Have You Lost Your Ever-Loving Mind?

At Joel Osteen’s megachurch, rap artist, Kanye West, declared that he, “the greatest artist God ever created,” was dedicating his gifts to the service of God. “Greatest artist ever created…”? Kanye, you ever heard of Leonardo da Vinci, or Michelangelo? How about Bach, Beethoven, or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

You would place your works above Shakespeare, who once wrote: “There is a tide in the affairs of men when taken at its flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all his life is bound in the shallows.” You, Kanye, could not deliver such profundity if God gifted you with a thousand years.

But, let's not go there. Let’s narrow this strange debate down to America – more specifically to African-Americans. Kanye speaks as though the only artists who matter are those who performed during his brief stint of cognizance – as though God’s work was middlin’ up until then. I must ask: “Kanye, are you crazy?”

You would casually pass over Marvin Gaye, who iconic “What’s Going On?” challenged billions worldwide to think about what we are doing to ourselves and our planet. Ever hear of Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, Ella Fitzgerald? How about Sam Cooke, Dinah Washington, Curtis Mayfield, and Michael Jackson? And what artists have dug grooves so deep as Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie “Bird” Parker, and Louis Armstrong? When Aretha Franklin sang “Respect”, you must have been asleep. How else could you discount her artistic excellence, as well as the heights achieved by Dionne Warwick, and Diana Ross? Hey, ever hear of James Brown?

These people were imbued with a thing we called “soul”. It ran like a river through the black community. Long a hallmark of the African-American experience, this sublime spirit became the thoroughfare by which the passion African-America was unleashed. It was especially evident in the music and dance of black folk throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. That precious commodity began to wane in the 80s and 90s. It, perhaps reared its head one last time on the shoulders of Whitney Houston. With her demise, it settled into the moribund state that characterizes “soul” in the black community today. This new bread of African-American artists, lacking the soul of their predecessors, now load up on whatever they think will sell. They do a lot of sellin’, but it sho’ ain’t soul.

The hip-hop artists of Kanye’s ilk are not such great artists as they are revolutionaries. They have influenced young African-America to make a severe left turn, and speed down a highway devoid of the sense of history that fostered its soul – that sense that had made African-America a great and viable community. These rap artists reflect a vanity that is terribly self-destructive – that has replaced “rhythms and blues” with “nigguhs” and “bitches.” They think they have arrived. They are very proud. 

Some may say I over-reacted to Kanye’s controversial remarks. Perhaps, except that would suggest that Kanye was merely speaking in jest. That would also lead one to imagine that Joel Osteen had brought Kanye before his church to crack jokes. Joel is a serious man; Kanye is delusional. Delusional men do not crack jokes, they believe. 

Trump Creates Black Hole Into Which All Matter of Morals Fall

While listening to a couple of Fox News pundits commiserate about the lack of "positive coverage" President Trump receives, I thought, "What do they expect?" During Donald Trump's 2016 presidential run, a videotape surfaced of his boasting that because of his stardom, "I can grab a woman by the p----y... do whatever I want." 

Today, Trump's presidency lies in the wake of that vile remark. Any subsequent press coverage must languish within its shadow, whose reflection captures the true nature of the man. 

The other day, I watched "Outnumbered", a Fox News program co-hosted by Harris Faulkner. Faulkner - who, along with her husband, raises two young girls - is a staunch Trump defender. Yet, according to her own statements on that very show, she is also a fierce mom when it comes to her girls. One must, then, wonder how this woman reconciles her position on Fox (which is obviously important to her) with maternal instincts? Trump will pass from the political scene, probably sooner than later. But, Harris will ever be reminded - perhaps haunted - of her impulse to paint positive images of President Trump despite his profound misogyny.  

Imagine how Harris Faulkner must flinch each time she is reminded of how willingly she turned a blind eye to a bully who, with one foul blast, eviscerated the dignity of young girls everywhere.  

D-Day: American Heroes or Americans Hero-Mongering?

Hitler, to assure his wary generals, said this of his impending invasion of the USSR in 1941: “All we need to do is kick the door in, and the entire rotten edifice will come crashing down.” Hitler was wrong. The Russians fought like hell. That fight became, by far, the greatest armed conflict in human history. In one battle alone – the Battle for Kiev – German troops took over 600,000 Russian soldiers prisoner. In another – the Minsk encirclement – the Germans took another 300,000. Such amazing victories were common to the German juggernaut early on. But, the Russians come storming back, fighting tooth and nail. The celebrated soldiers of D-Day would not have kicked up a thimble-full of Normandy sand had not the bloodied Soviets paved the way with 25 million Russian dead.

The Soviet leader, Josef Stalin, had implored America to open up a front against the Germans as early as 1942. America was not ready for that, and for good reason. A Normandy invasion in 1942 would have been an American disaster, as would have been such an attempt in ’43. It was not until 1944 that the Germans were convinced of their defeat on the eastern front. It is then that what was left of their once mighty Wehrmacht tucked tail, and went into full retreat mode. 

Americans speak proudly of their victory in Hitler’s iconic “Battle of the Bulge”, as though it was some titanic struggle between good and evil. Compared with the bloodbaths at Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, and Kursk, “the Bulge” was no more than a gimmick – a last-ditch effort that dissipated as quickly as the sun could clear away the clouds, (which were all of the air cover the Germans could afford.)

Americans on the western front killed thousands of German troops in ’44 and ’45. On the eastern front, the Russians killed millions. In their march across France and into Germany, the Americans were soon killing capturing German soldiers as young as 15 and 16. This is because the Russians had already killed most of Germany’s fighting men.

I do not wish to diminish what took place at Normandy on June 6, 1944. It was truly the greatest amphibious landing in military history. But, it was successful only because Russia had bled Germany so until barely a skeletal force remained to guard Germany’s western gate.

--> The allied invaders of D-Day kicked open Hitler’s rickety door at Normandy and the western edifice crumbled. From there, the American soldier in Europe performed mop-up duty all the way to Berlin. They did not defeat Nazi tyranny, as D-Day enthusiasts like to proclaim. The Russians did that. This is what the Allies did: They marched quickly across western Europe, right up against what would become known as the “Iron Curtain.” If not for the D-Day invaders, perhaps the entirety of continental Europe would have fallen under Soviet control. This is the true significance of D-Day. The rest is hero mongering.

Kindness, Exceptionalism, and Historical Perspective

How is it that in a land of 330 million "exceptional" people, this nation will have to pick from two 75-year-old men - neither of which is very bright - to lead them? Makes you wonder about our so-called "exceptionalism", if not about our democracy.

*****

People must maintain a historical perspective. It is everyone's foundation. Yet, there are young people - many of them in the black community - who have no historical perspective. They think the world began with them. So, they write the rules - inevitably stupid rules - and then they convince like-minded, non-historical individuals to help perpetuate their vision. One of their more recent rules: "Let's call everybody 'Nigguhs'".

*****

All human being are affected by kindness. Some are even shocked. They are the ones who need it most.

The MDOC's Newton Principle: A Body in Chains Tends to Remain in Chains

You want to keep someone in prison in America, ask anyone familiar with Michigan’s parole board. They will tell you that any of these pat constructions might do: “Doesn’t take responsibility… Shows no change… Shows no remorse…” or the old stand-by, “Poses a threat to society.”

These responses uttered over and over, thousands of times, continue to send prisoners and their families hurtling backward into America’s prison system. And they are words not based upon facts, but rather dependent upon a type of subjectivism that is devoid of substantive content. (If you’re going to give a 66-year-old man like me another five years in prison, it should be for substantial reasons.) They are words – words that carry such weight that they effectively deny prisoners and their families the most precious commodity America affords – freedom. That those words leave prisoners with little ability to resist must challenge the notion whether this is truly the “Land of the Free,” at all. And, considering no one steps forward to champion these most deprived of Americans, it certainly calls into question whether this is the “Home of the brave.” 

This parole board routinely asks prisoners, “Have you changed?’ The prisoner responds, “Yes.” How can a prisoner know if he has changed when he has been in a controlled environment for the past 20 years, shielded from the temptations (and corresponding emotions) that drove him to prison? This is an example of a system that would keep a man imprisoned who hesitates to answer that question, as I did. I hesitated because I wanted to be careful to speak the truth.

The parole board, too, speaks the truth and then struggles with that truth when it clashes with their official narrative. Of course, this parole board gets “wide discretion,” which is code for a license to obfuscate, cherry-pick, an even create auras of prescience, (which must convince the public that the parole board hears things and sees things in defendants no one else can hear or see.) In other words: They become unimpeachable. The problem with that: In America, no one should be unimpeachable. That dubious distinction must be reserved for despots in distant lands. Yet, watch how Americans cover their own heads when others are denied their freedom.

Injustice is not a force of nature; it is a force of man. John Brown did not stand up and rage at the moon. He stood up and raged at men and their unjust laws. Harriet Tubman did not challenge earthquakes and tornadoes. She challenged laws that said one man can own another man. The Michigan legislature recently passed a law, and the governor signed it, that allows one group – prosecutors and victims’ families – to appeal a parole board decision, but the group most directly affected by that decision – the prisoner and his family – cannot. In the face of such blatant injustice, where is the outrage that should be in the DNA of all true Americans? 

Where legislation is passed in America that insulates any agency of the government from equal and accountability, then it, in itself, is an open door to discrimination. Yet, what do Michiganians do about it? They collect their paychecks, repair to their safe homes, and turn their backs to these injustices; albeit, not before advising me to “conduct yourself well” over the next five years in prison.

First, I do not conduct myself well because I am hoping to get parole. I conduct myself because that is how I was raised. Second, at the time my parole was denied, I had zero disciplinary points – a prime indicator of “good conduct.” That is a real reason to parole a 66-year-old prisoner. But, what does such good conduct matter to a parole board that prefers prolonged incarceration? 

This nation has lost its way, and with it, its soul. Where are the men and women of guts in this America? Where are the John Browns and Harriet Tubmans of today? Who are the Lincolns? Not you, not you, not you…

Letter to Parole Board Chairperson, Michael C. Eagan, in the Wake of my 5-Year Continuance

People will say anything to get their way. I might say anything for the chance to go home. It appears there are those who might say anything to keep me imprisoned. They are just words. They are not worth anyone's life. My deeds, your deeds are worth ten times the words people would use for, and against us.  

When I was a boy living in my rural community of Woodland Park during the '50s and the '60s, I would walk the woods, visiting old people. Sometimes I did chores for them, and they would pay me with a slice of pie, or a bowl of rice pudding. Sometimes I would just sit and listen to them talk. That pleasured them as much as anything. I would feel pleased, too. During those times I sat in the company of those elderly people, besides smiling at their stories, I rarely said a word.  

In the early '70s, when I lived in the dorms at Western Michigan University, I gained a reputation for being, not only a good listener but someone whom students came to trust with their feelings. Imagine my surprise that they would come to my door at all times of the day and night, just to talk. I listened to each, and every one of them.  

In the late '70s, while working for the Douglass Community Association's Community Mental Health Program, I spent time working a suicide hotline. With one lady, I employed the words of William Shakespeare to help pull her back from the brink. But, it wasn't the words so much as it was my manner that helped me help save lives. People trusted that I cared. (Why do you think they inducted me into the Alpha Kappa Mu Honor Society?) 

I am not a good person because I say so. I am a good person because, for the better part of my life, I have done so. Today, I ask for a second chance.  

Letter in Response to Kay D. Perry of MI-CURE (a prisoner advocacy group)

Thank you for responding to my initial letter regarding the results of my public hearing.

By the way, I never argued that intelligent, professional women "always" report abuse. I argued that this woman - Lillie Blue - a woman of courage whom I knew well, would never have tolerated a physically abusive relationship. When I am accused of something I did not do, there is no other way to prove a negative, all that is left for me to rely upon is her reputation, and mine.  

Prior to my crime, I had never hit a woman, and there is no evidence in my 44 years of living free - no police documents, nor domestic violence or assault complaints - to dispute that. What other argument is there for me, except that Lillie would never have allowed what her family accused her of allowing? They lied on her and on me. Then, the parole board used that lie to justify its decision. 

I would have imagined that MI-CURE might have been more critical of a parole board that relies upon unsubstantiated claims to keep 66-year-old prisoners imprisoned, rather than relying upon quantifiable facts, like:  "Zero" disciplinary points (2018); HIGH probability of parole (according to their own Parole Guidelines Scoresheet (2018); no previous criminal history; Master's degree from WMU (2000); certified braillist by the Library of Congress to transcribe textbooks (2001-2013); two published novels - The Pooka and the Paranormal (2005), and The King of Pearl (2008); excellent block reports, and work reports; etc., etc.  

Open Letter to Parole Board

Michigan Department of Corrections

Grandview Plaza Building

206 E. Michigan Avenue

Lansing, MI 48933

Re:  Larry R. Carter, 258499

Dear Members of the Parole Board:

The Michigan Parole Board conducted my public hearing on October 11, 2018, to determine whether I should be set free, and allowed to go home. All of those who testified were sworn to tell the truth, similar to how witnesses at a trial are sworn. When the testifying began, however, only my testimony was held to the fire. The other witnesses were not challenged, at all.

When the Blue family spoke, a number of its members wove a tale of repeated physical assaults by me upon Lillie. It was testimony the board would rely upon in rendering its decision to deny my parole. From the outset, the family’s testimony rang false. Lillie was an intelligent, professional woman. She would not have tolerated anyone battering her, and not have filed a single police report. Yet the review panel offered not a single challenge to their allegations, despite no photos of a battered or bruised woman, or a police report that hints domestic violence, or even a domestic disturbance complaint from my entire past. 

After my 87-year-old mother appealed to the review panel to let me “come home”, my brother, Marion Carter, got up to speak. I was encouraged until he opened his mouth. He is an older brother to whom I have always been loyal. Yet, he not only turned on me, but he also lied on me. He told the review panel, among other strange things, that I “had anger issues, even as a child.” 

The next day, I called my mother and asked her (rhetorically), “Do you think I had anger issues as a child?” She said, “Of course not.” Then, “Why,” I asked, “did Marion say the things he said at my hearing?” She answered, “I don’t know.”

Those witnesses swore to tell the truth. When a minimum of cross-examining might have revealed the contradictory, if not false, nature of their testimony, the two-man panel said nothing.

My brother had stepped forward in a public forum and made an outrageous claim that the parole board, in its Notice of Decision, calls “convincing.” They accepted his testimony without any medical evidence, police records, work records, or school records to back it up. Then, they used his claim to support a narrative that I “pose a risk to the public.” The parole board members know nothing about my brother, Marion. He might be crazy, for all they know. (I’m beginning to think that he is.) Yet, board members would wager my freedom by the first words they ever hear come out of his mouth.

In the six weeks between the day of my hearing and the 30^th of November, when the board rendered its decision, could not someone have bothered to look into the truth of Marion’s claim? At the least, someone could have contacted my mother, who is a much more reliable authority on my childhood than my brother, who is a mere year older than I. Instead, there was no apparent effort to corroborate Marion’s testimony. The board simply used it.

Why shouldn’t I, then, have imagined that the other witnesses’ testimonies – though important to their purposes – would not be allowed to impact the parole board’s decision? When I made my final statement, I did not challenge the previous witnesses’ false allegations. Though hurtful – especially my brother’s, who words still wound me deeply – I felt their testimonies must, otherwise, be harmless. How could I have known their words would be given such immense regard, and end up having such a devastating effect upon me and my family? 

There were other reasons the parole board denied my parole. They accused me of lying because I could not remember “key elements” of my crime. I was drunk and out of my mind that day in 1996. It is only some solace that I remember as much as I do, and half of that I do not trust to be fully factual. But, be assured:  I have always accepted full responsibility for what I did that day. I turned myself into the police and answered every question they asked me. I will never relinquish the remorse I feel for my violent and selfish act; neither will I let go of my shame. 

The review panel also derided my inability to satisfactorily explain the nature of our break-up, and its aftermath. Lillie was a complex individual, as was I. I had difficulty expressing to the review panel the complexity of our characters, and the nuances that continuously brought us back together, and then pushed us apart.

If this letter from me sounds desperate, think what 66-year-old, having served 22 years in prison, and then given another five-year term, besides, wouldn’t feel similar despair. And, that five-year continuance is not for something I did or did not do. The Michigan Department of Corrections, in its own Parole Guidelines Scoresheet dated 10-16-18, stated to me:  “Your guidelines score of 4 calculates to a HIGH probability of parole.” No, it is apparent that my five-year continuance comes down to a matter of semantics – my poor choice of words. What nation on earth – especially one that has recently passed a nationwide prison reform bill – gives a man five years in prison for his choice of words?

I came to prison with a lot of growing up to do. I’ve done a lot of that growing these past 22 years. There is still more growing to be done. (We never stop growing. It is simply a matter of whether that growth is for better, or for worse.) I might not have made a great impression during my hearing, but my determination to improve, to help make things grow “for the better” – for my family, for my community – has never been stronger. 

Today, I could have walked out of prison on my own two legs, gotten a job, and lived independently. After this denial, I wonder when, or if I ever get home, whether I will be more hindrance than a help. 

Whether I come home, or not, truly matters little to anyone as such as it does to my children, my grandchildren, and me. We do not have much, and all I have to give them is me. They are the only people in the world who truly need me.

The people at my public hearing called me “angry.” I am not angry. I am heartbroken.

Larry R. Carter, 258499

(Thank you for reading my open letter. If you agree with me and desire to see my case readdressed please contact the Parole Board and ask them to reconsider their decision.)