Oh, and yes, I did use the word "breast" two times in the same thought, as in "breast implants," when talking about how local people (and some political candidates) will support blogs that use very violent language about women—in this case, a blogger who said that he wished a prominent female attorney's breast implants would explode. I find it remarkable that the same candidates who write checks to such a person then want women to vote for them. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this logic.

I did not, however, talk about breasts in the way that Scott indicated when he typed this very-intriguing statement:

*And when you're abrasive the reaction you're going to get doesn't have a damn thing to do with your breasts but you claim it could be nothing else. I've been in business many years and I do not like a firm handshake from a woman. I don't know why but I don't.*

I will admit laughing out loud the first time I read that, as did Todd. In fact, it set the tone for his whole hilarious response to Scott above. Needless to say, not all men are threatened by strong women. That's the good news for young women today. They just have to throw back the ones with attitudes like yours until they find intelligent, confident men who will respect and applaud their strength and ambition. And who make them laugh every single day, and make fun of jerks when appropriate. ;-)

Most strange, where the heck did the assumption come from that it was white Christian males who did all of the sexist things I mentioned in the column above? The truth is that the culprit in several instances happened to be Jewish, in at least one other black. I have no idea what faith the publisher who wanted me to spend the night with him was, because religion never came up (as it shouldn't in a job interview; nor should a sexual advance either, of course). And as I talk about in the above piece, both women and men treat women bosses differently than male bosses and call on males more than females in the classroom, so women are part of the problem, too.

Thus, I don't know what you two are talking about. It's downright weird to make those kinds of false assumptions and then to tell me what I'm thinking. And offensive.

I'm sure glad I don't have to deal with either of you on a daily basis. You're both textbook examples of the closed-mindedness I'm writing about with your willingness to put thoughts in other people's heads and proclaim who just must be angry and bitter.

I always teach that we must always look for lessons in everything, including the negative, so thanks for showing up and providing useful examples. You've given me more material to write about and speak to others, especially young women, about.

I've been too busy with the mayoral election and the Byrom case to post before, but I find both Scott and notmuch's comments puzzling on several fronts.

For one thing, they seem to exactly prove what I'm saying in the column above about certain men getting so bent out of shape when a woman owns her own experiences and then uses them to help other young women, which is the whole purpose of writing about several instances of the sexism I've experienced during my life and career. It's remarkable that they can't see that actually trying to tell me what I'm actually thinking, fed through their own filters, or declaring that, yes, I am angry and bitter exactly proves my point. The funny thing is that I'm not either of those things about the experiences that have happened to me, although I was angry at various points, and I get to be. I'm Zen enough and my self-esteem is strong enough at this point in my life to never harbor bitterness or anger about past experiences that, as I say in the column, have made me stronger, more determined, and better at my craft and work.

That is the whole point: to tell young woman that it may well be hard for "many" of them (the word I actually used, notmuch, not "most" or certainly the words "predominate world situation" (words hard for me to type without laughing). They have to be ready to deal with sexism and then overcome it, not run and hide from it, which I've never done and never will, much to the chagrin of folks like Scott and notmuch.

Even more puzzling, and amusing, is both of their fixation on Madison as if it has any bearing on this column. First, some of my best friends live in Madison. Second, sexism is in every community and city, as are other -isms, sadly. Third, I learned to tango in Madison County, so I have too hard a time being angry and bitter about it. ;-) I, like many other Jacksonians, have had to engage in some self-defense against some people in surrounding counties who loved to bash our city as sport, but that problem is so 10 years ago at this point, now that Jackson has re-emerged as a creative-class city, that it's not something I think about a whole lot and can't remember the last time I even had to defend Jackson against someone in our bedroom communities. The last time I wrote about that was in a BOOM editor's note in which I talked about how we all have to work together for the strength of the metro. So I don't know where those bizarre tangents are coming from here.

Finally, I'm especially befuddled by all the accusations that I'm, somehow, bashing white Christian males. Huh? First of all, some of my favorite people and mentors are strong white Christian males. There isn't enough space here to list all of these heroes of mine.

You and I agree again, js. I've found his remarks most helpful and enlightening as to Personhood's motives.

Semantics are very important in the legal world, Bubba. Saying someone is "not guilty" of what they're accused of is very different from saying they were clearly innocent in the crime committed. VERY different.

And if you can't see the problem with the **prosecutor** saying the contracted killer didn't do it meaning that she is "not guilty" of the crime the prosecutor got her convicted for, I have a feeling that any more attempts to explain would be like talking to a post.

So I'll leave it there.

Bubba, first, we did not say she is "clearly innocent." You carefully didn't quote what we actually said, which is that she is "clearly not guilty of the crime for which the state plans to execute her next week." And that is true: The prosecutor told a newspaper that the man she is convicted of hiring to kill her husband did. not. kill. him.

Now use your powers of deduction. Reasonable doubt ought to be whacking you between the eyes on that one.

We wouldn't declare that she is "innocent" because we don't know. Based on her trial and what the jury saw and didn't see, there is no way to know.

that is the whole point. And state government workers should not kill her while we all try to figure it out.

Also, here is AG Jim Hood's statement that his office sent over today, in lieu of the interview that Ronni and I requested (sigh):

> Basis for Requesting an Execution Date
> When Certiorari has been denied in a
> case, pursuant to the rules of the
> United States Supreme Court, the order
> of denial is legally effective as of
> the time of its entry by the Supreme
> Court and the Mississippi Supreme
> Court may then take further
> appropriate action in light of that
> denial. It is at that time, that the
> State must file a motion to set an
> execution date and pursuant to Miss.
> Code Ann. § 99-19-106, assert in the
> motion, “that all state and federal
> remedies have been exhausted . . . .”
> The denial of certiorari after federal
> habeas corpus litigation has normally
> been the end of the normal litigation
> in a death penalty case. Then,
> pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §
> 99-39-29, “the Supreme Court of
> Mississippi shall forthwith fix a day,
> not more than thirty (30) days distant
> from the date of said denial or the
> vacating of any stay entered by any
> federal court, for the execution of
> the sentence, and a warrant shall
> forthwith issue accordingly.” The
> State filed the motions to set
> execution dates in both Byrom and
> Crawford on the day of the denial of
> Certiorari, which was February 24,
> 2014. The Mississippi Supreme Court then ordered responses to those
> motions from Crawford and Byrom.
> Crawford filed his response on
> February 28, 2014, and Byrom filed
> hers on March 3, 2014. Both motions
> are still pending with the Mississippi
> Supreme Court as of March 25, 2014. We
> would also note that both Byrom and
> Crawford filed motions with the
> Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to
> be allowed to file a successive
> petition for post-conviction relief in
> the trial court. Those motions are
> likewise pending before the Court. In
> the past, in such situations, the
> Court has withheld setting an
> execution date until it has taken
> action on those motions. Thus, it is
> doubtful that any dates will be set in
> either of these cases until the Court
> has ruled on those motions

My understanding is that Hood could stop this execution if he chose to. If anyone has different information than that, please let us know. We would have liked to discuss the process with Hood.

Good to see CNN follow up Ronni's story today:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/justice/m…

Agreed. Very nice. And from a man who knows.

My editor's note tomorrow calls for a moratorium on the death penalty. This case proves how broken the system is. We cannot afford to risk executing innocent people.

Gov. Phil Bryant and/or Attorney General Jim Hood need to do the right thing and stop this execution. And one of them needs to find the moral courage to lead the charge to halt the death penalty in Mississippi. If not them, then the rest of us.

I was in the room, Tom and Slick, and I didn't think much of the statement other than that it was a funny phrase. But, as always, if anyone has something other than innuendo to add about it, I'm all ears.

Also, if you're a sock puppet for a candidate, please move on. This isn't the place for you. If you're supporting a candidate, just say it. Local elections would be SO much more interesting if people would go around talking more about why they think candidates are great than slinging mud.