Sheriff Morgan: Segregation Complaint: 'One lonely black guy'

Introduction

Sheriff Morgan is a funny guy, in an unintentional way.  He thinks Pensacola is filled with idiots who will believe anything he says because, well, he's the Sheriff and he says so.  And he's got all kinds of imaginary data from his imaginary study conducted by his imaginary contractor who came up with his imaginary finding that the "Super Predator" thesis is true.  So there.

Attorney General Holder sent his investigators from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Escambia County Jail to fix problems that had been festering for years or decades before the Sheriff assumed control of the Jail.  Sheriff Morgan gets 'attaboys' from the DOJ for improving conditions, but things are still very, very bad.  In fact, conditions violated the Constitution of the United States.

Sheriff Morgan wants you to believe that the segregation charge is based on an interview of one Black inmate with a DOJ investigator.  On the videotape (below) here is how the Sheriff of Escambia tried to explain away the existence of a decades-long policy that persisted for four years while he ran the jail: "In this last interview with the Department of Justice investigators one of our black inmates made the observation that he would like white inmates to be on his floor.  And that is what came out as segregation at the Escambia County Jail."

Here is how that interview may have sounded:

Lonely Black Guy in Jail:

"You know, I've been sitting here thinking to myself.  And, you know what?  I'm lonely.  I wish there were more white prisoners so I wouldn't feel so lonely.  Nothing would make me happier than to wake up in this rotten prison with inadequate medical care, inadequate psychological counseling, eating cold food, being harassed by the guards, with few cleaning utensils and equipment to keep my space sanitary, worried about getting my head thumped over nothing, than to see a bunch of white smiling faces grinning at me in the morning.  You know, without my white homeboys, it just doesn't feel like, you know, home."

DOJ Investigator to Lonely Black Guy in Jail:

"Well, this decades-long segregation must stop immediately.  If there is anything AG Holder does not like to read about with his morning coffee is lonely brothers.  I've got to put this in my report: 'One Black brother complained of being lonely without a white smiling cellmate.'  We'll get you a white smiling prison cellmate as soon as this report is edited fifteen times with all the editors changing 'lonely' to 'sad' to 'unloved' to 'unwanted' to 'outcast' to 'lonely' and the Jail Findings letter is approved by twelve lawyers in four departments who want to make sure that it is unconstitutional not to have a white smiling cellmate.  We'll forget about how the Klan ran the jail for decades.  Your loneliness beats that, hands down.  Oh yes, the AG is going to be agitated about your lonely plight.  Nothing gets him to furrow his brows and make that 'I'm really serious look--you know the Ferguson one'--than reading about lonesome brothers.  No sir.  That really gets his goat."

That, basically, is what Sheriff Morgan wants you to believe happened.

The Truth Is Out There:  Read the DOJ Report, Sheriff

The U.S. Department of Justice released its Jail Findings Letter on May 22, 2013, stating that "conditions there still routinely violate the constitutional rights of prisoners.  Specifically, we find that obvious and known deficiencies at the Facility continue to subject prisoners to excessive risk of assault by other prisoners and to inadequate mental health care.  We also find that the Jail's decades-long unwritten policy of designating some of its housing units as only for black prisoners violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."

The Jail Findings letter went on to state, that while under-manning contributed to the violence between prisoners, "The Jail's decades-long practice of housing some prisoners in housing units designated as only for black prisoners ('black-only pods') discriminates against African-Americans on the basis of their race, contributes to prisoner perceptions that the Jail favors white prisoners and over black prisoners, and makes the Facility less safe by fanning racial tensions between prisoners."

Now, with Sheriff Morgan, if you do not show him actually moving his lips to say the words you quote him as saying, his retort is, "I was quoted out of context."  He never states what that context was that would show him a better light.  So, to show the "context" and the Sheriff's lips moving and sound coming from the Sheriff that forms, you know, actual words and sentences, here is the quote (edited) and the video.  The sentence I left out was that the ACLU and other civil rights organizations with badges had full access to the Jail, day or night, and could go wherever they wanted and see what they wanted to see.  But, it is in the video version.

In a video response to the residents of Escambia County, Sheriff David 'Data' Morgan, blatantly lied to them about the findings of the Department of Justice report.  At roughly the 22:55 mark, the Sheriff states:

"You read in the paper [the Pensacola News Journal] about one instance of segregation in the Escambia County Jail, and that was the focus.  So let me explain to you what that instance of segregation was.  In the sixth and final visit from the Department of Justice before they rendered their final report they did inmate interviews.  Now, they did them with all other five also and at no time was any issue of segregation ever raised.  I will also tell you that the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], and the local Movement for Change all were given badges to the Escambia County Jail upon my assuming office....In four and one-half years we never had a suit filed against us by the ACLU or any other civil rights organizations alleging segregation in the Escambia County Jail.  In this last interview with the Department of Justice investigators one of our black inmates made the observation that he would like white inmates to be on his floor.  And that is what came out as segregation at the Escambia County Jail."

Here is what the Department of Justice's report states on page 11:

"The use of black-only pods also contributes to the level of violence.  The Facility's decades-long, unwritten policy of housing many of its black prisoners in black-only pods creates the impression in the minds of both black and white prisoners alike that the Jail is biased against black prisoners.  When we spoke to black prisoners, many expressed tremendous anger that the Jail segregates some of its black prisoners into black-only pods.  All of the prisoners we spoke to housed in the black-only pods and many of the white and black prisoners we spoke to housed in other pods alleged that correctional officers mistreat those in black-only pods.  Those allegations include the following: (1) correctional officers order more pod-wide lock downs of the black-only pods than the other pods; (2) prisoners in the black-only pods routinely receive cold food because correctional officers consistently serve food to the prisoners in the black-only pods last; (3) correctional officers provide those in the black-only pods with fewer cleaning materials and implements to keep their cells and common area clean; and, (4) the Jail sometimes overrides its own classification system by housing prisoners in pods too dangerous for their security levels when making housing placements into black-only pods."


The DOJ report did not offer an opinion as to whether these four allegations were true.  But, the allegations are certainly consistent with the expected policy outcome of a Sheriff believing that all young Black males are "Super Predators."  If these young Black men are animals, the theory goes, then treat them like animals.

But, Sheriff Morgan's contention that the Department of Justice based its claim of a "decades-long, unwritten policy" of segregated prisoner housing on the opinion of one Black inmate being lonely is ludicrous.  While it may appear that the Sheriff's attachment to reality appears at times to be tenuous, the truth is that he will go to nearly any length to distort reality in order to make himself come out as the persecuted and the triumphant.

Although the Department of Justice report did praise the Sheriff and his staff for improvements during the time he had assumed control of the Jail, the supposedly data-driven Sheriff who tries to portray himself as a modern sheriff--hence his emphasis on data and science--saw absolutely nothing wrong with the white supremacist model at the Jail.

After all, a "decades-long" policy certainly stretches back to the final decades of Jim Crow, when the Klan was a state-sponsored terrorist organization, and into the New Jim Crow era.

As critical criminologist Jason M. Williams noted,"This tumultuous relationship between police and Blacks does not exist in a vacuum, as so many paint it.  In fact, according to many criminologists and police scholars, American policing began in the South with the slave patrols, and yet, today, as then, the response to the outcries of Blacks on this issue is non-acknowledgement and condemnation."

Concluding Observation

It is these bold-faced lies, when contrary evidence undermining his policy position is readily available, that leads many in the Black community not to trust the Sheriff and his deputies.  He assumes, perhaps correctly, that his base of support will simply believe their persecuted Sheriff and will not attempt to fact-check his assertions because they implicitly trust him.

It should now be obvious, to those who care to look, that the pattern of behaviors by this Sheriff and his deputies is probably driven by the hidden "operating system" of their tenacious belief in the myth of the "Super Predator."

I will contend that if you find that policy outcome X reveals a racial disparity, that the disparity will be consistent with the expected policy outcomes of the "Super Predator" thesis.  The "Super Predator" thesis, in turn, is rooted in centuries of white supremacy thought in American culture.

That is why when real criminologists and sociologists put it to empirical test, it evaporated; it vanished.  The "Super Predator" thesis was racist speculation masquerading as criminological fact.  Black women and Black men were not producing a generation of marauding psychopaths whose only ambition in life was to satisfy their lust for rape, stealing, beating, drug dealing, and killing.

Sheriff Morgan's "Super Predator" thesis is so bogus, that even data collected by the Florida Department of Health within Escambia County over the last two decades demonstrates that it is false.

Response 2: Sheriff Morgan's "Super Predator" Thesis Debunked Again

Introduction

The concept of the "Super Predator" rests upon the assumption that the rate of illegitimate births would increase.  Young males, but especially young Black males, would grow up fatherless.  Lacking a high school education, they would consequently have no moral compass and no internal mechanism to control their urges to rape, steal, beat, and murder.  These ideas were covered in a previous Street Report article and the Retro Report documentary on the Super Predator.

This Street Report demolishes the basic assumptions of the "Super Predator" thesis by showing that contrary to Sheriff Morgan's assertions, the birth rate for Black teenage girls has declined; the birth rate for Black unwed mothers has not changed in two decades; and, the proportion of people 25-years of age or older without a high school education has steadily declined over two decades in Escambia County.

In other words, Sheriff Morgan's thesis that the "Super Predator" is a valid law enforcement model is shown to be an empty assertion.  Data specific to Escambia County and Florida fail to provide support.  It is an urban myth promoted by a Sheriff who is hopelessly and grossly misinformed.

Unfortunately for the resident of Escambia County--but especially the young Black males who are the intended target of the Sheriff's "Super Predator" thesis--they will suffer the consequences of this misguided, bewildered Sheriff's policies.

Sheriff Morgan Makes His Case for the "Super Predator"

In the video clip taken from the same August 29, 2013, Internet broadcast Sheriff Morgan makes the following two claims: (1) the illegitimacy rate in the Black community is 73 percent and the rates for the white and Hispanic communities are "not far behind;" and (2) that we are allowing illegitimacy "to be the norm."  The Sheriff also told the story of an Escambia County Sheriff's Office contractor who found that among Black male inmates at the Escambia County Jail that in excess of 70 percent lacked a high school education and a father in the family.

Regarding the latter point, the way he described the study suggests that the contractor sampled on the dependent variable.  This is a fallacy in social science research.  The men were already jail, which the dependent variable.  The contractor then determined the statistics for dropping out of high school and not having a father at home.  The proper methodology would be to take a representative random sample of the community and test whether these variables were correlated with having been sent to the Escambia County Jail.  Thus, we will disregard this assertion.

NOTE:  This video runs in the original video from 11:22 to about 12:39.

The Statistical Mirage of the Rise of Black Teenage Births

When Sheriff Morgan mentioned that the illegitimacy rate in the Black community was 73 percent, the figure sounds alarming.  But, that figures masks very positive developments in the Black community.

Tim Wise, probably the leading anti-racist activist in the United States, explained this development in a December 2014 article.  First, he explained that Black women were demeaned by the dominant culture for producing Black males that the dominant culture considered to be physical threats and criminals.  Both Black men and women had been criminalized by law enforcement and suffered deaths at its hands.  Second, Black women were "pathologized and demeaned" for "their unique contribution to the production of such men (and more women such as themselves) as breeders of illegitimate children--literal incubators of social decay."

In essence, Wise is describing what Sheriff Morgan posited as integral to his "Super Predator" thesis.

Wise noted that associated with this pathological characterization of Black women was the "commonly held belief that out-of-wedlock births were out of control in the black community" and the "phenomenon of teenage childbearing."

Wise explained that two positive trends resulted in the perception of a rise of out-of-wedlock births.

First, the birth rates (live births per 1000 such women) for unmarried Black women fell by one-third between 1970 and 2010--the very era that was supposed to produce the "Super Predator."  They declined from 95.5 live births per 1000 unmarried Black women to 65.3 live births per such woman.

Second, the birth rates for married Black women fell even more dramatically.

Third, this produced the statistical mirage that that the "share of children born in the black community who are born out of wedlock has indeed doubled since the 1970s."  It is a mirage because the only thing that changed was the proportion of out of wedlock births relative to the birth rate for married Black women.  Remember, both birth rates fell, it is just that the birth rate for married Black women fell more.

Fourth, Wise pointed out that the largest drop in the birth rate occurred among Black teenagers, which declined 63 percent between 1991 and 2013.  Among Black teenagers, in any given year only four percent will give birth, double the rate for white girls.

But, Wise pointed out, given these trends in Black teenage birth rates "hardly constitutes some kind of cultural or group norm."

Thus, national data completely undermine Sheriff Morgan's central claim.

The coup d'grace comes from data collected and collated by the Florida Department of Health.  All charts and data points come from their website floridacharts.com.  I have produced the graphs to demonstrate the falsity of Sheriff Morgan's claims in Escambia County.

The Decline of Teenage Birth Rates in Escambia County

The chart below looks at the birth rate for white and Black girls, aged 13 to 19 years of age, from 1992-1994 through 2011-2013, with three-year rolling averages to smooth the data.

The birth rate for teenage Black girls in Escambia County (green line) declined from 100 at the start of the period to 40 at the endpoint--a 60 percent drop.  This trend mirrored the decline in birth rates for Black teenagers in Florida (gold line) which declined from just over 80 live births per 1000 such girls to about 30 live births.  The figures for white girls in Escambia County and Florida (red and blue lines, respectively) show a 50 percent decline--from around 40 live births per 1000 such women to around 20 live births per 1000 such women.

In other words, the data show that contrary to Sheriff Morgan's statement that teenage births are the norm in the Black and white communities in Escambia County, birth rates for teenagers showed a steady, consistent decline over two decades.  It shows that Black and white girls are acting more responsibly.

Source: Florida Department of Health

Even when we examine the birth rate for unwed mothers between 13 and 19 years of age for white and Black females, the data show no rise in the birth rate.  To be sure, the Black unwed birth rate does not fall, but the white unwed birth rate rises to nearly match it.  Again, there does not appear to be any (growing) cultural norm of illegitimacy in the Black community.

Since the Black unwed birthrate appears impervious to change over two decades, there does not appear to be any cultural driver internal to the Black community capable of moving this birth rate upward.

On the other hand, the white unwed birth rate for Escambia County and Florida show a roughly 30 percent increase over the same time period; the "problem" of increasing teenage unwed births appears to be a problem unique to the white community state-wide.

Source: Florida Department of Health

Furthermore, Sheriff Morgan had argued that these (non-existent) trends were condemning these children to a "life of poverty" due primarily to a lack of a high school education.

Once again, the data for Escambia County and Florida contradict the Sheriff's assertion.

The chart below shows that in Escambia County the proportion of individuals 25 years of age or older (the only dataset available) without a high school diploma has been steadily declining over the past two decades.

Source: Florida Department of Health

Concluding Observation

The three so-called drivers of Sheriff Morgan's "Super Predator" thesis--a rise in the Black teenage birth rate, a rise in Black unwed teenage mothers' birth rate, and a rise in the number of people without a high school diploma--show results completely opposite of what Sheriff Morgan so confidently put forth to the media and organizations around town.

Sheriff Morgan's "Super Predator" thesis is not supported by data provided by the Florida Department of Health.

If the Sheriff persists in taking his pathetic dog-and-pony show to the media and organizations in the county, someone needs to call him out.

Just as the national "Super Predator" thesis was debunked by data in the mid-1990s, so too, Sheriff Morgan's "Super Predator" thesis has been debunked by data.  If he persists in promoting this debunked, urban legend that was based on racist speculation in its early formulation--he will have proven himself to be an ideologue and a fanatic.

In a future article, I will examine efforts by scholars, business groups, and consultants to figure out how improve the economy of northwest Florida and southern Alabama.

New York Times//Retro Report: The Myth of the Super Predator

The disingenuous and pedantic Escambia County Sheriff Thelbert 'David' Morgan stands by his thesis that there is something called a "Super Predator," according to evening newscasts in Pensacola.

As I thoroughly discussed in a previous Street Report article, the concept has no scientific basis; no evidence to support it; an urban legend; and, is essentially racist speculation.

The New York Times//Retro Report examines the history of the concept, its pernicious effects on youths in America--increased incarceration and more severe penalties for juveniles--and its debunking by criminologists using what the Sheriff claims he prefers--data.

The scientific debunking of the mid-1990s concept of the "Super Predator" is so thorough that only the blindly ideological could continue to believe a myth having no basis in reality.

The Sheriff's staunch ideological stance--accompanied by his camera-ready glare for the stenographic television journalists and carefully coiffed hair--that he is correct is just empty bluster; posturing for his base who will believe any claim from a self-declared expert; a pretentious dandy, an allegedly data-driven Sheriff sounding tough because the only thing left to his claim of the validity of the "Super Predator" is the sound of his own voice.

The New York Times//Retro Report is located HERE.

Response 1 to Sheriff Thelbert 'Data' Morgan: His Use of Black Enablers of White Racism

Introduction

The purpose of this short series of Street Report blog posts is to focus some of the skill set I learned as a former senior civilian intelligence analyst on Sheriff Thelbert 'Data' Morgan.  Sheriff Morgan, in an Internet broadcast published on YouTube on August 29, 2013, gave his perceptions of problems in the "African-American" community in Escambia County.  The full video is located here.  However, in this Street Report series video excerpts will be employed to provide the documentary evidence of what the Sheriff said.

One of the main purposes of intelligence analysis is to understand the opponent, adversary, enemy from his own point of view.  I have spent the past six years researching what I call the broad right-wing--a spectrum of groups ranging from the Republican Party, to the Christian Right, to the Tea Party movement, the Patriot militia movement, and into the netherworld of white supremacist groups.

Sheriff Morgan's Use of Black Enablers of White Racism

In the video Sheriff Morgan twice employs a technique that is common to the right-wing, especially the Christian Right and Tea Party movement, and, at times, the Patriot militia.  Specifically, they employ what I call "black enablers of white racism."  By this I mean, black ministers, pundits, journalists, presidential candidates who will often times restate what white people say about President Obama or Black people in general.  These extreme statements expressed by black conservatives provide cover against the charge of racism that is oftentimes, and rightly, directed against specific elements of the broad right-wing.

In the first instance on the video, his encounter with four unidentified Black women in the community allowed the Sheriff to opine (6:42 to 7:19 mark) that their physical embrace of him, shaking his hand, words of support, pride in his work, and their "faith" in him as Sheriff "dispelled" Pensacola News Journal reports "about problems at the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and 'racism and thuggery' inside the Escambia County Sheriff's Office."

When the four Black women encountered the Sheriff (the other two were white) they had probably had no idea they would be used as props in the Sheriff's defense.

NOTE: In the original video, this ran from roughly 6:15 to 7:19.  Sheriff is telling the story of four Black women.

However, in no way does that anecdote "dispel" media accusations of "'racism and thuggery'" inside the Sheriff's Office.  But, the Sheriff used the four Black women as his shield against the media's accusation of "racism and thuggery."  In other words, the Sheriff is telling his white audience, these accusations of "racism and thuggery" in my office are absurd--just listen to how these four Black women embraced me and expressed pride and faith in me.

The second instance of using a black enabler of white racism occurs when Sheriff Morgan mentions the physician turned potential presidential candidate Ben Carson.  Carson is employed by the Sheriff to buttress his (inaccurate) point that if a young Black person attempts to learn to speak proper English, then she or he is labelled 'being white.'  However, an empirical rebuttal to Sheriff Morgan's claims will be in a future blog post.

In one sense, Carson is an appeal to a Black authority, though Carson has zero expertise in the social sciences.  But, Carson is also a clue to the ideological sphere that the Sheriff gets some of his ideas.  Carson is an extremist and Sheriff Morgan is signaling to his base that he shares those extreme views, though he expresses them differently. Carson may have presidential aspirations, but he is just one more in a line of black enablers of white racism.  These black enablers are known by many different terms, including the next Conservative Black Hope.  The Sheriff's deployment of Carson betrays his concern, if not fear, that the label "racist" or "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" might actually stick to him.

Black Enablers of White Racism

Other Black scholars and commentators use terms different from my more neutral "black enablers of white racism."

Chauncey DeVega, the pseudonymous founder of his blog We Are Respectable Negroes, wrote in March 2011 about then prospective presidential candidate Herman Cain, but his remarks were much broader and encompassed "black conservatives."  Cain's stump speech was about his rags-to-riches, up-by-the-bootstraps path to success in the business world.

DeVega suggested that in "their roles as race pimps who deal from the bottom of the 'race card' deck on behalf of the Republican Party, Cain and many other popular black conservatives run from the history of communal struggle and obligation that is a mark of pride in the African-American community.  Moreover, they recycle conservative fantasies of self-made men and women."

DeVega then described their function which I borrowed for my own analytical use:  "[P]opular black conservatives perform their designated roles as mascots and apologists for white racism.  They are the 'good ones': black folks who do not complain or protest, who trust in white benevolence, and never rock the boat.  Thus, black conservatives fulfill a fantasy role for white conservatives who seek to minimize the role of centuries of discrimination, violent oppression and racism continue to play in contemporary American life."

DeVega went on to argue that "black conservatives are now quislings who seek solace in the arms of those who may hold people of color in low regard, but reward them for their novelty--and loyalty."  Furthermore, "black conservatives are the spearhead and smokescreen for a range of policies that are hostile to the interests of the working- and middle-classes, and which support the dismantlement of the social safety net in this country."

In April 2013, public intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in the New York Times placed Ben Carson in a long line of what white conservatives would become the next "Conservative Black Hope."  Preceding Carson were Alan Keyes (2004), Michael Steele (2009), Allen West (2010), Herman Cain (2012), and in 2013, Carson.  Coates noted that "not all black conservatives see it as their job to tell white racists that they embody the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr."

Coates also explained that one of Carson's functions was to promote the idea, still popular on the right-wing, that President Obama, the Democratic Party, and the federal government all run a "plantation."  Coates explained that the "plantation metaphor refers to a popular theory on the right.  It holds that the 95 percent of African-Americans who voted for the Democratic president are not normal Americans voting their beliefs, but slaves....Blacks are brainwashed slaves; you can't expect them to know what's in their interests."

The Real Ben Carson as a Code Word to Sheriff Morgan's White Audience

Ben Carson is known for much much more.  He is a presence on Fox News and he feeds Fox's white, conservative, evangelical audience his "black" views that reinforce their atavistic whiteness and hostility towards Black folks.

Carson attended the 2013 Values Voter Summit--a political gathering sponsored by the leading Christian Right organizations that attracts virtually every single Republican presidential aspirant who hopes to have even a minuscule chance at capturing the nomination.  This is part of the big time Republican politics Pensacola activists may be least familiar with.

The very conservative Washington Times listed the heavyweight Christian Right sponsors:  Family Research Council Action, the American Family Association Action, American Values, the Heritage Foundation, Liberty Counsel Action, and the Washington Times.  The newspaper pointed out that the leaders of the Family Research Council and American Values, as well as Ralph Reed, the head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition which works very closely with the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, arranged to have Senators Ted Cruz, his heavyweight evangelical father Rafael Cruz, and Rand Paul meet privately and separately with "about 300 social conservatives."  The term "social conservatives" means they oppose abortion under all circumstances without exception, oppose all kinds of sex education except for their bogus "abstinence only," and oppose same-sex marriage rights in particular and LGBTQ rights in general.

T.F. Charlton, writing for Political Research Associates, one of the leading progressive organizations that has observed, reported on, and analyzed the activities of the Christian Right since 1981, was struck by his observation that the "cognitive dissonance and historical revisionism of the white supremacist Religious Right on the issues of race and racism is very much here to stay.  In fact, they're digging their heels in--and their using Black conservatives and other conservatives of color to do it."

Charlton also quoted Ben Carson's stunning line to the conference:  "Obamacare...[is] the worst thing to happen to this country since slavery."  Martin Luther King's Jr. niece, Alveda King, told the crowd that "white people didn't kill [her] uncle, the Devil did."  And Gary Bauer, the white head of American Values, told the audience that "because of Judeo-Christian civilization, the slaves were freed."

Charlton opined that the "common thread between all three statements is how thoroughly they rewrite the legacy of white supremacy in American evangelism....White conservative Christians, in the narrative of [the Values Voter Summit] are and always have been champions of racial equality, while Black people who name white racism are not only irrationally hateful, but in fact sinning against white people."

One year later, Charlton reported on Ben Carson's remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference, another gathering of the Christian Right heavyweights and Republican presidential aspirants (Carson finished a close third in the straw poll vote).  Carson, again, did not disappoint.  Carson "denounced 'extra rights' for LGBTQ people; lectured 'minority communities' on the “need to learn how to turn over [a] dollar … and create wealth' and 'not [be] a victim;' touted self-determination and faith in God as the keys to 'mov[ing] up;' and my personal favorite: declared that America 'is about to sail off Niagara Falls, and we’re all going to be killed.'"

Charlton noted Carson's very weak credentials for a presidential campaign run, but suggested that he and other "Great Conservative Black Hopes....validate and energize the base....[and] provide credence to racist GOP ideology."

The Field Negro blog reported in May 2014, that Carson expressed his belief that the then erupting Veterans Administration scandal was a "gift from God."

In July 2014, Right Wing Watch reported Carson telling the Obama birther-conspiracy World Net Daily website's founder and editor that "communists in the government, following the teachings of Lenin, have deliberately added on debts in order to destroy the U.S. government."

In August 2014, Right Wing Watch quoted Carson on Washington Times Radio, stating that "political correctness is distracting people from addressing 'real problems' like teen pregnancy and 'all of those kids who are born into poverty and will live in poverty and in many cases will end up without a father figure in their life and don’t know how to respond to authority and end up being killed like Michael Brown.'"

Concluding Observation

Sheriff Morgan's ostensible purpose in bringing Ben Carson into his monologue was to cite a Great Conservative Black Hope to support his claim that young Black children learning to speak proper English are ridiculed for "being white."

But, as this article has attempted to show, invoking Carson did two things for Sheriff Morgan as he addressed a predominantly white audience.

First, Sheriff Morgan signaled to his audience using the code word "Ben Carson" the ideological sphere from where he was collecting his information, particularly regarding what he perceived to be the problems of the Black community in Escambia County.  Carson holds extreme views about the Black community, views consistent with the views expressed by Sheriff Morgan (another blog post).

Second, though Carson is a fringe political character, his primary function is to legitimize conservative racial fantasies about themselves and assure the Republican base that they are not really white supremacists because Carson believes the very same things.  In this context, invoking Ben Carson was intended as a shield to protect the Sheriff.

On the other hand, invoking Ben Carson also revealed how potentially radical his ideas are on the Black community.  The Sheriff may or may not agree with Carson's position, or, the positions of the Christian Right.  But, by using Ben Carson to shield him from charges that he may hold racist ideas, the Sheriff has aligned himself with Carson and the Christian Right.

Does the Sheriff really believe President Obama is operating a "plantation"?  Does the Sheriff really believe that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen in this country since slavery?  Does the Sheriff oppose LGBTQ rights?  Does the Sheriff oppose reproductive rights, especially an abortion in the case of rape or incest?  We may not know answers to those questions until he is forced to answer them.

Sheriff Morgan is using the long-tested, reliable tactic of using whichever black figure is available to him to insulate himself from or to refute any charges of racism directed against him or the Sheriff's Office.

It is my assessment, that this tactic will be used again and again as Occupy Pensacola, Black Lives Matter, and other movement political pressure mounts, and, the political campaign season unfolds.

Free Food In Pensacola

Don't going running to your nearest fast food outlet; this offer is good for Escambia County Sheriff's Office deputies only.

Introduction

Coming from the East Bay side of the San Francisco Bay Area, meaning the Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond side of the Bay Area, where and what the local police ate was of no concern to anyone.  On any given day in any locale one could watch the local police order and pay for their food just like ordinary customers.

So, it is some culture shock to learn that in Pensacola it is basically common knowledge or an open secret that Escambia County Sheriff's Office deputies eat for free.  Many Pensacolans, white and Black, have told me this is the case.  In fact, they have assumed that everywhere you see Sheriff's Office patrol cars at fast food outlets that they are eating for free.

I openly asked at one national fast food outlet why the place was so popular with Sheriff's Office deputies and was told it was because they ate for free.  It was a quid pro quo relationship.  The outlet fed them for free and the deputies responded quicker on service calls.

This is not only unheard of in the East Bay, it creates perverse incentives for local business owners and robs them of gross receipts.

Perverse Incentives

If response time is a market, then local businesses are competing for faster response times by feeding the deputies for free.  This means that non-competing businesses--that is, those who choose not to provide free meals but who pay all local taxes--are not receiving the same services for their tax dollars.  Non-competing businesses get slower response times and "free food" outlets get faster response times.

Even if we assume, that the "free food" for deputies applies to a minority of deputies, the common assumption that all deputies are eating for free suggests to residents of Pensacola that the local deputies can be influenced through the provision of free food or services.

It suggests to them that when the Sheriff's Office does not respond quickly enough, it is because their business or their neighborhood is not competitive in the "response time" market.  It suggests to them that when they are not treated fairly or they see someone else get preferential treatment, that the deputy has somehow been influenced or bought in some unknown way.

This actually creates a moral and legitimacy problem for the Sheriff's Office because it lends credence to the idea that the Sheriff's Office is corrupt.

Why Does This Matter?

In a New York Review of Books article explaining the phrase "broken window" policing which lead to the widely reviled policy of "stop-and-frisk," Michael Greenberg explained:

"The phrase “broken windows” is a metaphor that neatly illustrates the [stop-and-frisk] policy....If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, the rest of the windows will soon be broken as well, because the unrepaired window signals that no one cares.  This explains why the police make arrests for panhandling, public drunkenness, loitering, and other minor infractions that have long been considered by-products of urban street life: if allowed to flourish, they foster an atmosphere of disorder that causes law-abiding citizens to feel fearful and wary, as if the streets of their neighborhoods have been invaded and are not theirs."

Thus, the New York City Police Department (and departments around the country following this popular model) arrest people for these low-level crimes to keep criminals from becoming emboldened, more brazen, more invasive, and more violent.

We will leave aside the larger arguments about racial inequities in the policy and whether or not the policy was even responsible for the decline of crime in New York City.

The logic of the widely deployed policing model is that if you do not stop low-level crime, much more serious crimes occur.

Applying this logic to the Sheriff's Office, if providing free food and free services to deputies does not stop, more serious types of corruption will ensue, if they have not already.

After all, where is the line?  A free meal?  A free tailoring?  Free dry cleaning?  Free lube job and oil change?  Jewelry for the wife or girlfriend?  Catering your daughter's or son's wedding?  A free vacation?  Reduced bail amount?  A kickback from a bail bondsman for client referral?

Costs to Businesses

Providing a free meal to your local Sheriff's Office deputy, who is probably, under ordinary circumstances, a good person and civic minded, probably appears to be a friendly gesture; a way of supporting "the troops" in a town brimming with patriotic displays; and, a way to get faster response times on service calls; or, even a better understanding on that night you are a driving just a bit too erratically for your own good and the public's safety.

But, it does have a financial cost to local businesses.

According to the Escambia County Sheriff's Office official webpage, "Currently, over 250 sworn officers are assigned to the Patrol Unit and are responsible for answering calls for service 24 hours a day 7 days a week."

To calculate the potential costs to local businesses, we need to make some assumptions:

Assume only 200 per day on patrol.

Assume they eat only one fast food meal per day.

Assume meal costs 8.00 dollars.

Average day:  $1,600 free food.

Average week:  $11,200 free food.

Average month (4.2):  $44,800 free food

Average year:  $564,480 free food, plus lost taxes.

If the cost of a "free meal" is $9.00, the cost per year is $635,040, or $3.81 million since Sheriff Morgan's been in office.

If the cost of a "free meal" is $10.00, the cost per year is $705,600, or $4.23 million since Sheriff Morgan's been in office.

But, if all 250 are having free meals under the $10.00 per meal assumption, the cost to local businesses is $882,000 per year or $5.29 million dollars since Sheriff Morgan's been in office.

How much tax revenue to the county was potentially lost?

How many employees were not hired due to constraints on the business budget?

How many street lights were not installed on unlit roads in crime-prone neighborhoods?

This is the potential "fee" or "tax" the Deputy Sheriffs impose on local fast food outlets in Pensacola and Escambia County.

Concluding Observation

The actual number of deputies receiving free meals is unknown.  How often they receive free meals is unknown.  But the assumption that deputies eat for free at all the fast food outlets they frequent is apparently widespread and common knowledge among Pensacolans, white and Black, working class and well-off.  It is an open secret--shift supervisors and employees will tell people why their outlet is popular with the deputies.  In a sense, it is the norm.

The perception that deputies get free food undermines the legitimacy the Sheriff's Office.

The Sheriff's Office Public Information Officer was contacted for this story.  When asked about the policy, the PIO responded that it would be sent through normal public records request channels.  Snooze.  When asked to comment on the article, the Street Report received no reply by press time.

UPDATE (5/11/2015): The national food chains providing free food to Escambia County Sheriff's Office deputies are Taco Bell and Chic-fil-A.  If you find anymore fast food outlets providing free food to the deputies, drop us a line.