Turtleread, obviously, that's the challenge now that voter ID is law. The questions is, why are we putting barriers to voting in place at all? When fewer than 60 percent of Americans vote in presidential elections, and much, much fewer in congressional, state and local elections, wouldn't it make more sense to find ways to expand the franchise instead of contracting it? Democracy requires citizen involvement to work well, and these days, there are too many forces at work in America to minimize and disenfrancise voters while skewing the results with big, "dark" money.

I can't say it enough: Voter ID is a solution without a problem. Over and over again in other states where similar laws have been enacted, their supporters have zero evidence that voter fraud is occurring at the polls. The same holds true in Mississippi. The mountains of cash that stand behind these ALEC-sourced laws are extraordinary, and extraordinarily difficult to fight. Voting is a constitutional right for every American citizen, and I find it disheartening that we have to defend it over and over again from leaders who have sworn to uphold them.

For the 2013-14 school year, the state underfunded MAEP by $292 million. I believe the underfunding for '14-'15 school year is $312 million. Public school [spending per pupil is lower now than it was in 2008][1].

This website has an interactive map where you can see what the total underfunding from '09 to '15 means for every school district in the state. http://keeppublicschoolspublic.com/.

[1]: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vi…

Right now, odds are even for a Childers win in November against McDaniel, but they favor Cochran if he's the R candidate.

Just spit-balling here, but an effective GOTV campaign could push Childers over the edge against either one. Some Cochran supporters would cross over for Childers against McD, but it's more likely they'll just sit that one out. Dems don't have a great track record for GOTV in Mississippi in recent years, of course, but I've seen a lot of excitement on social media. Even people with doubts about Childers' Democratic "purity" have said they'd vote for him just to beat McD.

McD could get a big surprise, similar to what happened on personhood. It wouldn't be the first time Mississippians rallied and surprised the entire country to do the right thing. We don't need another Tea Party obstructionist in Congress.

js, I was addressing privilege in general, and the examples include all kinds--race, gender, age, sexual identity, etc. Privilege isn't limited to race. As I said, it's mostly an invisible phenomenon to those who enjoy its benefits, and they usually see it as innocuous, if they notice it at all, because they're so generally accepted.

As to the three specific examples you cited ... Clothes: look at the way popular culture portrays black men who wear urban-style trendy clothes and jewelry versus white men, for example. Wearing the same clothes generally gets a pass for white performers, but black ones are labeled thugs, sometimes with their tacit agreement. As to your specific about women slut shaming each other, it proves the point. Women are far more likely to be judged by what they wear than men. How a victim dresses is often used to justify why a man rapes. We're supposed to dress modestly to not attract attention or rile up men's prurient interests. It's oppressive.

Stores: I guess you've never noticed all the race and gender stereotypes promoted by store displays and placement. It mirrors the stereotypes in advertising. And why segregate "health" foods from other food? I want all my food to be healthy and affordable. Of course, it's not a problem to segregate items by ethnicity unless you're trying to find an item common to your culture--rice or olives for example--and have to search it out separately from the rest of your groceries. You might think of ethic food as "specialties." Some people just think of it as food.

Sizing: As of a couple years ago, 60 to 70 percent of all American women wore a size 14 or larger, but fewer than 10 percent of stores carried those sizes, and a lot of that was cheap crap. I'm not sure what the stats are for men's clothing, but if you're a size 8 woman, you don't have to think about where you shop, only whether it fits your budget, and your options at every price point are numerous. That's the point. If the majority of stores carry stuff that fits you, you don't have a worry. That's privilege.

I'm not saying that we need to homogenize everything, and I'm not saying that every form of privilege is harmful. But much of it is, and even the innocent stuff contributes to the bigger problem of how we differentiate "us" versus "them." That's worth noticing.

It seems to me that many of y'all are confusing "privilege" with racism and bigotry. It's not the same thing. It exists beyond questions of race, and it's largely invisible.

“Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do. Access to privilege doesn’t determine one’s outcomes, but it is definitely an asset that makes it more likely that whatever talent, ability, and aspirations a person with privilege has will result in something positive for them.” ~Peggy McIntosh

A few examples of privilege:
- No one is surprised when you speak or write well.
- Few question whether your decisions or lot in life are because of your race or gender.
- No one suggests that you're smart or well educated "despite" your race or gender.
- You expect to see people of your race or gender in charge.
- No one calls you a "white" CEO, a "male" musician or a "straight" husband or wife.
- You can wear what you want without people calling you a "thug" or a "slut."
- When you're pulled over by a cop, you expect it has something to do with your driving.
- Politicians don't pander to your race or gender.
- People of your race or gender dominate your country's official history books.
- You're not called on to represent your race, gender or sexual orientation as a monolithic block.
- You don't worry that your race, gender, sexual orientation or age will be a barrier to getting a job or promotion.
- You expect you'll be paid based on your qualifications alone.
- Few question that your qualifications got you your job. You're not fulfilling anyone's diversity quota.
- You don't worry about being monitored in a store.
- You expect stores to stock foods and products that you're comfortable eating and using. Those things aren't in a special area of the store.
- The overwhelming majority of clothing stores stock items in your size.
- Products labeled "nude" and "invisible" match your skin tone.
- No one tells you to get over your racial or ethnic history.
- You've never been singled out or attacked--verbally or physically--because of your race, gender, faith (or lack of faith) or sexual orientation.

I can't speak for Orey, notmuch, but what he says here is a variation of what I've heard from a number of political scientists--black and white. It also aligns with my personal experience. I've had (white) folks drop their voices to a whisper when they say "Democrat," because they're using the word as a simile for black--or a stand in for a racial epithet. (as in: "You don't want to live in Jackson, 'cause it's filled with--air quotes--'Democrats.'") Every political race here is racially polarized: You can count on roughly 90% of whites voting Republican, and about 90% of blacks voting Democratic. Even in races where party is not declared, you'll find a racial split in votes. So yeah, Mississippi Republicans courting Democrats may well end up with a race "issue." It's not much of a stretch.

It's also absurdly archaic and ignorant.

I, for one, sincerely hope that you're not in a position to make that call, js1976. 'Cause, you know, everyone serving time "deserves" the punishment they get, and no one ever gets an unfair trail, is never the target of overzealous or dishonest prosecutors, or--god forbid--actually innocent. [snark off]

How are those 2.3 million people behind bars in America (and the highest incarceration rate in the world) working out for you? Feeling good about that?

My apologies for confusing the Tyler Edmonds case with that of Cory Maye. Good catch. I'll be happy to share my source material for other cases cited here.

My use of "Gen." was based on my observations of reporters and A.G. staffers. I've never heard Hood correct anyone when they use the term, though he may well have elsewhere.

*"Ms. Mott points out fault in Ms. Apel's article, her own article, lacks sufficient examples and does not have the best structure to get to the point she is trying to make. Further, Ms. Mott, in writing her article, fails to turn the article at her own paper, and how other papers can do better, especially how her own paper could do better."*

msu_scrappy, while your critique has some validity, it is highly subjective and fairly defensive.

My subject is context. I provided one very problematic example (the C-L piece), one describing the challenges journalists face (the Neiman Reports piece) to provide it, an example of what journalistic contextualization should strive for (from the Pew site), and one column on gender bias that amply achieves those goals (from The Nation).

In a 685-word column, how many examples would you consider "sufficient" to make the point (that journalists and editors "must demand and do the hard, necessary work of putting their stories into a larger context")? I can't address your structural issue, because you didn't say what your problem is. (The criticism sounds a lot like the kind of thing I heard from marketing clients in the past ... "I just don't like it.")

Certainly, if this were a 5,000-word academic research paper (or a 400-page book) on the role of context in journalism, I would have provided far more examples, quite possibly even pulling in bad and good examples from the Jackson Free Press. But my piece is neither academic nor a book. It is a media analysis.

I used the C-L story as an example of a story that was insufficiently researched, insufficiently edited and is, therefore, just not very good. It wouldn't take a lot of searching to find other badly executed, context-thin news stories. I also pointed out that the question Apel attempted to explore is interesting. Her piece was pointed out to me because of it's purported relevance to a story that I was deeply involved with. It's not a valuable addition to the conversation about the death penalty or women entangled with the criminal justice system, and I found it factually misleading.

Despite your opinion that I didn't offer ways that other papers can do better, I actually did. It all comes down to adding the "why" (and "how") to the "who, what and where." The Nation piece is a prime example of how to get context right.

Your screen name implies that you may be an MSU student. If you are, I invite you to explore the subject further and, perhaps, write a thorough thesis on the subject. If you teach journalism, this could be a jumping-off point for your students. If you're a working journalist, I invite you to look beyond your defensiveness and take the message to heart. Write a better piece on gender bias or a better media analysis.

Well said, Mr. McLemore.

What a delicious irony it would be to see a white Christian bring suit against Mississippi because he was legally refused service in a Muslim-owned establishment under this law. That seems to be one piece missing from the minds of conservative Christians pushing this heinous bill: It would legalize discrimination against them as well.