. 9/11, inconceivable on Egypt Air.

Yours is not much of an insight since I have often repeated it. I do love the lawyer, both male and female. And my relationship to the profession is like that of a disappointed, worried, scared father seeing a beloved child go astray. And I would get no pleasure from the prolonged, painful, spanking necessary to deprogram the profession from its supernatural core beliefs and reliance on the business model of the Inquisition. Yes, it would hurt me more than it would the lawyer to have the entire hierarchy arrested, get an hour's fair trial, then be executed in the court basement.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 18, 2012 6:30:28 PM

I would pay good money to see Erika debate Bill Otis. If Erika's embrace of poverty makes it too tough to buy an airline ticket, I want to help her get there. It will be a fair debate since only lawyers will be allowed, with no high school grads allowed to introduce bits of reality from earth.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 18, 2012 6:36:49 PM

SC --

Erika doesn't want to debate, as she has made very, very clear. She wants to snark from the cover of anonymity. When it comes to standing on the same platform, disclosing who you are and what background you bring to the discussion, taking questions, and engaging the opponent with the minimal courtesy a face-to-face debate demands -- well, you see her response.

I'll give her credit, though. She knows she's not up to it, so instead of just declining, she goes out with another shotgun blast about what a slug I am (something that, if true, would be markedly more obvious in a live debate than in an Internet comment).

I appreciate your offer to pay her expenses. I think that makes even clearer the actual reason she prefers a slew of anonymous attacks to a public exchange of competing ideas, with an opportunity for audience participation and mutual questioning.

My only quibble with your offer is that I would allow students as well as lawyers to join the audience.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 18, 2012 8:37:52 PM

Erika has nothing to fear save for coming up short on intellectual survival of a stale, defunct argument deserted by the facts 100 years ago. It would increase her visibility and be good for business, win or lose. I have no doubt, the unique nature of Bill Otis's challenge would generate interest outside this community and get covered by legal news organizations. If Erika will lose too much billing time, I would like to send her a retainer to replace it. She has to promise to denounce the ultra-violent, racist feminists that will try to disrupt the debate because it is hopeless, and will engage in personal physical intimidation, the sole remaining hope for their side. Bill Otis, a former government employee will be arguing against personal interest, since Erika's not too hidden agenda is to plunder the assets of the productive to grow government, on the pretexts of serving social parasites. He will occupy the moral high ground.

I think Erika is spunky. She can handle and grow from this experience.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 18, 2012 10:47:18 PM

Erika: You were rebutted with Egypt, and Ghana, dark skins, ultra-poor, lousy police, lousy courts, low lawyer to population ratios, low crime rates.

How about from the other direction, right here in the US? Vermont. Whitest state. Most rural state. Low lawyer to population ratio. Lowest murder rate in the US. (See DC with four times the lawyer population ratio, approximately the same total population as Vermont, and 20 times the murders. The lawyers of DC are not even in the criminal law. Their presence is just ultra-toxic and fatal to the hapless population.)

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 19, 2012 12:05:44 AM

Correlation does not imply causation.

Posted by: C | Jan 19, 2012 6:40:16 AM

Correlation is a necessary first step to causation. Japan, 100 million people. USA, 300 million. Japan, 20,000 lawyers. USA, 1.3 million lawyers. Japan, virtually crime free. USA, 20 million Index felonies a year.

Within the US. Areas where lawyers live. Virtually crime free. Areas where lawyers work, like running through sniper alley to buy a loaf of bread. Where lawyers live, police response time is 3 minutes, blasting. The death penalty for armed criminals is at the scene. No excessive force litigation. Where the lawyer works? Police wait for the shooting to stop and show up to fill out papers in 3 hours.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 19, 2012 8:52:35 AM

mr. claus: "Yes, it would hurt me more than it would the lawyer"

me: you know, I've heard that before I never believed it :P

but its more believable than your claim that you would derive no pleasure from the reprogramming as you call it. No man is so selfless as to lend such a helping hand to a young woman without expecting at least some sort of pleasure ;)

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 19, 2012 5:49:23 PM

mr. claus: "I would pay good money to see Erika debate Bill Otis"

me: such a debate would never happen because I am smart enough to not try to play a rigged game that it impossible to win - oh and I said that any attempt to try to engage Bill by me is over and trust me, when I say something is over, its over. But there are plenty more fish in the sea, so perhaps someday you can find another feminist attorney sparring partner for Bill.

What is the point of a debate where one party just sits there looking pretty while the other side heaps abusive personal insults on her until she finally loses her temper and conducts an experiment on how well high heels fit in a most delicate part of the human antanomy? Okay, maybe violence might be a bit overboard, but there definitely would be lots of crying and screaming. Okay, you seem weird enough with your feminist attorney fetish that that might would somehow appeal to your purient interest. Sounds like your likely a sicko, but who am I to judge? :P

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 19, 2012 6:21:41 PM

Virginia: Say you are right, there is some erotic component. You have that, and you have the satisfaction of saving your nation from the internal traitors seeking its destruction and plundering it. Not much of a comparison.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 19, 2012 6:23:44 PM

As a riff on the first comment upthread "Jon 'I don't know where the money went' Corzine" here is a link concerning JP Morgan's involvement with MF Global, which might answer that question, and two links concerning JP Morgan's business practices.




Posted by: Fred | Jan 20, 2012 9:20:52 AM

As the more relevant connection of my preceding comment to the topic of the post, the financial services industry is inhabited by people of a variety of skin colors, nationalities, and ethnicities.

I am not suggesting that based solely on the articles linked above that any crimes were committed. However, as all of us here are criminal law practitioners, I think we can all see where a well resourced investigation by the DOJ would focus, which would either remove the cloud of suspicion or result in the filing of criminal charges.

Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that there will be any investigation. All of this is left to private litigants. Why should anyone invest in US markets?

Posted by: Fred | Jan 20, 2012 9:50:42 AM

mr. claus: "Say you are right, there is some erotic component."

me: while it may not be much of an erotic component for you, it might be very erotic for the beautiful young feminist attorney. It would take a very strong man to keep on the task of "deprogramming" once he notices that its not just her booty getting hot and those moans are not just moans of pain. By the time she reads you your sexual Miranda warning in her Southern accent, it would be all over ;)

Your right, it would be no comparison because saving America from evil lawyers or whatever would be the last thing on your mind :P

sweet dreams,

Erika :)

Posted by: virginia | Jan 21, 2012 11:54:56 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB