Thursday, July 16, 2009

Gay Marriage: WWKD (What Would King Do)?


The president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has been speaking out in support of gay marriage. If you expect one of the country’s oldest equal rights organizations to stand behind one of its chapter presidentsm though, you’d be wrong.

The SCLC wants the Rev. Eric P. Lee fired.

National leaders recently summoned Lee to appear at the group’s Atlanta headquarters to explain his stance. If he failed to show, they said, he would be suspended and removed from his position, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Lee, an African American pastor who has headed the Los Angeles SCLC for the past two years, was an outspoken critic of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California. Voters approved it in last November’s election, but the issue isn’t going away in California or any other place, as states are confronted with court cases and ballot initiatives.

Iowa’s state Supreme Court recently legalized same-sex marriage, while lawmakers in West Virginia are considering whether to ban it. This week, former President Bill Clinton — who signed the law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage — said that he now supports gay marriage. And on Wednesday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, indirectly raised the issue during Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Back in California, Lee continues to advocate in support of such unions.

It’s this kind of advocacy that is raising the ire of fellow clergy at the SCLC. Founded in 1957 in the wake of the Montgomery bus boycott, the organization took a neutral stance on Proposition 8.

Lee now finds himself fighting for more than just marriage equality: He’s also taking on what he views as the hypocrisy of the church (especially black churches) and discrimination, as well as a continued blurring of the line between church and state, he said.

“Any time you deny one group of people the rights and privileges that other groups enjoy, it is fundamentally and unequivocally a denial of their civil rights. That makes it a justice issue,” Lee said in a telephone interview from California. “Because of black people’s history of being oppressed and discriminated against in this country, and because of our legacy of fighting against those things, we have earned the right to be the moral authority on justice issues. In fact, we are obligated to speak out.”

To read the rest, click here.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Considering Coons and the GOP's Future

Following the election for a new Young Republican leader gave me flashbacks.

Fresh out of college and a tad naive on my first reporting job, a small-town politician invited me to go “coon hunting.”

I had NO idea what he was talking about.

Though I attended majority white schools in the South, my parents kept me pretty protected from a lot of that stuff, and I mainly traveled in a circle of academic achievers, friends from orchestra and band class, and those who attended church with me. My upbringing didn’t prepare me to talk about hunting of any kind with the Milledgeville, Ga., city attorney.

The official's invitation struck me as a little off — he was chuckling as we talked — but I was eager to develop sources so I agreed to join him on his next outing. Back at the office, I asked my white, male editor about killing raccoons, something I wasn’t keen on witnessing. Exactly what would it involve?

The editor, Don Schanche, turned red.

He banged his fist on the desk.

He let loose with ungentlemanly expletives, cursing loud enough to startle everyone in the newsroom. Then he stalked out.

Later, still angry but in a much-lowered voice, he explained that “coon hunting” had nothing to do with raccoons. He apologized, asked whether I was comfortable enough to continue working my city government beat, and cautioned me to keep my distance from City Attorney J.W. Morgan. (Of course I still remember the guy’s name,)

Morgan died three years ago, according to an obituary I found online. But he was vividly brought back to mind by the election of Audra Shays to head the Young Republican National Federation — an election in which the word “coon” played a part.

This being 2009, Shays has a Facebook page. On it, one of her online friends labeled President Obama a “terrorist” and expressed a need to take back the country from “all these mad coons.” To see her reply, zoom in on this screen shot. “You tell ‘em,” she wrote. Where she typed “lol,” that’s shorthand for “laugh out loud.”

Laugh out loud? She found that entertaining?

And now she is one of the elected faces of the party of Lincoln, the party with a national chairman, Michael Steele, who is black.

To continue reading, click here.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Truth About Abortion and Black America

I sat trying to figure out how I would cover law school costs this fall when my phone rang. It was a campaign worker with a reminder that Virginia voters had a Democratic primary election this week and I had yet to decide who would get my vote.

It was the typical campaign call, nothing really remarkable about it. The worker wanted to know if I planned to support a conservative — not Republican — candidate at the polls. “Are you African American?” she asked. I replied in the affirmative. “I know that many African American voters are conservative when it comes to social issues like abortion. Would you describe the candidate you plan to support as conservative on the issue of abortion?”

In recent years conservative political strategists have painted African Americans as being more opposed to abortion than the white population. They have cited numbers as high as 59 percent.

But a recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll found that 49 percent of black Americans — considered more religious than the U.S. population as a whole — favor keeping abortion legal in most or all cases; just 44 percent of black Americans want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases.

Experts say there is declining black support for conservative social policies like abortion. The reasons vary.

Christopher J. Metzler, an associate dean at Georgetown University who writes regularly on issues of race and politics, attributes the drop-off in support to pressing economic conditions that black Americans face.

The unemployment rate for African American workers is now at 14.9 percent, almost double the national average. “It’s just not one of our top issues,” said Metzler.

Please click here to read the rest, and please leave your thoughts. ~One

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Dialing Down the Sound of Fury

High-pitched conservative rhetoric seems to be even more shrill than usual lately; some even blame it for the recent slaying of Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas physician who performed late-term abortions and was gunned down at his church May 31.

Some Republicans are having second thoughts about the level of negative political rhetoric they have been spouting as of late. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (1979-99), retrenched on what he recently said about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor being a racist.

Sotomayor will be the first Latina on the high court if confirmed.

It’s about time foes dialed down their fury. Maybe Gingrich realizes that he is the one who came off looking like a racist when he attacked her; then again, maybe not. Regardless, Gingrich’s half-apology comes too late and the damage might already be done.

“No party has a monopoly on saying things that are offensive at times,” said Audrey A. Haynes, an associate professor of political science at The University of Georgia. “But there is general consensus that the Republican Party, thanks to its use of wordsmith practioners and marketing gurus, has done a much better job, at least in the past, of controlling the discourse, framing the political conflicts, and being much more aggressive than the Democrats have been.”

When President Obama campaigned for the Oval Office, he vowed to help change the climate of political dialogue in Washington and beyond. In light of recent events this past week, it seems that this is a promise he won’t be able to keep.

But not because he hasn’t tried.

It was Obama who chose to deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame over historically black Morehouse College. He could have taken the easier path by going to Morehouse, where the first black president would likely have been lovingly welcomed with open arms; instead he went to Notre Dame where he was heckled during a speech that called for greater understanding and fair-mindedness on all sides of the abortion issue.

Click here to read the rest of the piece, and please leave a comment.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Supreme Court Nomination In Black and Brown

When Rush Limbaugh looks at President Obama and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, he sees a reverse racist nominated by “the greatest living example of a reverse racist.”

Other conservatives view Sotomayor as an affirmative action choice who lacks the intellectual heft for the high court. She’s someone, they say, who believes Latina judges are better than white male judges.

Liberals, on the other hand, herald Obama’s choice as a stroke of political genius and rejoice in the possibility of the first Hispanic female sitting on the bench.

Some political prognosticators speculate that Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor could lock up the Hispanic vote for Democrats for years to come.

But that’s inside baseball.

What I saw when Obama nominated Sotomayor, with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. by his side, was something quite different: Power, and what it increasingly looks like in this country.

By 2050, there will be no outright majority of any one demographic group, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But 236 million minorities — everyone except for non-Hispanic, single race whites — will be the majority.

The socio-political change such population shifts bring is already starting to manifest itself.

“Seeing Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor is more and more what power is going to look like in the future,” said Allert Brown-Gort, associate director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame. “That power, quite naturally, follows demographic changes to a certain extent, but let’s not fool ourselves. The full force of those changes won’t be felt if the laws and rules aren’t in place to let the changes happen.

“Just a couple of months ago they [lawyers and Supreme Court justices] were arguing over the 1965 Voting Rights Act and whether parts of it should be voided,” he said. “This shows us why we have to keep up the fight and can’t take anything for granted, while Obama’s announcement of Judge Sotomayor shows us what is at stake.”

Much attention has focused on the raw distrust between blacks and Hispanic immigrants. Whether it is a tug of war over jobs in New York and parts of the South or turf wars in Los Angeles, many black and brown people have been in a constant fight for the bottom for years.

Please click to read the rest of the story.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Voter ID: How Far Is Too Far?

With his signature May 5 on Georgia’s new voter identification law, Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue has set up a sure-fire showdown with the federal Department of Justice.

The Bush administration — which favored voter ID laws — was in charge the last time Georgia pushed through such controversial legislation.

This time around, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is calling the shots, and Georgia has to win his approval for an even stricter law that it now wants.

If permitted, Georgia would become the second state (Arizona is the other) to require prospective voters to prove their U.S. citizenship; currently voters in Georgia need only check a box on a registration application affirming U.S. citizenship.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a controversial voter ID law in Indiana, but that only led to more legal uncertainty for states.

Perdue and his supporters say stricter voter ID laws are necessary to combat voter fraud. Those who oppose it say the law has “xenophobic overtones” and maintain that it is a solution to a problem that does not exist. They add that the law would keep the poor, elderly and minorities away from the ballot box.

Perdue’s actions are part of the GOP’s efforts to put in place an array of new voting laws across the South.

For example:

• South Carolina legislators, for example, are arguing over a bill that requires voters to show valid government-issued identification at the polls. That recently prompted a walkout by several Democratic members led by the legislative black caucus.

Click to read the rest, and remember, comment and comment often. Thx

Sunday, May 24, 2009

A Foreclosure 'Fix' That Should Be In

I read with interest New York Times economics reporter Edmund L. Andrews’ book excerpt about how he fell behind in his mortgage payments.

“I know a lot about the curveballs that the economy can throw at us,” he writes. “But in 2004, I joined millions of otherwise-sane Americans in what we now know was a catastrophic binge on overpriced real estate and reckless mortgages. Nobody duped or hypnotized me. Like so many others — borrowers, lenders and the Wall Street dealmakers behind them — I just thought I could beat the odds.”

By 2007, he writes of his third mortgage servicer, JPMorgan Chase, “I was actually beginning to feel sorry for Chase. It seemed to be so flooded with defaulting borrowers that it didn’t have time to foreclose on my house. Eight months after my last payment to the bank, I am still waiting for the ax to fall.”

Not everyone facing mortgage foreclosure has had it this easy.

Lawrence Mouton, a Dallas truck driver for 12 years, purchased a $95,000 home two years ago and was paying a mortgage of $900 a month — the kind of terms Washington, D.C.-area residents like Andrews would kill for. In short order, however, Mouton’s wife lost her nursing home job and the mortgage payments jumped to over $1,200 a month.

Mouton struggled to keep the lights and gas on. He took out payday loans just to keep a roof over his family’s heads.

Home Eq, the company servicing his home loan, constantly called pushing him to pay more money, even urging him to send them his mother-in-law’s Social Security check.

“They wanted anything they could get,” said Mouton, whose bedridden mother-in-law lives with the family. “I told them we used her Social Security to buy all of her medicines. After we do that, all that little money is gone.”

Mouton was able to modify the terms of his loan when the servicer agreed last fall to lower his monthly payment by a whopping $17.86.

Mouton, 51, continued to make payments, even partial ones, but fell behind on the mortgage and his home soon went into foreclosure.

It is unclear how two homeowners with the same problem got different treatment.

Maybe it’s because they have different lenders. Or maybe it’s because one is a reporter for The New York Times and the other isn’t, said Kathleen Day, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Center for Responsible Lending.

In the current foreclosure crisis, Hispanics and black borrowers who often took on subprime loans — even when they qualified for conventional ones — are disproportionately impacted.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Fixing the Crack in U.S. Drug Policy


Eugenia Jennings’ mother left her at a neighbor’s house and never returned to get her.

The people who were supposed to take care of Eugenia, wound up beating and molesting her instead.

Eugenia was sexually abused by another neighbor and a prostitute at the age of seven. A year later she was raped by a step-brother and the man who called himself her step-father tried so when she was a teenager.

Eugenia ran away at 13, and shortly thereafter got hooked on crack-cocaine and alcohol.

“She stopped using when she learned she was pregnant but after she gave birth at age 16, desperate for money to support her and her daughter, she began selling drugs. Of course, she was eventually caught,” said her brother, Cedric Parker, who will testify before U.S. senators this week about federal mandatory drug sentences.

While in prison Eugenia got clean, earned a GED and gave birth to another child. But after getting released in 1999, she relapsed.

In June 2000 Eugenia Jennings was arrested for trading 13.9 grams of crack cocaine – differing quantities on two different occasions - for clothing.

She was charged in federal court with two counts of distributing crack cocaine. She pleaded guilty and, because she already had prior offenses for small amounts of drugs, Eugenia was sentenced in 2001 to nearly 22 years in prison; she was 23 years old.

The irony here is, had Eugenia Jennings been found with powder cocaine instead of crack, she would have gotten less than half that amount of time behind bars.

The system, the judge said when sentencing Jennings, had let her down.

“Mrs. Jennings, I’m not mad at you. . . . The fact of the matter is, nobody has ever been there for you when you needed it. Never. You never had anyone who stood up for you. All the government’s ever done is just kick your behind. When you were a child and you had been abused, the government wasn’t there. When your stepfather abused you, the government wasn’t there. When your stepbrother abused you, the government wasn’t there. But, when you get a little bit of crack, the government’s there.

“Now is that fair? No. It’s not. And have you been punished? You bet,” according to a transcript of the court proceedings. “Your whole life has been a life of deprivation, misery, whippings, and there is no way to unwind that. But the truth of the matter is it’s not in my hands. As I told you, Congress has determined that the best way to handle people who are troublesome is we just lock them up. Congress passed the laws.

“And it is an awful thing, an awful thing, to separate a mother from her children,” the judge continued. “And the only person who had the opportunity to avoid that was you . . . . .At every turn in the road we failed you. And we didn’t come to you until it was time to kick your butt. That’s what the government has done for Eugenia Jennings.”


Click to find out what happened to Eugenia, and please leave a comment here or here. Thanks, ~Sunshine

Monday, April 27, 2009

Politics of Color for Obama in Cuba


Miriela Mir Fonseca left her mother as well as four brothers and sisters behind in Cuba. Her relatives often don’t have enough to eat, she says.

So when President Obama recently lifted travel and remittance restrictions for the tiny island nation, Mir Fonseca considered it a blessing.

“With Obama, I can go home anytime I want,” said the 33-year-old, who works as a baker for a popular pastry chain in Buffalo, NY. “Can I tell you my dream? My dream is for my mother to come visit me, and for my brother to come here to help me start my business.”

Mir Fonesca is the face of a little-understood side of U.S.-Cuba relations. She is Afro-Cuban.
Fidel Castro’s relationship with blacks in the U.S. goes all the way back to when he stayed in Harlem after getting rejected by Western and European leaders attending a UN General Assembly meeting in 1961; he was welcomed by El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (also known as Malcolm X). Castro has chosen to visit and deliver speeches in Harlem ever since.

The tiny island nation has long offered to provide free medical school to African Americans, and took a harsh stance against South African apartheid, even as the American government would not.

Over the years, Fidel Castro has encouraged his country – about 60 percent of which is of African descent — to not only identify themselves with African Americans, but to have an affinity for them. And he used America’s racism to discredit U.S. policy on the island, according to Mark Sawyer, associate professor of political science at UCLA and author of Racial Politics in Post-Revolutionary Cuba.

Obama’s election means the Cuban regime might not be able to demonize the U.S. as it once did.
But despite his reversal of Bush Administration policy toward Cuba travel, it more than likely will prove difficult to follow that with a quick end to the 47-year-old trade embargo.
For one thing, Cuban leaders aren’t sure the country is ready for the embargo to be lifted. That’s why we see mixed messagescoming from the Castro brothers about opening a dialogue with the U.S.

And Castro isn’t stupid. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in the 1980s after it opened itself up to the West — its economy collapsed.

“Cuba is an island of 10 million people and it has a very small economy,” Sawyer said during a recent telephone conversation. “Opening up with the U.S. could potentially overwhelm their economy; and it could dramatically undermine Cuba’s power, control and its domestic policy.”
Like Mir Fonseca, Afro-Cubans tend to want the embargo put to rest; but they also want their families to maintain the gains of the revolution, such as universal health care and a guaranteed quality education. (Cuba has one of the highest life-expectancies in the world, and Castro is credited with basically eliminating illiteracy in the country.)

A report released earlier this year by Sen. Richard G. Lugar , R-Ind., recommended establishing a bipartisan commission to forge a new, multilateral strategy on Cuba with Latin America and the European Union. It also urged Havana’s reintegration into western-dominated international institutions, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, among other steps.

Borrowing money from the International Monetary Fund could impact Cuba’s domestic policy, by forcing the country to put caps on how much money it spends on education, health and poverty reduction. And it could affect how much Cuba can tax remittances. Currently taxed at 20 percent, that money allows Cuba to provide social services to its citizens.

Possible negotiations with the U.S. are further complicated by an issue that has a decidedly racial component.

When 25,000 elite, mostly white Cubans, fled the island between 1959 and 1993, Castro allowed their homes to be taken over by the maids and other servants – mostly black – who, in many cases, worked for the families that moved to Miami. “These wealthy families want to be paid back for their homes,” said Sawyer. “Under the radar, this is being talked about in terms of possible negotiations with the U.S.”

Cuba could be bankrupted if forced to repay wealthy exiles for their property, Sawyer said.
And that would further hurt poor black Cubans, like the realtives of Mir Fonesca.

As grateful as she is to be able to see her family more than once every three years, as the Bush Administration permitted, she wants more for them, and thinks ending the embargo would be the right start.

“Our families are starving,” she said. “We’re praying for a new start for the USA and Cuba.”

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

[un]Common Sex Blog: Muslim Husbands Can Rape Their Wives?

Okay, so I stole the title from Eddie Blue Eyes, but it does fit what I'm about to write about. Well, kinda.

See, one of my male friends went on a tantrum this week after hearing how U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronted Afghan President Hamid Karzai (pronounced Carz-eye) about a new law he signed. The law, according to Clinton and U.N. officials, effectively allows husbands to rape their wives.

Women, as you know, have very little freedom in many parts of the Middle East. In places like Afghanistan, Muslim women must be completely obedient to their husbands. The new law essentially forces women to get their husband's permission before looking for a job, going to the doctor, or receiving education, and grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only.

The friend I mentioned earlier, takes offense to Clinton - and by extension - the U.S. meddling in Afghan affairs. He flatly states that it is not America's business what happens in the bedroom of a husband and wife, especially when that husband and wife live in another country, on another continent.

As a woman my heart goes out to the women in Afghanistan, I mean, what woman would want to live under those conditions?

When I mentioned that, my friend asked me what Muslim women have I heard complain. Well, you know me, don't ask a question if you don't want me to answer. I pointed to several youtube videos, news articles, human rights reports... You get the picture. I have my facts together and spat them.

Then he goes to a place that I wasn't prepared, and still can not, possibly defend.

My friend, who isn't American, pointed out the ultimate of American hypocrisy. We talked about rape in America and how victims are too often treated. Many times they are raped, albeit not physically, all over again by the people who are supposed to protect them.

And then he mentioned that if we're going to use this issue to ramp up American anger to help bolster military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan, then we better be prepared to go after our trusted ally Saudi Arabia too.

Yup, he's right. when it comes to women, they don't have any rights in Saudi Arabia either. In fact, some maintain that women are worse off in Saudi Arabia than they are in Afghanistan.

Remember this? Or how about this?

And what about Pakistan, another "friend" of America, where public flogging of women is commonplace.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

First Lady Hype Can Be Offensive

Press coverage of Michelle Obama has been all over the map, and not all for the good.

A year ago she was being called an angry, black woman. After the inauguration we were saturated with debate over her body parts (here and here). On the eve of her trip to London, a talk radio host called Mrs. Obama “trash” and Townhall.com referred to her as a female dog. The b-word has since been removed from its web site.

In the past week, television seemed to fixate on an intimate moment Mrs. Obama shared with the Queen of England.

Heavens to Betsy! It’s not like we’re on the verge of a global economic collapse or anything, right?

Polls suggest that Michelle Obama is more popular than her husband.

She has even managed to win over some Republicans who, just a couple of months ago, would have had her stay behind in Chicago rather than move to Washington.

Once written off as a radical, if the reports are to be believed, Mrs. Obama is now the new Jackie O. But all I see when I look at her is my mother, cousins and friends. (They really mean Jackie Kennedy, anyway. The O-part came later.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Mrs. Obama is showing the world — including many Americans — the real face of the average black American woman: Beautiful, strong, warm, nurturing, even likeable.

But many African-American women, including this one, view all the attention — even the seemingly benign kind — as bordering on patronizing and, at times, offensive.

Reality check: About 2.3 million black women 25 years and older in the U.S. hold baccalaureate degrees or better, and 68 percent of them work full-time. They also work in higher numbers than white women in the U.S, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.

To read the rest, click here and PLEASE leave a comment over there. Thanks, Sunshine

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Is Anyone Else Tired of Michelle Obama Coverage, Or Is It Just Me?

Okay, last night I was bombarded with news stories concerning Michelle Obama's major faux paux of touching Queen Elizabeth?

Heavens to Betsy!

It's not like the world economy is teetering near disaster or anything, but hey, we have to read about something other than Glenn Beck's apparent breakdown, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm proud and happy that the First Lady is showing the world, and many in America, the face of the average black woman: Educated, beautiful, strong, warm, nurturing, graceful and gracious.

Yes, we're all that and more.

But it does feel that I'm on Michelle O-overload!

One moment I'm reading what used to be two of my favoritie columnists debating whether she should cover her arms within the staid pages of The New York Times. Then I read about her vegetable garden, visiting schoolchildren and feeding the homeless. She, it appears, is just as good as June Cleaver, so much so that she's winning over some of the same Republicans who, just a couple of months ago, would have had her stay behind in Chicago instead of move to Washington.

Then, last week on the eve of Mrs. Obama's trip to London, I heard a talk-radio host call the First Lady trash. Next I'm reading an article in Townhall.com that refered to her as a female dog (editor won't let me use the actual term in this publication, but I'm quite sure you can guess).

Now, I'm hearing how Michelle Obama is taking the world by storm.

Ink overflows about her style, her smile, her grace.

What did they expect, for Obama to wrap herself in red, black and green, blow her out into an righteous afro and throw up black power signs everywhere she goes?

Puhleeze! Some of the adulation is bordering on plain-old-patronizing.

So... I have to ask: Is anyone else tired of how Michelle Obama is being covered in the media or is it just me?

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Prison Bust

Something shocking just happened in Ohio.

Prosecutors there said they want to reduce sentences for criminals — not hardened murderers, just non-violent and low-level drug offenders.

Prosecutors — not prison reform advocates or defense attorneys — said they want to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for trafficking and possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, except in the most serious cases. They also want to reduce several other non-drug crimes to misdemeanors from felonies, including assaulting a school teacher without physical harm; injuring a police dog or horse; illegal use of food stamps; and stealing cable television

The biggest change, however, would be to give judges more flexibility in sending second-time offenders to drug treatment programs instead of jail.

It says a lot when prosecutors request less time for criminals, and Ohio isn’t the only state where this is happening.

In California, home to the largest prison system in the country, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger , a Republican, plans to cut his prison costs by reducing the number of people on parole. (Most of the people entering California prisons go, not for committing new crimes, but for violating technicalities of their parole. The Governater basically wants to release certain ex-cons without the benefit of state supervision).

California’s prison system is so overcrowded that the courts recently ruled that the state has to release 57,000 prisoners. And conditions so poor that a judge recently found Schwarzenegger in contempt of court for defying his order to pay the first $250 million of a multibillion-dollar plan to rebuild the state prison health care system.

Last year Schwarzenegger wanted $6.7 billion to build new prisons. Pending double-digit budget deficits probably was enough to change his mind.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire , D, is proposing the release of low-risk female inmates whose children are in foster care. The move is expected to help close a $9 billion budget shortfall.

Read the rest here.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Remembering John Hope Franklin

John Hope Franklin, Scholar Who Transformed African-American History, Dies at 94

John Hope Franklin, the scholar who helped create the field of African-American history and dominated it for nearly six decades, has died at the age of 94.

Franklin died of congestive heart failure at Duke Hospital this morning. He is survived by his son, John Whittington Franklin, daughter-in-law Karen Roberts Franklin, sister-in-law Bertha W. Gibbs, cousin Grant Franklin Sr., a host of nieces, nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews, other family members, many generations of students and friends. There will be a celebration of his life and of his late wife Aurelia Franklin at 11 a.m. June 11 in Duke Chapel in honor of their 69th wedding anniversary.

[In lieu of flowers, the family has asked that contributions be made to the Aurelia W. and John Hope Franklin Endowed Scholarship Fund at Fisk University, c/o Office of Institutional Advancement, 1000 17th Street North, Nashville, TN 37208.]

“John Hope Franklin lived for nearly a century and helped define that century,” said Duke President Richard H. Brodhead. “A towering historian, he led the recognition that African-American history and American history are one. With his grasp of the past, he spent a lifetime building a future of inclusiveness, fairness and equality. Duke has lost a great citizen and a great friend.”

Franklin, James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History, was a scholar who brought intellectual rigor as well an engaged passion to his work. He wrote about history – one of his books is considered a core text on the African-American experience, more than 60 years after its publication – and he lived it. Franklin worked on the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, joined protestors in a 1965 march led by Martin Luther King, Jr. in Montgomery, Ala. and headed President Clinton’s 1997 national advisory board on race.

He is perhaps best known to the public for his work on President Clinton’s 1997 task force on race. But his reputation as a scholar was made in 1947 with the publication of his book, “From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African-Americans,” which is still considered the definitive account of the black experience in America.

“My challenge was to weave into the fabric of American history enough of the presence of blacks so that the story of the United States could be told adequately and fairly,” he said when the 50th anniversary of the book was celebrated in 1997. “That was terribly important.”

In January 2005, he spoke at Duke at the celebration of his 90th birthday, displaying the fire that motivated him throughout his long life. While others at the event talked about the past and reminisced about his accomplishments, Franklin focused squarely on the future. He described the event, held the same day as President George W. Bush’s second inauguration, as a “counter-inaugural,” and gave a talk in the form of a letter to a fictional white man he called “Jonathan Doe.”

He recounted some of the historical inequalities in the United States and recalled some of his own experiences with racism. He said, for example, that the evening before he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bill Clinton, a woman at his club in Washington, D.C., asked him to get her coat. Around the same time, a man at a hotel handed Franklin his car keys and told him to get his car.

“I patiently explained to him that I was a guest in the hotel, as I presumed he was, and I had no idea where his automobile was. And, in any case, I was retired,” Franklin said. Both of these incidents occurred when he was in his 80s.

“What these experiences will do to me in the long run, I do not know. My cardiologist says that they are not good,” he said, continuing with the letter.

“I very much doubt, Mr. Doe, that you have had such experiences. Your race and your consequent position of power and privilege have doubtless immunized you from the experiences that a black person confronts daily, regardless of his age, education, position or station in life.”

At the time From Slavery to Freedom was published, there were few scholars working in African-American history and the books that had been published were not highly regarded by academics. To write it, he first had to give himself a course in African-American history, then spend months struggling to complete the research in segregated libraries and archives – including Duke’s, where he could not use the bathroom.

Franklin accumulated many honors during his long career, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. He shared the John W. Kluge Award for lifetime achievement in the humanities and a similar honor from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, the nation’s two oldest learned societies.

But he also was revered as a “moral leader” of the historical profession for his engagement in the pressing issues of the day, his unflagging advocacy of civil rights, and his gracious and courtly demeanor.

Virtually all of the many articles written about “John Hope,” as he was called by friends and colleagues, include the words “distinguished” or “elegant.” His devotion to his wife, Aurelia, who died in 1999, was legendary, as was his love of orchids, which he raised in his Durham home. He even had one named after him: Phalaenopsis John Hope Franklin.

Franklin recounted the events of his long life in his autobiography “Mirror to America: The Autobiography of John Hope Franklin,” which was published in 2005. To read and hear an interview with Franklin about his book, go to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/11/jhf_qa.html.

The grandson of a slave, Franklin’s work was informed by his first-hand experience with injustices of racism -- not just in Rentiesville, Okla., the small black community where he was born on Jan. 2, 1915, but throughout his life.

Named after John Hope, the former president of Atlanta University, Franklin was the son of Buck Colbert Franklin, one of the first black lawyers in the Oklahoma Indian territory, and Mollie Parker Franklin, a schoolteacher and community leader.

The realities of racism hit Franklin at an early age. He has said he vividly remembers the humiliating experience of being put off the train with his mother because she refused to move to a segregated compartment for a six-mile trip to the next town. He was 6. Later, although an academic star at Booker T. Washington High School and valedictorian of his class, the state would not allow him to study at the state university because he was black.

So instead of the University of Oklahoma, in 1931 Franklin enrolled at Fisk University, a historically black college in Nashville, Tenn., intending to study law.

However, a white history professor, Theodore Currier, caused him to change his mind and he received his bachelor’s degree in history in 1935. Currier became a close friend and mentor and when Franklin’s money ran out, Currier loaned the young student $500 to attend graduate school at Harvard University, where he received his master’s in 1936 and doctorate five years later.

He began his career as an instructor at Fisk in 1936 and taught at St. Augustine’s and North Carolina College for Negroes (now North Carolina Central University), both historically black colleges.

In 1945, Alfred A. Knopf approached him about writing a book on African-American history – originally titled From Slavery to Freedom: A History of American Negroes -- and he spent 13 months writing it.

Then in 1947, he took a post as professor at Howard University, where, in the early 1950s, he traveled from Washington to Thurgood Marshall’s law office to help prepare the brief that led to the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision.

In 1956 he became chairman of the all-white history department at Brooklyn College. Despite his position, he had to visit 35 real estate agents before he was able to buy a house for his young family and no New York bank would loan him the money.

Later, while at the University of Chicago, he accompanied the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. in 1965.

He spent 16 years at the University of Chicago, coming to Duke in 1982. He retired from the history department in 1985, then spent seven years as professor of legal history at the Duke Law School.

Franklin was a prolific writer, with books including The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, George Washington Williams: A Biography and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Antebellum North. He also has edited many works, including a book about his father called My Life and an Era: The Autobiography of Buck Colbert Franklin, with his son, John Whittington Franklin. Franklin completed his autobiography in 2005, which was reviewed favorably in many media outlets across the country.

He received more than 130 honorary degrees, and served as president of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, the American Studies Association, the Southern Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association.

Franklin’s best-known accomplishment in his later years was in 1997, when he was appointed chairman of the advisory board for President Clinton’s One America: The President’s Initiative on Race. The seven-member panel was charged with directing a national conversation on race relations.

When he was named to the post, Franklin remarked, “I am not sure this is an honor. It may be a burden.”

The panel did provoke criticism, both from conservatives who pressured the panel to hear from opponents of racial preference and others who said it did not make enough progress. Franklin himself acknowledged in an interview with USA Today in 1997 that the group could not solve the nation’s racial problems.

But Franklin said the effort was still worth it.

In 2007, lent his formidable effort to the issue of reparations for African Americans. Franklin returned to Oklahoma to testify in a hearing urging Congress to pass legislation that would clear the way for survivors of the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921, one of the nation's worst race riots, to sue for reparations.

At Duke, Franklin’s legacy has been honored in many ways. In 2006 he delivered Duke’s commencement address. After celebrating his 90th birthday in January 2005, Duke held a symposium celebrating the 10th anniversary of the John Hope Franklin Collection of African & African American Documentation in the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library at Duke University. The event also marked the publication of his autobiography. A portrait of Franklin was hung in Perkins Library in 1997.

And, in 2001, Duke opened the John Hope Franklin Center for Interdisciplinary and International Studies, (jhfc.duke.edu) where scholars, artists and members of the community have the opportunity to engage in public discourse on a variety of issues, including race, social equity and globalization. At the heart of its mission is the Franklin Humanities Institute, which sponsors public events and hosts the Franklin Seminar, a residential fellowship program for Duke faculty and graduate students.

For Franklin, who continued his scholarly work and public appearances full-bore into his 90s, the work he began in the 1940s still was not finished.

In a statement to the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 2002, Franklin summed up his own career: “More than 60 years ago, I began the task of trying to write a new kind of Southern History. It would be broad in its reach, tolerant in its judgments of Southerners, and comprehensive in its inclusion of everyone who lived in the region. ... the long, tragic history of the continuing black-white conflict compelled me to focus on the struggle that has affected the lives of the vast majority of people in the United States. ... Looking back, I can plead guilty of having provided only a sketch of the work I laid out for myself.”

A special website commemorates the life and legacy of historian John Hope Franklin. Leave condolences at: http://www.duke.edu/johnhopefranklin.

Join the Facebook group "In Memory of John Hope Franklin (1915-2009)" here: tinyurl.com/c7v6m8.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Did Steve Harvey Plagiarize Best Seller?

There is a rumor going around that Steve Harvey and his co-writer might have stolen the idea for his new, best-selling book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man.

Full disclosure: I haven't read the book yet, but I have been eyeing it in my local Border's bookstore. It currently sits atop the New York Times Best Selling book list and several book clubs are now reading it.

The book dishes advice to women, who Harvey says, are setting their standards too low when it comes to men. He even went on Oprah to promote it recently.

Man, if this rumor is true, it will be the second time Oprah has gotten burned by an unethical writer (or co-writer in this case).

Oprah's gonna be pissed.

Anyway, Sharon P. Carson published an e-book by the same name in 2003, according to this web site.

The book sells online for $7.99 (not the $23.99 price-sticker on Harvey's book). In it, Carson touts her book as providing "keys to self-worth and surviving a love knockout."

There's more on Carson's book below. Meanwhile, let me know if this comes up on Steve Harvey's radio show.

Taken from Sharon P. Carson's Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man:

Act like a Lady – Think like a Man is a
collection of short lessons that are intended to
inspire women to practice both self-love and
tough love in relationships.

In today’s world women’s hearts are being
broken over and over again, as easily as eggs
for an omelet and without remorse or second
thought.

By gaining some insight into
how men think (in terms of their relationships
with women,) a woman can help better her
present relationship and be more able either to
recognize the signs of a bad relationship so
that she doesn’t fall into one, or to recognize
if she has already fallen into one.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

He's the President, Not A Pop Star

People waited for hours to get tickets.

They arrived at 2 a.m. or earlier. Some had the foresight to bring tents, while others lay in wait on cots or sat in lounge chairs for all that time.

Just a glimpse of him would be more than some could ever wish for. Alas, more than a thousand people were turned away after learning there were no more tickets.

Forget Michael Jackson and his sold-out concert in London. I’m referring to President Obama’s town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California.

The point of the town hall meeting was to provide an opportunity for Obama to spread his economic message. But it was peppered with American Idol-like adulation and screams of the kind I imagine Elvis Presley must have received.

A couple of times somebody in the crowd yelled, “I love you.” The president responded, “I love you back.”

I cringed.

What’s love got to do with it?

We’re still fighting two wars, have Iran breathing down our necks, an economic crisis of epidemic proportions on our hands, and the people are acting like he’s Paris Hilton, not the president.

Okay, Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., tried to use that line before and it didn’t work. But some presidential scholars now worry that Obama risks being perceived as not taking his job seriously enough.

“I think there is a danger for Obama in looking too much like a celebrity star. It was an avenue of attack that McCain used against him in the campaign, it didn’t work then, but that was the campaign. It’s different when you’re in office,” says Jeremy Mayer, presidential expert at George Mason University. “I think he risks the stature of the presidency being diminished.”

Obama recognized the attention he was getting from the crowd (I guess you can’t ignore someone yelling, “I love you”) but he also tried to strike a more somber note by steering the audience back to his message about the economy.

There is a certain “coolness” to Obama’s approach that may help make him more appealing to the masses than past presidents. But what happens when you’re too cool, too awesome?

Friday, March 20, 2009

Palin Blasts Obama for Special Olympics Comment

But wait, didn't Governor Sarah Palin just, this week, turn down federal stimulus money that would have helped special needs education programs?

Give me a friggin break! This woman never ceases to make me laugh.

Story is here.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Too Bad Mel Brooks Can't Write Ending to AIG Mess

It defies logic that executives of American International Group Inc. who are responsible for running the company into the ground would get $165 million in bonuses.

And it’s understandable that Americans want someone to blame.

They just might be leveling that blame at the wrong people.

What’s being overlooked is that if there were no such thing as a federal bank bailout, AIG would have still gotten an $85 billion cash infusion courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, because the company got its money from the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury Department.

In fact, the Republican-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had already bought an 80 percent stake in AIG by the time Congress passed the federal bailout (PL 110-343) in October.

“People need to understand that the AIG guys would have still gotten their money regardless as to what Congress did or didn’t do because they never went to Congress in the first place. AIG went straight to Bernanke,” says Kathryn C. Lavelle, a political economy professor at Case Western University and fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC

The Fed, as it is commonly called, is responsible for protecting the country’s money supply. It prints money, sets interest rates and ensures there is enough cash and credit in the market. And unlike the treasury, the Fed doesn’t have to ask Congress for money or get members’ permission or guidance on how to use money under its control; much like it did when it bought $85 billion worth of AIG stock last September.

It’s another one of those quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but with technocrats who have a higher level of expertise.

Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 as a neutral entity so that it wouldn’t be subject to political pressure. At the time, the banks and government each wanted to control it; nobody wanted a politician in control of the country’s cash supply. The Fed’s current quasi-governmental structure was decided on as a compromise.

Members of Congress don’t typically involve themselves in the day-to-day dealings with the Fed, but it is a creature of Congress. In fact, Congress has the power to get rid of the Fed. That said, most members of Congress don’t even know who to call at the Fed or what kinds of questions to ask when problems like AIG arise.

Who’s to blame?

The outrage surrounding AIG reminds me of a funny scene from the 1974 Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles.

A new sheriff arrives and the town of Rockbridge is ecstatic until they see who he is. The men-folk pull guns on the man sworn to serve and protect them. Then the sheriff pulls his own gun and puts it to his head. “Hold it, the next man that makes a move, the (black man) gets it,” said the sheriff, threatening to kill himself, while also refusing help from the townspeople who had now become his rescuers.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Starting Over: How Iyanla Vanzant Lost Her Home and Health Insurance

Remember Iyanla Vanzant, the motivational speaker and prolific writer who gave us such titles as One Day My Soul Just Opened Up and Acts of Faith?

For those who still don't know who she is, Iyanla is the black version of Dr. Phil with a side of Oprah Winfrey and Maya Angelou all rolled into one person.

Well, like millions of other Americans, Iyanla got one of those exotic loans - yes, even those with money got suckered - and lost her house. On top of that, due to catastrophic illness and tragedy in her family, she also lost almost everything else. Her daughter was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer, and like many black folks (includng myself), Iyanla had to take on the added responsibility of taking care of her daughter, her daughter's bills and a grandchild. She also went through a divorce, and her daughter died.

We've heard a lot about the pervasive greed serially committed by those n charge of companies like AIG. And we've been bombarded with people like Rick Santelli. If you recall, he's the nice fellow who went on a televised rant a couple of weeks ago and castigated many of those who have recently lost their jobs, healthcare, homes or all three.

For those who subscribe to Santelli's point-of-view, I suggest you read Iyanla's story. For those who don't feel like Santelli, I still encourage you to read what happened with this woman and how she went from "Oprah favorite" to starting over.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Voting Rights in Peril

Some contend that the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness, and hold up President Obama as proof-positive that times have changed.

But have they changed enough?

In April, the Supreme Court is slated to decide whether part of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. It is conceivable that the high court could strike down Section 5 of the law, which requires states and other jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to pre-clear any changes in voting rules with the U.S. Justice Department to ensure the changes cannot hurt minorities.

“Those of us who have been involved in the voting rights struggle have always viewed the Voting Rights Act as a temporary transitional remedy,” said Rep. Melvin Watt , D-N.C., who helped push through the act’s reauthorization three years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of race for years, and the country’s changing demographics isn’t making the task any easier.

When the court debated the midterm Texas redistricting by former House Speaker Tom DeLay, justices sent out a mixed message about race, redistricting and the Voting Rights Act, the The landmark civil rights law created to overcome a legacy of poll taxes, whites-only primaries and literacy tests, especially in Southern states.

This week, in another decision the high court seems to be saying that unless the population of a district is at least 50 percent minority, then it’s not black or brown enough to be protected by the law.

The decision leaves in question the drawing of crossover, or coalition districts, where African-Americans vote with whites, Hispanics or other ethnic groups to elect their candidates of choice.

Justice Clarence Thomas , as usual, sided with the rest of the conservative wing of the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — in arguing that unless minorities make up more than half the voting population in a district, they are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy , considered a swing vote on the court, joined them.

In his opinion, some think Kennedy signaled that he too believes the Voting Rights Act is still needed. “Racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history,” Justice Kennedy wrote. But the goal of the Voting Rights Act, he continued, was to “hasten the waning of racism in American politics” rather than to “entrench racial differences.”

Fifty percent sounds like a pretty arbitrary number, until you start thinking about the other time the court linked a number with race. As I recall, that three-fifths formula didn’t work out too well.

Click to read the rest.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Corrective Rape?

The partially clothed body of Eudy Simelane, former star of South Africa's acclaimed Banyana Banyana national female football squad, was found in a creek in a park in Kwa Thema, on the outskirts of Johannesburg. Simelane had been gang-raped and brutally beaten before being stabbed 25 times in the face, chest and legs. As well as being one of South Africa's best-known female footballers, Simelane was a voracious equality rights campaigner and one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian in Kwa Thema.

Her brutal murder took place last April, and since then a tide of violence against lesbian women in South Africa has continued to rise. Human rights campaigners say it is characterised by what they call "corrective rape" committed by men behind the guise of trying to "cure" lesbian women of their sexual orientation.

Watch a testimonialsvideo.

Read more at The Guardian.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Newt to the Rescue... in response to Rippa's blog on Michael Steele

With the Republican Party in seeming disarray, Newt Gingrich is emerging as someone who might be able to save conservatives — and the GOP — from themselves.

But can a former Speaker of the House do what Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele may not be able to do after effectively abdicating his party leadership role to talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh?

Many party activists insist the GOP doesn’t have a leader right now. But anyone watching Gringrich might think differently.

Take, for example, his address to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. The former Speaker of the House took the stage to the thumping beat of ”Eye of the Tiger”, then succinctly and articulately did what Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal failed to do more than a week ago.

“I came here today to take a few minutes to answer the president and answer his attorney general and to comment on the machine which currently runs the Congress,” said Gingrich, giving the defacto Republican response to President Obama’s big speech to Congress.

To the folks in that crowd, Gingrich’s words are what they hungered to hear from somebody, anybody inside the Republican Party.

Some key phrases from Gingrich’s speech showed up as talking points on television shows — hammering on the term socialist, for instance, and charging hard against the earmarks in the catch-all spending bill.

“To suggest to us that he is opposed to earmarks when the very next day the Democrats brought up a bill with 8,000 earmarks in it, then to suggest that (this bill) doesn’t count because all the pork was in it before he got here,” he said, pausing for dramatic effect, “I was looking for change we can believe in.”

Bull’s-eye.

Like Bill Clinton, Gingrich used the rhetoric of the opposing party to discount its message.

Pulling another chapter from Clinton’s playbook, Gingrich talked about how the party should expand its base by reaching out to conservative Democrats and independents. And most importantly, he offered a plan.

Click to read the rest. Feel free to leave your thoughts here, there, or both places.