Take Political Action

"The Black Press" Needs to Be More Accessible To Us Online

The Black Informant

By Danielle C. Belton

The Black Informant recently published a post critical of the "Black Press" in the complaints of black owned and operated publications upset over issues of access surrounding both the president and things like the memorial service for Michael Jackson.

Many black media outlets, reporters and editors have been outspoken when they feel that they are being slighted, but have been extra vocal about perceived slights when they involve fellow African-Americans. Case in point -- the president.

After the first black president completed his first prime-time press conference, the black press was red hot.

“We were window dressing,” said Hazel Edney, a reporter with the National Newspaper Publishers Association, also known as the Black Press of America. “We were nothing more than window dressing.”

The Black Informant points out that this attitude permeates whether discussing problems with advertising revenue or competing with bloggers. But rather than complain that these issues are because of race, TBI argues this has much more to do with their low circulation numbers, an over-reliance on a dying medium and their own unwillingness to embrace technology.

The Black press has stubbornly been relying too much on print media in an age where publications are moving online for survival. I have repeatedly made pleas to the Black press to reconsider this antiquated way of doing business to no avail.

All of this has less to do with race and more to do with low readership in the general print media market. Why would Obama treat the Black press like a large US paper or television network?

But we at The Retort want to ask: Do older black publications deserve a pass simply based on skin tone alone? As TBI points out, these publications have lower circulation and aren't tech savvy. It's not to the advantage of many to work with them to get the word out if they can bend the ear of a much larger publications. Rather than caterwaul, shouldn't black newspapers be upgrading to compete in today's environment?

These newspapers still serve a need, but they could be far more influential online than clinging to their present, more expensive formats. Newspapers are needed, but so is a black online journalistic presence and if more black journalists are online with news sites and blogs that would increase the number of substantial, investigative pieces that deal directly with the black experience and other, under-reported minority issues. Rather than whine over access, shouldn't they be making themselves more accessible to us?

Save Pat Buchanan

Why the jolly, red-faced Republican hitman is delivering the best news for black folks on television.

• By: Adam Serwer | 

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

Pat Buchanan is a man of many bigotries. He’s praised Hitler’s “courage,” argued that black folks should be grateful that slavery took them out of Africa, fretted that Hispanic immigrants would cause the U.S. to “lose the American southwest,” compared homosexuality to alcoholism and appeared several times on a “pro-white” radio show. Buchanan’s incendiary views prompted Jamison Foser of Media Matters to ask, “What would Pat Buchanan have to say to get himself fired from MSNBC?”

The thing is, Pat Buchanan shouldn’t be fired. His rants, while offensive, aren’t persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with him. But they discredit the notion that the Republican Party has entirely moved on from its regressive views on race.

For the most part, people have been inclined to shrug off Buchanan’s unapologetic racism, seeing him as a relic of an earlier era. As a commentator on MSNBC, most of Buchanan’s views are unremarkable, but sometimes they’re interesting.

 

It’s on issues of race and identity that Buchanan becomes most objectionable, and recently, his objectionable half has won out, driving his commentary on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor—who would, if confirmed, be the first Puerto Rican justice on the Supreme Court. Buchanan has questioned Sotomayor’s intelligence, temperament, even her ability to speak English. (However, this critique quickly boomeranged. Appearing at a conference with white nationalist Peter Brimelow, Buchanan mocked the decorated judge under a banner that misspelled the word “conference.”) And in his compulsive focus on her since-reversed ruling in an affirmative action case that denied white firefighter Frank Ricci a promotion, he has appeared a man possessed: He used her one-page bench opinion to argue that she is a proponent of “tribal justice.”

 

Few people understand tribal justice better than Buchanan, who seems to view competition for success and prosperity as a battle between whites and non-whites. If Sotomayor had ruled in Ricci’s favor, she would have been disregarding precedent—exactly the kind of “activist” behavior Buchanan claims to abhor. Buchanan’s objection, therefore, was not on the same legal grounds that the Supreme Court has since used to strike down Sotomayor’s decision, but on the grounds that it hurt a white man like himself. Or in his words, “What is happening now to white men right now is exactly what was done to black folks for years.” As he wrote in his 2006 book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, “Race matters. Ethnicity matters. History matters. Faith matters. Nationality matters. While they are not everything, they are not nothing. Multiculturalism be damned, this is what history teaches us.”

 

And over at the conservative Web site Human Events, Buchanan proclaimed that one prefers the old bigotry. At least it was honest, and not, as Abraham Lincoln observed, adulterated “with the base alloy of hypocrisy.” Of course, there’s plenty hypocritical about a slaveholding nation being founded on the principle that “all men are created equal.” But no matter. It would probably be more truthful to say that Buchanan prefers “the old bigotry” because it wasn’t directed at him.

 

But what makes Buchanan most interesting is that he’s no blind partisan—he’s his own brand of traditional paleoconservative. Most of the time, he tells it pretty straight. Buchanan hasn’t been shy about praising Obama or criticizing the GOP when he believes it’s warranted. When Republicans like Bill Kristol and John McCain were clamoring for Obama to antagonize Iran’s leadership in the wake of protests throughout June, Buchanan supported President Obama’s strategy of undercutting Iranian hard-liners by taking America out of the equation, saying he thought Obama was behaving “like a president of the United States.” There’s also Buchanan’s tendency to be startlingly frank about what he’s thinking and what he believes. Later in the same segment, Buchanan shrugged, “I put democracy far down the line. I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country—even if it’s a monarchy—is fine with me.” Scary, but really kind of refreshing at the same time.

 

And, though Buchanan has long been, as the president is fond of saying about petty dictators, “on the wrong side of history,” that doesn’t mean one can ignore his cultural heft. Buchanan is also arguably one of the most important living American political figures—he served in the Reagan, Ford and Nixon administrations, and it was his mind that helped develop the racially divisive Southern strategy that would become a successful Republican blueprint for years to come.

 

So is there anything Buchanan could say to get himself kicked off the air? Probably not. As long as his prejudices are expressed in relatively polite fashion—without the use of an obvious racial epithet, for example—he can skate by.

 

And really, that’s why MSNBC should keep Pat Buchanan. Not despite his regressive views—but because of them. Social pressure has expelled the expression of ideas like Buchanan’s from polite company, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of people who agree with the things he says. He remains on the network because, sadly, there’s still a market, an audience for his views that nod knowingly whenever his pensive scowl appears on the screen. And Buchanan says what a lot of these slick, groomed Republican press flacks are really thinking. Many of these conservatives won’t cop to believing, as he does, that America is “committing suicide” through the abortion of white babies and an influx of “Asian, African, and Latin American children;” there’s a silent minority that agree with many of his views. (A good example of this projection is the bromantic camaraderie between Buchanan and Hardball host Chris Matthews over the Ricci case—Matthews invites Buchanan to talk affirmative action precisely because he can express the kind of white resentment that Matthews himself might get in trouble for admitting.)

 

In recent years, the GOP has made attempts—some sincere, some not—to reach out to communities of color. These have failed, largely because a substantial amount of the GOP’s shrinking base sees the nation the way Buchanan does, as being destroyed by outsiders who aren’t real Americans. This remains true even as American demographic trends promise certain doom for the party as it currently exists. As long as that’s the case—and as unpleasant as it may be—progressives should hope those reactionaries have a voice. To the extent that Pat Buchanan is hurting someone, it isn’t liberals, Democrats or even people of color. It’s the conservative cause. If anyone should really want Buchanan to be fired from MSNBC, it’s the leadership of the Republican Party.

 I say keep him.

 Adam Serwer is a writing fellow at the American Prospect.

Senate Apologizes for Slavery

No, this is not an Onion Headline. Six months into Barack Obama’s presidency, the ultimate good ol’ boys club quietly comes clean and seeks reconciliation, justice and harmony for the American people. Better way, way, way, late than never.

By: Terence Samuel | 

KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

RELATED TAGS

At two minutes before noon on Thursday, June 18, 2009, 146 years after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and 150 days after a black man took the presidential oath of office, the United States Senate, in a unanimous voice vote, apologized to African Americans for slavery and the racial discrimination during the Jim Crow era. It’s about damn time! 

Introduced by Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, and co-sponsored  by 21 other senators, the resolution acknowledged that it is important “for the people of the United States, who legally recognized slavery through the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so they can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all people of the United States.” 

Who could disagree with that?

And so the Congress, “apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws.” 

Apology accepted. But what’s taken so long? I  know it is Constitutionally enshrined that the Senate is to act slowly, deliberately; that it is to be neither impetuous nor impulsive, but even by the most extreme standards, this was a ridiculously long deliberation --  150 years is a longtime. 

Of course, everyone would grant that an earlier apology without the hard work that has been done to end discrimination and racial injustice would have been a particularly empty gesture. So on this one, as with most things, actual hard work  and progress counts more than just words. At least with Barack Obama in the White House, there is an argument to be made that the apology is sincere. One of the reasons for the delay was the complicated and complicating idea of reparations for slavery. Some have worried that the existence of  an official apology would only strengthen the case for reparations; time, it seems, has just diminished those concerns. 

Still the Senate was careful to address some of those concerns. The Senate resolution differs from the one passed by the House last summer, in that it includes a disclaimer that reads: “Nothing in this resolution-- (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.” So forget any reparations claims based on this particular apology. 

While the apology is official, it does not have the force of law. The President does not have to sign it allowing him whatever distance he needs from the debate. But both Presidents Clinton and Bush made a point to condemn the legacy of slavery with President Bush describing it as “one of the great crimes of history.”  

Comments from the floor were predictably moving and contrite. Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback said that with the resolution, the Senate was, on behalf of the American people, not just saying sorry, but also asking for forgiveness. 

Harkin noted the historic quality of the moment: “The clerk just read for the first time ever in this body what we should have done a long time ago -- an apology for slavery and the Jim Crow laws which for a century after emancipation deprived millions of Americans their basic human rights, equal justice under law and equal opportunities.” 

The apology notes that Africans were "were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage” and noted that “the system of slavery and the visceral racism against people of African descent upon which it depended became enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States.” 

We know that problems remain. The resolution wisely acknowledges such: “African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty.” 

Shockingly late timing aside, there are passages of inescapable truth in the resolution that make it worth reading. It says, for example, that “an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery.” 

Yes, there are still wounds to be bound, and they are not all symbolic. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is reminder enough, for anyone who needs reminding. But that’s another debate. Another resolution. 

Apology accepted. 

 

Terence Samuel is Deputy Editor of The Root.

Troy Davis Must Not Be Executed

Wrongful convictions of black men have become commonplace. But conviction of Troy Davis in Chatham County, Georgia is one of the most egregious and compelling cases in decades. You can help save this man's life.

By: Ben Jealous |

David Silverman/Getty Images

As Father’s Day approaches, we often reflect on the male role models, father figures and patriarchs who are instrumental  in our lives. We hold them in high regard because they possess qualities we admire: courage and strength, perseverance and determination, humility and grace.

To DeJuan Correira, his “Uncle Troy” embodies all of these attributes. A mentor to his nephew, Troy Anthony Davis played a prominent role in DeJuan’s development into a superior student while simultaneously providing support to DeJuan’s mother, Martina, Troy’s sister who was diagnosed with cancer in 2001. Davis’ accomplishments as a father figure and family man are astounding given his circumstances;  since 1991, Davis has been on death row, wrongly convicted of the murder of Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail.

His case is one of several in the United States where black men are convicted of violent crimes despite faulty testimony, ineffective counsel and reasonable doubt. In Missouri, Reggie Clemons was convicted of the 1991 murder of two young women despite no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and was based on confessions that were coerced, inadequate defense lawyers and a prosecution that was held in contempt of court. Currently sitting on Missouri’s Death Row, Clemons is set to be executed on June 17.

The Troy Davis case is the most compelling case of innocence in decades. No physical evidence links Davis to the crime; no murder weapons were found and 7 out of 9 eyewitnesses recanted or contradicted their original statements. The facts of his innocence are so overwhelming that it has inspired conservative former Congressman Bob Barr and former FBI head William Sessions to speak out. The chorus calling for a new trial includes former President Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI. Despite irrefutable evidence of his innocence, Chatham County is one of 159 counties in the state of Georgia. The county currently has approximately 250,000 residents, less than 3 percent of Georgia’s state population. Yet this tiny county has produced one-third of Georgia’s exonerations and 40 percent of its death row exonerations, statistics that reveal a questionable history of negligent legal practices. The Troy Davis case is the latest in a series of disturbing instances of Chatham County’s disregard for justice and a proclivity to prosecute and potentially execute in the face of innocence. The new Chatham County District Attorney, Larry Chisolm, who is black, could reopen the case, but so far he has refused to do so.

In a desperate attempt to silence Davis, the Georgia Department of Corrections has prohibited all television access to him. Interview requests from 60 Minutes, Dateline NBC and the Associated Press have been denied, and the prison has threatened to revoke Davis’ phone privileges should any family member allow media to speak to him. These drastic infringements on Davis’ First Amendment rights are a measure of the state’s fear that exposure could reveal the truth about racism and injustice in Chatham County and in the state of Georgia.

While many in his position would be resentful about the unfair circumstances and an unjust system that put them behind bars, Davis exudes benevolence, responsibility and leadership. The effect Davis has had on his nephew is evident—DeJuan achieved top honors in the state’s Social Science Fair for his project entitled “Time for Change: How Does the Troy Anthony Davis Case Affect Georgia?" From the confines of the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification State Prison, Davis has mentored and provided an example to young DeJuan by being positive, unwavering and unbroken.

Davis is steadfast in his belief that justice will eventually be served and that he will be absolved.

He has served nearly 18 years of his life on death row for a crime he did not commit; time he will never get back. Nonetheless, the window remains open to act before an irreversible crime is committed. We must put a stop to this injustice before it’s too late.

On June 25,  the Supreme Court will hear a last ditch appeal in the case. If Davis’ writ of habeas corpus is denied, within weeks—maybe days—an execution date will be set.  

I am urging everyone to take a moment to save an innocent life. Go to IAMTROY.com. where you can send a letter to Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue and ask him to commute Troy’s sentence.

Benjamin Todd Jealous is the president and CEO of the NAACP.

Ghetto Loans for 'Mud People'?

Why we still need the NAACP.          

By: Adam Serwer |

As the full impact of the financial crisis was emerging, Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, took to the floor of the House to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the crisis. “The government was goading these mortgage lenders, saying, ‘You’re redlining. You’re being discriminatory. If you don’t give loans out to marginally credit-worthy people we’re going to come after you.”

The act was a 1970s era law aimed at preventing redlining—the longstanding practice of banks refusing to lend to minority borrowers in neighborhoods that were outlined on maps in red ink. The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis—most of the lenders who trafficked in subprime mortgages were outside of its reach. But conservatives, Bachmann included, were arguing that the government policy caused the financial meltdown by forcing banks to make loans to black people, who, once again, were being blamed for problems caused by racist practices designed to exploit them.

Even before Baltimore city officials followed the NAACP into court to file a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, we knew that mortgage lenders had targeted minority borrowers, regardless of credit history, for predatory, high-rate, adjustable mortgages, that were designed to fail. But the sheer scale of the racism involved was only recently revealed by former Wells Fargo employees who testified in affidavits obtained by the New York Times. From the filings in the Baltimore case, we learned that loan officers referred to black customers as “mud people,” and to the subprime loans they sold them as “ghetto loans.” But it was the NAACP, whose relevance is often questioned, that filed the first suit against Wells Fargo.

Around the time of the NAACP’s centennial in February, writer John McWhorter expressed his frustration with the NAACP for continuing to focus on preventing discrimination against black people rather than on delivering social services to those who needed them. McWhorter wrote, “The issue is not whether there is ‘still racism’—of course there is; just as after you sweep off a patio, if you bend down and look up close there's ‘still dirt.’” But he insisted that the organization should focus on “the things that matter most,” such as the AIDS epidemic and better public education. Racial discrimination was no longer a force that could destroy the lives of black Americans trying to succeed.

The Wells Fargo case proves him wrong. The organized and insidious nature of the scheme to target black borrowers for subprime loans, regardless of their credit histories, affirms the very serious problem of continuing racial discrimination. The service organizations built to provide black folks with reputable loans and financial literacy training were overwhelmed by the volume and accessibility of institutions engaged in predatory lending.

The scale of the problem means that an organization focused on anything other than fighting discrimination would not be in a position to do very much about it. Predatory lending is a public policy issue—one that needs to be addressed through regulation at the state and federal level—and someone needs to be constantly advocating for those changes. That is the role of traditional civil rights organizations.

But the subprime debacle was made all the more tragic by the fact that those very organizations played a role in promoting subprime, predatory loans as a necessary recourse for communities that had long been denied access to credit. The argument seemed to be that the only available options were exploitation or no credit at all.

As Stephanie Mencimer reported for Mother Jones last year, Charles Steele Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference defended subprime lending in the pages of the Washington Post. The Post eventually noted that the SCLC had formed a partnership with CompuCredit, a company that issues subprime credit cards and payday loans. Steele wasn’t the only one with a relationship with CompuCredit. The organization appeared at career fairs and summits organized by Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/Push Coalition. Al Sharpton was appearing in commercials for LoanMax.

The NAACP took money from subprime lenders as well. Wells Fargo had been a sponsor of their annual convention. But instead of honoring the implied agreement between civil rights groups and the companies that donate to them by letting Wells Fargo off the hook or even publicly defending them, the NAACP took Wells Fargo to court.

There was little reaction to the NAACP filing a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo for targeting black borrowers with subprime loans. The stereotype of the aging civil rights organization looking to shakedown another company with scurrilous charges of racism was probably part of the reason most people shrugged their shoulders.

But in filing suit against Wells Fargo and lobbying Congress to pass laws aiding homeowners facing foreclosure, the NAACP was doing exactly what it should have been doing as an advocacy organization. Today’s methods of advocacy are less dramatic than the days when Walter White strode the halls of Congress browbeating senators into supporting his anti-lynching bill, and the issues facing the black community are less daunting. But ultimately the nature of certain problems facing black folks hasn’t changed: They can’t be solved by services, only by better public policy.

Still, McWhorter may have a point. Is the NAACP being as effective as it could be? Its influence in Congress has waned with its membership. The organization could have addressed the subprime lending crisis earlier than it did. And it’s hard to take the organization seriously when they’re sending out complaints about there not being enough black characters on television while public schools are in shambles, AIDS is ravaging the black community, and black people are being incarcerated at an astonishing rate. We need service organizations to address all those problems. But we also need a strong, effective advocacy organization to push for better public policy when services just aren’t enough. Maybe we need a better NAACP. But we still need the NAACP.

Adam Serwer is a writing fellow at the American Prospect. His writing has appeared in the New York Daily News, The Village Voice and Utne.

Obama Signs Law for Civil Rights Project

Deborah Creighton Skinner

President Barack Obama signs the bill into law. From left: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL); Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY); Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA); Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO); Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). (Source: White House)

President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday a bill that requires the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution to establish an oral history project related to the Civil Rights movement.

H.R. 586 was introduced into the House by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) in January 2009, and was passed by both the House in April. A Senate bill also won approval last month.

Specifically, the oral history project will collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement and for other purposes.

The law also encourages the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, an arm of the Smithsonian, to solicit, and accept related donations of funds and in-kind contributions.

The new law authorizes the appropriation of $500,000 for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 through 2014,” according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimates that the oral history project will cost $4 million over the 2010-2014 period.

Click here to subscribe to BLACK ENTERPRISE

Obama seeks crack cocaine sentence changes

Congress urged to equalize penalty, correct racial disparity

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration joined a federal judge Wednesday in urging Congress to end a racial disparity by equalizing prison sentences for dealing and using crack versus powdered cocaine.

"Jails are loaded with people who look like me," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, an African-American, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said the administration believes Congress' goal "should be to completely eliminate the disparity" between the two forms of cocaine. "A growing number of citizens view it as fundamentally unfair," Breuer testified.

It takes 100 times more powdered cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same harsh mandatory minimum sentences.

Incorrect assumption
Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, said, "Under current law, mere possession of five grams of crack — the weight of five packets of sweetener — carries the same sentence as distribution of half a kilogram of powder or 500 packets of sweetener."

Durbin said more than 81 percent of those convicted for crack offenses in 2007 were African-American, although only about 25 percent of crack cocaine users are African Americans.

Congress enacted the disparity during an epidemic of crack cocaine in the 1980s, but the senator said lawmakers erred in assuming that violence would be greater among those using crack.

Breuer said the best way to deal with violence is to severely punish anyone who commits a violent offense, regardless of the drug involved.

"This administration believes our criminal laws should be tough, smart, fair," Breuer said, but also should "promote public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system."

Walton said, "We were mistaken" to enact the disparity. "There's no greater violence in cases before me."

He added that jurors have expressed an unwillingness to serve in crack cocaine cases because of the disparity.

President Barack Obama had called for such a change while campaigning for the White House.

Census Data: Racial Disparities Persist in Higher-Paying Jobs

By: Hope Yen, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Blacks and Hispanics lag behind whites for higher-paying jobs at the largest rates in about a decade as employment opportunities dwindled during the nation's economic woes and housing slump.

Census data released Monday show an increasingly educated U.S. work force whose earnings didn't always seem to match up with its potential.

"The lesson of most economic downturns is minorities are the last hired, first fired. They lose jobs more quickly, and they will be the last to recover," said Roderick Harrison, a demographer at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank that studies minority issues.

Among those 25 and older last year, 86.6 percent had graduated from high school, up from 85.7 percent the previous year. It was the biggest increase since 1992, with record percentages of people earning diplomas across all racial categories.

The share of people with at least a bachelor's degree from college also increased, from 28.7 percent to 29.4 percent, continuing a decades-long rise.

Blacks overall slightly narrowed the gap in 2007 with whites in average salary, but the pay disparity widened for blacks with college degrees. Blacks who had a four-year bachelor's degree earned $46,502, or about 78 percent of the salary for comparably educated whites.

It was the biggest disparity between professional blacks and whites since the 77 percent rate in 2001, when the U.S. fell into a recession due to the collapse of the tech bubble and the Sept. 11 terror attacks. College-educated blacks had previously earned as much as 83 percent of the average salary of whites in 2005.

Hispanics saw similar trends.

The Black Pack, Again: EBONY Profiles White House Rainbow Coalition

• By Dayo Olopade

     

Pop, politics and race collide in this month’s issue of EBONY magazine, which features a remarkable photograph of a dozen top-level, African American advisers (most of whom are women!) to President Barack Obama. It was never certain that the first black president would have a particularly black administration (though the campaign’s reservoir of young black talent was a hint). But this photo puts any doubts to rest.

Given the nation’s deep pool of management and political expertise, especially within the Democratic party apparatus, it’s all the more impressive that folks like Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes, Attorney General Eric Holder, senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Faith Office Executive Director Joshua DuBois, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and deputy Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen anchor this historic administration—which also includes Latinas like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Asian-Americans like Energy Secretary Steven Chu and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. America, it seems, is being run by a legitimate rainbow coalition.

The issue also profiles hoopster LeBron James, South Carolina politician Bakari T. Sellers, and Bill Cosby as part of Ebony’s annual “Power 150” list of the most influential black Americans. And, to my surprise, it celebrates the record number of people of color in the White House press corps. Kevin Chappell, a friend at the White House, explains:

EBONY magazine has gathered for the first time these nearly two dozen journalists in the White House press briefing room for a historic photograph of Black writers, editors, producers, correspondents, photographers and cameramen. They range from energetic newbies covering their first administration to grizzled veterans who have seen presidents come and go. They work for a variety of outlets, including mainstream media, African-American mainstays and Internet-only operations. While many of them were proud at the thought of the first African-American president, these journalists each day ask the tough questions, reject evasive answers and go after the news wherever it may lead. It's not personal. It's their job.'

Well, we try.

—DAYO OLOPADE

Issues plaguing Black and low-income communities

Dear Friends,

When it comes to issues plaguing Black and low-income communities, a White senator from the South is the last person we'd expect to go out on a limb and sound the alarm. Senator Jim Webb from Virginia just did exactly that when he boldly called out the over-imprisonment of Black folks and the serious problems with our prison system. Most importantly, he's demanding big changes.^[1]

Now it's up to us to seize the moment and create the pressure necessary to achieve true reform.

I've joined ColorOfChange.org in publicly thanking Senator Webb. Our praise will show other politicians that when they take risks and step out on critical issues like prison reform, we will have their backs. It will also show that everyday people stand with Webb and are serious about this issue. Can you join me? It only takes a moment. And then please ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/webb/?id=2513-143523

In recent years, politicians have lacked the courage to create meaningful prison reform. They've been paralyzed by the fear of being branded as "soft on crime." They've been held hostage by prison guard unions and industry lobbies. And the communities most affected--Black and low-income communities--have had a hard time getting a seat at the table and making our voices heard.

Our country has a clear problem. With just 5% of the world's population, America holds nearly 25% of the world's reported prison population. Our prison population has quadrupled since 1984, and most of the increase comes from people being imprisoned for drug offenses--mostly minor and nonviolent.^[2]

Despite the fact that there is no statistical difference in drug use between different racial groups, harsh drug laws have had a devastating, disproportionate effect on Black communities. While only 12% of the U.S. population is African-American, Black people make up 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison.^[3]

It's surprising and encouraging that someone like Senator Webb is speaking out in this way. Webb is a White politician from Virginia, a Southern "law-and-order" state that has abolished parole and executed more people than any state besides Texas.^[4] He has nothing to gain politically from this--it's an act of true conviction.

By eloquently making the case for reform and calling for a National Criminal Justice Commission, Webb has created a major opening to address these issues. And it comes at a time when there are increasing signs the country is ready for reform. New York's governor and state legislature just struck a deal to reform the state's "Rockefeller drug laws"--some of the harshest laws in the country, and a great example of the failed status quo.^[5] A panel of federal judges has just told California it must reduce its prison population by a third to alleviate the torturous conditions stemming from overcrowding.^[6] And at the same time that more people are recognizing the deep injustices in our system, the economic crisis is forcing elected officials at all levels of government to realize they can't afford to keep directing so many taxpayer dollars toward law enforcement, jails, and prisons.^[7]

We need to make the most of this moment. Please join me in thanking Senator Jim Webb for his courageous stand and support his call for a meaningful commission. And when you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same.

http://www.colorofchange.org/webb/?id=2513-143523

Thanks!

References:

1. http://tinyurl.com/chxaup
2. http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html
3. See reference 2
4. http://tinyurl.com/8mgyf2
5. http://tinyurl.com/da2xlw
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10prison.html
7. http://tinyurl.com/c36ubb

Sisters Must Be Aggressive in Breast Cancer Fight

By: Denise Stewart, BlackAmericaWeb.com

Black women are three times more likely to develop a virulent strain of breast cancer, according to a recent study from the Boston School of Medicine, and that news underscores the need for black women to go to the doctor for regular check ups and screenings, health professionals and breast cancer survivors said.

“We just have to be diligent, talk to one another and admit we need care,” said Rose Stewart, a 13-year-breast cancer survivor in Austin, Texas.

The 72-year-old retired educator said she caught her cancer early. A mammogram showed a tumor about the size of a penny. “I had a lumpectomy and radiation. Every three to six months, I go to the doctor to have my blood checked,” Stewart told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

Increased risk for black women developing what is called a triple negative tumor is found regardless of the age or size of the woman, the study showed.

The tumors are called triple negative because they do not possess receptors for estrogen, progesterone or the protein HER2. Because of this, drugs that target estrogen and progesterone are of little help to women with triple negative tumors, the online report stated.

"The higher prevalence of triple negative breast tumors in black women in all age and weight categories likely contributes to black women's unfavorable breast cancer prognosis," Dr. Carol Rosenberg from Boston University School of Medicine noted in comments to Reuters Health.

"The reasons explaining this finding are not certain, but it is possible that black women may be at intrinsically greater risk of these more aggressive tumors," said Rosenberg, who led the study.

Black Caucus Calls for More Diversity in Bailouts

By: Ben Evans, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Monday criticized the lack of minority participation in the government's financial bailouts and suggested that President Barack Obama isn't doing much better than his predecessor to ensure diversity.

Giving Obama some leeway with only two months in office, the lawmakers voiced their concerns during an all-day summit on Capitol Hill that drew several hundred minority- and female-owned business leaders to hear guidance from federal officials such as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Many said the officials were receptive to the idea of more diversity but short on details for how to make it happen.

"What I heard today from the administration seemed to be a continuation of the status quo," Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said at a news conference outside the event. "It is time that we wake up."

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), noted that no women were in the group of bank leaders who met with Obama last week and warned that the country could end up relying on the same people who created the need for a rescue if it doesn't branch out.

Fattah and others said they were optimistic that the administration would focus more on diversity moving forward. But they noted that the money is being spent quickly and said minority accountants, banks, financial advisers and law firms will be left out almost entirely without immediate changes.

For example, the lawmakers said the government will begin hiring financial firms in early April to manage the latest program for buying up bad assets from troubled banks. Firms must have management portfolios worth at least $10 billion to apply, they said, making the program off-limits not just to minority-owned companies but also to other small businesses.

One suggestion the lawmakers said they would pursue is adding incentives for larger firms to partner with minority businesses.

"We are not going to sit by and allow billions of dollars to be dumped into this economy and have the same old players being advantaged by it," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We are tired of being overlooked."

When the initial $700 billion bank bailout was passed under the Bush administration, some black lawmakers initially wanted requirements for minority participation. But the provision was left out over concerns that it could slow down urgently needed assistance for troubled banks.

Black Man on Top of the World

One hundred years ago today, a black man was the first to reach the North Pole, but it took a while for Matthew Henson to get the credit for that feat.

• By: Michael E. Ross | 

“I was in the lead that had overshot the mark a couple of miles,” Matthew Henson told a reporter in March 1955, relating the moment when, 46 years earlier, he knew he had conquered the world. “We went back then, and I could see that my footprints were the first at the spot.”

“The spot” was the geographic North Pole, the literal roof of the planet. Achieving that distinction had long been the Holy Grail for explorers, adventurers and scientists. Henson’s claim to being the first human to set foot on the Pole on April 6, 1909, has been a sore point with others inclined to believe, as has been insisted for generations, that superstar Arctic explorer Robert E. Peary was the first to reach the Pole.

Over the last century, a growing body of credible evidence has come to the conclusion that 100 years ago today, Henson, not Peary, reached the Pole first. Still the Peary myth remains. That lingering distortion of fact is the result of the combination of the early bloom of our celebrity culture and the persistence of 20th century racial bias. Peary was a star and Henson was black; those two factors merged to virtually eclipse Henson’s role in conquering the top of the world.

Henson’s relatives and others are marking the occasion of Henson’s and Peary’s not-quite joint achievement. Centennial observances of just about anything are a lock for media attention in today’s culture. But honors for Henson, who died in March 1955 at the age of 88, are a tribute to his own longevity and a quiet celebration of the idea that eventually the truth will take hold.

Henson had an edge over Peary in advancing the historical narrative. First, there was the natural advantage of outliving his friend and rival by 35 years (Peary died in 1920 at 63). But the suppression of the Henson perspective during the early years of the Peary mythos has given way to a positive fascination with Henson’s side of the story, a side that has increasingly convinced people that it is the truth.

By the spring of 1909, Henson and Peary had been friends for more than 20 years, since they first met on an expedition to Nicaragua in 1888. An expert navigator who spoke the Inuit language, Henson joined Peary several times on various Arctic expeditions.

It was on one such assault on the North Pole that Peary, Henson and another 22 men, 133 dogs and 19 sleds set off from Ellesmere Island on March 1, 1909.

Henson and Peary had been pursuing the Pole in separate dog sleds, alternating responsibility for blazing trails through the Arctic’s arduous weather.  On April 6, the expedition —now streamlined by lighter loads and reduced to Henson in one sled, followed by Peary and four of the Inuit crew in another — made one last assault on the Pole.

Anna Brendle of National Geographic wrote in 2003: “On April 6, 1909, Henson arrived at Camp Jesup, 89°47', 45 minutes ahead of Peary, concluding by dead reckoning that he had reached the Pole. Henson greeted Peary, “I think I'm the first man to sit on top of the world.”

It was probably no idle boast. The acclaimed science writer John Noble Wilford wrote in the New York Times in August 1988: “A new analysis of the expedition diary and other archives, focusing on navigational errors, suspect distance records and inexplicably blank pages in Robert E. Peary's diary, has raised the strongest doubts yet about the credibility of the explorer's claim that on April 6, 1909, he became the first person to reach the North Pole.”

Russell W. Gibbons, a contributor to the Arctic Profiles Project of the Arctic Institute of North America, theorized in a June 1987 op-ed that race may have been the elephant in the room, that Americans were more socially predisposed to the idea of Henson as Peary’s loyal Sherpa, his man Friday, the Sancho Panza to his Don Quixote.

“Henson was an American citizen, but no one, Peary evidently reasoned, correctly, would think of a black man as being eligible to share polar laurels,” Gibbons noted. “The ‘long and close friendship’ of Peary and Henson was not apparent after they returned from their expedition: In the decade before Peary died, he did not see his fellow explorer once, never invited him to his home and made little effort to obtain financial help or recognition for him. Henson read of Peary's death in the newspaper.”

Henson, who worked a number of menial jobs after the expedition, remains an object of fascination, in no small part because of the relative eclipse of his accomplishments. Henson’s 1912 autobiographical account, A Negro Explorer at the North Pole, was republished in 1997.

Original copies were once so rare they fetched between $1,700 and $3,000 each, according to Bradley Robinson, son of Bradley Robinson Sr., who wrote the Henson biography Dark Companion with the explorer in 1947.

Henson was the beneficiary of honors and accolades bestowed, as is often the case, after the fact of the honoree himself. Over the last 20 years, he has been the object of a cascade of recognition. In 1988, at the urging of a dogged Henson champion, Harvard professor Allen Counter, President Reagan authorized the move of Henson's remains to Arlington National Cemetery.

In 1996, the U.S. Navy named the oceanographic survey ship USNS Henson for him. Kevin Hooks’ film Glory and Honor (1998) starring Delroy Lindo and Henry Czerny, also celebrates Henson’s exploits.

In November 2000, Henson became the only person to be posthumously awarded the National Geographic Society’s Hubbard Medal, “for distinction in exploration, discovery and research.” He joined a select group of explorers to have

received this prestigious award; others include Sir Earnest Shackleton, Charles Lindbergh, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong — and Robert Peary.

This year, of course, in the centennial, the accomplishments of Henson and Peary have captured the attention of explorers, endurance athletes and thrill-seekers re-enacting Henson’s North Pole expedition on a tour-group basis. One outfit, Polar Explorers, assembled a three-day expedition intended to arrive at the Pole today with guests celebrating with champagne and souvenir photos, after ponying up about $30,000 each for the privilege.

Another centennial expedition is also under way, with three new explorers recreating the 500-mile Henson-Peary route and charting their slow daily progress online.

Aviaq Henson, the explorer’s great-granddaughter, writes on the Matthew Henson Web site that Greenland’s national postal service, Filatelia, will release a commemorative Matthew Henson stamp on June 21, the day Greenland acquires increased self-rule within the Danish Commonwealth. Greenland, colonized by Denmark since the 1850s, was granted home-rule status in 1979. 

“The step will be a big event for our history in Greenland,” she wrote.

She also announced plans to trek to the North Pole this month with her father, Vittus Henson, and his brothers, Ajako, Uusaqqak and Qillaq Henson —part of a seriously thriving family tree with sprouts and branches that turn up everywhere.

Even Hollywood. Taraji P. Henson, nominated for a best supporting actress Oscar for her role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, revealed in a 2008 interview that the explorer was “my great-great cousin.” 

One hundred years on, as the Henson clan celebrates its patriarch, the accomplishments of Henson and Peary are increasingly seen through a lens that rescues Henson from disappearing into the whiteout of wrong but accepted facts. It’s not a revision of history, but a re-visitation of history, one meant to reconcile the differences between the magnetic north of written history with the true north of what apparently actually happened. 

Michael E. Ross is a regular contributor to The Root.

Blame for Downturn Not Fixed on Obama

6 in 10 Back His Handling of Economy

Video

Obama Touts Refinancing During Web Town Hall

In a town hall meeting at the White House that was streamed live online in March, President Obama addressed concerns about the economy and refinancing homes.

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers

The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

At this early stage in his presidency, Obama continues to benefit from a broadly held perception that others should bear the bulk of responsibility for the severe economic problems that confront his administration. Americans see plenty of offenders, but only about a quarter blame the president and his team for an economy that's in the ditch.

Despite the increasing optimism about the future, the nation's overall mood remains gloomy, and doubts are rising about some of the administration's prescriptions for the economic woes. Independents are less solidly behind Obama than they have been, fewer Americans now express confidence that his economic programs will work, barely half of the country approves of how the president is dealing with the federal budget deficit, and the political climate is once again highly polarized.

The percentage of Americans in the new poll who said the country is on the right track still stands at just 42 percent, but that is the highest percentage saying so in five years and marks a sharp turnabout from last fall, when as many as nine in 10 said the country was heading in the wrong direction. Fifty-seven percent now consider the nation as moving on the wrong track.

Overall perceptions about the country parallel a rapid increase in the percentage of Americans who say the economy is improving. For the first time since late 2004, the gap between the numbers saying the economy is getting better and those saying it's getting worse is in the single digits (27 percent to 36 percent).

Two-thirds of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the country's top job, and six in 10 give him good marks on issue No. 1, the flagging economy. Those figures are little changed from last month. But he receives lower marks for dealing with the federal budget deficit after submitting a plan that would see continued huge deficits over the next decade. Fifty-two percent back Obama on his approach to the deficit, with the public split about evenly over whether belt-tightening or big increases in spending should be used to try to improve the economy.

There is now a pronounced divergence between Democratic and Republican perceptions of the economy, a bigger partisan divide than the one that occurred 16 years ago after Bill Clinton took office. In early 1993, people in both parties were about equally likely to see the economy as improving, but now the number of Republicans who say it is souring is more than double that of Democrats.

A sharp rise in optimism has occurred among Democrats, who are about three times as likely to approve of the country's course as they were just before Obama's inauguration. Independents, too, are more optimistic, with twice as many feeling positive as in mid-January. Among Republicans, there has not been significant movement in either direction.

Obama's overall approval rating among independents has dipped six points, to 61 percent, and fewer than half, 45 percent, said he is doing a good job of handling the deficit. His approval rating among Republicans has dropped seven points, to 30 percent.

Overall, almost two in three Americans, 64 percent, said they have confidence that Obama's economic policies will improve the economy, but that number has dropped since he took office and began to implement his ideas. Before his inauguration, 72 percent were confident that his economic agenda would lead to a recovery. Now, after two months of vigorous debate about his stimulus package and ambitious budget blueprint, confidence has decreased by 13 points among independents and by a similar amount among Republicans.

At the same time, 62 percent see Obama as a "new-style," fiscally responsible Democrat; fewer, about a third, label him an "old-style" Democrat oriented toward taxing and spending. Fifty-seven percent of independents consider Obama part of a new breed, the same percentage that said so of Clinton at the start of his first term.

The findings suggest that the public continues to give Obama considerable latitude as he attempts to jump-start the economy, but public patience may be limited. The coming debate over his budget, where he faces both Democratic and Republican resistance to some of his major priorities, should produce a more definitive first-year judgment on his economic program and his presidency. Clinton's ratings fell his first summer in office as he pushed through a budget and economic plan over solid Republican opposition.

The telephone poll of 1,000 randomly selected adults was conducted from Thursday through Sunday. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

When it comes to assessing responsibility for the nation's economic plight, 80 percent said they put a "great deal" or a "good amount" of blame on banks and other financial institutions for taking unnecessary risks. The same percentage said they blame large corporations for poor management decisions. About seven in 10 blame consumers for overextending themselves with debt and the Bush administration for not vigorously regulating the financial industry.

Criticism of the banks, large corporations and consumers is roughly comparable across the political spectrum. But there is clear disagreement over whether Obama bears any of the blame, with Republicans far more likely to say yes than are Democrats or independents. Republicans, however, were as apt to blame the Bush administration for lax regulation as they were to target Obama for not doing enough to fix the problems.

Obama maintains a strong hand in his dealings with congressional Republicans. The public prefers his approach to that of the Republicans by more than two to one. But the percentage of independents siding with Obama has dropped 12 points, to 50 percent. Many of those independents in the new poll said neither has the upper hand in the economic debate. About a quarter of independents align with the Republicans on this question.

At the same time, Republicans are somewhat splintered. One in five self-identified Republicans in the poll said neither Obama nor their party's congressional leadership has the edge on dealing with the economic situation.

One way the administration has sought to increase confidence in Obama's economic plans and campaign pledge of transparency was to launch Recovery.gov to allow people to track federal money spent on economic stimulus; 6 percent of Americans said they have visited the Web site.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Monopolization in America

by Jacque Bryant 

Does anyone realize and understand that we the PEOPLE are being invaded by the powers handed to the utility companies, telephone companies and the companies that furnish our ability to watch television and/or listen to the radio.
Ok, the question I see is "what do you mean by monopolization". According to Merriam-Webster dictionary monopolization means: to assume complete possession or control of and/or gain exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply or concerted action to also include a commodity controlled by one party.

Let's talk about commodities controlled by a party. The perfect example of this is the utility companies, the people who supply your electricity, water, sewer, gases such as propane or natural gas. I am going to focus mainly on the electric company. There is no control in the rates these people slap on the common person. Month after month, year after year they proceed to increase and especially now that this country is in a very deep recession. Your electric company is being allowed to take advantage of a very poor situation and even the government won't step in and put some control into costs until America can get back on track. They know that there are millions of people unemployed but yet continue to rob from these pockets.

I for one have fallen victim and have verified knowledge of how the electric company can rip holes in your pockets. One year ago my highest utility bill was for $151.00 (one hundred fifty one dollars) and this was during a very cold snap we had in the winter. Today I am paying $241.00 (two hundred forty one dollars) and am using less electricity. So you can see there has been close to a $100 (one hundred dollar) jump and it really hasn't been a full year yet, actually only 7 months. So breaking that down, each month costs $15 (fifteen dollars) more for using less power. The same also goes for the billings a person receives each month. One month may be a 28 day reading and it will cost you $24(twenty four) more then if you had received a 33 day reading. Any common sense person will say, "ok, this is wrong, why is it more for less days?" There is a very good answer for this question. We the common people are being charged for the vacation they hand out, the "business" parties they throw at given times of the year and for the bonuses for the upper executives, not to mention the needless accidents that occur such as the TVA ash spill a few months back, which was caused by some serious neglect on the part of the power supply producers. But now that they made the mistake and have admitted fault and willingly know the circumstances of the people who have no money to pay their regular monthly bill must be the ones that pick up this very costly occurrence for the cleanup and removal of the waste created, which in turn jacks the price even higher, the price we will have to figure out how to come up with even if it means doing without your medicine or food on the table for your family.

Your next question is: "where does this all tie in with monopolization?" Remember I gave the definition and made reference to a commodity. This is exactly the purpose of the utility company. There is a demand and they supply. We have to be able to receive power to keep our lives functioning properly and in return the company will supply that need at whatever cost they feel like that day. That's where the monopoly comes into play and they know you have to have this commodity and you WILL pay what they quote you or you do without which in turn damages an aspect of living.

So folks, remember when you use this commodity it is helping to make the already rich man richer and you have absolutely no choice or do you? Speak up, stand strong and let these people know how you feel and do it today for the sake of America.

Jacque Bryant"Associated Content"