No, that was publisher Todd Stauffer who wrote that. ;-)

We've updated the above piece with the top three (or four) donors for each candidates. Take a look

Sure, js, but intelligent conversation, which you seem to be saying as well. What can we do to *prevent* it?

We did a special issue on that, in fact: [jfp.ms/crime][1]

[1]: http://www.jfp.ms/crime

The way candidates approach, and campaign on, crime is always a huge factor for me/us in endorsement decisions.

Horhn's promise to give police officers raise as a primary way to fight crime is a turn-off to me, because it seems so nakedly political. I don't want officers to get raises without other standards attached to them. That is, tell us how you're going to motivate, train and hold the force more accountable AS you give them more money.

I've *really* liked Lumumba's comments about crime. I think he gets that it is complicated and needs a holistic approach, and I love the idea of a citizens review board. You could say that I want to see carrots and sticks in the police officer conversation.

I also would have liked Sen. Horhn to have answered the question about his blood-alcohol level when arrested, but he just would say it's under dispute. Maybe it is, but why not tell us what he was accused of; that feels accountability to me.

And I'm saying that as someone who likes him and think he could have a lot to offer.

The big point, which you're both making, is that Jackson has to grow up on the topic of crime (and we have a lot since the wild, wild Melton days when the Ledger lifted "perception" comments out of context on a regular basis. We must elect someone who will lead that intelligent conversation on crime and know that it's about more than technology or police officers. I think Mayor Lumumba got this, and I think his son does, too. We'll see.

I'm apologizing on behalf of the editorial board that Mr. Lumumba's first name was misspelled above in an earlier version and will be in the print edition. All members of the board read the piece on deadline and did not realize that the writer had misspelled "Chokwe," which we are embarrassed about. And we promise that we know how it's spelled after all these months of covering his father.

Again, we all apologize, while hanging our heads in shame at such a goofy error.

Jess, take a breath. Then consider this: Would Brian Eason really move back from Ohio to run Whitwell's campaign?!?

Love you, girl.

Here is the Human Rights Campaign response, verbatim:

> Mississippi’s So-Called “Religious
> Freedom” Bill Passes State Legislature
>
> HRC calls on Gov. Bryant to veto the
> measure
>
> washington – After differing versions
> of Mississippi’s so-called "Religious
> Freedom Restoration Act" passed the
> House and Senate, yesterday a
> conference committee reported out a
> final bill that fails to prohibit
> discriminate against customers based
> on business owners personal religious
> beliefs. Tonight the final bill
> passed both houses of the Mississippi
> legislature and now heads to the desk
> of Governor Phil Bryant.
>
> While efforts had previously been made
> to allay concerns about the scope and
> breadth of the legislation, the
> version passed tonight is far-reaching
> and should be vetoed by the governor.
> Human Rights Campaign (HRC) State
> Legislative Director Sarah Warbelow
> issued the following statement:
>
> “While there were many efforts to
> correct the clearly problematic
> elements of this legislation, the bill
> still has the effect of making LGBT
> people strangers to the law. Before
> Mississippi has had the opportunity to
> robustly discuss the lived experiences
> of LGBT people, this bill would hollow
> out any non-discrimination protections
> at the local level or possible future
> state-wide protections. Just as we’ve
> seen in other states, this bill is bad
> for business, bad for the state’s
> reputation, and most of all, bad for
> Mississippians. Governor Bryant must
> veto the measure.”
>
> It is possible that the law could:
>
> Undermine future state and local
> non-discrimination laws protecting
> LGBT individuals. Interfere with
> licensing organizations that have
> professional regulations protecting
> LGBT individuals. Undermine public
> university non-discrimination policies
> that include classes of people who
> lack federal protections Allow
> pharmacists to refuse to provide HIV
> and hormone replacement therapy drugs.
> Permit restaurants, inns/hotels to
> potentially turn away same-sex couples
> celebrating an anniversary, adoption
> or pregnancy. Permit wedding garment
> shops, bakeries, photo studios, and
> reception halls to close their doors
> to same-sex couples planning their
> weddings. The Human Rights Campaign is
> America’s largest civil rights
> organization working to achieve
> lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
> equality. By inspiring and engaging
> all Americans, HRC strives to end
> discrimination against LGBT citizens
> and realize a nation that achieves
> fundamental fairness and equality for
> all.

That won't likely happen this year, but maybe in the future. Thanks for the idea. We usually transcribe their big interviews but don't have time to this year.

I'm actually not pissed, justjess, but thank you anyway. And truth be known, I'm not longer a redhead. I need a new photo to keep up with Eddie Outlaw's whims. ;-)

One more thing I forgot to say to notmuch yesterday: I am a narrative writer. That means that we try to paint pictures of scenes and of people, such as saying someone is tall or giving their hair color. This is very different from talking about the size of a woman's butt or saying her breasts (or his testicles, to bring some equality in here) should explode or calling him or her a slut. And, yes, I describe men's appearances in non-offensive ways as well.

It is, in fact, as different as a journalist using her real name to own her thoughts and writing, and an anonymous commenter who doesn't have the courage or moral conviction to sign his name to his personal rants.