Marty Stout and Glenn Ford

30 Years on Death Row

On March 30, 2015 The Times published an apology from the lead prosecutor in the 1984 Glenn Ford murder trail. As you may know, evidence was eventually produced that proved the Mr. Ford was innocent and he was released from prison on March 11, 2014. Glenn Ford had spent 30 years in prison for something he did not do. Probably because he was poor, Black and left handed. As of this writing, the state of Louisiana was fighting to avoid paying Mr. Ford any type of compensation. However, that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

This essay is not about the death penalty. Those who favor it represent the worst our species has to offer and I wouldn't waste one second of my time trying to convince them of their breathtaking stupidity. Instead this essay addresses two other issues. The first is the Louisiana prison system, and the second is the apology itself.

Louisiana Tortures Prisoners

This text is taken directly from Mr. Stout's letter.

Mr. Ford spent 30 years of his life in a small, dingy cell. His surroundings were dire. Lighting was poor, heating and cooling were almost non-existent, food bordered on the uneatable. Nobody wanted to be accused of "coddling" a death row inmate.

The idea that an influential member of the Louisiana justice system can casually acknowledge that humans were, and probably still are knowingly and routinely kept in conditions unsuitable for animals fills me with almost uncontrollable rage and disgust. The fact that I firmly believe that Louisiana is not an exception, only makes things worse. Mr. Ford was caged like an animal 20 years before Guantanamo was a sparkle in Dick Cheney's eye. Guantanamo did not appear as an abominable anomaly, it was born out of the depravity and sadism of the American Justice System. A system of such malice and cruelty that it is now the subject of Human Rights organizations.

In its World Report 2014, HRW singled out the U.S. criminal justice system as a major source of human rights violations, thanks to systemic problems that range from severe sentencing requirements to the misuse of solitary confinement. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. While the overall U.S. population has decreased over the past four years, some 1.6 million people were incarcerated in federal and state prisons at the end of 2012. An additional 700,000 were held in local jails.

I will not attempt to deal with the racism that is deeply entrenched or the prison for profit system that turns humans into slaves. These will be topics for other days, since there is little risk that they will disappear soon.

What Mr. Stout's letter tells us is that the United States of America is now part of the problem and  not even remotely part of the solution. Like so many other deeply flawed and repulsive governments that we commonly berate for being backward, America has a Criminal Injustice System and it seems very, very proud of it.

A Self-serving Apology

Mr. Stout appears to throw himself on the sword of public opinion. A sword known for its dullness and malleability. He describes himself and his role in the conviction of Mr. Ford as follows:

In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning became everything."

After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that certainly did not warrant any "celebration."
In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.

I have to say that I find Mr. Stout's 30 previous years of silence to be both odd and telling. For me there is little doubt that his apology is conveniently timed to get ahead of what will likely be a shit-storm of publicly, especially in light of the recent Texas case in which evidence withheld by a prosecutor likely resulted in the execution of an innocent man; not that Rick Perry would lose any sleep over such a barbaric act.

I don't believe that a self-confessed narcissist changes. Narcissism is life style as well as a psychological state of mind. Narcissist don't stop being narcissist any more than psychopaths stop being psychopaths. Maybe he has been actively involved in trying to get Mr. Ford released, however, such activity was conspicuously absent from his letter of Apology, which is way I think the apology is insincere, at best.

I think Mr. Stout knows that America loves it when someone apologizes. Americans love to forgive. It is perhaps one of the country's most noble characteristics. However, in this case, I suspect that Mr. Stout, as a good narcissist, has calculated the benefits and risks of an apology and found that a heart-felt apology would very much be in his own best interest.

I too like to forgive, and would love to have to change the ending of this essay. If you know of a kinder, gentler side of Mr. Stout, a side that suggests his soul is and has been as tortured as Mr. Ford was for the past 30 years, then send me the information and I will gladly rewrite the ending.

For those of you interested, The Young Turks did a nice video on this subject. It's worth watching. Their conclusions were much less cynical than mine.

Post Script

Above I mentioned that the state of Louisiana was fighting against providing any type of compensation to Ford. Despite the fact the Stout, the subject of this essay, came out strongly in favor of some type of restitution. The battle is now over and the state has successfully avoided having to pay any amount of compensation.  Mr. Ford has late stage lung cancer and is likely to die soon. I think it can be argued that had Ford been free for those 30 years, the diagnosis of cancer would have occurred earlier and it is reasonable to assume that his life might have gone on longer than it will. In essence Louisiana did successfully execute Mr. Ford. They just took 30 years to do it.

The judge in the case used Pre-Crime to say that the court thought Ford was somehow linked to the crime despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion. To the very end, the criminal justice system of Louisiana his going to stand tall with its boot on the neck of Mr. Ford, and they intend to keep it there until he draws his last breath. How proud they must be.

Are Fraternities Seperatist Organizations?

The video that showed Oklahoma frat boys singing openly racists songs fed into the national conversation on racism that has risen to its highest volume in years. Because it appears to be an isolated issue, its broader implication can be easily overlooked, just like it has been overlooked for the last 150 years. The fraternity system dates back to first universities in America; however, I'm in to position to speak about fraternal ethics in those early organizations.

Most Americans probably use images of Animal House as their intellectual guide to modern fraternities. In some ways, those memories from the film represent the best of what a fraternity can be. In reality, however, fraternities are much darker, sinister places.

The idea behind most fraternities is that by joining the fraternity you become part of a group that is better than those who do not belong to the fraternity. This group will then provide you with a life long advantage for your career and a multitude of social opportunities. However, for it to work it cannot be open to all. This off course is the basis for the selection process. A process that was nicely depicted in the film Network, as well as a number of other classic films. After selection, there is the initiation process. Finally there is the degradation of the hazing process. A process that is universally sexual, often perverted and always humiliating for those being hazed, while empowering for those doing the hazing. I find it strange that the torture pictures from Abu Ghraib resemble fairly standard fraternity hazing.

The philosophies of the fraternity are steeped in secretive ritual behaviors, many of which have quasi-religious or quasi-satanic elements. This is where I see the strongest connection with America's most infamous fraternal organization, the KKK. In cases where there are great similarities, I think it is safe to say the messages of elitism and the propagation of a separatist "us vs. them" mentally are also similar.

Separatism

Separatism is nothing more than a tool that can be used to shape a bigot or a racist. It is a blunt instrument and the resulting human is both crude and ugly. However, we tolerate separatist because we fail to see the product. However, I ask you to look at the pictures I've include. The ritual dehumanizing behaviors that join separatists into a fraternity are the same dehumanizing behaviors that can be directed towards those that are deemed "other." The only question is: Who is the "other" today?

I will also note that those within fraternities, are in my experience, better sheep than sheep dogs. It only takes one or two to start up a rousing chorus of "Let's Lynch Some Niggers" to get a whole bus full of, perhaps otherwise normal, people to join in the sing along. People who join fraternities are very often weak minded and desperate to be a part of something. If that something is wildly racist, well, too bad.

What About Sororities?

Are sororities also guilty of promoting separatism and racism? Yes, although, usually not in such overt ways as fraternities.

Does my critique apply to everyone who has ever joined a Greek organization? No, of course not; however, I think that has more to do with the quality of the individual's character than an the absence of separatist and racists ideologies in your run of the mill Frat or Sorority house.

When world leaders turn out to be psychopaths or sociopaths.

For your consideration, I offer Netanyahu.

Sometimes the best place to start an essay is with the relevant definitions.

• Psychopath: A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior, reduced empathy, and reduced inhibition.
• Sociopath: A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviors.
• Borderline personality disorder: A serious mental illness marked by unstable moods, behaviors and relationships.
• Narcissism: Excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s appearance, extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talent and a craving for admiration.

World leaders are no more immune from these conditions than anyone else. It can be argued that the nature of politics attracts those with at least mild manifestations of one or more of these personality disorders. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that if one is afflicted with one or more of these personality disorders, but to a moderate or severe degree, politics offers the perfect hiding place, assuming one has the wherewithal to fit it. Some have this ability, for example George Bush and Dick Cheney; while others do not, Muammar Gaddafi. 

Variation of these personality disorders have turned up repeatedly throughout history. We’ve seen them in world, regional, national and local leaders and policy makers. In most cases, the resulting mixture of authority, power and misguided mind produce devastating social effects. Charles Taylor, Ho Chi Minh, Benito Mussolini, Ante Pavelic, Yahya Khan, Idi Amin, Josip Tito, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, and Mao Ze Dong; these names are deeply etched into history and are powerful examples of the human cost of dysfunctional minds completely out of control.

Consider the example of Saddam Hussein. For a period of time he had mastered his disguise to the point that he could blend in among other national leaders. He was a US alley for many years, and his unstable side was able to hide in plain sight. He was able to hide to the point that the US supplied him with considerable support and weapons. Later, these same weapons would be turned on the citizens of Iraq in one of his many psychotic outburst that lead directly to the deaths of 10s of thousands of people.

Netanyahu’s speech to the US congress on the 3^rd of March, 2015, as well as his earlier speeches at the UN in 2012 and to the US congress in 2003, as well as an amazing assortment of TV interviews make it very clear that, while not currently suitable for the list of names above, Netanyahu is nonetheless afflicted with a potent mixture of the personality disorders previously described. A mixture, which if unchecked, as with Saddam Hussein, could lead to a catastrophe. For the moment, it appears that he is functional enough to hide within the heard of those only mildly affected. His function side was revealed as he received 50 ovations in his recent speech to the US Congress. Although his ability to hide depends in large measure, on a willingness to look the other way and ignore his glaring personality defects. 

It is also worth noting that while Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction, Netanyahu does.

While you might think the Netanyahu is the subject of this essay, it turns out he is not. The subject of the essay is the US Congress; and the question I seek to answer is, “why were the stewards of Capital Hill jumping up and down, like puppets on strings, applauding everything Netanyahu?” Please excuse my vulgar side note, but Netanyahu could have tipped himself slightly to the right and farted and gotten a rousing standing ovation, which would have made 51 ovations in all.

One possible explanation is that the collective political elite of Washington do not believe as I do when it comes to the shaky ground of Netanyahu’s mental status. I am willing to concede that this is probably true for at least a few. There are those who buy into Netanyahu’s narrative of the Middle East, however, I don’t think it represents more than a small fraction of those that attended his speech. Of the 500 plus that filled the chamber, I am convinced the vast majority did not, for one second, fail to recognize that the venom and hate they were applauding was coming from the mind of a borderline psychotic. So why did they applaud – again, and again and again?

They were encouraging and empowering Netanyahu because they too are afflicted. They were there offering their support because their careers, their prestige, their power, and their futures were tied to the money that Netanyahu represented. They were there because they are narcissists. Instead of turning their back on this increasingly dysfunctional world leader, they stood and applauded as he spelled out his plan to keep the Middle East and America in a state of war for the foreseeable future. The number of potential deaths and the degree of human suffering never came up, because, as a psychotic and sociopath those things are not important and therefore, are rarely mentioned, unless it is politically expedient.

I contend, that what we saw, which include democrats and republicans, was little different than the German parliament listening to their psychotic leader as he outlined his plans to cleanse the Europe of the Roma, Slavs and homosexuals. The Jews were an afterthought.

Were those parliamentarians complicit in the horrors that followed, of course they were. If Netanyahu interprets his rousing speech as congressional permission to lose the tenuous bonds that tether him to reality, and launches a preemptive strike, nuclear or otherwise, against Iran, will the members of Congress that danced and applauded like puppets be complicit? Of course! 

Will they care? Of course not! 

The line between madness and sanity is very fine, and historically it is crossed easily and it is often crossed before anyone realizes what has happened. Do not lose sight of the fact that many, many American cheered and applauded as Hitler started his conquest of Europe. By the time people realized that the line between a charismatic, strong leader and a madman had been crossed, the damage was already done.

The Republican Party: The evolution of hate.

In this essay, I would like to suggest a thought experiment. An experiment where there is no empirical data; however, there is data that come from experience, reason and the application of logic. It is an experiment that can be conducted by anyone. It is relatively easy and requires little time. Additionally, it is, perhaps, even more enlightening when performed in small groups. It is an experiment that I believe provides surprising insight into one of the two major political parties in America.

Introduction

According to Wikipedia: A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

To begin the experiment, we need to choose from five to ten well-known hate groups or organizations. I have chosen eight. My groups are composed of sympathizers and supporters of various, well-known, hate messages or hate ideologies. I have excluded supporters of extremely controversial social issues (such as abortion and immigration) but you may want to include them in your experiment. I have intentionally selected hate messages, or hate ideologies, with high name recognition and a message or ideology that is almost universally known and understood. That is to say, my list does not contain any obscure groups, although, obscure groups are just a meaningful and don't have to be excluded.

Hate list:

• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Ku Klux Klan
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Neo Nazis or the American Nazi Party
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the skin head movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the white supremacist movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the anti-gay or anti-LGBT movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Holocaust Denial movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Westboro Baptist Church
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Aryan Nation

While there is some overlap among some of these groups, all are unique and have messages or ideologies that clearly differentiate them. Members of one group may sympathize with another, however, such sympathy is most likely based on the common denominator of hate. Nonetheless, when you conduct the experiment, you may want to choose groups that you feel to be more independent.

Methods

First, imagine that we have 100 randomly selected members from each of the 8 groups. One-hundred is chosen to make the percentages easier to determine. Almost any number over 10 would work just fine. The only stipulation is that they be old enough to fully understand what these groups represent. I suggest a minimum age of 21, but you might prefer another age.

Second, we will use the most recent national election cycle, i.e., that of 2014. We will assume that they were exposed to the election rhetoric of both the Democratic party and the Republican Party. In essence, we are saying that they were exposed to that which they were actually exposed to; nothing special, nothing different.

Normally, voting demographics are easy to come by, except in cases groups. Very few polls are conducted to determine how sympathizers and supporters of hate groups vote in an election. The goal of this experiment is to determine for ourselves, based on our knowledge of the message and ideologies of these hate groups, how the hate group sympathizers and supporters would vote.

The third and final step is to rerun the election and make our predictions.

When I ran the experiment, the outcomes were both ominous and very, very clear. In each and every case, I asked myself the following questions:

• In general, would voters feel most at home under the Republican tent or the Democratic  tent?
• During the campaign, would voters feel more aligned with the rhetoric of the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?
•  On specific issues of interest (i.e., hate issues) would voters identify more with the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?
• With which party would voters feel the greatest affinity, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

 Results

For every group, the 100 members voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Party. In my mind, while trying to be relatively conservative with my guesses, I was unable to imagine fewer than 60% of each group voting Republican and, for certain groups (e.g. the KKK, white nationalists and Westboro Baptist Church), I consider 80% to be much more likely.

Discussion

This very simple thought experiment, while not scientific, is very enlightening with regard to the Republican Party. The validity of the test increases with each additional experiment. The test can be carried out for any hate group or collection of hate groups; and while results may vary, I'm fairly certain that the alarming trend will not. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups) has an enormous, comprehensive list of hate groups. I encourage you to peruse the list and conduct this experiment again, and again and again. I think you will see that the outcome is consistently the same, hate groups favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. 

Conclusion

America has one national party that appears to consistently be the party of choice for almost every hate group and hate organization in America. Based on the Wikipedia definition used in the Introduction, the Republican Party can, without exaggeration, be considered a hate group. America can ill afford to have a national hate party. Its defenders will refute this claim, but the Republican Party now represents the dark side of almost every social issue that confronts America. It is now the "big tent" and preferred party for racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia. Just as Republicans demand that “good” Muslims take a stand and break away from the barbaric history of Islam, Republicans must now take a stand by denouncing and stepping away from the hatred that has become an integral part of the party.