AUTHOR: ejordan TITLE: Watson is suspended, then retires from Cold Spring Harbor STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: race CATEGORY: race DATE: 10/25/2007 11:46:02 AM ----- BODY:

 double helix of dna

After an intense week of public reproval for making racist remarks.  1962 Nobel Prize winner, James D. Watson was suspended from his position as Chancellor and board member of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as a censure for his remarks.  The 79 year old Nobel winning scientist resigned today in ignominy.

The NYT contains this story with the separate statements made by Cold Springs Harbor and Watson.  The NYT reports that: "He also referred to his Scots and Irish forebears, saying their lives were guided by faith in reason and social justice, 'especially the need for those on top to help care for the less fortunate.' ”

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: cbracey TITLE: Technical Problems at BlackProf STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 DATE: 10/22/2007 02:51:46 PM ----- BODY:

Dear BlackProf Community:

As many of you are aware, the site has been suffering a handful of technical problems in the past few weeks.  BlackProf remains committed to providing quality community space for public discourse on issues of race, culture, and society.  Please bear with us as we work to resolve our technical problems as quickly as possible.  As always, we thank you for your continued support. ----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: ejordan TITLE: Watch the Great Wealth Transfer: Foreclosure Auctions STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: economics CATEGORY: economics CATEGORY: race DATE: 10/22/2007 10:47:09 AM ----- BODY:

sheriff sale sign

 Today's NYT contains a story about the bargains that opportunity-seeking small investors are finding at the auction of foreclosed homes.  For those of us who specialize in the banking and commercial transactions field, the auction is a standard fixture of bad debt resolution procedures.  For me, however, as I described below in an earlier post, Race and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, there is racial a disparity in foreclosures,  The four major conclusions of the ACORN study were as follows:

 

"For refinance loans, our findings show that in 2006:

1. High-cost loans made up a significant proportion of the home refinance loans made to

minorities.

2. Minority homeowners were more likely than white homeowners to receive a high-cost loan when

refinancing.

3. Racial disparities persisted even among homeowners of the same income level.

4. Minorities received a greater proportion of high-cost loans than they received of prime loans.

5. Lower-income homeowners of all races were more likely to receive a high-cost loan than upperincome

borrowers

" In 2006, 52.0% or one out of two, home refinance loans made to African-Americans were
high-cost loans and, 38.7%, or more than one out of every three, home refinance loans made to Latinos
were high-cost loans. In contrast, only 26.7%, or one out of four, home refinance loans made to whites
were high-cost loans."

The racial disparity in the distribution of these bad loans will lead to a racial disparity in the ownership of foreclosed properties .  I encourage Blackprof readers to watch the headlines as the foreclosures accelerate.  This will be a silent wealth crisis, that has the potential to further exacerbate the preexisting wealth disparities between blacks, latinos and whites.  

 

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: awing TITLE: Fall Readers STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: culture CATEGORY: culture DATE: 10/21/2007 12:32:57 PM ----- BODY:

For those of you interested in learning more about Critical Race Theory, there is a new anthology out. The Law Unbound:  A Richard Delgado Reader   was edited by Jean Stefancic and yours truly from Paradigm Press. The cover is now featured on the left hand side of this webpage. Some of you may have noted that Richard, who is University Distinguished Professor and Derrick Bell Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is a co-blogger on this site, doing the “Dear Mom” column.  Richard is one of the most prolific scholars in the legal academy and one of the forefathers of Critical Race Theory.  The 30 selections cover the following topics: narrative and legal storytelling; critical theory: law, legal education, and the legal profession; hate speech; law reform; Latinos and other nonblack minorities; politics and critique; and affirmative action.  The bibliography includes 19 books and annotations on 148 articles published over 30 years.

If you pair this book with The Derrick Bell Reader, edited by Richard and Jean from NYU Press in 2005, you will have insights into two of the most senior and most prolific voices in Critical Race Theory.

For a multidisciplinary anthology from an important new voice in critical theory, see Progressive Black Masculinities by State University of New York at Buffalo Law School associate professor Athena Mutua from Routledge Press.  The 15 selections include famous black feminists like Patricia Hill Collins and Beverly Guy-Sheftall along with well-known legal scholars such as Elizabeth Iglesias, John Calmore and Stefanie Phillips. The voices posit that the greatest peril to black men may be limited notions of manhood.

This latter reader is a great companion to UCLA professor Devon Carbado’s Black Men on Race, Gender, and Sexuality, published by NYU Press in 1999.

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: soverton TITLE: Barack Obama on Tavis Smiley STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: politics & voting rights CATEGORY: politics & voting rights DATE: 10/20/2007 08:28:18 PM ----- BODY: A worthwhile interview. Disclosure--I am an Obama supporter. ----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: mhill TITLE: Men Step Up, Government Steps Off? STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: culture CATEGORY: criminal justice CATEGORY: culture CATEGORY: politics & voting rights CATEGORY: race DATE: 10/19/2007 10:12:29 AM ----- BODY:

On Sunday, thousands of men will gather at Temple University’s Liacouras Center as part of the new “10,000 Men” initiative. The program, offered in response to Philadelphia’s rising homicide rate, will train a predominately African American group of men as “Peacemakers” who will enter “designated communities and deter unwanted and illegal behavior.”

In many ways, I am encouraged by the renewed commitment to protecting our own communities. As opposed to Mayor John Street’s “Safe Streets” initiative, which attempted to transform the ‘hood into a de facto police state, 10,000 Men wisely recognizes the benefits of community involvement. In addition to offering us a much-needed dose of responsibility, the initiative provides a tangible alternative to armchair activism and sideline complaining. After all, how can we complain about senseless violence and police incompetence if we are unwilling to come up with a reasonable alternative?

The problem is that this strategy is far from reasonable.

If we’ve learned nothing from the historic Million Man March –where African American men became the first group of people to launch a protest march against themselves– we found out that the government and mainstream Americans will never stop large numbers of Negroes from confessing their collective sins in full public view. The problem is that, instead of inspiring policymakers to support our efforts, such actions reinforce the absurd notion that violence and poverty can be eliminated by embracing a gospel of individual responsibility. In this case, by agreeing to “take back our neighborhoods” we concede the point that we lost them solely due to our own personal failings.

The last time I checked, joblessness and crack had something to do with it too.

Rather than demanding higher wages, better schools, and stricter gun laws, the current plan absolves the government of its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable  citizens. For example, even if we are to accept the quixotic idea that ten thousand unarmed civilians can make peace within inner-city war zones, couldn’t we expect even greater results from ten thousand trained officers? Unfortunately, the current initiative makes no such demands from the State.

Of course, this doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition. There is no reason why African American men (and women!) cannot take control of their communities and fight for social justice at the same time. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear how breeding newschool Guardian Angels will produce political education, protest, or even voter registration. Until we focus on these and other issues, even ten million men won’t help us.

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: ejordan TITLE: Scientific Racism Redux: James Watson Nobel Prize Winner STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: race CATEGORY: race DATE: 10/18/2007 01:06:34 PM ----- BODY: Dr James Watson, Nobel Laureate

Dr. James Watson, who received the Nobel Prize, in 1962, for being the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has become embroiled in a nasty racial controversy because of remarks he made.  The British Broadcasting Network, BBC, reports that Watson told the London Sunday Times  that  "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".  He went on to say he hoped everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

The British Science Museum has cancelled a speech that Watson was scheduled to deliver there on Friday, October, 19th.  The Museum spokesperson explained the cancellation by noting that "It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices...We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics. However, we feel Dr Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk."

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: soverton TITLE: Go To 10 Questions for Presidential Candidates STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 DATE: 10/17/2007 10:17:13 AM ----- BODY:

Blackprof is a Sponsor of the 10Questions Presidential Forum, and we urge you to visit the site and post your own video questions for the presidential candidates.  

 During the first round (October 17 to November 14), anyone with access to YouTube, MySpace Yahoo Video, or Blip.tv can submit a video question.  Videos will be collected on the main page where anyone can vote for or against them. (We’ll occasionally post on video submissions by blackprof readers—just let us know about them in the comments section to this post). At the close of round one, there will be an audit of the top vote-getters, after which the top ten videos will be presented to the candidates.  During round two (November 17 to December 31), the candidates will be asked to post their replies to the top ten questions, and you get to vote on their replies. The candidates will have until December 15 to post their answers; you'll have until December 31 to vote on them. We will announce the final results at the end of this round.  There are more detailed instructions on the 10Questions Presidential Forum site, but the main requirements are that the question be directed to all the candidates and use appropriate language. Obviously, shorter is usually better.

The 10Questions Presidential Forum is being produced by techPresident (disclosure:  I am a contributor at techPresident) in cooperation with The New York Times editorial board, with support from MSNBC.com and sponsorship from a cross-partisan group of bloggers (For a full list, go to the Sponsors page).   

On a personal note, I’m happy that the list includes a significant number of blogs that focus on issues important to people of color, including AfroNetizen, BlackProf.com, ColorOfChange, Culture Kitchen, Latino Pundit, Racialicious, Pam’s House Blend, and VivirLatino.  Most Americans do not live in the early primary and caucus states, and this platform provides one avenue for us to have more of a voice in the primary debate. 

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 12:16:23 PM Whereas: The global competition will effect our children and, Whereas: Robotics will be soon be ubiquitous to our daily life, there forth What: As President will you do to open the opportune for all children to have a modern education with good heath care ----- -------- AUTHOR: cbracey TITLE: Sympathy, Personal Responsibility and the Black Collegiate Athlete STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 DATE: 10/15/2007 12:09:32 PM ----- BODY:

I’ve written previously about how some professional athletes, in recent years, have exercised poor judgment off the field, often with tragic consequences (eg., Tank Johnson, Diego “Chico” Corrales, Pac Man Jones, and Michael Vick).  Interestingly, there hasn’t been much sympathy extended to these folks.  The fact that, more often than not, these athletes are multi-millionaires only further erodes the prospect of sympathy.

But what about college athletes?  Are college athletes more deserving of a sympathetic response when poor judgment places their lives and livelihoods in jeopardy?  Should we feel compelled to provide a more substantive response when black collegiate athletes engage in self destructive behavior?

A few recent incidents worth considering:

On Friday, October 12, Penn State running back Austin Scott was charged formally with raping a woman at his campus apartment after meeting her at a bar.  Charges included rape, sexual assault and two counts of aggravated indecent assault, all of which are felonies.  Scott remains enrolled at Penn State and on the football roster, although he has been suspended from play indefinitely. 

That same Friday, former University of Louisville linebacker Willie Williams, who was dismissed from the team after being charged with marijuana possession, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession.  Other charges, including a felony offense of tampering with physical evidence for allegedly trying to eat the marijuana before police found it, were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.  This is the same Willie Williams who was reportedly arrested 11 times prior to beginning his college career at University of Miami (he was a recent transfer to Louisville).

On September 30, Taylor Bradford, 21, was shot and killed following what police allege was a botched robbery attempt.  Although many of the details remain under investigation, police have leaked that Bradford had won a few thousand dollars gambling at a casino the night before he was killed, and that the two events may be related.  A popular student and Marketing major who lived on campus, Bradford needed only 36 credit hours to graduate.

To be certain, the majority of black college athletes successfully navigate their personal lives in a manner to avoid these sorts of problems.  But how should we respond when they find themselves in personal crisis?  Can these personal and professional tragedies be simply chalked up to poor individual decisionmaking?  Or does the college setting suggest that the schools have, in some critical way, failed these young men?  And if so, how?

Relatedly, what exactly can or should be done in response?  What specific recommendations might one present to colleges and universities to avoid further loss of life and livelihood? ----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ricardoray EMAIL: IP: 71.242.238.225 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 01:13:51 PM But how should we respond when they find themselves in personal crisis? There is no one response fits all answer. In fact, unless there is strong evidence of maltreatment, there is no need for any response beyond the immediate family, university and coaching network. Can these personal and professional tragedies be simply chalked up to poor individual decisionmaking? On some level, all personal and professional tragedies are caused by poor decisionmaking, be it associations, habits,etc. That said, universities, coaching staff, parents and families, all have a shared responsibility to keep these boys on the straight and narrow. We all know that college students are not as "grown" as they want to be; thus, they require supervision. Because atheletes receive more exposure than most college students, they require additional protection from themselves and others. Or does the college setting suggest that the schools have, in some critical way, failed these young men? The college setting assumes young people can handle celebrity; yet, we only need to look at what happens to most child stars to see that universities have ignored a problem that stems in large part from over exposure facilitated by their need to bring in sports revenue. Britney Spears, River Phoenix, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan, Todd Bridges, and the like have come to exemplify the problems of over exposure to young impressionable minds. Once you add, black poverty to the mix, superstardom can truly become a mindblowing experience. No one can tell me that universities do not have the resources or brain capital to figure this out. Clearly, universities are failing to protect young athletes. And if so, how? As stated above, universities have failed to supply young athletes with proper mentoring and active monitoring to protect them from over exposure and poor decisionmaking. Of course, these young men bear responsibility for their actions as well. Yet, given the psychology of superstar status, celebrity and the rags to riches stories, most of these young men have in common, they are not nearly equipped to handle the transformation without guideance. Moreover, these young men generate, untold dollars in revenue for their respective schools. Surely, they can afford to expend a few dollars counseling and guiding them. Relatedly, what exactly can or should be done in response? What specific recommendations might one present to colleges and universities to avoid further loss of life and livelihood? 1) assign a guideance counselor and require check ins. 2) Require counseling to explore their minds and make future recommendations tailored to their needs. 3) Require athletes to live on-campus in monitored facilities, in terms of going and coming. This would assist universities ability to limit the gift culture, access to alcohol, drugs and women. 4) Implement random drug testing and rehab for violations, not suspension. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Craka Smasha EMAIL: IP: 64.160.149.254 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 02:35:12 PM 24-hour babysitters - paid for by the billions of dollars these spoiled brat athletes are making these universities, administrators, and coaches. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: raven EMAIL: IP: 70.21.1.65 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 03:42:49 PM I believe that we should indeed feel compelled to provide a more substantive response to Black collegiate-and professional-athletes who engage in self-destructive behavior because sport as an institution-and our disproportionate presence in it -reflect the problems that Blacks are facing in the broader culture. “For the Black man-child, two glimmers of hope penetrate even the grim depths of the underfooting. But in the cold affirmation of the realities of his situation, these beacons illuminating would-be paths to the better life reflect the fact that, here, his human value is practically coextensive with his utility as a purely physical entity. For his hope of escape has traditionally been believed to lie in either military enlistment or the dream of achieving a successful athletic career.” Dr. Harry Edwards Sports Sociologist I would argue that, while the crises that the athletes referenced in the article face clearly have personal consequences, they reflect systemic and systematic factors (problems in education, employment, the family, healthcare…) that are (should be) matters of concern for American society in general and African-Americans in particular. Excuses for their behavior or sympathy for their respective plights does not have to be the basis of the kind of recognition that I think is necessary. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: The Sanity Inspector EMAIL: IP: 66.32.134.184 URL: http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com DATE: 10/15/2007 05:31:00 PM How about holding them accountable for the actions, like the adults the calendar says they are? And forcefully denounce the Thugg Life attitude that gives them license to act this way? No one likes to see talent and potential wantonly thrown away. But any feeling person's sympathies will be with these criminals' victims, not the criminals themselves. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: bigmaconcampus EMAIL: IP: 68.237.204.141 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 07:22:05 PM "But how should we respond when they find themselves in personal crisis?" we should respond the same way we respond when people that we don't know and who are completely unconnected to our lives find themselves in personal crises: by doing nothing and thinking no more about it. athletes gone wild is not a serious problem in this country for anyone except the athletes who are going wild and the universities who have to deal with them. for everyone else, it's more distraction. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Chauncey EMAIL: IP: 69.106.58.54 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 09:34:53 PM "What specific recommendations might one present to colleges and universities to avoid further loss of life and livelihood?" we should tell them that their actions are caused by white racism and are, therefore, excusable. as a result, their imprisonment is another instance of white racism. america is a racist place, we should tell them, full of white racists and black victims. they shouldn't be punished for their actions. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: rikyrah EMAIL: IP: 172.164.151.162 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 11:26:36 PM Why are we supposed to feel sorry for them when they break the law? Are they not adults? Are they not over 18? See, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they go out there and break the law. But, I also blame the colleges. The colleges need to have, on retainer, a hard-ass middle-aged Black man that sits these folks down at the beginning of the semester and tells them the rules of LIFE for a Black Man. It should be common sense, after all, they do live in America, but I guess common sense isn't all that common anymore. But, someone needs to tell them the list of DO'S and DONT'S. And, if I knew that this was in place, then I REALLY wouldn't have any sympathy. Because, you and I both know that, because they are athletes, everything has been excused away for them, so when the REAL WORLD slaps them silly, it's a shock to them, and a shock that usually costs them their future. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: mabhekaphansi EMAIL: IP: 196.24.76.11 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 02:49:45 AM These athletes are grown-up people, with the responsibilities and benefits that that phrase implies. MOST athletes make good, so why should amorphous "society" be made to feel responsible for the mess that the few make of their lives? For heaven's sake, at what age are people supposed to take responsibility for their lives? When are they to grow up? I am neither responsible nor liable for deficiencies in their potty training. I make mistakes, I answer for them, and I take whatever the consequences of those mistakes may be, and I do not try to shift blame; I should cringe in shame should I try to do that. Most of us that read this site are exactly the same ... We make good, we get the kudos; we mess up, we take it. Life, and 13.8 billion years of evolution, sorts out as is required to ensure survival of the species. Please remember that I am a scientist and use those words as a scientist, not as someone in the humanities would use them. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.234.25 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 10:27:37 AM Sigh.. Rikyrah said it best: Why are we supposed to feel sorry for them when they break the law? Are they not adults? Listen, most of these people are egomaniac, spoiled brats, often from bad backgrounds, and have questionable intelligence. Unlike athletes of years past, they have no shame and they are not the "first" at anything so they do not feel they are "carrying the entire race on their shoulders" they rep them and that is not saying much for most of these guys. Some folks like Kobe Bryant you have to wonder what the hell goes through their minds, as Kobe is no dummy, and grew up relatively privileged. However, most of these folks are not Kobe. They are more like Michael Vick...hip hop generation wanna be faux or real thugs. Screw them. I don not even feel sorry for most poor people, I am damn sure not going to feel sorry for, give a pass to, or spend time concerned about some overgrown boy who makes too much money to play children's games. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ok2700 EMAIL: IP: 134.186.243.134 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 10:40:19 AM It is hard out there for a student athlete please believe it. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ricardoray EMAIL: IP: 71.242.238.225 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 11:33:06 AM Athletes should not be shielded from the law. Yes, these guys are all at least 18 years of age. Yet,most of us were not completely on our own without adult guideance in our late teens and early twentys. These guys blow-up too fast and lack critical leadership in their inner circles. Many of them are the ticket for their families to improve their lives. Given that reality: how can families assert leadership and authority over these towering figures? They can't. There are numerous instances in history where young people, who gain access to extraordinary power, abuse it, when they lack good counsel. Each and every one of you should be aware if not sensitive to this human trait. Although it may be too late to help athletes who have already made poor decisions, it is not too late to recognize the problem and attack it. These kids, majority age notwithstanding, need grounding. It is incumbent upon us to push high schools, colleges and universities to provide needed guideance and limitations, so as to avoid this all too common story. Most of these tragedies are avoidable. I hope I live to see a more proactive community emerge that is willing to tackle problems before they occur. I am sickened by the constant reactive yelling that constitutes the overwhelming response of people to social problems after the %*&# has already hit the fan. Professor Bracey asked for some tangible solution oriented responses. I applaude him. Most of you have provided nothing but helpless outrage. At the very least, this blog presents an opportunity for us to engage in intelligent dialogue. But if used properly, this blog presents an opportunity for proactive and creative problem solving. Let us think about what we can do to help the next emerging group of black athletes avoid the mistakes of those who preceded them. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.234.25 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 11:55:45 AM "Professor Bracey asked for some tangible solution oriented responses. I applaude him. Most of you have provided nothing but helpless outrage. At the very least, this blog presents an opportunity for us to engage in intelligent dialogue. " Ricardo: I don't think you get it. Most people thus far as saying there need not be any community solutions because this is a "personal problem". If they were raised properly by their parents by 18 they should be able to make some intelligent decisions. Some of the stuff these fools do is asinine. I have lived by myself since I was 19 years old and I have never done any of this nonsense and I'm pretty sure that the majority of black men can stand behind me and say the same thing. This problem started in their homes with their parents (too often parent with emphasis on the singular). If you think it does not, then examine the rate of other races of young athletes getting in trouble (oh yes they do exist, Hispanic and white) and their family background as opposed to these people Bracey is talking about. There is your answer, it is painfully obvious. Do black young athletes get in trouble at the same rate as other athletes or not? Do you have the data on that? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.234.25 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 11:57:34 AM "Professor Bracey asked for some tangible solution oriented responses. I applaude him. Most of you have provided nothing but helpless outrage. At the very least, this blog presents an opportunity for us to engage in intelligent dialogue. " Ricardo: I don't think you get it. Most people thus far as saying there need not be any community solutions because this is a "personal problem". If they were raised properly by their parents by 18 they should be able to make some intelligent decisions. Some of the stuff these fools do is asinine. I have lived by myself since I was 19 years old and I have never done any of this nonsense and I'm pretty sure that the majority of black men can stand behind me and say the same thing. This problem started in their homes with their parents (too often parent with emphasis on the singular). If you think it does not, then examine the rate of other races of young athletes getting in trouble (oh yes they do exist, Hispanic and white) and their family background as opposed to these people Bracey is talking about. There is your answer, it is painfully obvious. Do black young athletes get in trouble at the same rate as other athletes or not? Do you have the data on that? You talk as if these men are "victims" are "special". Maybe they are victims. They were victimized by piss poor parenting and "special" because they have the money and fame to make an ass out of themselves for the world to see. Reality is there misbehavior is the same problem with have with a lot of young black man who have no fame, but same dynamics coming up. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ETS EMAIL: IP: 204.155.172.22 URL: http://YBPguide.com DATE: 10/16/2007 12:14:49 PM The thing is the crisis ISN'T "personal." As long as our culture continues to put college sports on a pedestal, nonsense will be tolerated ... maybe even encouraged. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ETS EMAIL: IP: 204.155.172.22 URL: http://YBPguide.com DATE: 10/16/2007 12:30:07 PM The thing is the crisis ISN'T "personal." As long as our culture continues to put college sports on a pedestal, nonsense will be tolerated ... maybe even encouraged. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ETS EMAIL: IP: 204.155.172.22 URL: http://YBPguide.com DATE: 10/16/2007 12:32:38 PM The thing is the crisis ISN'T "personal." As long as our culture continues to put college sports on a pedestal, nonsense will be tolerated ... maybe even encouraged. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ETS EMAIL: IP: 204.155.172.22 URL: http://YBPguide.com DATE: 10/16/2007 12:58:59 PM The thing is the crisis ISN'T "personal." As long as our culture continues to put college sports on a pedestal, nonsense will be tolerated ... maybe even encouraged. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ok2700 EMAIL: IP: 134.186.243.134 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 01:27:28 PM dang ets chill out ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ricardoray EMAIL: IP: 71.242.238.225 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 02:08:35 PM Ricardo: I don't think you get it. Most people thus far as saying there need not be any community solutions because this is a "personal problem". If they were raised properly by their parents by 18 they should be able to make some intelligent decisions. Some of the stuff these fools do is asinine. Dragon Horse: I get it. They screwed up!!! They deserve whatever punishment they receive!!! You can't possibly see my posting as an apology for them. I always call for personal responsibility. But when schools make millions, they have a strategic opportunity to stop these boys from getting into trouble. I'm with you. It shouldn't be this way. Parents need to do their job. But let's deal with the reality on the ground. It's fair to call parents to do their job. But is that the only possible response? Why should young people be allowed to go down the wrong path because their parents' failed them? If others around them can see the problems ahead and take a few measured corrective steps to avoid calamity, where is the harm? It's wrong to watch someone go the wrong way if you can offer a word to steer them in the right direction. I want you bloggers to consider the measured steps that can be taken to assist young athletes whose parents have failed them before they get into trouble. Remember when these young men go down, they take, in part, the dreams of many younger and older black boys and men with them. When we work together to help them, we help ourselves as well. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.234.25 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 02:19:31 PM Ricardo: "But when schools make millions, they have a strategic opportunity to stop these boys from getting into trouble. I'm with you. It shouldn't be this way. Parents need to do their job. But let's deal with the reality on the ground. It's fair to call parents to do their job. But is that the only possible response? Why should young people be allowed to go down the wrong path because their parents' failed them?" I don't really disagree with a proactive stance...but I think you are working on a bandage and not the root cause, a cough and not the virus that causes the disease that leads to a cough. Why should young people "be allowed"? Dude..we live in a free society. People are going to do what they are going to do and I am of the opinion that we should not be "disallowing" young men to do anything that is legal. We can't just preemptively mess with people's freedom like that. Isn't that racial profiling? I believe racial profiling is bad even when it is not cops doing it. The fact is there is no "athlete" problem. The problem is we have far too many young black boys who act barbaric in modern society. You solve that and you have solved the athlete problem, because the only difference is these kids are talented and have more fame and money to mess up with. The root cause of the behavior is no different than Pookie on the block. "Remember when these young men go down, they take, in part, the dreams of many younger and older black boys and men with them. " Then maybe a lot of boys and young men should have different dreams than throwing a ball. The sooner you hold these people responsible for their behavior, which is treating them like men, the sooner they might man up and change up. Babying them is not going to benefit them, because so many of them already act like "babyboys" as it is. It was not always this way? Black athletes were (for the most part) stand up individuals, with discipline, respect, etc. Remember? I do. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: raven EMAIL: IP: 70.21.1.65 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 06:55:06 PM I believe that we should indeed feel compelled to provide a more substantive response to Black collegiate-and professional-athletes who engage in self-destructive behavior because sport as an institution-and our disproportionate presence in it -reflect the problems that Blacks are facing in the broader culture. “For the Black man-child, two glimmers of hope penetrate even the grim depths of the underfooting. But in the cold affirmation of the realities of his situation, these beacons illuminating would-be paths to the better life reflect the fact that, here, his human value is practically coextensive with his utility as a purely physical entity. For his hope of escape has traditionally been believed to lie in either military enlistment or the dream of achieving a successful athletic career.” Dr. Harry Edwards Sports Sociologist I would argue that, while the crises that the athletes referenced in the article face clearly have personal consequences, they reflect systemic and systematic factors (problems in education, employment, the family, healthcare…) that are (should be) matters of concern for American society in general and African-Americans in particular. Excuses for their behavior or sympathy for their respective plights does not have to be the basis of the kind of recognition that I think is necessary. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/ DATE: 10/16/2007 07:13:51 PM FYI I will let others worried about babysitting procedures for grown man-children. I will worry about this: JBHE Statistical Shocker of the Year: Here is a shocking statistic showing that despite major gains, blacks have a huge distance to go to achieve racial parity with whites in higher education. In 2004, 2,100 doctorates were awarded by universities in the United States in the fields of mathematical statistics, botany, optics physics, human and animal pathology, zoology, astrophysics, geometry, geophysics and seismology, general mathematics, nuclear physics, astronomy, marine sciences, nuclear engineering, polymer and plastics engineering, veterinary medicine, topology, hydrology and water resources, animal nutrition, wildlife/range management, number theory, fisheries science and management, atmospheric dynamics, engineering physics, paleontology, plant physiology, general atmospheric science, mathematical operations research, endocrinology, metallurgical engineering, meteorology, ocean engineering, poultry science, stratigraphy and sedimentation, wood science, polymer physics, acoustics, mineralogy and petrology, bacteriology, logic, ceramics science engineering, animal breeding and genetics, computing theory and practice, and mining and mineral engineering. Not one of these 2,100 doctoral degrees went to an African American. www.jbhe.com/latest/122905_statistical_shocker2005.html ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 07:14:36 PM FYI I will let others worried about babysitting procedures for grown man-children. I will worry about this: JBHE Statistical Shocker of the Year: Here is a shocking statistic showing that despite major gains, blacks have a huge distance to go to achieve racial parity with whites in higher education. In 2004, 2,100 doctorates were awarded by universities in the United States in the fields of mathematical statistics, botany, optics physics, human and animal pathology, zoology, astrophysics, geometry, geophysics and seismology, general mathematics, nuclear physics, astronomy, marine sciences, nuclear engineering, polymer and plastics engineering, veterinary medicine, topology, hydrology and water resources, animal nutrition, wildlife/range management, number theory, fisheries science and management, atmospheric dynamics, engineering physics, paleontology, plant physiology, general atmospheric science, mathematical operations research, endocrinology, metallurgical engineering, meteorology, ocean engineering, poultry science, stratigraphy and sedimentation, wood science, polymer physics, acoustics, mineralogy and petrology, bacteriology, logic, ceramics science engineering, animal breeding and genetics, computing theory and practice, and mining and mineral engineering. Not one of these 2,100 doctoral degrees went to an African American. www.jbhe.com/latest/122905_statistical_shocker2005.html ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: raven EMAIL: IP: 70.21.1.65 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 11:03:47 AM DH: Where do you think an inquiry related to a dearth of doctorate degrees amongst African-Americans would begin? Clearly, an examination and interrogation of history, culture, and the broader social context would be critical to such an inquiry. If you read my post and that of some others, we were only suggesting that the present circumstances for Black athletes begs that same kind of inquiry. If you don't agree with that or don't get it, okay. But insisting that people have been lobbying for the institution of "babysitting procedures" in their comments when what others have been attempting to do here is to actually respond to the call of the questions in the article is-FYI-rude and destructive to a healthy exchange of ideas. I obviously don't know you, and I mean no disrespect, but your obvious disdain for the "man-children" athletes makes your many posts on this topic difficult to understand. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: raven EMAIL: IP: 70.21.1.65 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 11:08:09 AM DH: Where do you think an inquiry related to a dearth of doctorate degrees amongst African-Americans would begin? Clearly, an examination and interrogation of history, culture, and the broader social context would be critical to such an inquiry. If you read my post and that of some others, we were only suggesting that the present circumstances for Black athletes begs that same kind of inquiry. If you don't agree with that or don't get it, okay. But insisting that people have been lobbying for the institution of "babysitting procedures" in their comments when what others have been attempting to do here is to actually respond to the call of the questions in the article is-FYI-rude and destructive to a healthy exchange of ideas. I obviously don't know you, and I mean no disrespect, but your obvious disdain for the "man-children" athletes makes your many posts on this topic difficult to understand. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 12:44:46 PM Our little statistical race-pimp is at it again. By selecting specific fields, our pimp has created negative news, yet again about black perfomance. The reality and broader picture is quite something different. From the same source JBHE - www.jbhe.com/news_views/50_black_doctoraldegrees.html "Doctoral Degree Awards to African Americans Reach Another All-Time High In 2004 African Americans earned 1,869 doctoral degrees. This number has increased more than 9 percent from a year ago. Black doctorates now stand at the highest level in history. The overall progress in the past two decades has been rock solid. In 1987 only 787 African Americans earned doctorates. This year's total of 1,869 doctorates is nearly 2.4 times as many as were earned in 1987. In 1990 the black share of all doctoral awards was 3.6 percent. That has now grown to 7.1 percent, a showing of significant progress in a relatively short period of time of 15 years. Now - there is a differential in types of Doctorates awarded to African Americans versus the white population. Black folks tend to dominate Doctorates awarded in the Educational fields by 2 - 1 over whites while trailing i the Hard Sciences. Since these (Education) are the fields from which our future Educational Leaders are drawn - including the Presidents of Colleges and Universities, those statistics provide an interesting corrallary as to the belief in the black community in the value of education. Does anyone else here get tired of our resident race-pimps (and there are several) constant search for real or psuedo-scientific material buttressing their incessant bleating about black "failure"? Posing the question - What exactly have these aforementioned pimps accomplished or done for the community as a whole - either in action or as a role model... Working for the Man, every day and night. "Personal Responsibility"... Indeed. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Abelian EMAIL: IP: 134.60.11.42 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 12:50:26 PM Dragon Horse; You of course realize the sheer number of PhD areas available? A PhD in Pschology is almost always be a statistical work. A PhD in Medicine will touch on Bacteriology... it is not that simple ----- -------- AUTHOR: ejordan TITLE: When The Past Isn't Even Past STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 DATE: 10/14/2007 04:24:16 PM ----- BODY:

Anti Lynching Protesters Howard Univ.

In the Post-Warren era of the Supreme Court, civil rights cases including those addressing employment discrimination, school desegregation and affirmative action have turned on whether the plaintiffs can show that there is a history of "past discrimination" by the particular defendant.  The phases "past discrimination" and societal discrimination have become stock terms to describe the violence of the post Civil War Jim Crow periods. 

Today, the effort to sever the legal link with this past history is most often expressed in antiseptic terms.  The dark truths of the past are uncomfortable, and the relationship of the violent past to the present pattern of racially segregated neighborhoods, schools, and employment opportunities has been santitized with the neutralizing terms.

More importantly, the archives that contain the crucial proof of discriminatory practices are under the control of the defendants.  Given this problem, the work of historical commissions that publish comprehensive reports becomes crucial to both preserving the record and rescuing the past from the airbrush of denial.  Three notable commission reports have been the 1923 Rosewood, 1921 Tulsa   and the report on the 1898 Race Riots in Wilmington, North Carolina now considered to be a political "coup".  The work of historians working alone as scholars, or as a part of commissions will be indispensible to painting a full portrait of the violence that is now sanitized in Supreme Court opinions as "societal discrimination".

I wrote about this problem today for the Outlook section of the Washington Post, where I give my views on this topic.

For legal scholars, the question of how to use the law to seek racial justice will be especially challenging in the new era of radical conservative jurisprudence in the Supreme Court.  Historical research will assume greater and greater importance, just as sociology and social psychology did in the Brown era.

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Al From Bay Shore EMAIL: IP: 76.17.65.74 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 05:20:55 PM The DuBoisian track has been a miserable failure. Here is what I mean: "The dark truths of the past are uncomfortable, and the relationship of the violent past to the present pattern of racially segregated neighborhoods, schools, and employment opportunities has been santitized with the neutralizing terms." Why the fixation on segregation? What was wrong with segregation? Think about it for a moment. Back in the day there were black banks, black athletic leagues, black newspapers, and many black businesses to go with the many black colleges and universities that still exist today. And by the way, I like my black neighborhood. I do believe that this fixation on segregation is nothing but an obsession with white folks. I reminds me of how some feminists believe that a group of men together automatically translates into something that is heinous and evil therefore, women must invade in order to set the world right. Maybe I am just a dreamer but, for minute, see things my way. Imagine a world were we would curse the Kansas City Monarch's for increasing an already bloated payroll by signing an aged Roger Clemens. Now imagine Clemens being upset because he wanted Satchell Paige's number but couldn't because it was retired. Imagine Florida State missing out on that top football prospect because ALL the top prospects' first choice is Howard (with Tuskeegee being a close second). How about George Will laboring over whether or not to Join Dick Morris and Stanley Crouch at the Pittsburgh Courier. Think of an opening round of March Madness where #1 ranked Coppin State plays #15 ranked UTEP. Think of the Morehouse Glee Club being the standard that Yale's Whippenpoofs strive to match or the USC marching band insuring their instruments with North Carolina Mutual because they are the best. The DuBoisian track was a catastrophic failure. We became white folks obsessed and made institution building a bottom list priority. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: NatX EMAIL: IP: 12.226.52.203 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 06:13:03 PM Al From Bay Shore wrote: "What was wrong with segregation?" Do I really need to answer this or are you just trolling? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Al From Bay Shore EMAIL: IP: 76.17.65.74 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 07:38:37 PM NatX, why are black folks talking about segregation and white folks aint? You are not seeing it the way I am. If black folks build independent institutions, why then is there a need to have to be around white folks. Surely the HBCU's are examples of black folks being segregated as well as producing success. Nothing against white people. I am just bothered by the integrationist strategy. Look at what happens when black folks are left to their own devices in a segregated environ: R&B, The Blues, The Harlem Renaissance, The Detroit Poets, Black Colleges, Georgetown (it was once predominately black), Jazz, Soul Food and Creole Cuisine... Again, what was so bad about segregation. If anything, a by product of integration was the loss of control of black institutions by black folks. Integration, as a strategy, appealed to our emotions and had little to do with strengthening and refining the institutions that were uniquely ours. Integration also destroyed our sense of historic tradition. Why on earth did we allow for 50's and 60's era R&B to become labeled as Rock and Roll? Rock and Roll was actually a type of R&B. Talk about an artistic coup de etat. Jazz, our music, has been banished to public radio and what passes for Jazz on commercial radio is nothing but pop instrumentalism. I have a hard time putting Kenny G and Art Blakey in the same musical category. Integration has all but destroyed our cultural and historical traditions. Notice how people are starting to label soul food as "comfort food"? Notice how Hip Hop as an artistic movement has now been supplanted by Rap and its narrow aesthetic? In today's Rap market there is no room for the divergent aesthetics of De La Soul or the Jungle Brothers. On a positive note, a few things that are culturally endemic to us is a cultural and artistic integrity that seems to exist in the counterculture. Deep House Music (as well as an ancillary appreciation for its antecedents ie: TSOP, SalSoul Records, Larry Levan) and so-called "Neo-Soul" enjoys an underground popularity which keeps it from being co-opted (Many people breathed a sigh of relief when Madonna's vogue did not create a nationwide trend in music). I hear of a very hip restaurant in Atlanta (Dare) where there is an authentic and unique approach to soul food that is akin to the nouvelle cuisine trend of the early 80's. I hear they make a fabulous macaroni and cheese/lobster souffle. They play house music and serve the food in a Tapas style. I'm sorry but I feel that the "success" of integrationist strategy has been over-hyped. I often wonder if there was any real success to it at all. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/ DATE: 10/14/2007 09:30:45 PM "For legal scholars, the question of how to use the law to seek racial justice will be especially challenging in the new era of radical conservative jurisprudence in the Supreme Court. " Talk about oxymoron...that is classic. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: mabhekaphansi EMAIL: IP: 196.24.76.42 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 01:03:31 AM Has anyone on this site ever read, "The American Way of Death", by Nancy Mitford? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 09:51:54 AM And the point my brother - : mabhekaphansi like to hear it ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 11:40:45 AM Al From Bay Shore: What a straw horse you just raised? Many of us here are not believers in integration; yet we know that justice of the Supreme Court can set a precedent for many years to come; or open the door for tyrants as in the in the 1920’s here and in Germany. Let’s see how far we have gotten by simple dates of white terrorism – Rosewood 1923, investigated 1993, no reparations or atonements - 70years Wilmington 1898, investigated 2006, no reparations or atonements -108 years Tulsa 1921, investigated 2001, no reparations or atonements - 80 years yet 40 years is a long time ago I believe a very important question was asked; it was not asked about our cultural development, which I fault us, as Jimmy Castor stated –we are the only race in the world that doesn’t honor its own cultural icons or history. But this neglect has moved to our own understanding of social-political history – sad Oh BTW, you do know who Caster is? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ronnie B EMAIL: IP: 206.169.242.254 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 12:58:35 PM What was wrong with segregation? -- Al From Bay Shore Yeah, segregation seems to work well, nowadays. Especially in education. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Al From Bay Shore EMAIL: IP: 76.17.65.74 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 05:08:15 PM nana and Ronnie, don't be upset because I questioned the viability of a political and social strategy that has, for the most part, been the bread and butter of the black intelligentsia for over 100 years. You guys are no different than those elitist snobs who scoffed at Marcus Garvey's penchant for self help doctrines. Integration, to me, is yet another white man obsessed "liberation strategy". But maybe I'm old fashioned in that Elijah Muhammad kind of way. We should have focused on strengthening and refining black institutions rather than be absorbed by those created by white folks. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: cnulan EMAIL: IP: 64.151.32.196 URL: http://assaultonblacksanity.blogspot.com DATE: 10/15/2007 05:47:14 PM As much as it pains me to admit it, call me Henry Belsidus, but I'm with Al on this one. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Craka Smasha EMAIL: IP: 64.160.149.254 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 06:24:23 PM Me too. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: rikyrah EMAIL: IP: 172.164.151.162 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 11:33:50 PM Al makes a lot of good points. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ronnie B EMAIL: IP: 206.169.242.254 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 08:58:40 AM "...Ronnie, don't be upset because I questioned the viability of a political and social strategy that has, for the most part, been the bread and butter of the black intelligentsia for over 100 years. You guys are no different than those elitist snobs who scoffed at Marcus Garvey's penchant for self help doctrines. Integration, to me, is yet another white man obsessed "liberation strategy". But maybe I'm old fashioned in that Elijah Muhammad kind of way. We should have focused on strengthening and refining black institutions rather than be absorbed by those created by white folks." I'm not upset with you, Al. Rather, I look at today's contemporary brand of voluntary segregation and ask myself if it's working. Sure, on a personal level it may work just fine for some. But the choice of integration or segregation, it seems to me, is only as good as the results gained by a predominance of people in terms of education, personal wealth, health and political strength. I won't be so naive as to suggest that integration is the key solution to our problems. It is not. But over the last 30 years--a significant stretch of time, mind you--we have had our choice of integrating or segregating. In my neck of the woods, the predominant choice has been the latter. And education, personal wealth, health and political strength all seem to be one step ahead of failure. One is compelled to ask: is this working? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 09:39:58 AM "You guys are no different than those elitist snobs who scoffed at Marcus Garvey's penchant for self help doctrines." Al - I have no idea what you are taking about. I never joined the civil rights movement b/c I was a follower of Malcolm and Marcus Garvey. And have been a working class organizer since coming out of the Nam. And proud pan-Africanist! I am very leery of folks who attack our intellectual history. For this is going on everywhere and even from our own. This is not about Garvey vs. Dubois, (talking about nostalgia) this is about giving leadership and understanding the role the Supreme Court plays in creating the norms of the land. Malcolm read everything. Why? So that if our folks asked a question he could intelligently give an answer. In this global world, we are to be stuck in our provincial world that is exactly what our enemies want us to do. If we retreat into our hoods, panic given the “cascading of information” this is preparing leadership for this century, I don’t think so. We must debate the complexity not over-simplify. Dangerous given the rise of the possibility of a police state. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 11:18:24 AM For those who want to stay in their mental "hood", at the disservice to our children. Can't even approach this topic as laid out by Ms, Jordon

Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050

----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/16/2007 07:51:17 PM Black prof might want to talk about the present. State Bar of California, Civil Rights Group Spar Over Affirmative Action Tuesday, October 16, 2007 By William LaJeunesse ""Currently only about one in three African-Americans who goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first attempt and a majority never become lawyers at all," says UCLA law professor Richard Sander. In an article published in the Stanford Law Review, Sander and his research team concluded several thousand would-be black lawyers either dropped out of law school or failed to pass the bar because of affirmative action." www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301722,00.html ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: bigmaconcampus EMAIL: IP: 68.237.204.141 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 08:10:55 PM "I won't be so naive as to suggest that integration is the key solution to our problems. It is not. But over the last 30 years--a significant stretch of time, mind you--we have had our choice of integrating or segregating. In my neck of the woods, the predominant choice has been the latter. And education, personal wealth, health and political strength all seem to be one step ahead of failure. One is compelled to ask: is this working?" If it isn't, we probably should try something new, because the Supreme Court, and most Americans, won't allow race-based preferences to be the means of integrating schools. That's finished. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Mwafrika EMAIL: IP: 196.207.17.139 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 03:34:48 AM For the revolutionaries and revolutinaries at heart. This year we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Revolutionary Earnesto 'che' Guevara moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.html and the 20th anniversary of slain Burkina Faso Revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7045029.stm www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=13959 Others celebrated the KKKolumbus day (12th October). Have a Revolutionary Day! ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 08:44:19 AM Mwafrika - talk about the middle class fighting for the poor and the darker citzens of a nation. What is being talked about today is what do we do with the surplus, ignorant mass. hmmm ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Ronnie B EMAIL: IP: 206.169.242.254 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 09:09:16 AM If it isn't, we probably should try something new, because the Supreme Court, and most Americans, won't allow race-based preferences to be the means of integrating schools. That's finished. -- BMOC True. The Supremes basically said "integrate on your own; don't expect the Courts to do it for you". Now, I understand that integration is out of the question for many folks. But the reality is that our schools are what they are: a tiny few are good; the rest are either failing or mediocre at best. So our family, as you said, tried something new. We decided to be selfish and not wait until "our" schools got better; we committed heresy by moving to diverse neighborhood and enrolled our kids in a diverse high school. Not for the privilege of "sitting next to white kids", but to be able to learn from current texts and materials; from teachers who understand their jobs; and to be among a diverse group of kids who were motivated to achieve and succeed. I realize that this is unpopular amongst some, but we weren't about to watch our kids languish in an underachieving school. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: spike the cat EMAIL: IP: 81.208.36.89 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 10:31:48 AM Ronnie said: The Supremes basically said "integrate on your own; don't expect the Courts to do it for you". Now, I understand that integration is out of the question for many folks. But the reality is that our schools are what they are: a tiny few are good; the rest are either failing or mediocre at best. Nana said: Robots in 2050. I concur with Ronnie. I think that the US is a different place today, and I just can't see how Black kids being segregated from say, Asians and Hispanics and other groups is going to be conducive for the global picture. It made sense back in the day, and until recently I thought it still made sense today, but after spending time abroad, it's harder to say. For example, in many Western European countries communities that are "segregated"---whether intentionally, or due to well intentioned but ill concieved social projects---are not fairing well at all compared with the majority population. just a goofy thought: if people can have sex with robots by 2050, then surely we can create the perfect "Robot teacher" and Robot school boards and put them in all schools, no excuses. I'm sensing that in another 100 years, people will have a microchip option, because we won't be able to compete with the robots anyway. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 11:39:50 AM Question for the board - Do any of the contributors from Africa have experience on the ground in East Central Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Tanzania)? Second - I think re-segregation is an increasingly diminishing excercise in futility. Like it or not, that Pandora is fully out of the box - and there is no way to put it back. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 11:48:09 AM Question for the board - Do any of the contributors from Africa have experience on the ground in East Central Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Tanzania)? Second - I think re-segregation is an increasingly diminishing excercise in futility. Like it or not, that Pandora is fully out of the box - and there is no way to put it back. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 12:07:50 PM Second - I think re-segregation is an increasingly diminishing excercise in futility. Like it or not, that Pandora is fully out of the box - and there is no way to put it back. That is correct and when we stop discussing the tired dualism of white and black folks the better. African am can not afford to take the road of the old line nativist and isolate themselves from the other thriving cultural and ethnic groups of the world. We are more honored that folks in this society would like to reveal. ----- -------- AUTHOR: ejordan TITLE: Race and The Subprime Mortgage Crisis STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: economics CATEGORY: economics DATE: 10/13/2007 02:10:32 PM ----- BODY:

Acorn Protests               Foreclosure Sign

The scandalous, frequently fraudulent excesses of sub prime home mortgage lending are finally coming home to roost in the very coupes from which they originally escaped: money center banks and hedge fund portfolios. This is a market correction, the operation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. 

 

This administration believes in letting the invisible hand determine winners and losers.  Except when it doesn't.  For the moment, the Bush administration is unsure about letting unmodified market forces impose sanctions on major market players who made bad bets .  It fears that this will unsettle the entire economy.

 

In case you have forgotten, the reckless subprime mortgages featured a rogue’s gallery of predatory provisions: no down payment, shaky credit histories, no income verification, and variable rate loans with deceptively low teaser rates at signing, premiums for brokers who could deliver.  All of this topped off with steep penalties if you tried to refinance into a better loan.  The predictions are that as many as 2-7 million borrowers will default on these reckless loans by the next time rates reset. 

 

The human toll of the subprime mortgage crisis has reached deep into virtually every community. Homes are not widgets. People and families build their sense of well-being around the stability of the mortgage supporting their family’s kitchen table.

 

African American borrowers have been especially hard hit. Recent studies from New York University researchers, pro consumer non profits such as Acorn and the Center for Responsible Lending and the NYT analyses of mortgage data show that even at higher income levels, black borrowers throughout the country were far more likely than white borrowers with similar incomes and mortgage amounts to receive a subprime loan.

 

Even before the mortgage crisis, whites and blacks had a net wealth gap of $8000 to $800. The research of sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro has drawn our attention to the importance of the racial wealth gap.  Homes represent the single largest asset in middle class and working poor families’ portfolios. Oliver and Shapiro found that:  “Forty three per cent of blacks owned homes in 1988, a rate 65% lower than that of whites...  housing equity represents 43.3 percent of white wealth and 62.5 percent of black assets.” 

 

Against this background of preexisting racial wealth disparities, the current subprime crisis promises to affect future generations. The size of the financial bootstrap, called “transformative assets” by Thomas Shapiro, that black parents will be able to pass on to their heirs will decline dramatically because of this round of foreclosures.  This, in turn will increase the racial wealth gap in for generations to come. 

 

On Tuesday, October 16th , Secretary Paulson in a speech in Washington, DC for the first time took a at least a rhetorical step back from the canon of “no government regulation” to stop consumer abuses because this might “hurt market innovation”.  He announced support for several modest initiatives to encourage private lenders to workout the defaulted mortgages before foreclosing.  This is welcome progress, but not nearly enough. 

 

 The Treasury department has the power, indeed the responsibility, to directly ban some of the worst practices: variable rate loans with deceptively low teaser rates at signing, premiums for brokers selling bad loan to borrowers without regard to longterm suitability, and steep penalties for refinancing into a more suitable fixed rate loan, if they can get one.

 

In the financial world, nothing is truly private. Homeowners deserve straight talk and direct action on the racial impact of the current subprime crisis.  The evidence is mounting that black homeowners and latino homeowners, even those with high incomes have been disproportionately affected by the unregulated lending practices that started in minority communities and now threaten the entire economy.

 

 

If the problem has a racially disproportionate origin, the solution should include sensitive attention to the racial components of the proposed solution.

 

 

If the government had stepped in initially to protect borrowers when the problems were first spotted in minority communties,  the general crisis, that now threatens the interdependent world economy, might not have grown to its current dimension.  Creative government leadership is required.  Adam Smith and private solutions will not protect the nation from the full racial impact of the snowballing subprime mortgage crisis.

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- -------- AUTHOR: mhill TITLE: Supporting the Fairness Doctrine STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: Media CATEGORY: Media DATE: 10/12/2007 08:58:56 AM ----- BODY:

fairness doctrine.gif

Recently, the Center for American Progress released a study that confirmed what many of us already knew: the nation’s radio airwaves are dominated by conservative talk. According to the study, 91% of the America’s news/talk radio programming is comprised of conservatives. As of Spring 2007, 2570 hours of conservative talk are offered per week in comparison to 254 hours of progressive talk. A separate analysis of the top ten radio markets revealed that 76% of the programming is conservative and only 24% is progressive. In response to this staggering imbalance, many people have called for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy that forced broadcasters to allow equal broadcasting time to opposing views.

Established in 1940, the Fairness Doctrine required government regulation in order to ensure that broadcast companies, of which there were only three, operated in the public interest by adequately informing citizens of important news. The doctrine, which had been in place since the establishment of the FCC, was vetoed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 when Congress attempted to mandate it. Soon after, Right-wing demagogue Rush Limbaugh began to syndicate his radio show in unprecedented fashion, leading the charge toward a conservative media revolution that has overdetermined American politics and left few progressive bodies standing.

Of course, pundits on the Right insist that this spike is due to the demands of the so-called Free Market. Observers like National Review’s Rich Lowry argue that conservative radio is ubiquitous simply because the American people want to hear Right-wing voices more than anyone else’s. Unfortunately, the numbers say otherwise: 56 percent of the American public and 53 percent of regular talk show listeners identify as liberal or moderate. Why wouldn’t they want radio options that reflect their political orientations?

Not coincidentally, the rise in conservative radio has been paralleled by an equally sharp drop in local ownership over the past twenty years. Since the 1980s, the number of large media companies has shrunk from over fifty to lesser than ten. At the same time, thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, locally owned networks have been swallowed up by companies like Clear Channel, which owns more than 1,200 radio stations around the country. This reorganization of ownership has rendered the market anything but free. In addition to cutting jobs and wages, the consolidation of media outlets has devoured small companies and eliminated ownership opportunities for women and people of color. Why does this matter? According to the Center for American Progress study, locally owned companies, as well as those owned by women and people of color, are considerably more likely to provide non-conservative programming.

Simply put, conservative radio dominates because American people don’t have a choice.

Although the Fairness Doctrine remains our best option for sustaining any semblance of media democracy, it is not without its limitations and shortcomings. By legislating our demands for equal time for the “other side,” we reify a liberal/conservative binary that effectively obscures the existence of perspectives that fall outside of that shortsighted dichotomy. Also, by intervening in the programming decisions of corporatized radio outlets, we fail to address the more profound structural problems that accompany neo-liberal globalization. Nevertheless, the Fairness Doctrine will provide us with a much-needed respite from the conservative media assault that has undermined democratic discourse and social justice.

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Al From Bay Shore EMAIL: IP: 76.17.65.74 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 04:55:18 PM I'm sorry. I'm not buying this. Radio stations are businesses. If you cannot cut it then you disappear. I do not like the idea of screwing with the free market. Rush has a following. Hannity has a following. NPR has a following. WBAI has following (and this is a public radio station that has been around for years). WLIB had a following. Funny how the Air America program it carried flopped. It goes to show that people would rather listen to Bob Law and Imhotep Gary Byrd over Al Franken's boring behind. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: American Hawk EMAIL: IP: 70.116.6.5 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 06:26:07 PM Two questions. If you were in charge of enforcing the fairness doctrine.... -- If a black radio station runs a tribute to MLK Jr. on his birthday, do they have to give equal time to somebody who wants to point out that MLK Jr. sympathized with communism and cheated on his wife? -- If a radio station runs a commentary in favor of affirmative action for blacks, should David Duke be able to go up and argue affirmative action for whites? In both cases, if not why not? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/14/2007 09:24:54 PM I co-sign Al. What you said makes no sense Prof. unless you can show that companies like, Clear Channel, are underwriting conservative radio then the market is demanding it and that is why they get advertisements dollars, due to ratings. Liberal radio (outside black radio) does not sale, sorry. It is typical leftist ideology: "If you can not compete fairly regulate a guaranteed equal outcome instead of making yourself more competitive to begin with." ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/ DATE: 10/14/2007 09:42:34 PM sorry I meant subsidizing, not underwriting. :-) ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/ DATE: 10/14/2007 09:48:29 PM Maybe if "liberal" radio invited Cosby to speak about "the real" they might get a better audience: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21293963/ ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ken EMAIL: IP: 24.245.18.8 URL: DATE: 10/14/2007 10:47:48 PM "Why wouldn’t they want radio options that reflect their political orientations?" Are you sure there should only be two options? And who should decide what those two options are? There are many more opinions than just 2 on any issue. Don't you think every point of view should be reflected on every broadcast program? "Also, by intervening in the programming decisions of corporatized radio outlets, we fail to address the more profound structural problems that accompany neo-liberal globalization." Why only radio? There are many shows that seem to slant conservative or liberal. Shouldn't we also demand that all points of view are represented on each of these programs as well? Also, I noticed it seems like the conservative shows are the ones with the most veiwers, so this is especially dangerous. With the combination of 10 to 20 million listeners choosing to listen to Limbeau and then the also choosing to tune into the more conservative television, something has to be done to impede these people's choices. Its just not right. On television we could put monitors on the cable boxes. Since having a choice of liberal viewing has not swayed them we are going to need to take more drastic steps. With these monitors we could have the tuner automatically switch to MSNBC every 10 minutes and stay locked there for 20 minutes. Another option, and Al From Bay Shore, I noticed you have already started this with your conservative negro warning, we could put a warning that always streams across conservative programming warning them that they are watching conservative programming and it should be viewed with contempt. In the radio market we could do this in a format like a severe weather warning every 10 minutes of the conservative broadcast. Also we could have the tuner switch to NPR similiar to the television format with MSNBC. It might seem a little pushy, but if we can show we are only interested in protecting the public from these extremist and the children of the parents who listen or view these programs I think the public would agree in the merits of the program. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Undercover Black Man EMAIL: IP: 64.0.134.98 URL: http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com DATE: 10/15/2007 01:48:29 AM Kind of a drag to realize there's a movement afoot to have the state control the flow of opinions in the media. It's not the government's business which talk-show hosts are popular and which one's aren't... any more than it's the government's business how many daily newspapers editorialize in support of Democratic or Republican policies. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.233.200 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/15/2007 09:05:30 AM This post only reenforces the idea that academia is full of socialist/communists. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 09:10:09 AM I'm not sure why people don't want to return Radio to it's original purpose - which was as a community resource, with local ownership who was responsible to the community. Some folks would like you to forget that the airwaves belong to the people of the United States... And not the corporations. As I recall there were two parts to the original "Fairness Doctrine" outlined in the Telcommunications Act of 1930 - the first which mandated local control, and set ownership limits on media outlets in any service area. We need to return to that - and the rest of it will take care of itself. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 10:50:47 AM Lizzie laments - "It is typical leftist ideology: "If you can not compete fairly regulate a guaranteed equal outcome instead of making yourself more competitive to begin with."" There quite obviously isn't an effort to regulate stupidity on this "liberal" site. The core issue is that the amalgamation allowed under Powell's FCC has created a consolidated ownership structure which is anti-competitive, and does not serve the community. For the folks who aren't closet Nazis - at one time in this country local radio had a distinctive flavor in different regions. The music in Savannah on an R&B or Rock station might be considerably different than that on a local station in Cleveland. This encouraged the development of local "flavor" as well as spurred creativity. Now, we have the same lousy format on virtually every station in the country, abetted by consolidation of ownership of the local outlets. Clearchannel, which functions as a propaganda arm of the right blocks dissent, whether it is local or national. Unlike the so called "liberal" outlets, there is no effort to either present or to allow on the air opinions which differ from the Reich's propaganda. It functions as an incubator of Reich wing thought, and radio personalities - in an environment where factuality is a relative term. Now - most of our conservative weenies on the site are too ignorant to recognize is that unlike a normal corporation - the entire broadcast media utilizes public resource and thus should be regulated for the public good. If the resident neo-Nazis don't like hearing things which upset their ears - then I suggest getting the hell out of the country and finding a nice dictatorship in the Middle East... Where I guarantee you won't hear criticism over the airwaves of the ruling kingpin. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 11:05:32 AM Lizzie laments - "It is typical leftist ideology: "If you can not compete fairly regulate a guaranteed equal outcome instead of making yourself more competitive to begin with."" There quite obviously isn't an effort to regulate stupidity on this "liberal" site. The core issue is that the amalgamation allowed under Powell's FCC has created a consolidated ownership structure which is anti-competitive, and does not serve the community. For the folks who aren't closet Nazis - at one time in this country local radio had a distinctive flavor in different regions. The music in Savannah on an R&B or Rock station might be considerably different than that on a local station in Cleveland. This encouraged the development of local "flavor" as well as spurred creativity. Now, we have the same lousy format on virtually every station in the country, abetted by consolidation of ownership of the local outlets. Clearchannel, which functions as a propaganda arm of the right blocks dissent, whether it is local or national. Unlike the so called "liberal" outlets, there is no effort to either present or to allow on the air opinions which differ from the Reich's propaganda. It functions as an incubator of Reich wing thought, and radio personalities - in an environment where factuality is a relative term. Now - most of our conservative weenies on the site are too ignorant to recognize is that unlike a normal corporation - the entire broadcast media utilizes public resource and thus should be regulated for the public good. If the resident neo-Nazis don't like hearing things which upset their ears - then I suggest getting the hell out of the country and finding a nice dictatorship in the Middle East... Where I guarantee you won't hear criticism over the airwaves of the ruling kingpin. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.233.200 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/15/2007 11:32:35 AM BT: "The music in Savannah on an R&B or Rock station might be considerably different than that on a local station in Cleveland. This encouraged the development of local "flavor" as well as spurred creativity." That was barely true when I was a kid...in the 1980's and 1990's. It was more true whenever you thought you were cool in the 60's and 70's I'm sure, but this was not a new thing. Yes there was more consolidation in the industry but formats have been pretty much the same, music fairly uniform since, at least, the 1980's. "The core issue is that the amalgamation allowed under Powell's FCC has created a consolidated ownership structure which is anti-competitive, and does not serve the community. " What law says radio must "serve the community"? Please show me. You got NPR for that. To my knowledge Clear Channel is a for profit industry. They are publicly held. If they were not making money they would not run such a format, there is obviously a market for it. If there was not people would not listen, they would listen to a CD or to NPR, etc. There are major advertisers on these shows for a reason. "Now - most of our conservative weenies on the site are too ignorant to recognize is that unlike a normal corporation - the entire broadcast media utilizes public resource and thus should be regulated for the public good." "Should be" According to what law to what active regulation? "Unlike the so called "liberal" outlets, there is no effort to either present or to allow on the air opinions which differ from the Reich's propaganda. It functions as an incubator of Reich wing thought, and radio personalities - in an environment where factuality is a relative term." name calling and over the top hysterical propaganda aside...liberal radio does not make money. There are liberal radio shows on NPR and on black radio, but on "black radio" it is 95% music, 5% real issues if that, because that is what sells in the market. Don't get mad at certain people because the market is not responsive to certain ideologies. If you want to get mad, get mad at black people for not tuning in when black radio or other "liberal news outlets" speak on important issues instead of tuning into the latest N@gga Got Bling/Big Booty H@ song. Clear Channel is not subsidizing conservative radio, conservative radio is paying the bills. If you don't think so, look at how many people tune into Rush Limbaugh or even weirdos like Michael Savage. Then try to call into to their shows...good luck...not easy to do...better be hittin the speed dial 10-20 times and pray. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 12:19:31 PM Lizzie liebels - "What law says radio must "serve the community"? Please show me. You got NPR for that." I just told you. If you are too lazy to Google Telecommunications Act and Fairness Doctrine - or the same combination with Public Service... It isn't my responsibility to alleviate your gross ignorance. Pull yourself up by your intllectual boot string... Thin as it may be. Suggest you try Googling the terms and pay close attention to Telcommunications Act of 1934 and the Act of 1996 where Rethuglys screwed the pooch. Otherwise, you are again stupidly pontificating (again) about a subject which you know nothing about. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ken EMAIL: IP: 24.245.18.8 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 12:58:38 PM BT, "Now - most of our conservative weenies on the site are too ignorant to recognize is that unlike a normal corporation - the entire broadcast media utilizes public resource and thus should be regulated for the public good." And of course, people of your political stature should be deciding what is the good for the public. Our we only going to limit this to talk radio, or should we evaluate the stations that play music and look at each song and decide if its a message for the betterment of the public? Should we evaluate television sitcoms, and late night weekend shows for their contribution to the public good? "If the resident neo-Nazis don't like hearing things which upset their ears - then I suggest getting the hell out of the country and finding a nice dictatorship in the Middle East..." Its amazing how much wisdom was in the little piece of advice. If you want to know who the liar is, its likely the person calling everyone else a liar. In this case, if you want to know who the neo-Nazi who doesn't want have their ears upset.... and the Act of 1996 where Rethuglys screwed the pooch. Did they (Rethuglys) override a Clinton veto? "I just told you. If you are too lazy to Google Telecommunications Act and Fairness Doctrine - or the same combination with Public Service... It isn't my responsibility to alleviate your gross ignorance." But you should be able to back up what you say,instead of depending on someone with an opposing opinion backing up your claims. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.233.200 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/15/2007 01:09:24 PM Ken: All the previous BT post showed me is to never underestimate the ability of a ground man to act like a child when someone asks him to back up what he says. You can cover up trash all you want but it always comes out stinking. Some folks will always be what they are. sigh... Clinton could have vetoed the 1996 act if he so chose. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 162.6.233.200 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/15/2007 01:15:20 PM oh last post was "grown" not ground. There was no need for all that ignorance as no one disrespected him, that only shows that there is no intent to serious discuss anything... Ken...and no, Clinton did not veto it. He signed the bill. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 03:11:38 PM Spin a Ken tries - "And of course, people of your political stature should be deciding what is the good for the public. " Ignrace is truly manifest. No Spin-a-Ken that control is in the hands of the State and Local Public Untilities Commisions (PUCs) who are either locally elected or appointed by locally elected officials. Now I know how much you Rethugly types hate us regular citizens having local control outside of the perview of the Reich (or even voting for that matter) - but that is the way it was set up back when Republicans weren't agents of the corporate Reich and both Parties actually cared about local control in the country. The second component of that was local ownership requirement, which allowed the local government (PUC) to exert control through State Corporation Commissions. And... As to the sad, sad refrain of "But...But... Clinton!" - It passed with all 55 Rethuglys in the Senate, and all of the House Republicans - making a Veto a fruitless excercise. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 03:54:56 PM In any Event the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had more to do with unbundled network interfaces (UNI) and services in the telecom arena than ownership of media properties. However the monster was created under under subsection 202 (b) (1), 202 (C) 1, and 202 (e) which deal with media ownership and consolidation. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ken EMAIL: IP: 70.13.246.253 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 04:13:21 PM BT, I see you are trying, bringing up right to vote and whatever you can throw out. I do understand the weak position you are in. Personally I would let this one go, its a riduculous issue and administering this government control over programming would be way too far reaching. According to the article 53% of talk show listeners are liberal or moderate. The progressive talk shows according to this post are 24% of talk shows. The potential for progressive talk shows is great, with this percentage. While on the other end 76% of the conservative talk shows are fighting for the 47% who lean towards their point of view. With this advantage for progressive talk, its a wonder the audiences aren't bigger and sponsors paying big for the advertising. It appears there is liberal choice, but even many progressive's toes curl when they hear their point of view spoken out loud. Why do you think it is such a public good to smash your political view down the throats of those who have chosen to listen to something else? Or why wouldn't you instead, want liberalism to be more attractive to listeners? And explain how much control you would like these agencies to have over broadcast programming. If for instance Limbeau's show which is called entertainment by democrats, is controlled with equal time, what other entertainment shows would you include? "And... As to the sad, sad refrain of "But...But... Clinton!" - It passed with all 55 Rethuglys in the Senate, and all of the House Republicans - making a Veto a fruitless excercise." It takes 2/3rds to in the senate and house to override a veto. The truth is he signed it ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 05:09:22 PM Ken stumbles - "According to the article 53% of talk show listeners are liberal or moderate. " And when 90% of the programming hours are dedicated to conservative radio - that puts to rest Lizzie's pitiful argument that it is driven by market forces. One of the advantages to a Liberal or Moderate listening to Radio Reich is to be informed of what hosed up scheme the Reich is trying to shove down America's throat next. The second - is the comedy value. Local control of media would make the media responsive to the community... I can see why you in the Reich are afraid of it - much as your forebears in Nazi Germany were, and totalitarian like minded souls in the communist sphere of old demanded central control of the media... Or in dictatorships around the world where the media is censored to one point of view. It eliminates the messy possibility of people developing their own ideas, or broadcasting the truth. Sig Hiel... Indeed. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ken EMAIL: IP: 24.245.18.8 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 06:42:59 PM "And when 90% of the programming hours are dedicated to conservative radio - that puts to rest Lizzie's pitiful argument that it is driven by market forces." Where did you get a figure like that? The original article says 24% of the talk shows are progressive. If there was a demand for these progressive shows, why wouldn't the so called 53% of the listening audience be clamoring for these programs. Yet instead, the cry is to stop conservative discussion. The truth is however liberal programs are dying and dead. Not because they are boring, they are, but because they don't bring a different perspective than we already get with the network news, the morning shows, NPR, the newspapers, the editorials, the sitcoms, the late night shows, most CNN shows, and almost all of MSNBC. The liberal market is saturated. Liberal bias is strong, and if you believe all oulets should carry an opposite spectrum viewpoint, you would find more conservative discussion. www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 "I can see why you in the Reich are afraid of it - much as your forebears in Nazi Germany were, and totalitarian like minded souls in the communist sphere of old demanded central control of the media... Or in dictatorships around the world where the media is censored to one point of view." Afraid of what? Most conservative talk formats are given the liberal point of view, with quotes from the people promoting the view. then of course they are analyzed. Far different than the dictatorships you have previously said worked well. Again remember the age old advice. If you want to know who the liar is.... Here's BT: "100% taxation is pure communism, Ken – where the government owns everything. Worked fine in Russia for a number of years, although any such system will eventually grind to a halt based on inequitable distribution of benefits." And BT: "If the resident neo-Nazis don't like hearing things which upset their ears - then I suggest getting the hell out of the country and finding a nice dictatorship in the Middle East..." You wonder who is really trying to stop free thinking ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/15/2007 07:00:43 PM Just so you get a clear understanding of where I am coming from on this Spin-a-Ken - let's do a quick review (in small words - just for you conservative types): I am not supporting the "Fairness Doctrine" as a mandated Federal Requirement. I don't believe Congress should (again) screw with Free Speech like the conservative fascists who have created "Free Speech Zones". I do support a return to the media ownership rules of 1937, where all media outlets must be locally owned, and no one party may own more than 50% of the outlets in any metropolitan area. What this assures is that the local channels are accountable to the local people - and that companies like Clearchannel cannot subsidize Reich Wing radio based on distributing costs across stations. This will result in radio being like TV - where content providers vie to be on local radio much the same as CBS/ABC/NBC, and to a lesser extent Faux do today to gain affiliates. This may, or may not decrease the artificially manufactured right-wingdizzy-radio dominance - as carrying such may indeed be more profitable for locally owned stations... But it will put it on a fair, locally regulated, free-market competitive basis with all other content providers. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/15/2007 07:19:32 PM "Reich Wing radio based" if we really had this...BT would be either in a labor camp being worked to death or a already dead. I would be in exile in Japan. Ken and his family would likely be shot on site for race mixing. Making Nazi reference is just so ridicules it is bringing down the level of discussion to idiocy. "I do support a return to the media ownership rules of 1937, where all media outlets must be locally owned, and no one party may own more than 50% of the outlets in any metropolitan area." Most people don't even listen to this compared to television....which is seriously consolidated but the news is typically definitely slanted toward the liberal (because Journalism schools typically are) so BT won't complain about that. There are also local shows...BT should google Glen Beck...he is huge in Houston, TX and completely local. There is more than just Rush. Fact is Liberal radio shows (outside the black or Latino community) don't get listeners...so they don't last. They do not bring in the advertisement revenue. Ken "And BT: "If the resident neo-Nazis don't like hearing things which upset their ears - then I suggest getting the hell out of the country and finding a nice dictatorship in the Middle East..." You wonder who is really trying to stop free thinking" Exactly...which is why I laugh at this obvious partisan socialist pandering. Let the free market decide. Clear Channel is in the busy of making money, it has to answer to stock holders. Clear Channel does not subsidize partisan radio for fun...that is nonsense and there is no evidence of it so this entire conversion is ridiculous. BT already knows what time it is though: This may, or may not decrease the artificially manufactured right-wingdizzy-radio dominance - as carrying such may indeed be more profitable for locally owned stations... Truth is people don't want to hear that leftist hateful whining crap anymore. They read it in the major papers, they see it on TV. Radio is the outlet, they found the niche market, that turned out to be a large majority...the only public media that you can here another opinion and discuss it with others on the air. Its the market. Don't hate the player hate the game...if you have game the market will respond. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Mwafrika EMAIL: IP: 196.207.17.139 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 03:40:19 AM An international perspective. Leftist/Liberal BBC world service radio got one of the widest audiences worldwide of about 183 million. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service I'm sometimes confused with this conservative/liberal insignia e.g. Support for social equity = liberal Family values = conservative Believe in God = conservative Racism = conservative Peace and Harmony = Liberal Security = conservative Belief in global warming = liberal The Academia = liberal Business Enterprise = conservative Regulation (even when justified) = liberal Assuming you are an academia, believe in God, global warming (environmental issues), family values, social equity, personal security (which is paramount) which box do you fall in the liberal/conservative divide? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: ken EMAIL: IP: 198.22.123.105 URL: DATE: 10/16/2007 10:31:47 AM Mwafrika, Your post looks like it could be fun, but it would need a little time. Many of your issues are an issue of method to get to the goal. I know you posted this with a little twist of humor, but I do hope to answer it. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Constructive Feedback EMAIL: IP: 24.99.192.247 URL: http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com DATE: 10/16/2007 08:54:34 PM [quote]Simply put, conservative radio dominates because American people don’t have a choice.[/quote] Don't have a CHOICE????? What happened to the CHOICE of "Air America"? What about NPR today? What about the Pacifica Network? Why is it that Dr. Hill only focuses on Talk Radio? What about the newspaper editorial boards of the nation's big city newspapers? Which way do they slant? What about (oh goodness) BLACK Newspapers or the average Black talk radio station? We sure hear a lot of balance in these sources don't we Dr. Hill? It seems to me that some of us are jaundiced in our perspectives on bias. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: BT EMAIL: IP: 71.126.183.100 URL: DATE: 10/17/2007 12:05:35 PM Lizzie Warbles - "if we really had this...BT would be either in a labor camp being worked to death or a already dead." To quote the NRA - "About the same time you pry my gun from my cold dead fingers". As usual - you are confused, Lizzie. The Reich in America is much more sophisticated than the plebian efforts of Adolph. What will be interesting is whether the anticipated change in political party majority... Actually comes off. Insofar as the vaunted "success" of conservative radio... Have any of our regnant Reich Kool Aid drinkers actually looked up the "profitablility" of conservative radio... Or even compared it on a unit station basis with other types of radio? Didn't think so. ROFL! ----- -------- AUTHOR: kmaillard TITLE: The Pocahontas Exception STATUS: Publish ALLOW COMMENTS: 1 CONVERT BREAKS: tinymce ALLOW PINGS: 1 PRIMARY CATEGORY: history CATEGORY: culture CATEGORY: history CATEGORY: race DATE: 10/11/2007 09:12:35 PM ----- BODY:

Pocahontas and Rolfe

 

“I’m part Native American.” 

“My grandmother...”

“Cherokee Indian…”

"Princess…”

It is quite interesting to hear declarations of Indian blood without any indication of identity or affiliation. Like my late colleague Vine Deloria, Jr., I wonder too, why is the indigenous forbear always female (safe choice), Cherokee (quite popular) and royal (not a commoner)?  And why must people share this with me as if we are Native Blood Brothers?   Most of the people who divulge with information are about as Indian as Heidi.

Many states retained laws that allowed persons to claim remote amounts of Indian blood, but still classify themselves as white.  Similar amounts of black blood would render a person’s claim to whiteness as moot.  In Virginia, a statute existed that defined “white” as “one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and hav[ing] no other non-Caucasic blood.”  This allowance permitted Indian blood to override the doctrine of hypodescent — its presence alongside European ancestry did not automatically prevent one from being white.

In its accommodation of one-sixteenth Indian blood, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act venerated the “Pocahontas Exception.” Acknowledging the interracial marriage of Pocahontas, the famous “Indian Princess” and the Englishman John Rolfe, the Pocahontas Exception ensured that their descendants could be legally white. The “First Families of Virginia ” who demanded this accommodation wanted to celebrate their ancestral and historic ties to colonial America.  For elite Virginians to demand this accommodation demonstrates a shifting concept of racial purity. Instead of tainting one’s civic and legal liberty as a white person, strains of Indian blood assume a different, more exotic and arguably desirable meaning.

Virginia’s statutory conception of “white” codifies what I call miscegenistic exceptionalism, where the intent of white racial purity exempts and protects certain nonwhite ancestries from the threat of taint.  In this case, the exception is Indian blood, and this is codified by law.  Racial groups normally considered nonwhite may receive honorary status as “white,” underscoring the argument of race as a social construct rather than a biological truth.

Why is there an exception for Pocahontas, or other Indian Princesses? What prevents a similar loophole for Irish Nell , George Washington’s Venus or Sally Hemings ? What enduring legacy of American collective memory categorically resists the embracement of a “Slave Grandmother Complex?” With increasing numbers of Americans freely and lately claiming Native ancestry, we may ask why such affirmations do not meet the triumvirate of resistance, shame, and secrecy that regularly accompanies findings of partial African ancestry. In other words, what is the exceptional legal and social status of the Indian Grandmother that allows her to escape the reach of antimiscegenation law?

 

For a longer answer to this question, see, Kevin Noble Maillard, The Pocahontas Exception: American Indians and Exceptionalism in Antimiscegenation Law

 

 

 

 

----- EXTENDED BODY: ----- EXCERPT: ----- KEYWORDS: ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Mr Fungi EMAIL: IP: 68.38.193.9 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 12:15:00 AM "Many states retained laws that allowed persons to claim remote amounts of Indian blood, but still classify themselves as white. Similar amounts of black blood would render a person’s claim to whiteness as moot. In Virginia, a statute existed that defined “white” as “one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and hav[ing] no other non-Caucasic blood.” This allowance permitted Indian blood to override the doctrine of hypodescent — its presence alongside European ancestry did not automatically prevent one from being white" Professor, one could apply the above to the question: How "black" does an individual need to be to partake in the racial spoils system? I suggest you peruse the "accomplishments" of the 4 black MacArthur "genius" award winners for 2007 (the painter's work is particularly noteworthy for its mediocrity). Are they indeed "black" enough? Professor, does your research explore the racial percentages of America's bizarre spoils system for the black middle class? Should being 1% black qualify you for a MacArthur "genius" award? We really should codify these things, wouldn't you agree? ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: mabhekaphansi EMAIL: IP: 196.24.76.11 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 02:50:21 AM Interesting. My mom was a coloured lady, with black and Malay bloodlines in her. But my friends (well, certainly now that we are post apartheid) don't particularly give a damn about how much of each race we have in ourselves. Under apartheid, however, the story was VERY different (I speak from personal experience here) and essentially mirrors what you talk about in your article. But this "raceness" is also bi-directional, and I have seen "degree of blackness and whiteness", especially in the USA, being used almost as a weapon by all races, or so it seems to me. And I have also noticed in acadaemia (I am a physicist) that race, certainly in the sciences, makes no difference: its the quality of the work that does it. Perhaps my experiences, or my interpretation thereof, are somehow not the norm. Certainly, in my travels, especially those through Africa, race has been always an insignificant thing with by far the vast majority of people that I have met: Could what you describe perhaps be nowadays a largely an American experience? What I read about America, especially that written by Americans about themselves, always fascinates: One is almost forced to the conclusion that to call America "The UNITED States" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless, the points you raise (and those raised by Mr. Fungi)give me cause for concern. I intend to read a lot more on them, and have already mentioned them to colleagues; interesting discussions over tea are in the offing! ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: mabhekaphansi EMAIL: IP: 196.24.76.11 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 03:02:32 AM Uh, I must here add that, from what I have seen, The MacArthur awards are not racially biased in any way. These are for talent and achievement, and for future development of the individual, and nothing else. I must state that I do not understand Mr Fungi's comment in his antepenultimate paragraph, and that there is a ... tone ... in his comment that I find disquieting. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Abelian EMAIL: IP: 134.60.11.42 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 05:50:35 AM Hey, I asked the same question in the previous blog on inter-racial relationships. This has always mystified me... ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: jb EMAIL: IP: 70.124.86.36 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 07:40:25 AM mabhekaphansi; We find ourselves in a conundrum in America, reaping the bitter fruits that have been sown. For so many years, whites used the one drop rule to impose a cruel system that gave all the spoils to whites. Now, the pendulum has swung and most whites really don't care about the one drop rule and indeed are often mystified by the fact that a Tiger Wood is deemed black, but blacks are now the ones that cling to the one drop rule. Much of this stems from pride in the extraordinary achievements of the black race through the pain and agony of history and a desire to share communion with those who share a heritage. Much of it also stems from the fact that having one drop now bestows privileges. One of my kids' best friends was told two years ago to note her native Indian heritage on her college aps as her SAT scores were so abysmal. The counselor said that it would be worth 230 points on her SATs. Sure enough, it worked. Her family are millionaires. As you might imagine, this dynamic is destructive, with one side crying foul and asserting that they have nothing to do with what has happened in the past and that things have changed dramatically for the better and the other side claiming that they deserve special treatment in light of their disadvantages born of historic injustice and that their anger is justified and that one cannot expect them to wash away the past from their lives. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: spike the cat EMAIL: IP: 81.208.36.89 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 07:56:41 AM Jb, well said. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Tafaraji EMAIL: IP: 205.188.117.11 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 08:22:42 AM Jb, well said. I agree and would add, "nuff said," NEXT! :-) ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: nanakwame EMAIL: IP: 71.249.189.209 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 09:46:09 AM The psychopathology of the USA is described well by the professor. For what is black is still seen as less than useful in this context, even among many black folks. Does America find itself in a conundrum, yes but not for the reasons you raised. The one drop rule is a cruel illusion and always has been. In times of growing competition it is natural for folks to find what advantage they can use to advance. In the 1920’s, as seen in “The Killing Floor” white union folks accepted blacks after they realized that their wages were going down b/c of the new black labor competition. Current instance: the cop who was Italian found out if he claims his Puerto Rican heritage, he get would get hired. He is now bi-racial for an advantage, nothing new. Yet, this is not the case in general for African-am. In a society where over 300,000 black folks became white (given up family) shows clearly that the content of "race" progress is considered better the closer you are to what European-am standards are. The evolution of white supremacy is still very clear: White stand tall, Brown stick around, and Black get back – Langston And for some of my Foreign students you can do better than that. Let's not talk about what is going on in Europe. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: mabhekaphansi EMAIL: IP: 196.24.76.11 URL: DATE: 10/12/2007 10:03:55 AM Thanx JB, your reply was edifying. Our own experience here in South Africa under apartheid, as I said, mirrors much of what I read about on these pages. It still astonishes me, however, that this sort of thing still happens in the US. Okay, it took me a while to work out what "one drop" means. To my Portuguese friends, one drop of white blood means you are white. Nanakwame, you give me yet more food for thought. ----- COMMENT: AUTHOR: Dragon Horse EMAIL: IP: 68.106.98.16 URL: http://pmsol3.wordpress.com DATE: 10/12/2007 10:38:05 AM Why is there an exception for Pocahontas, or other Indian Princesses? What prevents a similar loophole for Irish Nell , George Washington’s Venus or Sally Hemings ? What enduring legacy of American collective memory categorically resists the embracement of a “Slave Grandmother Complex?” With increasing numbers of Americans freely and lately claiming Native an