blackprof.com

Barack Obama on Tavis Smiley

A worthwhile interview. Disclosure--I am an Obama supporter.

Posted by Spencer Overton at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Men Step Up, Government Steps Off?

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.

Posted by Marc Lamont Hill at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bush, Faith, and S-CHIP

President Bush fancies himself to be a man of the Christian faith. Famously, in a primary debate prior to the 2000 presidential election, the President declared that "[w]hen you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

In the third presidential debate in 2004, the President reiterated that "[my] principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself . . . . And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me."

These are merely illustrations of the President's repeated invocation of faith as a seminal part of his identity and his policy-making. By his own reckoning, his Christian faith is an indelible part of who the President imagines himself to be.

So I ask: Would Jesus have vetoed the SCHIP bill?

Of the over 43 million Americans lacking health insurance, about eight million are children. Not only does this mean that millions of children are unable to access the care they need to treat debilitating illnesses, it also means they cannot obtain the preventive care and counseling that protects against sickness and promotes wellness.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program ("S-CHIP) is one effort -- albeit incomplete -- to address this problem. S-CHIP, a partnership between the federal government and the states, provides health coverage to poor families who are not covered by Medicaid but who also cannot afford private insurance. The program currently covers about 6 million people -- most of whom are children -- and is credited with having reduced by one-third the number of uninsured children.

As you know by now, Congress, with bipartisan support, passed a bill seeking not only to extend S-CHIP but to expand it. The congressional bill would have added $7 billion to the program in each of the next five years, enabling S-CHIP to cover an additional 4 million children.

This, evidently, was too much for the President to bear. He vetoed the bill, claiming that it would cover too many middle-class families, would encourage those with private coverage to switch to S-CHIP, and would represent an unjustifiable step toward government-managed health-care.

These rationales, however, are unsupportable. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 84% of new children covered by the bill would come from families eligible under current S-CHIP income guidelines -- so the argument that the bill targets well-to-do families is simply untrue. This also undermines the claim that the bill encourages families to switch from private coverage to S-CHIP: almost all of the children covered by the bill -- because they would be eligible under current S-CHIP standards -- cannot afford private coverage in the first place. These families would be going from no coverage to S-CHIP -- not private coverage to S-CHIP.

Finally, the government-managed-health-care trope is both meritless and stale. S-CHIP subsidizes private health care coverage, not a system of government-controlled care. And, in any case, the premise underlying this scare tactic -- that government-managed care would preempt private choice -- is simply inapplicable where people have no coverage to begin with. Simply put, S-CHIP provides coverage overwhelmingly to people who cannot afford it; and it is this moral imperative that drives the broad public support for this bill.

So what would Jesus do? I think the answer is clear: "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto Me."

Posted by Shavar Jeffries at 01:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama on Immigration

The Immigration law professors blog will post an interview with Senator Obama on Tuesday at 11am eastern time zone. They prepared a list of questions for him on a range of difficult immigration issues, including immigration reform, undocumented immigration, family immigration, deportation and immigration raids, local (anti-)immigration ordinances, integration of immigrants into U.S. society, the deaths along the U.S./Mexico border, and his vote in favor of the Secure Fence Act. They are actively seeking other 2008 Presidential candidates to answer the same immigration questions that were posed to Senator Obama.

Check it out at

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/09/immigrationpr-1.html

Posted by Adrien Wing at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post By Professor Trina Jones of Duke Law School on Erwin Chemerinsky

[The following is a post by Professor Trina Jones of Duke Law School:]

As many of you know, my colleague, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/ , was recently offered the deanship at a soon-to-be-established law school at the University of California Irvine. On Tuesday, less than a week after he signed a contract, UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake flew to North Carolina and withdrew the offer apparently due to conservative opposition. See http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/12/the-oc-law-school-edition/ or http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucilaw13sep13,0,5893599.story?coll=la-homecenter

A similar dynamic occurred last winter at Duke Law School, where Chemerinsky was one of three finalists for the deanship. As was the case nine months ago, I find myself struggling with a number of observations and questions:

First, have we kissed academic freedom goodbye? Is the ability of a professor to express ideas openly, to dissent from prevailing norms, no longer valued or desired? Are public universities now in the business of policing viewpoints, of punishing those who engage in public debate? Surely history has taught us that this is dangerous to achievement of the free and democratic society to which presumably we still aspire.

Second, how do liberal beliefs render irrelevant almost three decades of outstanding service as a gracious colleague, prolific scholar, committed advocate, generous mentor, and engaged public citizen? Why is being progressive presumptively disqualifying (especially for those with stellar credentials) while being conservative is presumptively qualifying (especially for those with mediocre track records)?

Third, where then is all the support for the ubiquitous claim that the academy is run by - and “ruined” by - left-wing radicals? Could it be that conservatism rules in an atmosphere that insists the opposite is true?

Fourth, what is the going price for a law school? a university? Is the financial cost of critical thought too expensive for a law school devoted to the public interest?

And, finally, how can any senior administrator lead a candidate, whose liberal views did not appear overnight, to the point of actually signing a contract only to “discover” that the candidate would be politically controversial, polarizing, and a lightening rod for conservatives? Does anyone believe the Chancellor was not subject to outside influence? Surely this kind of incompetence does not augur well for the future legal program at UCI. In addition to academic freedom, there is a fundamental question of integrity at issue here.

The law school at UCI was to be devoted to the public interest. Yet, Chancellor Drake rejected a candidate with a lifetime of demonstrated commitment to serving the public. It appears the Chancellor acted out of fear - a fear that the appointment of someone with Chemerinsky's record, someone with stated and expressed views, would stir up too much debate, stimulate too much dialogue, and incite too many people to action. In other words, he seems to have feared that UCI law school, from its inception, would do precisely what academic institutions are supposed to do - encourage us to think critically and to engage in robust and spirited debate.

Chemerinsky is Jewish and today is Rosh Hashanah, a time when Jews are called upon to reflect upon the recent past and to contemplate the new year. I am not Jewish, but I have engaged in my share of reflection and introspection today. And, I have come to agree with the conclusions of a fellow blogger (Neil), who wrote “UC Irvine’s position is indefensible and intellectually bankrupt. The school deserves condemnation from every person who respects academic freedom and respects the notion of free-flowing political discourse, whether they be conservative or liberal.” I invite all persons who share these viewpoints to voice their concerns to Chancellor Drake and the UC Regents, and to boycott any future efforts to build a law school at UCI.

--Professor Trina Jones, September 13, 2007

Posted by Terry Smith at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

A New School Year – A Time to Weep and a Time to Act

For those of us who live in academia land, we have all just started a new year. Many of my black professional peers continue to do the juggling act with our relatively privileged children -- figuring out shuttle schedules to music lessons, sports practices, SAT prep courses, college tours, etc. Some of us have marked recent milestones in our family life – first child entering elementary school, niece entering high school, empty nesting, college graduations, and young relatives entering grad school. Will one of mine go to law school? As we celebrate the promise of a new academic year and the various milestones in our extended families, we need to think about the children who are not where they should be. Over half of black boys drop out of high school. Black college enrollments are dropping. I am waiting to see the new statistics at the flagship University of Michigan, home of the Supreme Court case which permitted continued educational affirmative action. Due to a Proposition 209-like initiative, the state can not use affirmative action any longer. Will the University suffer the fate of the University of California after Prop 209, which now only enrolls 2% blacks? We continue to have many more black males in prison than in college. At this stage, one-third of our males will do prison time. At Howard, a recent commentator said there was a 17:1 ratio of black females to males in one class. Many black colleges have 70% or more female enrollment.How to make a difference in this long term depressing situation?? Support organizations like the educational reform Black Star Project in Chicago. It has launched Destination College in honor of the late Silas Purnell, who helped more than 55,000 black students go to college over his 34 year career. I remember every year when he would bring a group of pre-law students to Iowa from inner city Chicago. Some would enroll. He did that at many many institutions of higher learning. See http://www.blackstarproject.org/home/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1.Given it’s a political year, let’s ask all the candidates – Democrats and Republicans what they intend to do about this profound crisis in Black America – let’s at least get it on the radar. If one- third of white men were in prison, would they declare it a national emergency??

Posted by Adrien Wing at 06:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBacks (0)

Oprah for Obama

The richest African American woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey, worth more than $1.5 billion according to Forbes, put her mighty reputation behind a political candidate for the first time. Barack Obama raised $3 million at Oprah’s California estate yesterday that was filled with Hollywood celebrities of all colors. This is a very significant amount. In comparison, a spring Hillary Clinton fundraiser featuring the former president raised only $2.7 million. Obama set a record and raised the most of any Democractic candidate-- $32.5 million in the second quarter of the year, and more than $58 million in total so far. What will his third quarter totals look like if Oprah admirers follow her lead and donate in full force?? The Obama campaign is blanketing Iowa where I live. As you might imagine, Obama is very popular in the college town of Iowa City. I just attended a session on his views on foreign affairs where one of his very impressive advisors Pulitzer Prize winner Harvard professor Samantha Powers spoke to a significant and very informed audience. I could not fit in a similar session the next day on women’s issues. If Obama does Not win the Democratic nomination, will Oprah back the ultimate candidate, probably Hillary Clinton, with the same enthusiasm? How about a Clinton-Obama Ticket??

Posted by Adrien Wing at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBacks (0)

Some Unfortunate Rhetoric from Cory Booker

We've made several posts previously on Cory Booker (see, e.g., this ), the Mayor of my home-city, Newark, New Jersey, who's been a media phenomenon over the last few years. He received substantial media attention back in 2002, after engaging in a heated campaign with former Newark Mayor Sharpe James. During that campaign, chronicled in a Oscar-nominated documentary, Booker castigated James as corrupt and self-serving, while James critiqued Booker as a tool of White, elite interests who was not authentically connected to the values of the Black community. The media imbibed this narrative, caricaturing James as a race-baiting, uneducated bully and Booker as a race-transcendent, Ivy League-trained reformer.

As always, the truth tends to lie in between the archetypes anchoring mainstream media. But, after coming across this report, Booker seems to have given fodder to his critics. Booker, apparently, spoke recently at a ritzy fundraiser, attended principally by Whites, in which he described a recently deceased Black, female Newark activist as "portly," toothless, and profane. This, in an apparent attempt to recognize the depth of her contributions to the city. Several members of the Newark City Council sharply criticized Booker's remarks as racially insensitive and inflammatory, suggesting his rhetoric evoked the the image of a Black "mammy" -- precisely the sort of image, claimed the City Council members, that many Whites are disposed to identify with Black women.

Unfortunately for Booker, this episode reinforces the concerns of many Newarkers that he seeks to exploit some of the worst stereotypes about Black folks for political gain. He seems often to play up the most negative images of Black folk and Black communities to White audiences, in ways that feel uncomfortably like those late-night infomercials about Sudanese children who can be fed for $1 a day. His appearance last year on Oprah is another conspicuous example. Maybe this sort of messaging is the best way to engage a White majority largely disinterested in the plight of poor folk of color. But the ends don't justify the means. This approach reinforces the very racial stereotypes that Booker's politics purportedly transcends.

Maybe Sharpe James had a point.

Posted by Shavar Jeffries at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (232) | TrackBacks (1)

Bond Must Go

Julian Bond opened the NAACP convention yesterday with a speech as banal as it was irrelevant. Once again, he focused his fire on the Bush Administration, unloading invective after tired invective on the failures of the White House to address the material needs of the Black community. He compared the federal government's inert response to Katrina to lynching ("Katrina, like lynching, not only destroyed the work of generations in a single day, but is resulting in a deliberate effort to dispossess black landholders."); he declared that the rejection of immigration reform further repudiates the Bush Presidency ("The extent of the [people's] repudiation, it was evident late last month when the immigration reform bill . . . died in the Senate."); and the coup de grace: he charged that the voluntary-integration decision alienated Black children from the law ("The Bush Court removed black children from the law's protection.") (I'm going to deal with that specific charge in a separate post). In the process, he also reminded us that his NAACP is a social-justice organization concerned with racial discrimination, not a social-services organization concerned with meeting the practical needs of Black people: "[W]e are dedicated to an aggressive campaign of social justice, fighting racial discrimination. We've done this in the past and will continue to do it in the future."

Bond seems incapable of appreciating the yawning gulf between his vision for the NAACP and the concrete needs of the masses of Black families, who struggle mightily to raise children in communities ravaged by joblessness, bad schools, gang violence, single motherhood, and perhaps most pernicious, hopelessness. He offers nothing in the sort of a strategy to pragmatically address these challenges. Instead, he offers stale bromides about the twin obsessions of Bond's NAACP: government and White folk. As Bond would have it, Black folk's capacity to generate solutions to their challenges is apparently limited to petitioning either of these external powers. And because the Bond NAACP's approach is so preoccupied with outside forces, he's left with little but the ad hominem when those forces don't share his concern for the Black community.

Sadly, the NAACP -- the grand organization founded by W.E.B. DuBois and which was indispensable to the dismantling of Jim Crow -- is now a relic. We badly need a re-imagined, reinvigorated NAACP. As long as Julian Bond is at the helm, that new reality is implausible. Bond must go.

Posted by Shavar Jeffries at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBacks (2)

Getting Out the Black Vote

A social activist friend who has been working at a national organization that promotes ideas, networks and advocacy addressing the root causes of two intertwined issues: declining civic participation and increasing economic inequality, Progressive Communicators Network, and NYPIRG, and serves on the Boards of Fannie Lou Hamer Project, NYPIRG Fund, the Independent Media Institute, and the Right to Vote Campaign, recently joined a major arm of the campaign to elect Obama which for various reasons shall remain anonymous. He shared some insider news with me Saturday night (6/23) that truly inspired me. I am excited about the possibility of Obama winning now.

The previous day some white colleagues asked me about Obama and I shared that I was cynical that he could actually win. So many African Americans share cyncisism. People from various quarters and classes don't think Obama can actually win. I likened it to the feeling I had had that Don Imus would never get fired (I was completely surprised that he was and want to be wrong again). What I am speaking to is the general cyncism and resignation among some blacks that it's too soon for a black man to seriously contend and actually win a US election.

My activist friend, currently sitting at the table with the likes of George Soros and other billiionaires supporting Obama's campaign, shared a much different reality and he has the data to back it up, he says. He said the latest poll numbers he say actually indicate that 1) Obama is likely to win the election (esp. if Hilary puts her foot in her mouth on any subject) and 2) Obama has all the money he needs for a serious election to be won. What he actually is missing is a show of support from the black community. Even hundreds to thousands of $25 donations would register the numerical support from the black community that is missing in his campaign.

ABC News ran an online piece linked under BARBERSHOP BUZZ suggesting that "Polls show many black voters torn between Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right." Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and the Black Vote. How do we get our friends and families as well as our students and even our enemies engaged in making the possibility of black support visible from small donations and get them inspired about the possibility that it really is possible? I'd love to hear others thoughts.

My friend also shared that it is not the black vote turnout that is the real concern or heart of the matter in elections. Black turnout is actually quite strong contrary to belief, he said. He insisted that is was the white vote that actually made a difference. Only 35% of whites vote democratic, he said. And we need their turnout to be strong for Obama to actually win.

What I loved about what we shared was the emphasis on whites being accountable for their democratic and/or liberal politics and insuring the soccor moms and dads turn out to vote.

Still collecting my own data on all this and will see about specifics from my friend, but I was inspired and intend to send my $25 or so asap. The Obamas are making the rounds here in NYC this week. Keep your eyes peeled for their campaign.

Posted by Kyra Gaunt at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

The Limitless Shamelessness of Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney is one of the most shameless politicians we've seen in modern history. From his claim that the United States would be "greeted as liberators," to his declaration two years ago that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes" (almost 2000 US troops have been killed since), to his efforts in leading the charge for warrantless wiretapping and in building the false case for WMD in Iraq, the missteps of the Vice-President are epic. He and his staff offered tortured contortions of the meaning of torture (pun intended) in an effort to avoid the mandates of international law, and offered comparably strained interpretations of the Constitution to concoct presidential authority to ignore specific statutory mandates like the Foreign Intelligence Service Act.

And the man seemingly has no shame. Now the Vice-President claims that his office is not governed by a presidential order concerning the protection of classified information, and that therefore he need not produce or permit inspection of certain classified information his office possesses. The order, issued by his boss, apparently applies to all offices of the executive branch of the federal government. Cheney claims that his office is not a part of the executive branch and that therefore the order doesn't apply.

I didn't think it were possible, but the Vice-President has sunken to a new low. As is often the case, perhaps there is a narrow, technical basis for Cheney's argument. I'm not a con-law scholar, but the only duty specifically assigned to the VP by the Constitution, as I recall, is the responsibility to serve as President of the Senate. This obligation is contained in Article I of the Constitution, the legislative article, so perhaps Cheney does have a technical argument that his is not an executive-branch office.

But Cheney's contention fails miserably when one considers the role the Office of Vice-President has played in modern times -- particularly the role he has played in the Bush Administration. The contemporary office of the Vice-President is generally delegated responsibility for a broad range of executive-office functions. In the Bush Administration, of course, Cheney has handled everything from intelligence gathering to war planning to policy-setting on a wide diversity of foreign and domestic matters. On virtually all of the Bush Administration's major policy decisions, the fingerprints of the Vice-President are indelible. Given the actual role his office plays in the development and implementation of policy on unquestionably executive-office matters, the Vice-President's claim that his is not an executive office seems strained, at best.

But, of course, we shouldn't be surprised: What else would one expect from our Vice-President?

Posted by Shavar Jeffries at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

A Tale of Two Victims: Who Speaks for the Thousands of Innocent Non-Whites Prosecuted Wrongfully?

Anyone who has worked or participated in the American justice system can’t help but to feel utter bewilderment at the announcement of Mike Nifong’s disbarment. Defense Attorneys are constantly combating the manipulative actions of prosecutors and police officials in cases involving non-white accused. One can collect a seemingly incessant stream of narratives from defense attorneys describing the deliberate use of planted evidence or false testimonies by prosecutors against poor defendants of color. Where is the massive, rich conglomerate that will stand up against those manipulating forces and disbar those prosecutors? If we follow the equation to its logical end, the lives of three accused privilege white males will always, unapologetically, be viewed as more valuable than the lives of thousands of wrongfully prosecuted non-whites. In this whole fiasco, no one is addressing the elephant in the room; that Nifong’s fatal error was that he believed the words of a black woman over that of three privileged white men.

The Duke Rape allegations are instrumental in analyzing the role that race and gender play in the handling of rape cases. It is a great case study because it shows how catalysts like rape allegations can cause dormant racial/gender wounds to erupt to the surface in an already polarized community. The racial dichotomy and rivalry existing between North Carolina Central University (NCCU) and Duke University became apparent in the types of comments made, at the time of the investigation, by students from North Carolina Central University as compared to comments made by Duke University students. For example, during the investigation, a student from NCCU was quoted as saying: “If it was a Duke Student and it was Central’s football’s team, the situation would have been handled totally differently (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/05/national/main1476021.shtml) while a Duke University Student stated, in the same spirit, “that the allegations … put a new strain on the already delicate relationship between the school and the community in Durham” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/05/national/main1476021.shtml) Almost immediately after the rape allegations were made, it became evident from student comments submitted to the media, that for the Durham community, the rape allegations represented not just one isolated incident, but a culmination of slights and abuses of privilege that the community hoped would finally be punished. The very fact that a team of 43 young Lacrosse players considered the hiring of two African American strippers as an acceptable form of sexual entertainment corroborated this feeling of exasperation. It is also interesting that, in the midst of the mass obsession with the culpability or non-culpability of the three players, no one took the time to ask the obvious question: Why did the Duke administration offer no remonstrance against the Duke Lacrosse team for hiring black strippers at a team’s party?

Posted by Michele Alexandre at 06:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (93) | TrackBacks (1)

Books on Condie

For those seeking more insight into the personality and impact of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, there are two new options. Newsweek editor Marcus Mabry has produced Twice as Good: Condoleeza Rice and Her Path to Power (Rodale Press). For an excellent interview with Mabry about the book and Condie see

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18369623/site/newsweek/.

Amy Scholder has edited a collection entitled Dr. Rice in the House (Seven Stories Press). The latter includes pieces by Amiri Baraka and Jill Nelson.

Do you believe Condie accomplishments have been a “credit” to the race or to the gender or to the race/gender? Will history treat her kindly? See if these books affect your views. Perhaps one of you will be involved in a more long term assessment after her term is finished. Do you think she will write her own candid book as some others formerly affiliated with the Bush administration have done? What’s a potential next job for someone with her credentials/expertise?

Posted by Adrien Wing at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBacks (0)

Is Intervention in Darfur Really, Really Worth American Blood?

My last two posts have been out our intervention in Iraq and I’m committed to continue posting this month about the war on terrorism. But, let me back up and post about possible military intervention elsewhere. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (also running for President) suggested it was time to put troops in Darfur, a conflict-torn region of Sudan. (go here to see a press report: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5328095). Today, Jody William Mia Farrow advocated divestment as way to begin to cripple the current Sudanese government (go here to see the Farrow/Williams’ op-ed: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010112).

Many of us are against a war in Iraq. Some of us may even have been against the war from the start. Understood. Still, it’s not a (huge) stretch to see the similarities between Iraq and an argument for a military effort in Darfur. In Iraq, an oil-rich country of mostly Arabs, hundreds of thousands were killed under Saddam Hussein. We intervened militarily. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands have been killed in this oil-rich country, with a significant Arab presence also. In Iraq, we quickly toppled our adversary and in Darfur it reasons that we would likely be able to do the same. So, should we intervene militarily in Darfur? Is Darfur a better use of American might than Iraq? Is it hypocritical to be against one intervention, but not the other?

Posted by Lee Harris at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBacks (0)

New Orleans: A Continuing National Disgrace

I just returned from a conference in New Orleans, and was saddened to see up-close the continuing disgrace that is this nation's response to Katrina and its aftermath. The day I arrived was the same day as a mid-sized storm -- not a tropical storm or even an especially severe storm, but simply a moderately sized, typical summer storm. The city's infrastructure simply wasn't up to the task. Streets and homes were flooded, as insufficient care has been paid to the operation of even basic water pumps. And that's probably the best of it. Roughly half of the population remains displaced, and varied government agencies -- from the perpetually inept FEMA to the formalistically by-the-book SBA -- apparently find reasons to deny claims for redevelopment grants and low-interest loans, rather than to respond meaningfully (let alone competently) to the palpable human needs of the Gulf Coast's forgotten poor.

Yet, ultimately, this should be no surprise. The Black poor of New Orleans -- like the Black underclass more generally -- were neglected by our government (and, frankly, the Black Middle Class too) before and, most evidently, during the disaster that was Katrina. Why should we expect anything different now?

Posted by Shavar Jeffries at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (553) | TrackBacks (0)

Perhaps Fairness Requires Everyone to Do Two Years of Military Service

A few days ago, the L.A. Times ran a brief article on the pros and cons of a draft, which brings up the point about requiring military service from everyone, at least everyone between the ages of 18 and 42. (See the L.A. Time article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup2may02,0,4441603.story?coll=la-opinion-center). I’m a Democrat. I believe the government can play a role in helping people lift themselves up. I believe in some forms of redistribution (like progressive taxation) and I am not a big fan of concentrated wealth. My problem is this: What exactly is undemocratic about a mandatory draft or universal service? As you probably know, Rep. Charlie Rangel, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has recently proposed such a thing, though he’s received virtually no support from his colleagues. Further, it’s tough to see how being pro-universal service is also synonymous with being hawkish or war-bent. Correct me if I’m wrong, but some anti-war democrats, like John Murtha are pro-universal service. In any event, Rep. Rangel speaks for himself, in somewhat dated press-release about his proposal:

The bill would mandate military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 42. Deferments would be allowed only for completion of high school up to the age of 20, and for reasons of health, conscience or religious belief. Recruits not needed by the military in any given year would be required to perform some national civilian service.

. . .

Congressman Rangel first proposed legislation for the draft in January 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. Since then more than 2,200 American troops have been killed and 16,000 wounded. Despite dramatic increases in military bonuses, the Army failed to meet its recruiting goal last year by 6,000 recruits. In the face of that failure, last month the Army announced that it was doubling enlistment bonuses to $40,000 for Special Forces. Enlistment bonuses for Reservists were also doubled to $20,000 from $10,000. Reenlistment bonuses for specialized active duty soldiers were also increased drastically, going from $60,000 to $90,000.

(To see the entire press release go here: http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html)

Posted by Lee Harris at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (81) | TrackBacks (1)

A Significant Development for the Blackroots

The past couple of months have produced a significant development among Black blogs. Many are working together to challenge conventional Black leadership.

With ColorOfChange.org’s James Rucker as a catalyst, several Black blogs have opposed the Congressional Black Caucus Institute’s decision to partner with Fox News to air a Democratic Presidential Debate, which is scheduled to be held in CBC Chair’s hometown of Detroit (my hometown as well).

The CBCI has not fared well. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have dropped out of the CBC/Fox debate. The DNC has denounced the CBC/Fox debate. Several CBC Members have articulated their opposition to the debate. Tavis Smiley has announced his own presidential debates on PBS that give the presidential candidates an opportunity to address issues of importance to people of color.

This collaborative project of Black blogs may not seem big, but it is powerful for a number of reasons.

1) A Generational Shift: While the “grassroots” are romanticized, in the past couple of decades Black politics has been hierarchical and limited by orthodoxy that constrains debate. An MLK/Malcolm model has defined the leadership styles and political philosophy of Black elected officials, non-elected figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, organizations like the NAACP, and neo-Black Nationalist commentators and figures. Those not with the program essentially had the option of becoming Black Republicans. Older Black folks often complain about complacent black youth who don’t vote, march, or otherwise live up to their model.

Black blogs offer not only an opportunity to break from old orthodoxy, but to do so in a way that is flatter, and allows for more engagement through comments from readers (which are often more provocative than the posts). Younger people are creating their own innovative models on sites like Uppity Negro.

While the older generations purport to “teach” activism to younger generations, the Blackroots is developing its own original “Post-Soul” voice (as Prof. Eddie Glaude may say). As Superspade has noted,

“I don’t think the explicit bias of Fox News is in line with the mission of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, which if you are wondering, ‘is to provide political education and training to the next generation of African American leadership’...”

2) Transparency that Holds Black Elected Officials More Accountable: Many Black folks know the feeling of humiliation and opportunism, and don’t like to unnecessarily embarrass other Black folks, especially in front of White folks. We’re especially suspicious of the “House Negro” mentality of some Black folks who try to opportunistically constrain other Black folks, and we don’t want to be used as tools to “knock down” a black person who has accomplished something.

At the same time, however, we need transparency, honesty, and accountability in our politics. There needs to be space for alternative voices—for someone to break the silence and say what everyone is thinking. Many of these people are our heroes—we admire them, their courage, and their personal sacrifices. We don’t mean to insult or disrespect them. But to the extent that they choose to remain in public life as black leaders, their decisions are subject to critical and good faith analysis, especially by the people they purport to represent.

This is nothing new. During the 1960s, Julian Bond and John Lewis had different opinions and approaches than established civil rights leaders. In younger generations (and I mean that not primarily in age, but in ideological mindset), the Blackroots is providing a platform for transparency and good faith analysis to occur.

Afro-Netizen and Jack & Jill Politics, for example, separately criticized Jesse Jackson for speaking out against the Fox/CBC debate, and then deferring to the CBC the next week. Jack & Jill Politics disclosed to its audience that from 2003 to 2005, Fox News gave the CBC Foundation between $47,000 and $99,000, with 2006 numbers unavailable.

The Blackroots movement on the Fox/CBC Issue has also exposed the potential of Black blogs. As Afro-Netizen noted:

"Do these folks know what the 'netroots' is? Do they think it's just made up of by young, white college-educated geeks far removed from their own congressional districts? Do they know that the vast majority of Black voters who elected them are accounted for in the much larger population of African Americans who regularly access the Internet, approximately 20 million strong? Will they come to understand that the Black netroots community is presently a slumbering giant who, it seems, only the likes of a Fox News Channel can begin to awaken?

Need we remind any indifferent CBC member that incumbency is a privilege, not a right, as the November elections should have made quite clear to all -- but especially to the arrogant, out-of-step and complacent?"

3) The Power of Collaboration: Despite the interactive and collaborative nature of the Internet, many Black blogs have remained relatively autonomous. We’ve provided links to occassional posts on other sites and included other black blog sites on our blogrolls, but our interaction has been limited, at least with regard to action. And autonomy is important—the wisdom of crowds comes not through parroting, but through autonomous decisionmaking. And we all have different interests. But the CBC/Fox Issue is an important step in the evolution of network effects—the power of a broad, flat, and well-connected blackosphere.

Posted by Spencer Overton at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBacks (0)

French Elections: A Day of Reflection

The French will vote tomorrow in national elections. Among the twelve candidates are a woman Segolene Royal from the Socialist party and conservative Nicholas Sarkozy, who has been known for his inflammatory statements against Muslim immigrants. While the gender aspect is interesting, I want to highlight a couple of features the US might consider. The election is held on a Sunday – a nonwork day for most people to maximize participation. Also today, the day before the election is a day of reflection where the media and the candidates desist. No opinion polls can be published and campaigning is barred. People are supposed to discuss the issues among themselves and their friends and families. See CNN’s story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/21/france.election/

What do you think of these ideas in the US context? Are they possible? Feasible? Desirable?

Posted by Adrien Wing at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (161) | TrackBacks (2)

Obama Leads Grassroots Fundraising

There's been a lot of discussion about the term "Internet Fundraising." Many assume—perhaps based on past elections—that money raised on the Internet is somehow more reflective of the general public as a whole.

But the online world changes quickly, and other variables may exist. Some cost-conscious small donors may opt for an offline check to avoid online processing fees. Barack Obama has likely attracted first-time contributors from diverse backgrounds to the process, and we don't
know the extent to which these participants are giving online (indeed, the digital divide may mean that the much of the true "grassroots" giving is offline). And regardless of the vehicle of soliciting or
submitting the money, most of us would agree that flatter, retail engagement that encourages friends to give and be a part of a movement (personalized telephone calls, conversations, notes, or emails) is preferable to wholesale, generic, hierarchical solicitation from the campaign (telemarketing calls, generic form bulk snail mail or email).

I have a different test to determine "grassroots" fundraising—the funds that a candidate receives from contributors of $200 or less.

The percentage of its resources that a campaign collects from smaller contributors is important because smaller contributions are much more likely to reflect the economic diversity of America. A study from the 2000 election showed that American households earning less than $100,000 made up 86.6% of the general population. This group accounted for 66.1% of contributions of $200 or less

About

Guest Contributors

Regular Contributors

Contributors Emeriti

Books By Contributors

Past Guest Contributors

Blogroll

October 20, 2007

Barack Obama on Tavis Smiley

October 19, 2007

Men Step Up, Government Steps Off?

October 11, 2007

Bush, Faith, and S-CHIP

September 23, 2007

Obama on Immigration

September 13, 2007

Guest Post By Professor Trina Jones of Duke Law School on Erwin Chemerinsky

September 10, 2007

A New School Year – A Time to Weep and a Time to Act

September 09, 2007

Oprah for Obama

August 15, 2007

Recommended Reading

August 02, 2007

Some Unfortunate Rhetoric from Cory Booker

July 09, 2007

Bond Must Go

June 25, 2007

Getting Out the Black Vote

June 22, 2007

The Limitless Shamelessness of Dick Cheney

June 16, 2007

A Tale of Two Victims: Who Speaks for the Thousands of Innocent Non-Whites Prosecuted Wrongfully?

June 03, 2007

Books on Condie

May 23, 2007

Is Intervention in Darfur Really, Really Worth American Blood?

May 15, 2007

New Orleans: A Continuing National Disgrace

May 07, 2007

Perhaps Fairness Requires Everyone to Do Two Years of Military Service

May 01, 2007

A Significant Development for the Blackroots

April 21, 2007

French Elections: A Day of Reflection

April 17, 2007

Obama Leads Grassroots Fundraising