When Fox News’ Glenn Beck called President Barack Obama a racist this past July, the online advocacy group ColorOfChange.org launched a campaign to convince advertisers to boycott the show. To date, some 280,000 people have joined the effort, and more than 60 companies have pulled their ads.
CNN parted ways with Lou Dobbs last month after civil rights groups and Presente.org mobilized thousands of Latinos online to call on CNN to dump the talk show host for spewing hate against immigrants for years.
None of this — not these advocacy efforts, not countless small business success stories, not even the election of President Barack Obama — would have happened without a free and open Internet. For communities of color, the Internet provides us with a unique opportunity to speak for ourselves without first seeking the approval of gatekeepers or having to secure major funds to do so. But the big telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to create an effectively segregated online community where they will act as our gatekeepers.
[T]he big telecommunications companies
like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast
want to create an effectively segregated online community
where they
will act as our gatekeepers.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now considering new rules that could protect the fundamental principle of “Network Neutrality” once and for all. Net Neutrality prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, discriminating against or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice — such as e-newsletters, blogs, social networking sites, online videos, podcasts and smart-phone apps. It is not that network owners are secretly plotting to stifle free speech – at least not usually. But they have an undeniable, rational interest in creating a pay-for-play model for the treatment of communication on the Internet. Commercial websites that pay will get speed and quality and the non-commercial uses of the Net will be collateral damage – relegated to the slow lane. It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons; it’s that our speech is not important to them because it’s not going to make them money.
Many of the most valuable things we do online
are non-commercial; they
exist because the Internet is
the first mass media system with no
gatekeepers
to dole out privilege to the highest bidder.
The Internet provides our communities with a medium to access services, find jobs, connect to friends, make inexpensive international phone calls to family members, and to advocate for social change. Many of the most valuable things we do online are non-commercial; they exist because the Internet is the first mass media system with no gatekeepers to dole out privilege to the highest bidder. That freedom and openness is what makes the Internet different from broadcasting and cable. It makes it valuable to our communities. We can’t allow Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers to deliver substandard Internet service to our communities.
Telecom Companies Want to Create Second-Class “Netizens”
But the big phone and cable companies want to get rid of Net Neutrality and control how the public accesses the Internet. These companies want to charge websites extra tolls to secure the fastest speeds online, while favoring their own content and services over their competition’s. Those unable to pay will be banished to the slow lane online, becoming second-class “netizens” without the same freedoms given to those with more money and influence.
This threat to Internet freedom isn’t hypothetical. Verizon got caught blocking text messages sent by the pro-choice group NARAL to its own members – though they backed down immediately under public pressure. Comcast has also illegally interfered with file-sharing on its network, a practice that earned them a rebuke from the FCC.
Even though President Obama pledged he would “take a back seat to no one” on Net Neutrality, the big phone and cable companies are pulling out all the stops to derail it, including deploying Karl Rove¬–style scare tactics within our communities and using their massive resources to block Obama’s agenda. In the first nine months of 2009, they employed nearly 500 lobbyists and spent some $74 million to influence Congress and the FCC. Their misinformation has even convinced Glenn Beck that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Obama to take over the Internet.
Who will protect the online rights of marginalized communities against the raw profit motive of big business? We urge leaders in our community not to yield to the underhanded scare tactics that corporations like AT&T have used on our communities.
We Must Reject a Separate but Unequal Online World
One of those scare tactics is the claim, pushed by phone and cable companies, that Network Neutrality poses a threat to digital inclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does Net Neutrality expand media diversity and access by ensuring fairness and nondiscrimination by big corporations, it will prevent the kind of media consolidation that has happened in the broadcast industry by helping our communities develop a diversity of civic and commercial online enterprises on a scale that represents our growing online numbers.
It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political
reasons;
it’s that our speech is not important to them
because it’s not
going to make them money.
A primary reason for the digital divide is that the cost of fully engaging in the online world is just too expensive for many in our community. Broadband in the United States is among the slowest but most expensive of any industrialized nation. After years of consolidation, the largest telecom companies have gotten away with price-gouging our communities because of a lack of competition in the broadband market. More choices for broadband service – not permitting more discrimination – are the key to bringing down costs. Scrapping Net Neutrality in order to consolidate control over the Internet by cable and phone companies is not the answer. More market control won’t give them more incentive to sell low-cost high-quality services to low-income communities. Our communities will still be subject to the same business case that have marginalized us in the first place –households that don’t have a lot of money to spend. Shareholders aren’t charities, and we are foolish to expect otherwise.
But more importantly, we should not be sacrificing an open Internet to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining. The answer to the digital divide cannot be to deliver a second-class, closed Internet to our communities.
The historic fight against discrimination by groups like the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens has led to great societal change, laying the groundwork for the election of a president of color. We urge our colleagues in the civil rights community to fight with us to ensure that telecom and cable companies are not allowed to discriminate against our communities or interfere with our capacity to speak for ourselves without first asking AT&T, Verizon or Comcast for permission.
to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining.
We are living through a critical moment in our nation’s history. The FCC is going to decide whether the Internet will remain an open platform that allows for the greatest number of voices to participate in our democratic society, or whether it will be a closed network controlled by the big telecom companies.
We are concerned about the dire consequences of living without Internet freedom. It would create a separate but unequal online world where our communities are unable to use the Internet to compete or to advocate for justice when we have been wronged.
We need civil rights, media justice, community-oriented and grassroots organizations to stand together to make sure effective Net Neutrality regulation will protect our communities from the predatory practices of the phone and cable industries.
[L]iving without Internet freedom . . . would create a separate but unequal
online world
where our communities are unable to use the Internet
to
compete or to advocate for justice
when we have been wronged.
As with past civil rights struggles that successfully expanded access, thwarted discrimination, destroyed legalized segregation, and created broad opportunity, so too will the cause for Internet freedom.
Malkia Cyril is the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. Chris Rabb is the founder of the online community Afro-Netizen and is a visiting researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Joseph Torres is the government relations manager of Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Almost all of Tiger Wood’s rumored infidelities are with white
women. No one is saying it, but everyone is showing it, by repeatedly
displaying the multiple images of the multiple women. “Tiger likes
white women” can be “said” without being “said.” Journalists don’t
want to say it because we aren’t supposed to care what color a person’s
partners are anymore. But of course we sill care and the journalists
know that!
Tiger Woods is an interesting personality when it comes to race. He
was lauded by some and treated with skepticism by others for his
insistent refusal to identify as “just black.” He vigorously claimed
his multiracial heritage. He famously told Oprah the name he had given
himself “Cablinasian” a designation so individual so as to make it not
a reference to a group, but just to himself. Tiger was "post-racial"
before post-racial was cool.
So, what are we to make of this racial performance? It is a show so
old that even thinking about it is exhausting. Americans fear of and
fascination with the idea of Black men having sexual desire for white
women has a long and miserable history in the United States. It is tied
to lynching. It is tied to sexism and racism at the same time. It is
tied to stereotypes of black hyper-sexuality and animalistic lust. It
is tied to the fall from grace of more than one public figure.
One way of interpreting this media spectacle is to consider how
Tiger’s infidelities might be seen in certain quarters as evidence that
no matter how assimilated and clean cut a black man might seem, there
is always the danger that underneath it all he is little more than a
walking stereotype. That is what the always incendiary Rush Limbaugh
has said about the Tiger Woods affair(s). This is a particularly
dramatic moment for such an image to come to the fore of American
culture, right as the country’s collective love affair with President
Obama is increasingly strained over the war, the recession, and health
reform.
Given how frequently Americans have fallen out of love with a black
hero, and how often it has been through the association of said heroes
with stereotypes, we have to wonder if Barack Obama, a politician who
was called “The Tiger Woods” of politics by some, is suffering from
some questions about whether his “true colors” are going to show. After
all, gossip rags have been running stories claiming that Obama has a
secret white female or male lover. It Is hard to imagine such stories
having truth, given the eager mudslinging in Washington, it would have
been quite a feat to prevent evidence of such affairs from leaking. I
think the rumors say more about our latent fears than any reality.
But with respect to the Tiger Woods fiasco on the other hand, there
is very good evidence supporting the claim that he was not only a
cheater, but a sloppy one. His indiscretion reveals either naivete,
stupidity or a delusional sense of his power over the women with whom
he was involved. And I think, without getting into the mind and heart
of Tiger Woods, the parade of women, the parade of white women, if
nothing else says, we are far from post racial.
A man who identifies as a member of three non-white racial groups, but
appears to have little to no sexual desire (and who appears to act on
his every sexual desire) for women of any of those non-white racial
groups is a product of history whether he likes it or not. From the
18th through mid 20th century, standards of idealized white beauty were
promulgated around the world, and those standards of beauty reflected
the ideology of white supremacy that was used to justify the domination
and exploitation of non-white people.
We live with the residue of that
history in our ongoing beauty cultures and ideals, not just in the
United States but in many places around the world. Even though
individual women of color have become beauty icons, the normative ideal
remains white and blonde and blue-eyed. I am sure some readers will
respond, “Tiger just has a type, it isn’t racial.” Well, with the
exception of two who look like his wife, all of the women actually look
very different. What unifies them is their race. That’s his type: white.
(There is the one counter example of Jaimee Grubbs, a half Native
American woman who claims to have had an affair with Woods. Grubbs grew
up on a Colville Indian Reservation, and reportedly has given
interviews in which she has shared her racist stereotypes about, and
disaffection for Native Americans. But I digress.)
That said, I would never suggest that Tiger Woods has any obligation
to display any racial loyalty to any of the racial groups to which he
belongs. I think those politics are not useful. Performing loyalty
when it isn’t felt, is both sad and lacks meaning. Nor do I think
loyalty is necessarily displayed through sexual partnerships. There are
many people who have been of service to their communities while
partnering interracially and many who have partnered with people of
their group and been a destructive force within that group.
Tiger Woods has and should continue to be with women he finds
attractive (although ideally without the lying and cheating). But our
collective fascination with that collective of women, and his own
fascination with them, is yet another sign that our racial past
continues to impact our racial present.
Imani Perry, PhD, JD is an author and professor at Princeton University's Center for African American Studies (CAAS).
A few weeks ago, Rupert Murdoch said that Glenn Beck was right when he called Obama a racist, and since then he has been dodging questions about what exactly he meant. Through one of his staff, Murdoch issued a brief statement saying that he doesn't believe Obama is a racist, but not explaining what he meant when he said he agreed with Beck. I wrote Murdoch an open letter asking for an explanation, and more than 135,000 people have signed petitions to Murdoch with the same message: Murdoch should either say clearly that he meant what he said and that he stands by Beck; or he should acknowledge there's a problem with what Beck said and take responsibility for stopping the continued race-baiting at News Corp and Fox. But Murdoch has refused to respond.
Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch spoke at the Federal Trade Commission as part of a conference on the future of journalism. ColorOfChange organizers and others in the audience confronted Murdoch about his comments and asked for an explanation, but as you can see, Murdoch made a quick, silent exit:
This is the second time that Murdoch has dodged this question when confronted; last time it was Media Matters that asked him:
Murdoch doesn't want to stand by his comments -- he clearly sees that he made a mistake in publicly admitting that he agrees with Glenn Beck's race-baiting. But he also refuses to disown them.
Of course Murdoch is ultimately responsible for what occurs in the media he controls. Every time Murdoch dodges this question, it helps illustrate a fact that should already be obvious, and should follow him everywhere he goes: the divisive, dangerous race-baiting on his cable network exists because he allows it to, and apparently because he agrees with it.
The Harlem Gospel Choir has backed out of a holiday performance with controversial conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck, the Daily News has learned.
The famous choir, which has performed for Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II, was set to appear in the simulcast film of Beck's novel "The Christmas Sweater - A Return to Redemption," which opens Thursday in theaters nationwide.
The choir canceled the appearance Monday, citing financial reasons.
James Rucker, executive director of Color for Change - which has helped persuade more than 80 advertisers to ditch Beck's show - said the group did an about-face after he called the choir.
"We wanted to make sure they understood who Beck was," Rucker said. "We believe their mission is about spreading the Gospel and and promoting harmony, and we thought Beck was the antithesis of that."
Before we contacted the Harlem Gospel Choir about Beck, they didn't know much about him. After learning more about Beck and his history of race-baiting, the choir quickly came to the right decision and cancelled their appearance with him.
The choir told the Daily News that their reasons for canceling with Beck were financial, and it's understandable that they would want to avoid getting involved in what could be seen as a political fight -- the choir is about faith and music, not politics. And it's hard to blame them for wanting to avoid starting a fight with Glenn Beck -- he is a powerful man with a large megaphone and a large audience that includes some very hateful people (based on some of the email we've received after launching our campaign against Beck, we know this first-hand at ColorOfChange).
"The Christmas Sweater" is part of Beck's effort to present himself as someone who represents mainstream American values. His desire to work with the Harlem Gospel Choir serves that goal, and it would have helped him position himself as embracing Black people while his rhetoric works against the interests of not only Black folks but most Americans.
That's what makes the Harlem Gospel Choir's refusal to perform with Beck so important -- they are world-famous for spreading a message of peace, love, unity and respect. They've performed for Nelson Mandela, in honor of Dr. King, and before Pope John Paul II. They have proudly represented one of Black America's oldest musical traditions around the world, and now they have refused to allow their name and their legacy to be used by someone like Glenn Beck.
Recently on a popular Black Entertainment Network talk show R&B
singer Monica pitched her new reality show and extolled the virtues of prayer.Suited up in hip-high boots like an
emissary from God’s army, she credited God with guiding her through life and
imbuing her with purpose.His word
was her marching order, she proclaimed, as the rapt studio audience nodded in
approval, giving credence to surveys that indicate African Americans are more
religious, more likely to subscribe to Creationism and more apt to break out
the Bible for guidance and counsel than any other group in the U.S.
Yet not since the Great Awakening of the 18th
Century has “God” spoken through so many American public figures so
unequivocally.The medievalist
Sarah Palin has risen to cult status touting her personal speed dial to the
Lord.The Old Testament God has become
the kamikaze co-pilot of the Republican Party.And President Barack Obama frequently invokes both God as an
adjudicating figure and prayer as an antidote to tragedy.
Prayer has become the national bromide for generalized
suffering.If it can’t be
sanitized, domesticated and defanged by prayer then it isn’t worth
experiencing.Now, in the midst of
the healthcare reform morass, prayer healing “therapy” may become a legitimate
form of government subsidized medical treatment. According to the Los Angeles Times, a “little known” provision in the health care overhaul
bill would authorize coverage for Christian Science prayer as a medical expense.
The provision is
sponsored by the ultra-conservative Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and the liberal
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.This strange bedfellow pairing is part ideology and part political expedience.Hatch is a notorious Mormon ideologue
and Kerry’s state is the Christian Science Church’s base.Despite several high profile cases in
which religious fanatic parents have been convicted for using prayer healing to
“treat” their terminally ill children rather than seek medical treatment, the Senate
healthcare provision would sanction this practice.
In a nation in which millions go bankrupt and/or die from not
having health care insurance the decision to include prayer healing into the insidiously
partisan healthcare deliberations is an outrage.Increasingly,
prayer has wormed its way into the most mundane of American moments.Moments of prayer or “silence” have
become more commonplace during local government meetings, schools, social
functions and games.A recent AOL
poll surveying site users about a Southern school’s decision to post a message
to God received overwhelming support.A majority of users agreed that reverence for God is part of “our”
nation’s heritage.
As more and more
Americans shrug in apathy at the leaky wall separating church and state, those
who abstain from or question these mass spiritual entreaties are viewed as
curmudgeon naysayers at best and un-American public enemies at worst.The explosion of public prayer—exemplified
by the near manic drive to enshrine the most simple of pursuits with Godly
sanction—seems to bespeak some deep-seated crisis of American selfhood which
afflicts all classes and ethnicities.
According to the Christian Science Church, a faith healing internship
takes the form of an “'intensive'
two-week class instruction in Christian Science healing” after which
practitioners “may take patients.”Treatment “may rely on passages of the Bible…or may simply be a period
of silent communion.There is no
formula and ‘treatment’ can be given in absentia by telephone or email.”
Since
Christian Science practitioners can hang up their virtual shingles after a
two-week crash course why can’t apostles of Frodo or oracles of Pan be
similarly credentialed?Ethnocentric
bias has apparently banished Pentecostal snakes, Santeria chants, Wiccan spells
and animist rituals from consideration as insurable faith treatments.However, the Senate provision would
ultimately provide protection for so-called religious and spiritual healthcare,
opening the gate to all manner of medically dangerous, clinically unproven
treatments.
Few on the Left have raised concerns about the contradiction
between conservatives’ draconian attempts to eliminate coverage for abortion (a
medically established and lifesaving practice) in the healthcare overhaul and
this obscure provision for government subsidized Christian Science hocus pocus.The House of Representatives’
deliberations on its version of the healthcare bill are being stalled by
endless wrangling over toughening restrictions on abortion coverage from private healthcare companies that participate in a
government public option insurance “exchange.” Under the current language these private plans could be purchased
by poor subscribers with the aid of government subsidies.Yet anti-abortion legislators are
jockeying to prevent private insurers that offer abortion coverage from even being
included in the public option.
Perhaps poor women seeking reproductive healthcare would be advised
to submit an email request for God’s intervention to their nearest Christian
Science provider, courtesy of the federal government.In the only democratic nation in the postindustrial world that
doesn’t have equitable government healthcare the watchwords will be “let them
have prayer.”
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor
of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7 FM.
"Precious" is a haunting film that stays silent on how the political realities of 1980s Harlem shaped women.
Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is the shining star of her own imagination in the new movie Precious, which hits theaters nationwide on November 6. Surrounded by bright lights and flashing cameras, she’s a magazine cover model with dreams of being in music videos and having a light-skinned love interest. The only thing she has to overcome are her circumstances—and boy, are there plenty of hurdles ahead of her. The recipe is familiar: Start with an unfailingly tragic character, pile on the hardships, throw a few famous names on the credits, then sit back and watch the Oscar nominations roll in.
[B]eneath the film was something that I found to be problematic:
a reliance on the villainization of Black matriarch
—rather than a mention of systemic race issues—
to make the larger message of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” more palatable.
Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire could have been just another one film championing the underdog, but the powerful performances and unabashedly raw storytelling saves it from falling through the cracks.Precious is pregnant, illiterate, unloved and unwanted. Her mother, Mary, (played to chilling, cruel perfection by Mo’Nique) works harder at destroying her daughter’s self-esteem than she does anything else. Precious silently endures unbridled physical and sexual abuse at home, only to experience the ridicule of her peers at school and around Harlem. It’s a wonder that anyone could survive the sort of utter despair that Precious lives in every day, but despite being illiterate in the ninth grade, she excels in math and is encouraged by a concerned teacher to pursue an alternative education during her pregnancy—a suggestion that her mother meets with a better one: to start collecting welfare and not to worry about education.Luckily, Precious escapes academic purgatory and enrolls in an alternative school for pregnant students, where she meets a series of nurturing figures who instill in her the sense of love and self-worth that was absent from her household for 16 years. In addition to her teacher and mentor Ms. Rain (played by Paula Patton), there’s her classroom of tough-yet-supportive peers, and Lenny Kravitz as a nurse who shows her what is likely the most positive male role model that she has seen in her young life. There has already been considerable Oscar buzz surrounding both Mo’Nique and Sidibe, and the film has received numerous accolades, including the Grand Jury Prize for the Dramatic category at Sundance and the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival. The actors and director Lee Daniels deserve the praise they’ve received for making such a powerful movie. But beneath the film was something that I found to be problematic: a reliance on the villainization of Black matriarch—rather than a mention of systemic race issues—to make the larger message of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” more palatable. This is a problematic image to see in white media, but it’s even more disheartening to see in examples of Black media. What’s so problematic about Mary is that the woman is made into a monster with no redeemable qualities—a decision that isn’t only lazy on behalf of the filmmakers, but also wholly irresponsible to the African-American community.But director Lee Daniels makes the critical mistake of ignoring the social and political reality that his characters inhabit. Besides a title card in the beginning of the film and some outdated hairstyles, we as the audience see little of the forces that compel Mary’s actions. To ignore 1987 Harlem as the foundation for the permanent Black underclass created by the Reagan Administration through its abhorrent social reform policies—including the War on Drugs and welfare reform—is to ignore a crucial aspect of his characters’ lives. The political forces at work during the period operated in a much larger scope than the familial level portrayed in the film. And that’s why it was a grievous error for Daniels to paint a portrait of Mary as a one-dimensional demon, seemingly devoid of any ounce of compassion toward even her own offspring.
Last year at my polling place in perhaps the bluest dot in the entire state of Pennsylvania moments before scores of people, young and old would cast their votes for this historic presidential election.
They say young people are our future. But who is our present? Well, on the electoral front, the only folks who you can count on rain or shine are our elders who know just how hard-fought our right to vote was.
Here in Philadelphia, we elected this city's very first District Attorney of color. But at a paltry12% voter turn-out meant that probably fewer than one in 20 adults actually had anything to do with it in this city, 45% of whose population is Black.
Patrick Welsh’s op/ed columnin The Washington Post earlier this month gets
off to a bad start—a very bad one.
For starters, the piece’s very title ("Making the Grade Isn't About Race. It's About Parents.") signals where Welsh is headed, as
it confidently points out that the much-discussed racial achievement gap isn’t
really about race at all, but can be addressed by good parenting.As if such a big problem could be
solved so simply.Then comes the
first sentence of the essay, as Welsh recalls a question he had posed to his
class of predominantly Black 12th-graders: “Why don’t you guys study
like the kids from Africa?”
“ 'Why don’t you guys study like the kids from Africa?' ”
I
assume Welsh would defend his query borne out of “exasperation” by arguing that
he knew his students well enough to believe that they would not be offended by
it, but they—and all of us—should be insulted on many levels by such an action
by a veteran teacher.And this, according
to the Post’s
education columnist Jay Mathews, is what passes for “provocative” and “brilliant.”
But does the title of the piece really tell us what’s
inside?
Well, the essay does open
with a discussion of parenting and its role in his students’ performance in
school.Welsh’s students lament
the absence of fathers in their households or in their lives at all.Those students have every right to cite
that as a factor that influences their academic performance, and it’s a
reasonable explanation.Welsh goes
one step further, however: he stops quoting his students momentarily and
instead begins revealing his mind-reading ability, claiming that the students “knew
intuitively” that their failure to excel academically “had nothing to do with
race.”So the kids didn’t actually
say that race doesn’t matter, but Welsh expects the reader to trust that this
is what they meant.
". . . [T]he kids didn’t actually say that race doesn’t matter, but Welsh expects the reader to trust that this is what they meant."
From there, the piece turns into a series of criticisms aimed at
school administrators, a group Welch is obviously not very fond of.Yet, in the middle of this tangent,
Welsh actually arrives at some important points: that the gap that exists
between students who are served best by schools and those who are served the
least by them cannot just be attributed to race; that familial support and
involvement matter, but so does income inequality; and that academic achievement
is affected by factors that school leaders have little control over (but which
doesn’t keep Welsh from blaming them anyway).
So, given Welsh’s acknowledgement that multiple factors are at
work, why does he insist on reducing all of that to the simple point of
"it's about parents"? Why Welsh’s piece offers such a somewhat
incoherent and ultimately unconvincing argument is not clear to me.
He does make one thing clear, however:
getting rid of out-of-touch school administrators and recruiting involved
parents would solve a lot of our problems.
If only it were that easy.
Prof. Ronald Chennault, Ph.D. is a professor of education at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Prof. Chennault's research interests include cultural studies, educational theory and policy, media analysis and race and cultural pluralism.
An excerpt of ColorLines magazine’s special report on how the clampdown on immigration is tearing families apart.
Getty Images
By Seth Wessler and Julianne Hing
Republished courtesy of ColorLines
(Cross-posted at TheRoot.com)
One early morning five years ago, Calvin James walked outside the Jersey City apartment, where his girlfriend and 6-year-old son slept, to put the trash on the street for pickup.
As soon as James, then 45, walked outside, he was greeted by four people jumping out of a black SUV. Dressed in uniforms with “ICE” printed on the back, they rushed him and demanded he confirm his name, then handcuffed and pulled James into the back of the SUV.
James spent four months in immigration detention, first in New Jersey and then in Louisiana for an old conviction for selling pot. Then, he was put on a plane and deported to Jamaica, where he had not been since he was 12 years old.
ColorLines magazine went on the road tracing James’ journey from New York to Jamaica to investigate the collateral effects of deportation on immigrant communities. Harsh immigration policy, compounded by systemic racial inequities built into the criminal justice system, are not thwarting terrorists or making our country a whole lot safer. But the laws are doing a great job of breaking up another entity: families of color.
Immigrants face de facto double jeopardy. Indeed, double punishment is now all but guaranteed in the legal landscape for non-citizens. When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act was passed in 1996, it changed immigration policy so that non-citizens—even legal residents—who were caught in the criminal justice system for the most minor crimes became vulnerable to deportation.
And the law was applied retroactively, so a conviction from decades earlier can trigger deportation today. After their criminal cases end, immigrants are subject to civil procedures of immigration courts. Deportation follows incarceration.
Meanwhile President Obama is bolstering “Secure Communities,” which puts immigration agents in local jails, along with the 287(g) local enforcement program, a key component of President Bush’s immigration program, even as it comes under fire for widespread abuses.
Five years since his deportation, today, James lives alone in a two-room apartment in the mountains outside Montego Bay and works two jobs as a security guard and driver.
Back in New York, his girlfriend and son were evicted from their Jersey City apartment three years after James was deported, after she lost her job. They spent time on friends’ couches and now live in a shelter in Harlem. James’ partner, Kathy, says they definitely would not have been homeless if had he remained. They might even have a home of their own.
Even though it’s been five years since James was deported, time hasn’t seemed to ease the pain of separation.
“I sit here sometimes, and, man, I wish I could put them on the plane and get them down here,” James says, turning over a framed picture of Kathy and their son, Josh. “It’s all kind of heartbreaking, you know.”
What happened to this family is no coincidence. Unfair racial inequities in the criminal justice system including harsh sentencing laws and racial profiling mean blacks and Latinos are more likely to be incarcerated, in large part, for drug convictions. They are more likely to be deported as a result.
According to research by Tanya Golash-Boza, professor of sociology at the University of Kansas, “This disparity cannot be explained simply by higher rates of crime among Jamaican populations,” she says. “Blacks and Latinos are seen as criminals by the larger culture. Other immigrants are not.”
Meanwhile, the Schiro report commissioned by Homeland Security reveals more than half of immigrants who get detained presumably for having committed a crime in fact had no criminal convictions. Nearly two-thirds of those picked up by local police under 287(g) had committed no crime. Thus even immigrants of color with no convictions are at risk of detention and deportation as a result of harsh enforcement policies.
There is some reason to be hopeful that the Obama administration moves to reform immigration detention and local law enforcement officials choosing to drop participation in 287(g). But there are valid reasons to be concerned about whether proposed changes to the detention system will help immigrants or just mean a more streamlined transition from jail to detention to exile.
As long as immigration laws continue to criminalize non-citizens, it will be immigrants of color who bear the heaviest weight of enforcement. In the context of a criminal justice system that punishes blacks for being black, an immigration policy focused on “criminal aliens” will only mean more black parents get deported, and more families get torn apart.
A just immigration policy must do better.
Julianne Hing is co-editor of the ColorLines magazine blog, RaceWire, and assistant editor of ColorLinesmagazine. Seth Wessler is a writer and Research Associate with Applied Research Center. They co-authored a ColorLines magazine investigative series on families torn apart by deportation from New York to Jamaica. To read the rest of the Torn Apart article series and multimedia project, visit ColorLines.
Many people recall the 1976 movie “Network” and its exhortation to open one’s window and yell, "I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore.”
Well, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty is calling on the public to start “Shouting from the Rooftops,” its campaign to educate the public about wrongful executions and continue its push for an end to the death penalty.
“Since 1973, 138 people have been released from death row who have been exonerated."
“Since 1973, 138 people have been released from death row who have been exonerated,” said Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the coalition.
That may seem like a huge number, but there are many others convicted under questionable circumstances who may not be granted clemency or given a commuted sentence.
“As long as we have the death penalty, some innocent people are going to be executed,” Rust-Tierney told BlackAmericaWeb.com.
The latest campaign was inspired by the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted of killing his children in an arson fire at their home in Corsicana, in northeast Texas. An article by David Grann in the Sept. 7 edition of The New Yorker magazine reviewed the case and revealed that investigators now believe the fire was accidental, possibly caused by faulty wiring in the house.
“The evidence they were relying on to say it was an intentional fire was just wrong,” Rust-Tierney said.
Shouting from the Rooftops, according to Rust-Tierney, “picks up on a statement (Supreme Court) Justice (Antonin) Scalia wrote that there has not been ‘a single case - not one - in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops.’"
“We responded with 'Innocent and Executed,' where we documented four cases - Willingham’s, Ruben Cantu, Carlos De Luna and Larry Griffin - where investigators and reporters documented they were innocent and executed,” Rust-Tierney said. “We’re taking Justice Scalia at his word and asking people to shout it from the rooftops, literally.”
NCADP is urging Shouting from the Rooftops participants to make videos of themselves alone or with friends or family literally shouting from rooftops that Willingham was innocent and executed. NCADP will post the videos on their web site and on YouTube. The staff of the NCADP has already posted a video on YouTube, and two staff members also produced and posted a “how-to-make-a-video” video.
The coalition’s site also has a list of other suggested activities for the public, including writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper about the Willingham case, calling for an end to the death penalty and putting a Shouting from the Rooftops banner on their blogs or Web pages.
“Having Tom Joyner go before the (South Carolina) parole and pardons board and getting them to admit there’s been a mistake ought to inspire,” Rust-Tierney said, referring to the radio host winning a posthumous pardon Wednesday for his great-uncles who were executed in 1915 for a murder they did not commit.
“We were delighted for him, but we were also saddened that he had to do this,” she said. “But this kind of thing is still going on. “We need to alert the public that this is a real problem.
Last week a New York Times article reported that Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandparents were a white man and a slave whom he impregnated. This story highlights the growing importance of genealogy in America.
Some of the comments posted online were from people skeptical that the full story of Michelle Obama's ancestry will ever be known.
One said, "The concept that records simply don't exist beyond the mid-1800s for so much of her family is so telling about the legacy of slavery we'll never shed."
Another said, "Where in Africa did Michelle Obama's ancestors come from? What was their tribe? When were they enslaved, and what were their experiences as individuals? What happened to these human beings after they were brought in chains to America? These things will very likely never be known."
While these may be the common perceptions of the public, they are not the views of sophisticated genealogists.
Most people don't have a clue about all the documents that exist, and that the paper trail never ends. The amount of paper that exists in libraries, archives and historical societies is mind-boggling. Much of it isn't catalogued, so the owners don't even know what they have.
"Most people don't have a clue about all the documents that exist, and that the paper trail never ends."
After recently re-inventorying records, one South Carolina repository discovered plantation records in their collection it did not know existed.
The National Archives has 4 billion pieces of paper and a backlog of 400-500 million pages of records that need to be processed. It took an act of Congress in 2000 to microfilm records from the Freedmen's Bureau, but nine years later they are still being digitized, and indexes need to be created.
There are also records in French, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Italian in the United States, Europe and Africa that contain details of our ancestors that need to be digitized, transcribed and published to solve some of our challenges.
Fortunately, through technological advances and the efforts of volunteers and private companies, much of this hidden paper is beginning to see the light of day. These resources will enable genealogists to solve current problems in the future.
Ancestry.com has digitized and put online over 4 billion records over the past 12 years and will be digitizing at least 5 million documents a year at the National Archives. Footnote.com has uploaded 60 million images online and is adding more than 1 million new records per month. The Mormon Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, is digitizing its entire collection of 2.5 million reels of microfilm.
The Atlantic Slave Trade Database contained 27,000 voyages from Africa to the New World when it debuted on a CD-ROM in 1999. Ten years later the database has almost 35,000 voyages online. There are many other institutions around the world that are doing digital projects.
But access to billions of records will not guarantee genealogical success any more than walking into a library will make people smart. Genealogists will still need genealogical and analytical skills to solve complex problems. Success in genealogy is based on available records, access to resources, knowledge of history, analytical ability, technical skills, genealogical skills and persistence. If any one of these ingredients is lacking, or is not of a high enough skill level, difficult genealogical challenges will go unsolved, often for years.
African-American genealogy is still in its infancy, and methodology is still being developed. Advanced research, particularly in the slavery period, can become very complicated. Progress is often contingent on genealogy skills, painstaking research in multiple locations and using records that have not been transcribed, indexed or placed on the Internet.
For 18 years, I had been trying to identify a slave owner for one of my ancestors six generations before mine. Before I finally solved it, I worked on the problem 12 hours a day for six straight days at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. It took all my genealogical skills, historical knowledge, experience, patience and fortitude to.
In some situations, the problem of mixed-race parentage is difficult to solve, in others it is not as challenging as it may appear. Once a person is listed as a "mulatto," you have evidence of white blood in the family tree. Then you have to determine the person and the generation.
In some cases it is a simple matter of elimination, or other evidence will point to the person in question. Most research involves searching for evidence, analyzing records and sometimes amassing enough circumstantial evidence to draw conclusions.
This should not discourage people from seeking their roots. On the contrary, it should encourage people to search. Genealogy is easy, fun and inexpensive to start. After you make progress, you'll worry about the challenges later.
We need to demand more records be preserved and made available. But on the other hand, we need to take responsibility to preserve our own history, learn the craft of genealogy and pass the history and the craft on to our kids and grandkids.
"We need to demand more records be preserved and made available. But . . . we [also] need to take responsibility to preserve our own history."
People need to tape record their stories and record the stories of their elders. Baby boomers are beginning to die in record numbers and once they leave they take generations of oral family history with them.
People need to label family photos and preserve family bibles, obituaries, funeral programs, letters and other paper with ancestor's names on them in their house and their relatives' houses.
But most of all, people need to learn how to do genealogy, and stop thinking they can just jump on the Internet and trace their family history back to Africa before they log off the computer and finish their cup of coffee. If they understand the genealogical process, they'll avoid a lot of frustration.
Books on genealogy and conferences like the International Black Genealogy Summit at the Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Indiana, October 29-31 can be helpful.
Genealogical problems that we cannot solve today will be solved by our young people tomorrow. So I believe Michelle Obama's genealogy will advance by her children's -- or her grandchildren's generation.
Tony Burroughs is a professional genealogist and author of "Black Roots: A Beginners Guide to Tracing the African American Family Tree." He taught genealogy at Chicago State University for 15 years.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Taking its “life begins at conception” charade from State Legislature to State legislature, one of the most dangerous political forces in the U.S. is stepping up its crusade for the “rights” of the unborn. Backed by an organization called Personhood USA, the latest offensive from the Religious Right involves a renewed movement to amend state constitutions to establish human rights and personhood status for fertilized eggs.
Ever immune to morality, reason, church-state separation precedents and an understanding of the basic laws of biology, the most flat earth reactionary segment of the so-called pro-life movement wants to circumvent constitutional protections for abortion by conferring personhood on fertilized eggs. This would eviscerate the premise that women have a sovereign and singular right to control their bodies by designating rights even before implantation and a clinically viable pregnancy has been determined.
For those who have any elementary grasp of the human reproductive process, conception doe s not automatically result in pregnancy and the majority of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Yet if the egg crusade zealots had their way these new edicts would potentially criminalize any woman attempting to use birth control pills or IUDs, and jeopardize in vitro fertilization procedures and stem cell research.
Though the egg crusade has failed to gain the imprimatur of the National Right to Life Committee those who would dismiss such a campaign as too extreme to gain traction do so at their peril. According to the L.A. Times, earlier this year the egg crusaders were able to convince the North Dakota House of Representatives to pass a constitutional amendment on personhood although it was later vetoed by the State Senate. Colorado voters also rejected a similar ballot initiative 73% to 27%. Yet in California the egg crusaders are collecting signatures and whipping up support for an amendment insidiously dubbed the California Human Rights Amendment.
One of the most reprehensible arguments that the egg crusaders make to bolster their cause is a comparison between their movement and the movement to abolish slavery. Their website cites Joshua Giddings, a 19th century American anti-slavery legislator who held that “God” as “author” of all life grants the inalienable right to life to every being. Following this argument it is unclear who is exactly “enslaving” pre-implanted fertilized eggs. Is it potential mothers who arrogantly lay claim to their own bodies? Is it20the state for failing to protect the right of pre-implanted fertilized eggs to20implantation? By cloaking its propaganda in the rhetoric of civil and human rights the egg crusaders avoid delineation of the real life consequences for women, once again reducing them to vessels with no agency, right to privacy or control over their own bodies.
The website does not specify what rights un-implanted eggs would be conferred with other than, presumably, the right to progress to the implantation stage, fetal development and then birth. There are no details about who or what could act on the behalf of the un-implanted egg as person if the host carrier (formerly known as mother) of the egg were to determine that she should receive medical treatment.
There was no information on who would legally be empowered to intervene or act on behalf of the un-implanted egg as person (the state perhaps?) to object to any stance that the mother might take. It stands to reason that if contraception were used to prevent the inalienable right of the egg as “person” to implant then host carriers who did so would be criminalized and prosecuted for murder. As a preventive measure, potentially offending host carriers could perhaps be fitted with special ankle bracelets or encoded with state monitored electronic microchips to preclude violations.
The Catholic and fundamentalist Christian activists at the forefront of the egg crusade are curiously silent on these small details. In true schizoid fashion they push for special faith-based government entitlements and yet scream about government interference, rallying big government to run roughshod over women’s fundamental right to privacy through a new regime of policing. And indeed, their own “family planning” policies have proven an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the exploding teen birth rates in Bible Belt states like Alabama and Mississippi in comparison to lower rates in the relatively godless Northeast and Northwest (abstinence-only sex education programs and fundamentalist Christian propaganda against fornication outside marriage would seem to be a source of cognitive dissonance for Southern teens).
The decidedly anti-human rights egg crusade would take this national obscenity one step further by deepening the region’s poverty and straining its already overburdened, single parent-averse social welfare net. The fervor of this “new” brand of anti-abortion activism only underscores the need for a vigorous secular defense against the continued incursions of the Religious Right. It’s either that or get ready for the ankle bracelets.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for Some of Us Are Brave KPFK 90.7 FM. This is an excerpt from her book Scarlet Letters on race/gender politics, atheism and secular belief in America.
When the L.A. Times runs a story on a missing black woman on the front page of its local features section it stimulates inquiring minds. How, in the super-charged climate of breathless cable news reports on Jaycee and her white sisterhood, could such a feat of journalistic subversion be possible? According to a story in the Sunday edition, 24 year-old Mitrice Richardson, an African American woman from South Los Angeles, went missing in mid-September after being released from a Calabasas, California jail.
Richardson had been arrested for apparently refusing to pay the tab for a meal she ate at a Malibu restaurant. Prior to the arrest, restaurant personnel and witnesses reported that she was behaving erratically and gave the appearance of being mentally ill. After authorities found marijuana in her car they arrested her on charges of “defrauding an innkeeper” and possession.
The Times chronicled the massive search made for Richardson this weekend by friends, relatives and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The story was also picked up by local news and has outraged many African Americans in Los Angeles. Questions swirl around the County Sheriff’s conduct in both the arrest and release of Richardson. Why, for example, was she not placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold (a common practice when dealing with mentally ill “suspects”) when detained? And why, after being released from jail was she sent off into the dead of night in a remote area without a cell phone or vehicle?
Families of missing and abducted people of color organize tirelessly to generate any shred of coverage they can get from the media in “post-racial” America. Tired of the media’s ritual indifference to the lives of black women in their community, the mothers of missing women in Edgecombe County in North Carolina launched a billboard campaign to advertise a slew of suspected abductions in their area. So what distinguishes Richardson’s case from that of the scores of other missing and abducted people of color which seldom score even a few lines buried in a big city newspaper? Location is apparently the only factor that would warrant such an aberration.
The Malibu sightings of Richardson were evidently so jarring for residents that they elicited instant recollection from those reported to have seen her. Unlike other missing person cases tainted by the urban “grit” of South L.A. and other communities of color where crime is perceived to be the cultural norm, the crime free veneer of an almost exclusively white community in which “it’s strange to see a black woman walking in the (Malibu) canyon,” is the subtext. Location, race and gender play a pivotal role in the media’s fixation on missing person stories.
In the national “victim-ocracy”, small town, suburban and/or university affiliated white women get the most play as valued human interest subjects and cultural possessions. The endless media loop of search parties, dragged lakes, crack of dawn patrols and tearful living room pleas from grieving family members only lodge in the public imagination as national pathos when “our” little hometown girls are at stake. As exceptions to the rule, Richardson’s case—coupled with the more prominent example of slain Vietnamese-American Yale University student Annie Le—illustrates the extent to which location can obscure the regime of white privilege and entitlement that frames the stories and lives deemed most valuable by the mainstream media.
Centered in a bastion of Ivy League power and privilege nestled uneasily in the racially segregated city of New Haven, the Le case garnered national attention in spite of Le’s ethnic background. As a member of the academic elite, Le represented a student body potentially imperiled by the urban dangers of crime-ridden housing “projects” and other undesirable areas. And as with any good colonialist private university regime (e.g., the University of Chicago and the University of Southern California) hellbent on takeover of the “ghetto” these untamed areas naturally sully a city’s cosmopolitan aspirations. Once it was discovered that Le was murdered by a white insider, and not an encroaching racial other, the tabloid cable news mafia modulated its budding hysteria and moved on.
Clearly the racist “model minority” myth and the promotion of the docile assimilable Asian stereotype make Asian Americans more palatable to mainstream white society than African Americans. Le and Richardson’s backgrounds are dissimilar save for their being young women of color. Yet take away Le’s Yale pedigree and they would be “united” as victims of the mainstream media’s hierarchy of the disposable. For it is utterly certain that the mainstream media would not have deviated from its nationally sanctioned script of victimized white women if either Le or Richardson had gone missing in South L.A. or the “gritty” streets of New Haven.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of blackfemlens.org and a commentator for Some of Us Are Brave, KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles.
Five days ago in economically distressed Rockford, Illinois, a 23-year old Black man named Mark Anthony Barmore was shot to death in a church-run daycare filled with children, as reported by the Associated Press.
Witness claim Barmore who tried to evade police, emerged to surrender from a closet in the church, but police officers shot him anyway.
Though this case is unfolding, and all the facts are not known at this time, the refrain in Black America and beyond is, "Would this have likely happened to a white person?"
Increasingly, Afro-Netizen has noticed clear acknowledgment of racism from white people about other white people's motivations -- even within mainstream media. This new, seemingly unprecedented phenomenon is a good and important trend that is not nearly as comprehensive or rigorous as it should be. However, the extent to which race and racism can be brought up appropriately at the urging of white allies may influence America's tolerance for having such meaningful public discussions that have rarely occurred heretofore.
Finally, at the intersection of media, politics and policy, there was the ever eloquent and ubiquitous Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. at the young Barmore's funeral, a tragic fatality amidst an era that many optimists and delusional voters had quizzically embraced as post-racial with the ascent of Barack Obama to the Oval Office.
Post-racial in this context suggests that "getting beyond race" is the task and ultimate goal. For progressive-minded Americans, however, the goal is in acknowledging that race and racism are all too real social constructions that will endure until we embrace racial justice as a core component of the fight for universal human rights.
Rockford activists and concerned residents understand this in a blighted city north of Chicago with rampant unemployment, crime and urban blight.
They know these ills are all related, and that these socio-economic disparities highly correlate to race in ways that America's first Black president will not (and perhaps cannot politically) affirm, unlike his elderly, white Southern predecessor, former president Jimmy Carter, leveraging the white privilege he has towards shedding light on the truth too powerful for a sitting president in this day and age to co-sign -- irrespective of his race or political party.
Whatever level of culpability the two white Rockford police officers and the deceased Barmore had for what quickly escalated to a man's death -- as witnessed in a church by young children -- this much is true: a crime took place on that fateful day that is as political and resonant as the election of a Black president.
The questions remain in the aftermath of such symptomatic violence: Do we know what's on the referendum? When and where we must vote, and how to cast our ballots?
The following exposé by Christian Smith-Socaris of Stateside Dispatch details how the nearly one and a half million Americans are behind bars are being counted towards dubious ends.
Bravo to ProgressiveStates.org for this revelatory and comprehensive report!
Prisoners of the Census: How the Incarcerated are Counted Distorts our Politics
Note - Much of the analysis on prisoners and the census has been carried out by Peter Wagner of the Prison Policy Initiative. This Dispatch relies heavily on that work and we thank him for assistance in preparing it.
Currently, 1 in 100 American adults are now behind bars,
with over 1.3 million Americans in state or federal correctional
institutions (and close to a million more are in local jails). This
explosion of our prison population since the beginning of the "war on
drugs" in the 1970's has meant the bloating of state budgets, the
crowding out of essential services, the destruction of many
communities, and robbing many young people of their future. Less well
reported is the way the census counts prisoners, which results in
political distortions that undermine the principle of one person, one
vote.
This Dispatch will outline the serious
problems that counting prisoners where they are incarcerated, instead
of where they lived before their conviction, has caused for governance
at the state and local level, as well as for the small number of
communities from which the majority of prisoners come. Instead, states
around the country have introduced legislation to determine both
redistricting for elections and state funding based on the home
community of the incarcerated, a key reform to achieve both democratic
results and economic justice within our states.
Where We Count Prisoners and Why it Matters
Currently the Census Bureau counts prisoners as residing at their place
of incarceration. While this serves the constitutional purpose of the
census - determining the relative populations of the states for
congressional reapportionment - it has in the past few decades resulted
in significant unintended consequences. The two main secondary
purposes of the census are state and local legislative reapportionment,
and determining funding for federal grants that are based on population
or demographics. For these uses the distortions in population counts
caused by prisons can and do throw the process out of whack. The most
extreme examples happen at the local level, where a prison can
represent a population cluster larger than any local town, or all of
them combined. But effects are also felt at the state level, where the
prison boom made "prison towns" of many sparsly populated rural
communities. This can boost the population of rural state legislative
districts enough that without the prisons they wouldn't have enough
residents to constitute a complete district.
In states like Ohio, Texas, and New York,
where prisoners coming from a handful of urban zip codes fill rural
prisons far away, counting prisoners where they are incarcerated
results results in demographic statistics for the prison towns that
shift government support for infrastructure, higher eduction, and other
programs away from the home communities of prisoners. This little
known, but perverse consequence of our census practices, serves as
another burden on marginalized communities. And ironically, many
states, including New York and Texas,
have constitutional or statutory mandates against counting a prison
cell as a residence, and in the rest the common law should observe the
same rule--but it is not an issue courts have directly examined.
Miscounting Prisoners Effects Local Government:
The best way to understand how prisoner counting can undermine fair
representation, and violate the principle of one person, one vote, is
to see how it can play out on the local level. Anamosa, Iowa is a
small town of about 5,500 people with the state's largest penitentiary
that holds 1,300. Last year the New York Times reported
on the odd fact that it had taken only two people (the candidates wife
and neighbor) to elect the winner of the City Council race in Ward 2,
the district that included the prison. This was possible because there
are only 58 non-prison residents in the ward, the rest of the
"constituents" are the 1,300 prisoners at the penitentiary. Because
Anamosa uses census data that includes prisoners
to divide the town in to districts, the power of the voters in Ward 2
is about 25 times greater than in the other three wards. Ward 2
Councilman, Danny Young, was asked whether he considers the 1,300
prisoners that make up 96% of his ward's population his constituents.
Councilman Young responded that, “They don’t vote, so, I guess, not
really.” In order to fix this irrational situation the town will move
to at-large representatives this November. Anamosa is an extreme
example of what can result when local districts are apportioned with
census data that includes prisoners, but it is a problem across the
country. Gross distortions exist on the county level as well, with 21 counties in the US having more than 20% or their population as prisoners.
Miscounting Prisoners Effects State Government:
America's prison boom has led to the placement of large prisons in
rural areas, where prisoners from throughout the state are
incarcerated. In many states the vast majority of the people in those
prisons come from urban population centers, often hundreds of miles
away. While the absolute numbers of prisoners may not seem sufficient
to have an impact on state legislative districts, in the worst cases
and in highly-gerrymandered systems, the miscounting of prisoners can
have a big impact.
Montana has the most extreme example
discovered so far. The Montana House district with the largest prison
is 15% prisoners by population. New York is a good example of how
prisons enter into gerrymandering. In order to protect Republican
control of the New York State Senate during the 2001 redistricting,
majority party districts in reliably conservative parts of the state
packed in tens of thousands of prisoners imported from New York City to
pass the constitutional requirement that districts not vary more than
10% in population. Because of this arrangement there are seven state
Senate districts that would not be constitutional if the prisoners in
their state prisons were not included in the district's population.
Counting those 45,000 prisoners as residing where they did prior to
incarceration would result in a cascade of changes that would shift the
boundaries and political control of many districts. Similar patterns
have been found in other states as well, from Texas to Nevada to Montana to Wisconsin.
Miscounting Prisoners can Distort Criminal Justice Policy:
The shift of power from urban, progressive communities with large
numbers of criminal offenders to the rural, conservative legislative
districts that house those offenders played into the politics of criminal justice policy
in a particularly dysfunctional way. Like farm district legislators
protecting their local economies through control of agriculture policy,
representatives from prison districts often protect the prison
economies in their districts by blocking any attempt to reform
draconian sentencing policies. Across the country, conservative
lawmakers have funnelled tax dollars to prison construction in their
districts to warehouse prisoners from other parts of the state, using
the expanding prison population itself to augment their political clout
to block reform -- clout they would not have had if the prisoners in
their districts had been counted as residing in their homes and not
their cells.
Miscounting Prisoners Denies Them Representation:
For example, roughly 45,000 prisoners from New York City are housed in
prisons somewhere else in the state. But this is 76% of the state's
total prisoners. And only 10% of prisoners come from rural upstate
areas while 75% of prisoners are housed in these areas. Therefore,
most of the "constituents" that fill these prisons are imported from distant urban areas.
This is a national problem: rural counties contain only 20% of the US
population, but they have 60% of new prison construction. However,
prison communities in no way represent these prisoners, to which they
have no bonds at all. Echoing Councilman Young's comment about the
prisoners that constitute over 9 in 10 of his "constituents," Senator
Volker, former chairman of the Codes Committee and a leading
conservative on criminal justice issues, has acknowledged that if the
prisoners in his district could vote they would have every reason to
vote against him. Any true representation for incarcerated individuals
must come from the community in which they resided prior to being
imprisoned. It is this community into which they will likely return
and attempt to reintegrate.
Miscounting Prisoners Distorts Government Funding:
While it is difficult to generalize across states because of the
significant variation in budget practices, it is clear that in many
instances prison populations boost funding to rural prison communities,
usually at the expense of neighboring communities without prisons.
Arizona gives a clear demonstration of this principle
due to its large rural prisons and robust revenue sharing within the
state. Florence, Arizona, has a free population of about 5,000 and
another 12,000 who are incarcerated. The state and federal funds
specifically linked to the incarcerated population have been estimated
at $4 million annually, compared to $1.8 million for the free residents
and $2.3 million in local revenue. This windfall led other towns to
attempt to annex prisons nearby, with some towns fighting to annex the
same prison.
As TWI has reported,
Wells Fargo & Co. teamed up with talk show host and commentator
Tavis Smiley for “Wealth Building” seminars in black neighborhoods
beginning in 2005. A suit by
the Illinois attorney general contends Wells used the seminars to
market high-cost and risky subprime loans to minority borrowers.
Smiley declined any comment for our story. On Friday, he told Richard
Prince, author of the Maynard Institute’s “Journal-isms” column, that
he has severed all ties with Wells Fargo until charges that the company
unfairly steered African American borrowers into costly subprime
mortgages are resolved. “I cut everything off with Wells Fargo,” Smiley
told Prince.
Prince noted that Smiley’s comments came as TWI’s story “circulated.”
Today, Smiley has a new posting
on his Website regarding his business relationship with Wells Fargo,
saying that he severed his ties to the bank earlier this year, and not
in recent days.
In his latest statement, Smiley says he actually made that decision
in “the first quarter of this year,” some time “shortly after the State
of the Black Union” and announced it then in a statement he posted on his Website.
The undated PDF file, which was not issued as a press release, notes
that “Wells Fargo currently is not a sponsor of TSG or Tavis Smiley
Foundation programs or events and will not be a sponsor for SOBU for
2010.” Wells had sponsored the State of the Black Union 2009, which was
held on February 27-28. According to C-SPAN footage, Smiley lauded the bank
at the symposium, telling the predominantly African American audience
that “Wells Fargo is your financial action planning guide to every
stage of life.” Later that day Smiley praised Wells Fargo for its
generosity and said, “This conference is free this year because of
Wells Fargo. Give them some love.”
On Friday, Smiley told Prince that Wells Fargo sponsored Smiley’s
radio show on Public Radio International, and underwrote the annual
C-SPAN-televised “State of the Black Union” conference that Smiley
organizes. Smiley’s foundation also distributed Wells Fargo materials
to young people at foundation events, he told Prince. Smiley also said
the move to end his relationship with Wells cost “a lot of money,” but
he said he did not know how much.
In the new statement, Smiley says that “I addressed this issue
months ago with a statement on my website during the first quarter of
this year when allegations against Wells Fargo first surfaced.”
The NAACP filed suits against Wells Fargo and HSBC on March 13, alleging racial discrimination in lending.
TWI cited Smiley’s earlier statement regarding his relationship with
Wells in its story last week. Smiley has declined any additional
comment.
Obviously the message that we are living in a post-racial society is still in its rhetorical stages and has not yet been internalized enough to influence public behavior. Fledgling claims that the election of President Obama, the nation’s first President of color, has obliterated racism as we know it, and has wiped clean the stain of past injustices (such as slavery) that once blighted these more than ever United States, must be premature as they are not being taken seriously by the badly behaved grownups—especially this week.
From Rep. Joe Wilson to Kanye West to Serena Williams, tantrums abound. On the surface, one may surmise that the outbursts of these two men were evidence of their impulsiveness and immaturity. That may be true. In fact, I’m pretty sure it is. However, upon closer inspection, it is apparent, to me anyway, that race is inextricably enmeshed in the fabrics of these incidents and once again, America is choosing to overlook the gendered and racial implications of men behaving badly.
Let us consider the Congressman first. There’s not much more to say beyond what President Carter elucidated earlier this week. What hasn’t been said is that the Senator is representative of many White Americans who cannot contain themselves, want to crawl out of their very skins, and shout from the highest mountain a string of racial slurs toward the White House.
How can this mere Negro have the audacity to give the government orders? These citizens can hardly stomach the fact that a Black man is in charge. Resorting to behavior that would have warranted a timeout had he been in a preschool class, Senator Wilson, who is not a racist according to his son, just had to say something to disrespect and discredit the President. He really couldn’t hold it in any longer. Hate from racial prejudice overwhelmed him. I guess he hasn’t gotten the memo announcing that we live in a post-racial society in which these open acts of racism covertly guised as disagreement are passé.
Then there’s Mr. West. Okay, so we all have to concede the fact that Kanye was out of pocket when he decided to make a spectacle of himself at the VMA’s. Typical West behavior though was met with an unanticipated backlash this time. We all know Mr. West is a loose canon libel to say anything at any time. No filter. What we didn’t expect was for him to victimize a White girl. Yes. I said it. If Kanye had, hypothetically speaking, instead taken the mic from Jay-Z and insisted that Lil Wayne should have won some award, we would have been shocked for many reasons. We would not, however, deem Jay-Z a victim. West would have been allowed to remain until the show’s and his cognac’s end without incident. It would have made the news.
But we would not have called for Kanye’s immediate apology. We all would have laughed at his crazy antics and gone on to talk about Patrick Swayze’s passing as we should have. But no, Kanye chose the wrong one to pull his publicity stunt on this time. White women are to remain untarnished, unharmed by Black men. History has shown us this over and over. The extreme hatred of OJ Simpson for example. Emmett Till’s murder. There are countless examples of the lengths White America will go in protecting the honor of White women. Kanye should have known better. Even in this "post-racial" society, some acts will always be infractions when White women are involved.
So, does the same hold true for Black women? What would have happened had Mr. West upstaged Beyoncé? Would the media dedicate as much time and attention to the reporting of that story? Do Black women have equal value and protection in this society?
The answer is a resounding, “Not so much.”
We know that there exists a dangerous double standard for Black women.
My proof? Well, in the news this week was also a horrific, barbaric beating of a Black woman, Tashawnea Hill, in Morrow, Georgia by Troy Dale West, Jr., a White man. Ms. Hill, a mother and an army reservist, was barraged with racial slurs while being kicked and punched in the head as her daughter watched helplessly traumatized. The man doling out this unprovoked savage attack was released on bail while the FBI flounder about wondering if this is a hate crime. This act of brutality, however, was not discussed on every morning show. We did not hear a demand for an apology from Troy to Ms. Hill. With the exception of a few headlines, the media and all of its consumers were almost silent.
The silence is deafening. Because we now live in a post-racial society, it is difficult for us to explain these events. Essence, a magazine for women, has decided to consult astronomers to discuss Mercury retrograde as a viable reason for these acts instead of examining the racial implications glaringly present in each of these incidents. Since the election of President Obama, we no longer have racism to blame.
What else, dear reader, would prompt a burly man to soundly beat a woman? Why else, dear reader, would all the networks come to the aid of Taylor Swift so swiftly? How else, dear reader, can you explain the influx of contributions Mr. Wilson received after disrespecting the President, the leader of the free world?
Well do not look to overt or covert racism as a means by which to explain or understand the differential treatment, reactions, and coverage these unruly men have received. We’ll have to look to some other ism since racism no longer exists.
These incidents leave us to ponder explanations that could possibly extend beyond the complexities of race and racial implications in this country. To some, particularly those who have firsthand experience with marginalization in this country, the notion that racism is no longer a credible culprit, the idea that we cannot look to a past wrought with systemic discrimination, prejudice, hatred, and exploitation to understand the present plagued by the same conditions seems ludicrous.
I wonder if we know that now more than ever, race is a centralized social construct people consistently use to guide their decisions, yet we, society as a whole, both Black and White folks alike, would rather not acknowledge the validity of its effects on the normal day-to-day interactions between people. However, without that acknowledgment, without racism as explanative in understanding why events like these or that in Philadelphia with the children banned from the pool, or that at Harvard with Professor Gates, it becomes difficult to understand the impetus of such treatment. This is a dangerous endeavor indeed, this denial of the importance race and racism in this country.
For without an answer, without racism and hatred as root causes for the effects of damaging behavior, those victimized are then compelled to internalize the blame. Because racism no longer is present in our society, then the mistreatment must be either a figment of my imagination or the result of something I, the victim, have done wrong. Racism is then internalized and the victim becomes responsible for the perpetrator’s behavior.
Come on folks. Racism is alive and well. We cannot deny its power. We cannot deny its effects any longer if we wish to move forward in peace and solidarity in this country within the next century. Calling it what it is, identifying the reason for maltreatment, naming racism causes discomfort for all involved. It is through the discomfort, by treating infection, suffering through the symptoms while healing occurs do we cure the disease. Until we recognize that we are sick with racism, the virus will continue to spread.
Alas, it takes great courage to even go to the doctor sometimes. Most don’t go until the pain becomes unbearable. While I fear that it will come to that, conditions like the one in Morrow, GA will worsen to a point that is intolerable for the average person before we validate racism and all of its ugly cousins, the other isms, perhaps repeating these words ad nauseum will make them true: We live in a post-racial society. We live in a post-racial society. We live in a post-racial society.
I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.
Rema Reynolds
is a former teacher, counselor, administrator, and currently organizes
parents for the improvement of Black student achievement in various
schools. She is an Assistant Professor at Azusa Pacific University
teaching aspiring school counselors and school psychologists and offers
support and instruction to pre-service Secondary teachers at UCLA’s
teacher education program, Center X.
As the housing market began booming in the mid-2000s, Wells Fargo & Co. teamed up with prominent African American commentator and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley and financial author Kelvin Boston, the host of “Moneywise,” a multi-cultural financial affairs show, to host something called “Wealth Building” seminars in Black neighborhoods.
Smiley was the keynote speaker, and the big draw, according to Boston and Keith Corbett, executive vice president of the Center for Responsible Lending, who attended two of the seminars. Smiley would charge up the audience — and rattle the Wells Fargo executives in attendance — by launching into a story about how he hated banks, and how they used to refuse to lend him money for his real estate projects in Compton, Calif., and elsewhere. After Hurricane Katrina, Smiley also emphasized the importance of building assets and wealth, saying those who had done so were able to leave New Orleans, while people with nothing had to stay behind, Boston said.
“My spiel was the financial planning process, how you want to be able to save and invest for the future, and to have a plan of action,” Boston said. “Then Tavis talked about his experiences with the banks, and how people should be thinking about some real estate.”
The seminars in some cities drew standing room only crowds, with numerous Wells Fargo representatives on hand, seated at carrels to meet one-on-one with potential borrowers who lined up after the speeches, which were usually held in hotels. The free, day-long events were heavily advertised in the black media, and launched in eight cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Richmond, Va., and San Francisco.
But what appeared on the surface as a way to help Black borrowers build wealth was actually just the opposite, according to a little-noticed explanation of the “Wealth Building” seminar strategy, contained in a lawsuit recently filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
Wells’ plan for the seminars all along was to target Black borrowers for higher-cost subprime mortgages, not for wealth-building, the suit charged. And the seminars were a part of the bank’s overall illegal and discriminatory practice of steering Black and Latino borrowers into riskier and more expensive loans, the suit said.
“According to a former Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employee, one of these ‘Wealth Building’ seminars held in Maryland was planned for an audience that would be virtually all African American,” the suit said. “The plan for the seminar was for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employees to talk about subprime mortgages, although they were directed by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage to use the term ‘alternative lending’ when marketing these products.”
The former employee, who is white, was scheduled to speak at the seminar, but was told by a manager that she was “too white,” and that only Black employees could make presentations, the suit said.
Wells Fargo, one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and a recipient of $25 billion in government bailout money, has denied all the charges in the Illinois suit, as well as other allegations of unfair lending. The bank did not respond to requests for comment on the seminars. Smiley, an author and advocate who hosts the late night talk show, “Tavis Smiley,” and who organizes the State of the Black Union symposiums each year, also declined comment.
Corbett pointed out that Wells’ outreach to the minority community through the seminars wasn’t unusual. Lenders sponsoring financial literacy sessions, holding wealth building seminars, or contributing to local minority advocacy organizations, became a common marketing strategy as the subprime market grew. Some of the efforts were genuine, aimed at finding new customers in Black and Latino neighborhoods once deprived of credit. But sometimes they were used instead as a cover to push predatory loans, Corbett said.
“The wealth building seminars are certainly needed,” Corbett said. “But, if, in fact, Wells was selling bad products out of them, it was totally wrong.”
Boston, for his part, described himself as the small player in the seminars, giving an opening talk before Smiley went on. Boston said he spoke in general terms about the need to save money and to invest. Neither he nor Smiley ever mentioned or discussed subprime loans, he said.
“Basically we were just speakers for hire,” Boston said. “We didn’t have any role or any control over what else happened. The main point is that we were not involved in any of their discussions or in anything they sold.”
Corbett said that after the speakers finished, bank employees and other financial experts were offering credit checks, real estate counseling, and other kinds of assistance. Corbett said he also believes some employees were signing up people for loan pre-approvals, on the spot, though he couldn’t be sure of what kind of loans they were. He said attendees lined up to talk to the Wells employees in both events. “If they weren’t actually selling loans, they were setting up borrowers for the kill,” Corbett said.
Once their speeches were over, however, Boston said he and Smiley had nothing to do with the workshops and counseling. He said he and Smiley together did about 15 seminars over a period of about two years. He declined to comment on how much he or Smiley were paid.
In 2005, before the subprime crisis, Boston said, the main worry in the Black community over mortgage lending was the banks were lagging behind in their lending to Black and Latino neighborhoods. He said expressed his concerns about this to Wells Fargo. Smiley, he said, also later raised questions about subprime lending tactics with the bank. “Tavis definitely had some dealings with them on this issue,” Boston said.
Nonetheless, in hindsight and with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Boston said he has second thoughts about participating in the seminars.
“Were we probably used? We probably were,” he said. “If I had the chance to do it over again, would I do it in a different manner? Probably.”
“You look back now and you feel for the homeowner who could have qualified for a better mortgage and got the costly type of mortgage. That concerns me a lot, not just for Wells Fargo, but for everybody out there, Citigroup, Countrywide … they were all doing the same events.”
But at the time, Boston said, having a major bank doing outreach in the Black community was considered an encouraging development, after so many years of redlining and restricted access to credit. “We all thought at the time that we were doing a positive thing,” he said.
Boston said he quit doing the seminars after his contract ended two years ago. Smiley, he said, continued to work with Wells Fargo, particularly on his annual State of the Black Union symposiums. On his website, Smiley recently posted a statement regarding Wells Fargo that said, “in this economic climate, we continue to be reminded every day that there is no perfect company.”
Smiley said in the statement that his relationship with Wells began in 2005, as part of the bank’s “commitment to increase financial literacy in the African American community.” He said that “the partnership with Wells Fargo focused on building personal wealth, which for most Americans begins with buying a house.”
According to the statement, Smiley also has had partnerships with other companies, but has never served as a spokesperson or representative for any of them, including Wells Fargo. The statement also said Wells Fargo will no longer be one of the sponsors of his Black State of the Union event in 2010, although the bank sponsored the event as recently as last spring.
“Given the fact that Wells Fargo has been an industry leader, they have partnered with many African American and Latino national civil rights organizations on various community initiatives,” the statement said.
The Illinois lawsuit against Wells is one of many such actions winding their way through the court system around the country, offering more details of alleged discriminatory tactics by lenders during the height of the subprime boom. As TWI reported last week, housing advocates call these lawsuits the “smoking guns” of the housing crisis, providing what they see as proof that lenders deliberately targeted minorities for high-rate and risky subprime mortgages, while white borrowers with similar incomes and credit scores received lower-cost loans.
In a city of Baltimore lawsuit against Wells, former employees charged that Wells Fargo loan officers referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans.” But some prominent black bloggers find the “wealth building” seminars just as egregious, and question why Smiley, Boston, and anyone else who participated in them hasn’t been called on further to account for their actions.
“If Tavis Smiley was white, Wells Fargo and ‘Ghetto Loans’ would be front page news,” wrote Genma Stringer Holmes, a Nashville, Tenn., business owner and blogger who has blasted out several posts on the seminars.
Holmes said Smiley should speak out more against discriminatory subprime lending practices – but he hasn’t been forced to, because the Black media has been silent on the issue, she said. The scandal that remains is that the ads and seminars targeted the most vulnerable members of black community, according to Holmes. “People who follow Tavis will follow him off a cliff,” Holmes said.
Boston said he still does seminars and presentations pushing wealth building, but he focuses on avoiding foreclosures and helping with loan modifications. He recently wrapped up work on an upcoming show on helping homeowners facing foreclosures, he said.
The symbol of the black panther was an export from Alabama. That's right. It didn't come from the streets of Oakland but from the struggle for freedom in the rural south where the cat was once common and eventually became a symbol on ballots during the voting rights drive in Lowndes, Alabama. That is just one of the remarkable stories in Hasan Kwame Jeffries' new book, Bloody Lowndes: Civil Rights and Black Power in Alabama’s Black Belt. A professor of history at Ohio State University, Jeffries discusses the legacy of the African-American struggle for freedom and the roots of the civil rights movement, which he traces back to the moment of emancipation.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House ethics committee said Wednesday it will put off for now an expanded investigation into whether Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. or his representatives tried to buy President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
The committee revealed that the deferred investigation now includes allegations that Jackson, a Democrat, improperly used his staff in Washington and Chicago to mount a public campaign to secure the Senate seat.
The committee acted at the behest of federal prosecutors who already are investigating former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The panel normally defers investigations when requested by law enforcement, to avoid interference with prosecutors.
The committee is looking into Jackson's interactions with Blagojevich, who has been indicted on corruption charges including alleged attempts to sell the seat now held by Democratic Sen. Roland Burris.
According to a criminal complaint, Jackson was one of several candidates to whom Blagojevich tried to shop the seat. Jackson's supporters were willing to raise $1.5 million for Blagojevich if he picked the congressman, according to the criminal complaint.
The congressman says he did nothing wrong.
Jackson's alleged use of staff was in a report by the new Office of Congressional Ethics, which reviews potential ethical violations by House members and staff and refers cases to the ethics committee of five Democrats and five Republicans.
The referral, made public by the ethics committee, stated, "In the course of conducting this review, the OCE learned that staff resources of the representative's Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Illinois offices were used to mount a 'public campaign' to secure the representative's appointment to the U.S. Senate.
"In doing so, Representative Jackson may have violated federal law and House rules concerning the proper use of the Member's Representational Allowance." The allowance is a monetary amount allotted to each congressional office for official operations.
The committee also said it would delay for 45 days inquiries involving California Democrat Maxine Waters and Missouri Republican Sam Graves.
On a visceral level the scene couldn’t have been more terrifying: a sea of angry virtually all White protesters wielding an array of anti-government, anti-socialist, Obama-as-marauding-terrorist signs, raining fundamentalist wrath on the Capitol.
“Thank God 4 Fox,” one woman's sign proclaimed, rising like an incendiary beacon from a motley crew of “insurgents” dressed in revolutionary war garb and other assorted costumes.
Despite Republican claims that this weekend’s protest represented a broad cross-section of constituents, the performance on the Capitol was yet another demonstration of the racist provincial fear-mongering that characterized the 2008 presidential campaign. The oft-cited fantasy of the U.S. magically transforming into a post-racial society as a result of Obama’s election has been belied by the precipitous decline of his approval ratings among Whites, casualty of the GOP’s thinly-veiled racialized appeals to the White conservative base of Sarah Palin and far right reactionary special interests.
Inflamed by the Fox News Network and talk radio, the intersection of far right tax revolt protesters, reactionary health insurance industry shills, “birthers,” and fundamentalist Christian foot soldiers has succeeded in infusing every major policy initiative that the decidedly centrist Obama administration pursues with Orwellian overtones.
What is the connection between this climate of 24/7 Fox engorged right wing propaganda and the religious extremism that has so dominated American politics for nearly two decades? Contrary to earlier predictions, the election of Barack Obama has not dimmed the zealotry of the Religious Right, rather it has invigorated it and propelled it to new heights of pious hysteria.
Over the past several months, health care reform has transmogrified into death panels and a government conspiracy to provide federal funding for abortion on demand. Fundamentalist coalitions like the newly-formed Freedom Federation—a group of far right wing organizations like Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council and Gary Bauer’s Campaign for Working Families—claim that health care reform is in their line of fire because of the prospect of further government incursions into so-called Christian charity.
In its response to the Obama administration the Freedom Federation has proposed that the government allow churches and faith-based organizations (Satanist, Wiccans ready your applications) to provide care for the uninsured. Speaking for the Federation on MSNBC Perkins declared a government “takeover” of health care fundamentally anti-God and anti-Christian because “Trying to give it off to the government is an abdication of personal responsibility.” Rather, the government should redirect its misguided efforts to expand health care to the 47 million uninsured and simply ratchet up its multi-million dollar faith-based handouts to mega-churches.
This would enable the faith community to serve all of the Bristol Palin abstinence-only sex-ed graduates seeking abortions and HIV/AIDS afflicted LGBT patients--courting hellfire and damnation due to their promiscuous gay lifestyles. Despite bending over backward to assure religious groups that federal funding would not go to abortion, organizations like the Federation continue to unleash anti-government propaganda to foment uprising. After a discussion with President Obama and other religious conservatives in which Obama quoted Scripture, Perkins denounced Obama’s hoodwink, blustering that using “Scripture like silly putty to wrap around radical ideas is not going to be sold to the Christian community.”
The idea that expanding access to the millions of uninsured constitutes radicalism is one of the more egregious examples of moral corruption within the conservative Christian community. Rather than defend a universe in which even poor Cubans in Havana and Chinese in Communist China have better health care than unemployed middle class people in the U.S., the Religious Right should challenge the amoral corporate hierarchies that restrict access to citizens of the wealthiest nation on the planet. Yet this would not serve the Fox brigade’s Orwellian agenda.
According to RightWingWatch.org the platform of Perkins and company is indistinguishable from a States Rights free market manifesto of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Further privatizing health care to subsidize religious special interests already deep in the back pocket of government threatens the fading prospect of equalitarian care for all regardless of life circumstance or sexual orientation. For example, it would reinforce the Bush era policy (the so-called “conscience clause” which the Obama administration recommended rescinding) of allowing doctors to opt out of medical procedures like abortion or fertility treatments due to their religious beliefs.
The resurgence of the Religious Right—bolstered by Obama’s own continued investment in George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative policy—is fertile ground for a full-blown palace revolt of powder keg conspiracy theorists, anti-government extremists and other disaffected nut jobs that gained sway during the Oklahoma City era. The debate over health care reform may unfortunately be a mild first salvo.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and the author of the forthcoming book Scarlet Letters: Essays on race/gender politics, atheism and secular belief in America.
Our campaign to hold Glenn Beck accountable for his race-baiting and fear-mongering has been a great success, with 62 advertisers making it clear that they don't want their brands linked to Beck's vile rhetoric. Up until now, however, there's been a question of what the real consequences are for Beck and for Fox, especially as Beck's ratings have soared. It's starting to become clear.
Today, we're announcing that Glenn Beck's show has lost over 50% of its advertising dollars since just before our campaign started. From our press release about the news:
The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources.
Estimated advertising revenue [the total amount of advertising money being spent during a block of commercial time for a program] was collected on a week-by-week basis for a period of two months. According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck's program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck's estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000.
"Fox News Channel has consistently claimed they haven't lost revenue as advertisers abandon Glenn Beck, but the numbers prove otherwise," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Fox News Channel has a limited amount of ad positions. If 62 companies refuse to run ads on two of their 24 hours of programming, they are losing inventory. No matter how high Beck's ratings have been lately, advertisers still see Beck as toxic and don't want him associated with their brands. There is no way that Fox News Channel is making the money they should be making with Glenn Beck."
Our campaign is working. Respectable companies don't want to be associated with Beck or support his show with their dollars. It's resulting in a major loss of funding for his show, and at the same time making it clear that Beck's race-baiting and fear-mongering are far outside the mainstream.
The longer Beck stays isolated, the more of a problem he'll be for Fox, and the less he'll be able to spread his lies and distortions. If we can keep the pressure on, Fox will have to make a choice: 1) drop Beck because it doesn't make business sense to keep him; or 2) communicate to the world that they're so intent on providing a platform for race-baiting and fear-mongering that they don't care if they lose money (a serious problem for a public company like News Corporation, the owner of Fox).
Thanks for everything you've done to make this effort a success -- none of it could have happened without the more than 200,000 of you who have stepped to be a part of this campaign. More than ever, it's time to keep the pressure on. You can help by joining us in thanking the advertisers that have stopped supporting Glenn Beck, and calling on those whose ads are still running on his show to follow suit.
My heart breaks and bosom aches for the shock of inhumanity you are being forced to see in this moment. If I could right now, I would gently pull you into my arms and cradle you as my child. I would blanket you in the comfort of knowing that you are of a people who are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Fearful in that when other’s epistemologies are too minimalistic to understand our existence, they have sought to devalue and diminish it. Yet wonderful we are, for we live knowing it has never been about us, but an obsession with validating irrationally supercilious ideologies.
If I could, I would bend your chin and connect with your eyes and beg you to allow me to make amends for the things I have let my memory erase. I would bathe you in a wash tub of tears as the century of years return unto me—remembering the persisting global attacks on Black women’s bodies.
I would kneel down with you and cry out libations for Saartjie and offer humble apologies for all the time expended before we could finally give her rest. I would mourn all the names that cannot be recalled, lost to the hypocrisy of Western medicine vested in white supremacy, for as slaves stripped of human dignity we were sacrificed upon the alter of modern gynecology.
If I could, right now I would hold on to you for dear life and reassure you that you do not have to choose to do anything other than live. No one could ever strip you of the victories you have and will continue to win, for our glory is not of man. In the short time of your living, you are teaching of the deep sense of courage, honor, and dignity that is our legacy.
With love that is all powerful, patient and kind, I would rescue you from this diabolical global attack. I would show you how wrong many are in believing it takes the presence of ovaries to be a daughter, “normalized” levels of estrogen to be a sister, or the opening of a womb to be a mother.
But Caster, most importantly, I earnestly plead that you allow me to shoulder this cross with you because I can. From across the ocean and spanning global miles, I reach out to you for the daughter you are and for all of our daughters to come.
Sincerely,
Stephany Rose
Stephany R. Spaulding is a an assistant professor of English who teaches literature and critical race theory at Claflin University in Orangeburg, South Carolina.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Afro-Netizen contacted Prof. Spaulding immediately upon reading an e-mail message (forwarded to us by a long-time supporter) that contained the above open letter -- which was prefaced by the following note . . .
On this day that many of us will say "good morning" several times, I am deeply troubled. I am troubled by the reality of the space and communities in which we live, where I can wake up to tweets and facebook statuses ranting about the apology and protection we should be demanding for a country pop star, who one person (as ignorant in his behavior that he may have been) did not find should have been named the most popular for the year. I am troubled because for the last month our daughter and our sister has been globally brutalized, yet the tweets and statuses demanding her protection and respect of her humanity have been far and few between. Thus, I wake up this morning in an effort to make it a "good" one with a public letter to Caster Semenya. If you agree, this will be the email that you circulate throughout your "friends database" today. If you believe in globally protecting the humanity of black women's bodies, then you can number and add your name to the count. Be and live well,
We mourn in different ways and for different reasons.
Some mourn for the Americans who were killed in the Attacks of September 11th. Many like me mourn the tragic deaths of all who were killed in the attacks in New York City, Washington, DC and Shanksville, PA and the related deaths that preceded the Attacks here and abroad.
Others also mourn the soldiers and civilians killed in the military aftermath of the Attacks.
Peace-loving Muslims and other enlightened people of faith around the world mourn the seemingly indelible stain they fear those 19 assassins put on Islam when they weaponized those hijacked planes on September 11th.
Many mourn the theft of civil liberties and the shunning of humanitarianism in pursuit of an instant balm that still scars instead of heals our small, imperiled planet.
Still more mourn the narrowing of what once was a broad-shouldered patriotism that could not be confused with jingoistic rhetoric, obsequious complicity with the war-mongers, and conspicuous ornamentation that for too many in positions of influence has been a derelict proxy for moral courage and humanitarian leadership.
On September 11th, I watched in stunned silence evil strike where Ground Zero now remains.
Silence is how many have chosen to honor the lives -- not lost -- but stolen from this physical world, by what happens when festering rage turns to terror.
Indeed, we mourn in different ways.
But silence is not always reverence. And as we have seen in the aftermath of the Attacks, silence can also be the enemy.
Nationalistic pageantry has little meaning to me either as we memorialize the dead who hailed from more places far beyond American borders -- from more nations than most of us can identify on a map.
No, today, Afro-Netizen will memorialize this infamous day of terror by sharing a song whose lyrics were borne out of a centuries-long tradition of coping with terror called, "We Shall Overcome", a protest song whose simple, but moving melody comes in part from "No More Auction Block For Me also known as "Many Thousands Gone", 19th century spirituals deeply rooted in the scourge of America's domestic terrorism of slavery and Jim Crow.
So, in some ways "We Shall Overcome" is indeed a mourning song, yet one that is anything but mournful.
Its lyrics, gravitas, cultural resonance -- and its history of how, why and where it has been sung all represent the hope, humility and humanity that to me provide the balm so missing from the often cynical marketing of this important anniversary.
We Shall Overcome (lyrics)
We shall overcome, we shall overcome,
We shall overcome someday; Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday.
The Lord will see us through, The Lord will see us through,
The Lord will see us through someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday. We're on to victory, We're on to victory,
We're on to victory someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We're on to victory someday. We'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand, We'll walk hand in hand someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We'll walk hand in hand someday. We are not afraid, we are not afraid, We are not afraid today;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We are not afraid today. The truth shall make us free, the truth shall make us free,
The truth shall make us free someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
The truth shall make us free someday. We shall live in peace, we shall live in peace, We shall live in peace someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall live in peace someday.
Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids’ lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.
But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President’s progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.
There was another, more personal motivation too. Beck was trying to change the subject from the previous week, when headlines were dominated by dozens of major advertisers dropping his show. Beck had no choice but to up the ante, and at the same time indirectly take on the group responsible for his shrinking ad roster. His distortions not surprisingly found purchase on other Fox News shows, spread to the mainstream media, and rather than let this circus distract from the relaunch of health care and the rest of the President’s agenda, Van chose to fall on his sword.
In the fallout, one thing is certain: wherever Van decides to go from here he will be a force. But now that he has left the White House, it’s time to change the subject back to Beck.
Why the boycott matters
There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform. But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling. To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck’s show, including six new companies announced yesterday — Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. These aren’t liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck’s distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don’t want their brands associated with Glenn Beck’s extremism. The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.
To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck’s show
The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it’s so important to keep the heat on. Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing. But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe. Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation?
A word on the boycott’s origins
After ColorOfChange launched our campaign, some bloggers and reporters tried to discredit the effort by claiming that we launched the campaign to protect Van. It’s an absurd accusation. Van hasn’t worked with ColorOfChange in years, and our concern about Beck was far bigger than sleights against a former colleague. We began our campaign for the same reason 180,000 people have joined us: Glenn Beck called the president of the United States a “racist” who “has a deep seated hatred for White people,” which was just the latest example of his virulent race-baiting and fear-mongering.
A line in the sand
In the wake of Van’s resignation, some have wondered whether kicking the Beck hornet’s nest makes sense. I’ve got two thoughts in response. First, Beck and Fox trying to change the topic and counter-attacking with such force is probably a good indicator that we’re getting to them; if anything, now would be the time to go harder. Second, I believe we have no choice. Beck has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration, and has set his sights on Cass Sunstein as his next target. He has no plans to stop, and neither should we.
But it’s not just “czar”-hunting that’s at stake here. The right wing media machine, of which Beck is now one of the leading members, is the single greatest force standing in the way of change. They have already helped derail the conversation on health care, elevating accusations of Obama’s alliance with the Third Reich to some semblance of credibility. And they will do the same to the upcoming debates over clean energy, immigration, and every progressive policy priority. We simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring them. We must challenge them head on, expose their distortions, take away their advertisers, and position their views where they belong: far outside the bounds of any rational political discourse.
That is why ColorOfChange is redoubling our efforts to starve Beck of advertising dollars, and why we hope you will join us. The time has come to draw a line in the sand, not because of what Glenn Beck did to Van Jones, but because of what he could do to our democracy if left unchecked.
Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:
When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average
of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system
was on the verge of collapse.
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their
bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and
vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those
Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek
capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can
stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold
and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with
confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the
brink.
I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your
support in these last several months, and especially those who have
taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I
also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve
during this trying time for our nation.
But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a
future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that
is central to that future - and that is the issue of health care.
I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am
determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since
Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since,
nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican,
has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for
comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in
1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same
bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year,
decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point. Everyone
understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the
uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from
bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are
middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are
self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own
costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your
employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are
still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that
insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy
nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people.
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy
nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There
are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get
coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes
without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000
Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a
problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had
less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans
worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose
your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums,
only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their
coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It
happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of
chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported
gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment,
and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a
double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy
because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her
insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That
is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way
in the United States of America.
Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half
times more per person on health care than any other country, but we
aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance
premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many
employers - especially small businesses - are forcing their employees
to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.
It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a
business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete
internationally - like our automakers - are at a huge disadvantage. And
it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and
growing tax for those without it - about $1,000 per year that pays for
somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden
on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it
puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do
nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be
spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government
program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit
problem. Nothing else even comes close.
[O]ur health care problem is our deficit
problem.
Nothing else even comes close.
These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.
There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the
system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would
severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government
provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue
that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to
buy health insurance on their own.
I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both
approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would
disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care
represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to
build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an
entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of
you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.
During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.
We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better
part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve
reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have
completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today
that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before.
Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition
of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups and even drug
companies - many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is
agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be
done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan
spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward
their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare
tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no
hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score
short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our
opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of
charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
Now is the season for action.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas
of both parties together, and show the American people that we can
still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on
health care.
The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health
insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will
slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses,
and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take
responsibility for meeting this challenge - not just government and
insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan
that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats
and Republicans - and yes, from some of my opponents in both the
primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who
already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or
the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to
change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing
in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better
for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance
companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As
soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance
companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when
you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary
cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a
lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for
out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one
should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be
required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and
preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no
reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon
cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it
saves lives.
That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't
currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will
finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or
change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on
your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.
We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace
where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health
insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an
incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete
for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will
have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for
better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and
government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in
this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every
American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.
For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford
the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide
tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all
insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have
to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange
will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.
In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today
because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately
offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if
you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain
proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should
embrace it.
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those
- particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk
and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do
right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior
costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and
people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for
those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses
don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up
the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an
unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does
their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially
requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just
can't be achieved.
That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry
basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto
insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their
workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their
workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who
still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because
of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these
requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who
can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to
themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only
works if everybody does their part.
While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I
believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just
outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange
that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable
coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get
insurance.
And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit
Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.
Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past
few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about
reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies
that are still out there.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by
those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example
is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but
prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats
with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be
laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie,
plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure
illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing
would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more
misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal
dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws
will remain in place.
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose
reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As
proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the
uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance
option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and
always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and
competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market
is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is
controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of
insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for
insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking
the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by
overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up
rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They
do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive
testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged
to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it.
All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called
"Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of
business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our
friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The
insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But
an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by
making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance
exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who
don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would
not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on
Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of
Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't
like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly
compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were
subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have
insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance
option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it
collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at
private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and
executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It
would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies
affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public
colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to
students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private
colleges and universities.
It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a
public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its
impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media.
It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy
excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive
friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind
reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage
affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to
that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our
ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than
making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we
should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into
effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not
providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another
non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive
ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle
that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you
with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or
insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you
need.
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to
members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for
this plan.
Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that
adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period.
And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan
that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings
we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion
dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because
too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the
Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same
mistake with health care.
Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by
finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that
is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the
hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't
make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of
medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when
it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.
In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment,
because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery
and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle
that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to
struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how
Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed
down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the
Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions
of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in
Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything
to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also
create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged
with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
These steps will ensure that you - America's seniors - get the
benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there
for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the
gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of
dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That's
what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary
stories about how your benefits will be cut - especially since some of
the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against
Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would
have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.
That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.
Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system,
making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way
we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have
long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah
or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer
high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help
encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors
and medical professionals throughout the system - everything from
reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination
between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will
pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with
revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to
benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge
insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will
encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which
has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to
these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of
health care for all of us in the long-run.
Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side
of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical
malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't
believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to
enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to
unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of
ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on
practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered
authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these
issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and
Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.
Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900
billion over ten years - less than we have spent on the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few
Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous
administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already
being spent - but spent badly - in the existing health care system. The
plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater
security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of
health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will
actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas
from many of the people in this room tonight - Democrats and
Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks
ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be
there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the
calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve
it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old
tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent
what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the
status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our
deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will
close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and
need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be
true.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans
counting on us to succeed - the ones who suffer silently, and the ones
who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and
in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our
beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in
May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked
that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks
to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his
children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this
would be the year that health care reform - "that great unfinished
business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He
repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future
prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than
material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral
issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental
principles of social justice and the character of our country."
I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days - the
character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about
America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism,
our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.
And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always
been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism
represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion
for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big
government.
But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here - people of
both parties - know that what drove him was something more. His friend,
Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with
health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked
together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows
that. They worked together to provide health care to children with
disabilities.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some
rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of
having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer
terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly
sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without
insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or
an aging parent - there is something that could make you better, but I
just can't afford it.
That large-heartedness - that concern and regard for the plight of
others - is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a
Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our
ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all
in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are
there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work
and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and
fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step
in to help deliver on that promise.
This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over
half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen
their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social
Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress
stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued
that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members
of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined
together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic
peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and
should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are
instances when the gains in security from government action are not
worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood
that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too
little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can
crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be
exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter
how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any
efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts
and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom,
and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each
other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't
merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something
essential about ourselves.
What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult
this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are
deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand
that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down
the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one
more term.
We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape
it.
But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came
here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape
it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we
can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still
believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet
history's test.
Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our
character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United
States of America.
Martin Luther King once dubbed Sunday at 11:00 a.m. as the most segregated hour in America, a microcosm of the titanic divide that specifically separates black and white America. Yet racial divisions are not the only prominent schism in the Sunday churchgoing ritual that encompasses much of the social and cultural life experience of one of the most God-obsessed nations on the planet.
Despite all the “liberal” revisions to biblical language and claims to progressivism among some Christian denominations, mainstream Protestantism is still, of course, a Jim Crow throwback and a man’s man’s world. As Mark Galli, editor of the Evangelical magazine Christianity Today once remarked, “It’s a cliché now to call institutional religion 'oppressive, patriarchal, out of date and out of touch.' So what else is new? I feel sorry for those people who don't think there's anything greater than themselves…It leaves out the communal dimension of faith.”
From the Deep South to South Los Angeles, this “communal dimension of faith” is one of the most compelling and problematic aspects of women’s investment in organized religion. When it comes to accounting for the disproportionate male to female ratio for self-identified atheists, there has been much wrongheaded conjecture about the supposed emotionalism of women versus the rationality of men. Bloggers muse about women’s intuitive sensitivity to the warm and fuzzy “verities” of religious dogma. Women are portrayed as naturally timorous and thus less inclined to question or suspend belief about the inconsistencies of organized religion.
For the most part, there has been no serious evaluation of the perceived gendered social benefits of religious observance versus the social costs of espousing such a gender non-conforming “individualist” ideology as atheism, particularly with respect to American born women of color. Indeed, in many communities of color the very structure of organized religion offers a foundation for the articulation of female gendered identity that has been a source of agency and an antidote to marginalization. On the other hand, patriarchy entitles men to reject organized religion with few implications for their gender-defined roles as family breadwinners or purveyors of cultural values to children.
Men simply have greater cultural license to come out as atheists or agnostics because of the gender hierarchies that ascribe rationalism, individualism, intellectualism and secular or scientific inquiry to masculinity. So women in traditionally religious communities who come out in real time (as opposed to online) risk greater ostracism because women don’t have the cultural and authorial privilege to publicly express their opposition to organized religion as men.
African American women provide an illustrative case in point. Imagery such as filmmaker Tyler Perry’s bible thumping malapropism spewing Madea, heavyset black women in brightly colored choir robes belting out gospel music and sweat-drenched revelers cataleptic from getting the holy ghost are some of the most common mainstream representations of black femininity. These caricatures are buttressed by the unwavering financial and social support of the black church, which is predominantly Christian-based, by African American communities of all income brackets.
According to BlackDemographics.com, African Americans remain the most solidly religious racial group in the United States, outstripping whites in their churchgoing fervor by a nearly 20% margin. Sunday in and Sunday out, between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., a familiar scene emerges in both working and middle class black communities across the nation. Black women shuttle dutifully to church in their sartorial best, backbone of a dubious institution that still accords them only second class citizen standing.
The gender dynamics in the breakdown of regular churchgoers reflect an utterly predictable disparity in power and access. While more black women have been allowed to assume leadership roles in black churches in recent years, they remain a minority among deacons, pastors and senior pastors of most black congregations. So although black women are far more likely than men to attend church more than once a week, the officialdom of black religious establishments, and certainly the political face of the black church, is steadfastly male.
What is the relationship between these gendered religious hierarchies and cultural politics in African American communities? Christian religiosity pervades the slang of misogynist black hip hop artists and sports figures and worms its way into their Jesus touting boilerplate award acceptance speeches. Christian religiosity engorges multi-million dollar faith-based empires in poor urban black communities where “prime” real estate is often a triad of storefront churches, liquor stores and checking cashing places.
Sex scandals and financial improprieties fester amongst the leadership of black churches yet sexist and homophobic rhetoric remain a mainstay. Blind faith speaks through bulging collection plates and special tithes to the latest charity, pastor’s pet cause or capital campaign, “blessing” donors with another chit to heaven and certitude that black apostates are also race traitors. If mainstream African American notions of black identity are defined by a certain degree of essentialism, then religious identity is certainly a key element. Alternative belief systems are viewed with suspicion because they are deemed to be inconsistent with authentic black identity.
Given this context it is unsurprising that comedian and self-appointed dating guru Steve Harvey’s recent diatribe against atheism went largely unchallenged by African American cultural critics. Harvey’s swaggeringly ignorant declaration that atheists have no morals was not only a repudiation of atheism but a thinly veiled warning to black women that they should tow the religious line with their personal choices. Failure to do so would have serious consequences for racial solidarity and their ability to be good (black) women, compromising their heterosexual marketability and legitimacy as marriage partners and mothers. It is this brand of essentialism that makes stereotypes associating black identity politics with an anti-secularist stance and religious superstition so irritatingly persistent.
While the greater religiosity of women of color in comparison to men is no mystery, why is it that this peculiarly gendered regime gone relatively unquestioned? The gravity of the social and economic issues confronting black communities—and the tremendous cultural capital and social authority that organized religion exercises within them— compels further analysis.
Just as women are socialized to identify with and internalize misogynistic and sexist paradigms, religious paradigms that emphasize domestication and obeisance to men are integral to mainstream American notions of femininity. For many observant women questioning or rejecting religion outright would be just as counterintuitive as rejecting their connection to their lived experiences. In this regard religious observance is as much a performance and reproduction of gender identity as it is an exercise of personal “morality.” Many of the rituals of black churchgoing forge this sense of gendered identity as community.
Whether it be maintaining ties with peers within the context of a church meeting, ensuring impressionable children have some “moral” mooring by sending them to Sunday School or even invoking sage bits of scripture to chasten malcontents, enlighten casual acquaintances or infuse one’s quotidian doings with purpose—all carefully delineate enactments of kin and community that have been compulsorily drilled into women as the proper fulfillment of a gendered social contract. And if this gendered social contract were violated en masse patriarchy and heterosexism would have less of a firmament.
What, then, are the lessons for promoting secular humanist, agnostic or atheist belief systems? First, that there must be more clearly defined alternatives to supernaturalism which speak to the cultural context of diverse populations of women and people of color. Second, that moral secular values should provide the basis for robust critique of the serious cultural and socioeconomic problems that have been allowed to thrive in communities of color under the regime of organized religion.
Finally, in an intellectual universe where rock star white men with publishing contracts are the most prominent atheists and atheism is perceived in some quarters as a “white” thing, it is also critical that acceptance and embrace of non-supernatural belief systems be modeled in communities of color “on the ground.” Only then can secularism defang the seductions of the communal dimension of faith that defines our most segregated hour.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a presenter at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International Conference in October.
If you thought the targeting of Van Jones for vilification by the
right was about his race, his youthful flirtation with socialism, or a
petition he signed about the 9/11 attacks, you'd only be a little bit
right. And if you think it was about the Color of Change campaign against Glenn Beck's show on FOX NewsChannel, you'd really miss the mark.
The racism and red-baiting suffered by Jones at the hands of Beck and
his admirers are simply key elements in a marketing strategy designed
to serve Very Big Business -- the oil and other business interests that
support the astroturfing group Americans for Prosperity. The strategy
is simple: prey upon the worst fears of the right-wing folks who live
next door in order to get them to organize against their own interests.
When word of Van Jones' resignation from his White House post hit the
airwaves, Americans for Prosperity's Phil Kerpen, the group's policy
director, wasted no time in taking personal credit. In his column on
FOXNews.com, Kerpen wrote, "The Van Jones affair…is one of the most significant things I've ever had the honor of being involved in."
Progressives first became familiar with Americans for Prosperity because of its role, along with Glenn Beck's 912 Project,
in organizing the disruption of town-hall meetings across the country
at which members of Congress were scheduled to discuss pending
health-care reform legislation with their constituents. Many assumed
the AFP astroturfers, who are not required to disclose their funding
sources, were aligned specifically with health-care interests -- and
indeed they may be aligned with some. Look a little closer, though, and
you'll find at the top of their agenda the derailment of energy reform,
especially the cap-and-trade formula for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
Naming defeat of clean-energy legislation his "number one legislative
priority," Kerpen, in his FOX News column, details his role in
demonizing Jones in the right-wing echo-chamber from which Jones, as an
Obama aide, could not escape.
By his own account, Kerpen's quest to fell Van Jones began on July 9 --
weeks before Color of Change began to organize against Beck -- when he
was asked to appear on FOX & Friends
to explain "what green jobs are"; and to discuss Obama's green-jobs
"czar," Van Jones. A little research revealed Jones' involvement, early
in his activist career, with a group that embraced socialist values.
From there, Kerpen extrapolated, "the ‘green jobs' concept was merely a
new face on the old ideology of central economic planning and control,
an alternative and a threat to free market capitalism."
The month before, Kerpen explains, he and Beck had dubbed the
cap-and-trade energy reform legislation embraced by the Obama as "a
watermelon" -- "green on the outside but Communist red to the core."
(No racist intent in that characterization, of course.) Cap-and-trade
is a mechanism through which industrial plants are given permits to
produce X amount of pollution. After they've used up their allotment,
they can only pollute more by buying the unused permits of other
permit-holders. This creates incentives for certain businesses to limit
their greenhouse gas emissions for the monetary payoff of selling their
permits.
In Kerpen's August 28 appearance on Beck's show, he broadened his attack to include the Apollo Alliance,
on whose board Jones once sat. The Apollo Alliance seeks to build
public-private partnerships on green jobs, working with business, labor
unions, government officials and activists. After that, Kerpen brays,
Beck "began pounding away" on Jones.
Americans for Prosperity, FOX News and the Murdoch Agenda
Americans for Prosperity, as AlterNet reported,
works closely with the personalities of FOX News, and has long received
substantial funding by the oil money of David Koch, who serves as chairman of the board
of directors of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. But even that
fun fact offers too narrow a view of the agenda advanced by Americans
for Prosperity with the mighty assistance of Glenn Beck's uber-boss,
Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX and the Wall Street Journal, and
chairman of the colossal News Corporation. Together, these two entities
oppose any form of regulation that would disturb the status quo for
Very Big Business -- conglomerates that range in sector from nuclear
power to the for-profit prison industry.
To these entrenched interests, Van Jones is a very dangerous man,
indeed -- even as a mid-level White House aide. (Now that he is
"liberated" by his White House resignation, as AlterNet Executive
Editor Don Hazen writes, they may soon rue the day they sought to turn Jones out of the government.)
As inspirational speakers go, it's hard to find an equal to Jones, who
has already helped to broaden the clean-energy and environmental
movements far beyond their white, crunchy-granola base. Adept at
building coalitions and finding interdisciplinary approaches, Jones is
just the person to sell an abstract concept like cap-and-trade to
regular, cash-strapped Americans.
Jones' approach includes the greening of American cities, the
development of green jobs for inner-city citizens -- and especially for
repatriating ex-convicts into civil society -- as well as wonky
remedies like cap-and-trade. It's a fully integrated vision. As Jones
told me in an interview last year, "If you ... have to break up with oil and coal, you may as well break up with poverty and a bunch of other stuff."
Actually, in his FOX News column, Kerpen gets the Jones agenda pretty well:
He urged adoption of a carbon cap-and-trade program,
renewable electricity mandates, including Al Gore's outlandish and
impossible goal of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2018, large
taxpayer-funded green jobs programs, a so-called smart grid for
electricity, more mass-transit subsidies, higher fuel efficiency
standards for automobiles, federal funding for organic farms, a ban on
new coal plants, expanded ethanol mandates, and even a spirited,
multiple page pitch for a cash-for-clunkers program -- he called it
"Hoopties for Hybrids."
Kerpen's problem with this agenda?
As I explained previously on the FOX Forum, the push for
"green jobs" has everything to do with funding the far-left political
activities that Van Jones so adamantly believed in. Green jobs are not
economic jobs but political jobs, designed to funnel vast sums of
taxpayer money to left-wing labor unions, environmental groups, and
social justice community organizers.
Kerpen goes on to complain that "cap-and-trade…could send these
Green groups trillions…" And they stand to gain "billions," he writes,
from "the unspent portion of the stimulus bill," which he wants to see
repealed.
In essence, Kerpen's modus operandi is the latter-day
equivalent of the "Defund the Left" campaign embarked on by Howard
Phillips, a founder of the religious right, during his short stint in
the Nixon administration.
In addition to Glenn Beck and Americans for Prosperity, a less-noticed
player in the health-care drama is Grassfire, another astroturfing
outfit, which, as AlterNet reported, organized town-hall disrupters through its ResisNet
site. Grassfire is endosed by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who on
September 4, called upon Van Jones to resign, citing Jones' "extremist
views".
ResistNet is a social-networking hub for the armed patriot movement, as
well as racists and paranoids of all stripes. (On the day we visited,
we found one video comparing Obama to Hitler, and another featuring a
preacher who called him "a half-breed MacDaddy" and called upon "white
folks"; to "riot in the streets.") Grassfire is also organizing its
members for a ground assault on cap-and-trade.
The Stop-Obama Alliance
Make no mistake: Van Jones' resignation from the White House was the
work of the very same forces that brought you the rage of August's
town-hall meetings, where a rude and sometimes violent minority, using
the tactics of thugs, convinced mainstream media that the American
people rejected efforts by Obama and congressional Democrats to reform
health care. (Played over and over, that theme began to convinced even
Americans who thought they had wanted health-care reform began to doubt
themselves, thanks to the lies advanced by the town-hall screamers.)
Though these forces are most recognizably felt in the health-care
debate, stopping health-care reform is likely a means to a greater end.
It's far easier to upset people over their personal health care than it
is to get them ginned up over something as esoteric as cap-and-trade or
net neutrality (also targeted for legislative defeat by Americans for
Prosperity). But once you've used health-care reform to convince the
frightened and paranoid that the president is a white-people-hating
socialist (or fascist, depending on the day) who wants to kill off
Grandma, it's a lot easier to get them to oppose just about anything he
might propose.
A very powerful alliance, designed to motivate various iterations of
the grassroots of the right wing, is taking shape, and its players are
determined to win by any means necessary -- be they racism,
red-baiting, violence or lies. Americans for Prosperity, Grassfire,
Freedom Works (the Astroturf group led by former House Majority Leader
Dick Armey) and the Murdoch empire -- especially as represented by
Glenn Beck -- have teamed up to keep the air dirty, the poor in their
place and more people dying every day for lack of health care. But more
than anything, they've joined hands to keep the preponderance of the
earth's riches in the hands of a very few -- the rest of us be damned.
They're determined to die with the most toys, leaving a poisoned and
impoverished planet as their legacy.
I've been disappointed by white liberals and progressives' unwillingness and incompetence combating racism for 20 years. The inaction of large green groups Van Jones resignation is yet another example.
The NAACP, Equal Justice Society and Color of Change explicitly supported Van Jones before his resignation. On the white side, Treehugger, Grist and a few other small white organizations did. But the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and NRDC, who together must represent more than $100 million of mostly liberal and progressive foundations, big donors, and individual contributors money, were MIA. These groups either took a dive because the attacks on Van were racist, or they incompetently let the right set the terms of debate before entering. Either way America deserves better greens.
Here's today's Color Line Question: Are there organized white liberals that can be trusted to maintain their commitment to their issue when the right attacks with racist wedges? I appreciate white fellow travelers, like Tim Wise, and small white anti-racist organizations like Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, on the racial justice path. But they seem to have no influence on larger white groups like the Sierra Club, NOW, Common Cause, MoveOn, and other staples of the white left. To be clear, I'm not discussing whether white groups will take on issues of people of color, as I'm setting the bar much lower--can organized white liberals keep their eye on THEIR prize when the right's racism comes a calling?
It's been easy for progressives to attack President Obama for not defending Van--but do they really expect Obama to be out in front of the white left? It seem hypocritical to attack the White House for being spineless without attacking NRDC, Sierra Club, EDF and Greenpeace for being spineless as well.
Let's remember--the most radical thing said by any national figure about racism in the recent past was Obama saying the white cop acted stupidly. The left certainly didn't counter the right's racist framing of Obama's articulation of a racist incident.
In addition to this situation, in my political lifetime people of color have been let down by white national liberal organizations on mid-1990s welfare deform by white feminist groups, on prop 8 by white gay groups who blamed Black voters for it's passage, by white communications organizations on any number of issues including California propositions 187 (anti-Affirmative Action) and 209 (anti-immigrant), and many other times. Although some examples are from a decade ago, I see no indication that white liberals are any better on racism now.
Although whites will be a minority by around 2050, America has to survive that long. If white progressives either can't or won't oppose racism, then we'll need a new set of white progressive funders and leaders to do something better. And if white liberals continue to be unable or unwilling to challenge the right's racist attacks then we are truly on the path to fascism.
If white liberals ultimately fail to oppose racism we have a bigger disaster on our hands than climate change, because America's commitment to white supremacy, if left unchallenged, will prevent us from dealing with the other important issues of the day, like climate change. As long as white liberals think these are parallel, rather than continuous tracks, they will continue to fail miserably.
And the world and it's humans of all races can't take too many more failures. Or, more accurately, the world and all it's races can't take many more white failures.
UPDATE: On "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos,
Gibbs told Stephanopoulos that Obama thanks Jones for his service but
doesn't endorse his views or object to his resignation.
"What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was
bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his
service in the first eight months," Gibbs said.
Before Gibbs came on his show, Stephanopoulos tweeted ominously:
Van Jones resigns Hardly Saturday Night Massacre, but
when's last time WH official let go at midnight? Clearing deck pre
Gibbs on This Week
Van Jones, under fire from the extremist television show host for
his background in radical activism, has resigned from the
administration.
Jones was Special Adviser for Green Jobs at the Council on
Environmental Quality - the so-called 'Green Jobs' Czar. Jones' 2008
book, The Green Collar Economy, was a New York Times best-seller.
The saga began with Glenn Beck, a talk show host for Fox News, who
hammered at Jones relentlessly the last several weeks for his radical
past.
Jones never denied his past affiliation with the radical left. In
the '90s, he was involved with the group Standing Together to Organize
a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which sympathized with
Maoist-inspired peasant movements throughout the world and was
organized to protest police brutality.
Jones, however, left radical politics and made the decision to work
within the system, rather than try to overthrow it. For Beck, however,
Jones' past statements were evidence that Obama is secretly marshaling
a cadre of lieutenants pushing an agenda that is "radical,
revolutionary and in some cases Marxist." (Meanwhile, in reality, Obama
is backing away from even including a public health insurance option as
part of health care reform. How that squares with Obama's Marxist
agenda Beck has yet to explain.)
Before Beck mentioned Jones in the last few weeks on his Fox News
television show, Jones remained an obscure figure in the
administration. After Beck mentioned him, protesters at town hall
meetings made Jones a staple of their complaints.
Jones, in a statement, said he no longer wanted to be a distraction.
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy,
opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me.
They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide. I have been
inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum -- urging me
to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for
myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend
precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all
hands on deck, fighting for the future."
It's exceedingly unlikely that Beck will be satisfied by Jones'
resignation, seeing in it evidence that he was correct in his
assessment of Obama's supposed radical lieutenants. "Jones is the tip
of the iceberg," Beck has said.
Once Beck made Jones a target, a series of revelations put him in
political danger. Asked in February of this year why Republicans were
able to block Democratic legislation despite being wildly outnumbered,
he said, "The answer to that is, they're assholes."
Jones went on: "And Barack Obama is not an asshole. So, now, I will
say this: I can be an asshole, and some of us who are not Barack
Hussein Obama, are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity."
It also emerged that Jones had signed a "truther" petition back
in 2004. Truthers insist that there are unanswered questions about what
U.S. officials knew about the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks before they
occurred and want further investigations.
There's nothing inherently left-wing about 9/11 conspiracy theorists
or right-wing about birthers, though backers of each theory tend to
fall on opposite ideological extremes because of mistrust of the
president in question, be he Bush or Obama. But the birther movement
includes prominent Republicans, including members of Congress, while
connection to the truther movement can help cost a relatively obscure
administration official his job.
There's a lesson to be learned. "If you want to say batsh*t-crazy
stuff and still be treated as a respectable participant in the national
debate, you'd better be a Republican," gauged
blogger Mark Kleiman after hearing the news of Jones' resignation.
"Suggesting that President Bush invited the 9/11 attacks in order to
start a war is really no crazier than suggesting that President Obama
wants to let terrorists loose in the United States, or that he plans to
kill old people and disabled children, or that there's something
sinister about his encouraging schoolkids to study hard."
Those latter three charges, of course, have been leveled recently by elected Republican members of Congress.
A Jones remark about environmental justice also landed him in
trouble. He was accused of race-baiting for suggesting that "[t]he
white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially
steering poison into the people of color's communities because they
don't have a racial justice frame."
During the presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly threw aides
overboard who became political liabilities; White House observers saw
Jones' departure more as a matter of when rather than if.
His fate was sealed when Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to defend him at a recent press conference.
QUESTION: Van Jones. I know he has issued an apology for his
proctological remarks, but apparently there is also video of him
accusing white polluters of poisoning people of color communities. Does
the president still have confidence in this guy?
GIBBS: He continues to work in the administration, and I would refer
you to the statement that CEQ put out last night about this.
QUESTION: CEQ?
GIBBS: That's the Council on Environmental Quality
QUESTION: Yeah, but Robert is that as far as you are going to go with this?
GIBBS: That is the statement that has been put out last night.
QUESTION: The stories on television have been pretty offensive.
GIBBS: And I think if you refer to the statement, he apologized.
[snip]
QUESTION: Van Jones. His name appears on a 2004 petition, demanding
to know the truth about 9/11, whether or not the Bush Administration
played a role in 9/11 so as to justify a war for oil. He said in his
statement yesterday that he doesn't agree with that, and an
administration source said he didn't fully read it before he signed it,
he agreed to have his name signed to it. Now it comes out today that in
2002 he was on an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truther march. Your
administration has been very active in knocking down the so-called
Birthers, the people who allege without any evidence, and despite all
evidence to the contrary, that the president was not born in the United
States. How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to
a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?
GIBBS: Again, it is not something that the president agrees with, and again I would point you to the statement from CEQ.
QUESTION: How many past statements have to emerge before he no longer has the confidence of the president?
GIBBS: A good question for next time.
Jones' resignation, coming around midnight on the Saturday of a
three-day weekend, minimizes the amount of time Beck and his allies can
spend celebrating.
"It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in
this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and
encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to
the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and
years ahead," Jones said.
For Immediate Release September 2, 2009 Contact: Brandon Hatler – DumpGlennBeck at gmail dot com
11 New Companies Pledge Not to Run Additional Ads on Glenn Beck Program
Capital One, Mercedes-Benz, Discover Among Latest To Distance Themselves from FNC Host
OAKLAND, Calif.—Eleven new companies whose ads were recently seen during Beck’s program—Binder & Binder, Capital One, The Dannon Company, Discover, HSBC, ICAN Benefit Group Insurance, Infiniti, Jelmar (manufacturer of CLR All-Purpose Cleaner), Jordan McKenna Debt Counseling Network, Mercedes-Benz and Simplex Healthcare (creator of the Diabetes Care Club) —have pledged to ColorOfChange.org to take steps to ensure that their ads don’t run on Beck’s show. Fifty-seven companies have now committed not to support Beck’s show since ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign four weeks ago after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a “racist” who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people” during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
“We applaud those companies that have recently pulled their support from Beck,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “There are at least 57 companies who will not tolerate Beck’s race-baiting comments and we will continue to reach out to those who are still supporting him.”
Comments from advertisers recently distancing themselves from Beck:
In a phone conversation with ColorOfChange.org on Wednesday, Kathy Adkins, a Capital One spokesperson, confirmed that Capital One had instructed Fox News not to run the company’s ads during Beck’s program. “We don't plan on running any more ads on the Glenn Beck Show,” said Adkins. “We have checked with our advertising area and have confirmed that a few ads ran on the Glen [sic] Beck Show as part of a FOX TV buy at the beginning of August,” said Tommy Shi, Diversity and Inclusion Officer at Mercedes-Benz USA, in an email to ColorOfChange.org, “but no ads have run since on that show, nor are there plans to do so moving forward.”
“Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) considers its commitment to Diversity and Inclusion [sic] an integral part of its corporate culture and business strategy,” Shi added. “We believe that MBUSA's success is dependent on embracing the various cultures, nationalities and convictions of our associates and market that translate into meeting consumer needs and expectations for relevant products and services.”
“Discover is committed to supporting a wide variety of programming that features a diversity of talent, topics and opinions,” said Mai Lee Ua, Project Manager for Public Relations at Discover, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “Our current TV buys do not include any future airings on the Glenn Beck Show." Ua later added, “Our ads will not run during the show”.
“Infiniti has not placed any advertisements on this program for several weeks, and have no current plans to advertise on it in the future,” said Kyle W. Bazemore, Senior Manager of Product Communications at Infiniti, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. Bazemore later confirmed, “We have indeed instructed Fox not to place our ads on this program at this time.”
“We ceased advertising on the program and have no future plans for advertising on it,” said Cindy Savio, Vice-President of Public Affairs for HSBC-North America, in an email to ColorOfChange.org.
“We have requested that they [Fox News] re-schedule the spots,” said Dick Summer, Communications Director for Binder and Binder, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “Dannon doesn't plan to run any more ads on the program and we have informed the network of this,” said Michael J. Neuwirth, Senior Director of Public Relations for The Dannon Company & Danone Waters of America, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “We have contacted FOX News and demanded that our commercial not be run during the Glenn Beck show,” said Keith J. Waring, a spokesperson for the Jordan McKenna Debt Counseling Network, in an email to ColorOfChange.org.
“Please be advised that as of 8/28 we have fully removed ourselves from advertising within the Glenn Beck Show,” said Robyn Warren, a spokesperson for Koeppel Direct, the agency of record for Simplex Healthcare, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “Due to remnant buying that was in place, the lead time on pulling our advertising took longer but has been resolved.”
In a phone conversation with ColorOfChange.org on Monday, Dee Halloran, a spokesperson for ICAN Benefit Group, confirmed their request that Fox News not allow the company's ads to air during Glenn Beck's show.
“Jelmar typically cannot target specific shows or programming, and did not have a media buy specifically in place for Glenn Beck,” said Adrienne Gibbons, Marketing Director for Jelmar, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “We have chosen at this time to ask that FOX News keep our advertising from this program.”
Four weeks ago, ColorOfChange.org called on its members to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Glenn Beck to cut off their advertising support of his work. Shortly after reaching 150,000+ signatures, ColorOfChange.org began emailing those who signed the petition, asking them to call five major advertisers who continued to refuse to pull their ads: Clorox, Experian (creator of FreeCreditReport.com), Lowe’s, Red Lobster and Vonage. To date, Red Lobster is the only company in the group that has not yet responded. ColorOfChange.org still continues to reach out to those companies found running advertisements during Glenn Beck’s programs.
Previous companies who have corrected advertising errors and/or pulled their ads entirely include Airware Inc. (makers of Brez anti-snoring aids), Allergan (maker of Restasis), Ally Bank (a unit of GMAC Financial Services), Ancestry.com, Applebee’s, AT&T, Bank of America, Bell & Howell, Best Buy, Blaine Labs Inc., Broadview Security, Campbell Soup Company, ConAgra, Clorox, CVS, DirecTv, Ditech, The Elations Company, Experian (creator of FreeCreditReport.com), Farmers Insurance Group, GEICO, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson (makers of Tylenol), Kraft, Lawyers.com, Lowe’s, Men’s Wearhouse, NutriSystem, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Re-Bath, Regions Financial Corporation, Roche, Sam (Store and Move), SC Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Sargento, Sprint, State Farm Insurance, Traveler’s Insurance, Travelocity, The UPS Store, Verizon Wireless, Vonage and Wal-Mart.
With more than 600,000 members, ColorOfChange.org is the largest African-American online political organization in the country.
Big news today. We've confirmed that eight more major advertisers have pulled their support from Glenn Beck's show -- Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CVS, Travelocity, Allergan (maker of Restasis), Ally Bank, Broadview Security, and Re-Bath.
Overall, twenty advertisers have now ended their support of Beck. We're going to keep the pressure on Beck's remaining advertisers this week, and we'll let you know how you can help.
Details, including statements from these companies and links to media coverage, after the jump ...
Eight more Glenn Beck advertisers, including Wal-Mart -- the world's largest retailer -- have confirmed to ColorOfChange.org that they pulled their ads from the controversial Fox News Channel broadcaster's eponymous show. Allergan (maker of Restasis), Ally Bank (a unit of GMAC Financial Services), Best Buy, Broadview Security, CVS, Re-Bath, Travelocity and Wal-Mart join the dozen other companies who previously distanced themselves from Beck.
Twenty companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show in just the last two weeks. The moves come after the Fox News host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends. Previous companies who pulled their ads include ConAgra, GEICO, Lawyers.com, Men's Wearhouse, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Roche, SC Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Sargento, and State Farm Insurance.
"We are heartened to see so many corporate citizens step up in support of our campaign against Glenn Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "Their action sends a clear a message to Glenn Beck: Broadcasters shouldn't abuse the privilege they enjoy by spewing dangerous and racially charged hate language over the air. No matter their political affiliation, hate language doesn't belong in our national dialogue."
"Walmart [sic] today confirmed the retailer pulled ads from the Glenn Beck show on August 3rd," said David Tovar, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart, in an email to ColorOfChange.org.
"While advertising on Fox is part of our communication plan, we had not requested time on Glenn Beck's show specifically," said Carolyn Castel, Vice President of Corporate Communications for CVS Caremark, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We have instructed our advertising agency to inform Fox to ensure Glenn Beck's program is not part of our advertising plan."
"Our position is simple," Castel continued. "We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful, in keeping with our company's core values and commitment to diversity."
In an email exchange with ColorOfChange.org, Lisa Svac Hawks, Director of Public Relations for Best Buy, stated that any advertisements for Best Buy that were placed on Glenn Beck's show were done so in error. Svac Hawks pledged that Best Buy will correct any mistakes made.
"We did not specifically place our ad on the show," said Amanda Borichevsky, a spokesperson for Travelocity in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We buy ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly. However, we have now specifically asked that our ads do not appear during this show."
"We reviewed our commercial schedule, and based on your feedback, we've put any programming featuring Glenn Beck on our "do not air" list," said Aziz Mottiwala, Senior Marketing Manager for Allergan, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "This means that you will no longer see any Restasis ads during programming featuring Glenn Beck. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention."
"Ally advertises on a broad spectrum of programs to reach our potential customers," said a Customer Care Representative for Ally Bank. "Our advertising is not an endorsement of editorial content on any program. We have ceased to advertise on the Glenn Beck program."
In a phone conversation with Dwayne Sigler, Senior Vice President of Marketing for Broadview Security Systems, Sigler told ColorOfChange.org that Broadview's advertising is bought based on network, not particular programs, but that "given the considerations, we have requested of Fox News not to include us in the rotation that would have our commercials running on Glenn Beck's show."
"...We are no longer airing our commercials on the Glenn Beck Show..." said Mary Beth Mayer, spokesperson for Re-Bath, in a phone message to ColorOfChange.org.
As the list of advertisers who don't want themselves associated with Beck continues to grow, our campaign is also getting major media attention, which helps send a strong message to Fox and to Beck's remaining advertisers. Last week, our campaign was mentioned in several media and advertising industry publications, on MSNBC, in the New York Times, and by Stephen Colbert.
Thanks to everyone who has stepped up and joined this campaign (there are more than 145,000 of you now) -- this wouldn't be possible without your voice. What we've achieved so far is incredible -- it's rare for a campaign directed at a TV show's advertisers to be this successful.
But we won't stop here. We're going to continue reaching out to Beck's remaining advertisers, and we'll keep you informed on how you can help us escalate the pressure.
ATLANTA--The goal of America’s correctional facilities is supposed to be punishing criminals for wrongdoing, and preparing them to reenter our society. But the successful transition of inmates back to their communities is severely hampered by many factors, including the poor quality of mental health treatment in jails and prisons and the inability of ex-convicts to obtain mental health counseling and medication once they are released.
Some experts argue that the root cause of this problem was a public policy decision several decades ago to deinstitutionalize mental health services, a process that has closed many institutions across the country that had housed and treated people for mental illnesses.
The unfortunate reality, probably unintended, is that the nation’s prisons and jails now house far more people with mental illnesses than mental health facilities. This is fraught with problems: the nation’s overcrowded correctional facilities lack the resources, training or medicine to properly treat inmates needing mental health treatment.
In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a study noting that more than half of all prison and jail inmates, including 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners and 64 percent of local jail inmates, were found to have mental health problems. Even more troubling, their report said that only one in three state prisoners, one in four federal prisoners and one in six jail inmates who had mental health problems received treatment while incarcerated.
Still, federal, state and local officials have been slow to address this serious issue. However, the courts are condemning the inhumane conditions in prisons and joining with health activists, reentry experts and community leaders to demand changes.
In California, for instance, federal judges issued an August 4th order that the prison population must be reduced by 40,000 inmates, one-fourth of those incarcerated. The judges cited the horrible conditions, specifically referencing poor mental health treatment. “The medical and mental health care available to inmates in the California prison system is woefully and constitutionally inadequate, and has been for more than a decade," the judges wrote in their ruling. “Tragically, California's inmates have long been denied… minimal level of medical and mental health care, with consequences that have been serious and often fatal... A significant number of inmates have died as a result.”
At the 2009 Freedom Voices Conference sponsored recently by the Morehouse School of Medicine Community Voices Program, a panel of experts discussed the scope of the mental health problems at correctional facilities.
“Two of the largest mental health treatment facilities in the country are the Los Angeles County Jail and Rikers Island in New York,” said Judge Stephen Goss, who oversees the Dougherty County Georgia Superior Court Mental Health/Substance Abuse Treatment Program. “Pick any state and you'll pretty much find that more people are treated for mental health issues in their jails and prisons than any single or collective group of state hospitals and clinical facilities.” Judge Goss related a typical scenario for repeat offenders:
“We have people coming in. They're on medication. They're doing pretty good; holding down a job; taking care of their family…then something happens, a stress event - spouse loses their job, kid has a fender-bender in the parking lot, whatever it might be -- and things start piling on and then they either quit taking their medicine or they mix alcohol with their prescription meds, which is very volatile, or street drugs. Most folks that come into court with mental health issues have a co-occurring substance abuse disorder…they're loud, they're disoriented, the neighbors wear out with them, they call the paramedics, they tussle with the EMT, the sheriff's deputies get called, they land in the jail.”
What’s usually missing is some kind of intervention that recognizes the mental illness and that this person was fine when medication was used properly.
In Doughty County, Judge Goss established a treatment program where the courts, police, probation officers and mental health officials together address mental illnesses, with an eye towards keeping people out of jail. When the program started eight years ago, participants averaged approximately 130 days a year in the county jail. Three years later, 40 percent of the participants had not returned to jail, and the average jail time was reduced to 30 days a year.
The program demonstrates what can be accomplished when authorities, the community and mental health officials work together.
Clearly, if the nation’s criminal justice system is ever going to rehabilitate inmates and send them back as productive citizens in their communities, mental health treatment must become a public policy priority. It’s time for action by local, state and federal officials.
Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell is director of Community Voices at Morehouse School of Medicine, a nonprofit organization working to improve health services and health-care access for all Americans. Media seeking interviews with Dr. Treadwell, please contact Alicia Ingram at ingramalicia at bellsouth dot net or 404-493-1724.
Have so many blue-chip advertisers ever fled a program as quickly as the who's who of corporate America that's sprinted away from Glenn Beck in recent weeks? I certainly cannot recall ever seeing a mass exodus of this scale.
The A-list collection of disgruntled Beck advertisers is staggering: Applebee's, AT&T, Bank of America, Best Buy, Campbell Soup, Clorox, ConAgra, CVS, Ditech, Farmers Insurance Group, GEICO, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Lowe's, Nutrisystem, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Sprint, State Farm Insurance, The UPS Store, Travelers Insurance, Verizon Wireless, Vonage, and Wal-Mart, among others.
If any television program had lost just three or four of those types of high-caliber advertisers, it would be seen as an extraordinary move in a media environment in which grassroots attempts to pressure advertisers have traditionally yielded modest returns. But at Fox News, Glenn Beck is rewriting television history right before our eyes: four dozen lost advertisers and counting. All of Beck's big-time advertisers have fled. All of them.
As momentum continues to gather behind the unprecedented boycott effort led by ColorofChange.org, Beck and Fox News executives seem to be flailing around as they frantically search for a way to stop the exodus.
Despite media reports to the contrary, Fox News executives explicitly refused to distance themselves from Beck's claim that President Obama is a "racist," let alone reprimand the host for the shockingly hateful comments. Fox News' initial knee-jerk response of failing to question any of the gutter rhetoric Beck dishes out, and the cable news giant's decision to treat the transgression as a nonstory unworthy of a serious response, of course, is what led to the boycott drive.
The fact that nobody anywhere inside Fox News had enough sense to hold Beck accountable or to even suggest that calling the president of the United States (aka "this guy") a "racist" on national television was well outside the bounds of professional broadcasting -- the fact that Fox News could not even for a moment publicly contemplate that Beck had stepped over a glaringly obvious line of common decency -- is why those same executives have been forced to watch as an avalanche of A-list advertisers go public with their plans to make sure they are no longer associated with Beck.
Looking back, it's hard to imagine how executives at Fox News could have handled Beck's "racist" smear any worse. And it's hard to imagine how Fox News could have inadvertently cultivated the ground any better for a sweepingly successful advertising boycott than the cavalier way they dealt with Beck's presidential race-baiting.
And if you don't think the snowballing ad boycott has left Fox News suits stunned and knocked back on their heels, then I don't think you understand the kind of arrogance that runs through the water supply over at its Manhattan headquarters on Sixth Avenue. Execs there this year no doubt have been congratulating themselves on their ratings success and patting each other on the back for having the brilliant insight to unleash a hatemonger like Glenn Beck on the airwaves.
But suddenly, uh-oh, there's a price to be paid for peddling hate? And worse, it's a free-market penalty where blue-chip advertisers -- those bastions of corporate America that Fox News idolizes -- are deciding for themselves that they cannot afford to be associated with Fox News' wonder boy? Corporate America is turning its back on the new face of Fox News?
If the boycott continues to gain momentum, Fox News won't be able to avoid writing down losses. Yes, the cabler claims it hasn't lost any money yet because nervous advertisers simply want off Glenn Beck, not off Fox News (i.e. advertisers are still spending money with the network). But the truth is, since Beck called Obama a racist, Beck's advertising base has been cut by 50 willing advertisers, and Fox News' need to find advertisers for the hour-long weekday show has not changed. And I'm guessing it's not having much luck drumming up new Glenn Beck business in this environment.
Honestly, if advertisers continue to abandon Glenn Beck, pretty soon the show's going to be forced to run more than the occasional free public-service announcement. Either that, or the advertisers willing to stick around are going to get some great deals or maybe even some free spots in order to make sure Fox News can fill the inventory.
Meanwhile, on air, the latest Fox News strategy for dealing with the never-ending "racist" controversy seems to revolve around amnesia. Seriously. It's like everyone at Fox News has been flashed by that light stick Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith used in Men in Black to erase the memories of unsuspecting UFO eyewitnesses. Suddenly at Fox News, nobody remembers that Beck called Obama a racist. Nobody remembers that that's what sparked the advertising boycott.
Despite the swirling controversy, and despite the fact that Beck is losing the type of advertisers that sales teams covet, the host's "racist" smear has become The Story That Cannot Be Mentioned By Name.
It's true. Last week, Beck appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show, and the two men bemoaned the attempts by nasty liberal "loons" to shut Beck up -- to snatch away his freedom of speech. What was odd was that while Beck and O'Reilly clearly made (indirect) references to the ad boycott campaign, they never explained to viewers what sparked the outrage. They never explained why. They never conceded the campaign was launched in direct response to the fact that Beck went on national television and called the president of the United States a "racist" and someone who flashed a "deep-seated hatred of white people."
At Fox News, that smear has been flushed down the memory hole, and all that's left to do is play victim. (Incredibly, O'Reilly and Beck appeared to be cribbing their amnesia shtick off The American Spectator. Never a good sign.)
But here's what I don't get: Why doesn't Beck go on TV every day and simply defend his "racist" claim? Why doesn't Beck stand up for the racist remark and stake his reputation on it? Because right now, the pathetic, squishy approach he's taking where he limply lashes back while pretending the ad boycott sprang from some mysterious place -- where Beck plays the victim and pretends he never made the "racist" smear -- is just too lame for words.
The host has never apologized, so it seems logical that he stands behind the claim. (And that's what he claimed one month ago.) And if he stands behind it, why doesn't he set aside a few minutes on each program to detail how Obama is a racist? Why doesn't he educate his viewers? In fact, I'm sure even folks who don't regularly tune into Beck would be fascinated to know how Obama, whose mother was white and who was raised by his white grandparents, suffers from an abiding hatred of white people and "white culture," as Beck claimed.
Hey, maybe if Beck does a good enough job, he'll even win back some of his lost advertisers. Maybe by talking the "racist" issue to death on Fox News every day, Beck can clear the air and the boycott will cease.
It's conceivable but unlikely. What's really going on here, of course, is that Beck has stepped so far in it with his "racist" crack that he can no longer see the tops of his shoes, and even his shins are starting to sink into the muck. The answer to Fox News' unraveling advertising problem is obvious. But neither Beck nor anybody else at the network has the decency to apologize, so they've decided to stitch together this fantasy about how the ad boycott was started because Beck said some nasty things about a ColorofChange.org ally, Van Jones.
Good luck with that. I'm sure that by playing dumb about the "racist" controversy, and by ignoring the comment while wallowing in a permanent state of victimhood, former blue-chip advertisers will soon come sprinting back onto Beck's show.
Afro-Netizen does not recommend watching this commercial while drinking milk -- or a beverage of any kind.
The following video has been watched nearly 2 million times -- probably because of its deep analysis of modern American race relations in the age of Obama.
In a new video on the White House health care rumor-rebutting website, Mike Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for Valerie Jarrett and father of a child with autism, addresses rumors that health insurance reform will deprive children with disabilities of care. "We want to expand Medicaid .. we want to make sure people with disabilities aren't denied coverage," he said. "We want to reform the system to make it better for my child, my family, and yours."
Watch:
The White House also sent out a "viral e-mail" from David Axelrod listing the ways health care reform should improve insurance coverage. The White House aide asks readers to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" by starting "a chain e-mail of our own."
Hi, Afro-Netizens! This is James Rucker of ColorofChange.org, and I'm really excited to be blogging here for the first time today.
More great news today in our campaign calling on Glenn Beck's advertisers to pull their support from his show. With more than 125,000 people now having signed our petition to Beck's advertisers, four more major companies have pulled their ads.
ColorOfChange.org this week received confirmation from four more companies -- ConAgra (maker of Healthy Choice products), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and RadioShack -- pledging to pull their ads from Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck show. These new defections come on the heels of reports that Men's Wearhouse, State Farm and Sargento also pulled their ads in recent days. They join LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson and GEICO, who all pulled their ads from Glenn Beck after the news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people," on "Fox and Friends."
"...Upon review of this particular program, we have discontinued our advertising for all ConAgra Foods products during its airing," said Stephanie Childs, spokesperson for ConAgra Foods, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We share your commitment to diversity in all areas of life and appreciate you sharing your concerns with us."
"We have specified that our ads will no longer run on Mr. Beck's show," said Sean Connor, Manager of Media Services and Purchasing for Sanofi-Aventis, in an e-mail to ColorOfChange.org. "We have included this show on a list of programming that should not be utilized within the Fox network buys. Thank you for drawing our attention to this matter."
"This confirms that there is no advertising we (RadioShack) [are] buying on the Glen Beck Show or anywhere on the Fox News Channel," said Dave Hamlin, Director of Media Services for RadioShack, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "What viewers are seeing on FNC and Glen Beck is manufacturer advertising that has tagged their messages with "RadioShack" as the retail destination to purchase their product(s). In this most recent instance, it is most likely the product called magicJack that has tagged our name throughout their commercial."
"We've asked magicJack to immediately cease and desist running all commercials with our name tagged in the spot on FNC," Hamlin continued. "In fact, I just received verification from one our merchants that magicJack has confirmed the commercial will be pulled from the Fox News Channel rotation ASAP."
A spokesperson for Roche confirmed the company's decision to pull its ads during a phone conversation with ColorOfChange.org Tuesday, but the company has not issued a written statement.
"We are proud of all the companies who have stepped forward to pull their ads from Glenn Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "It's becoming clear that many people feel the same outrage we feel and we applaud those companies who are taking a stand against Beck's hatred. We won't stop here -- we're going to continue our fight to see that as many of Beck's advertisers pull their support as possible."
It's too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it’s almost illegal to be poor. You won’t be arrested for shopping in a Dollar Store, but if you are truly, deeply, in-the-streets poor, you’re well advised not to engage in any of the biological necessities of life — like sitting, sleeping, lying down or loitering.
Ehrenreich suggests that impoverished Americans may total as many as 50 million souls -- a staggering number close to the estimated number of Americans who are without health insurance.
As Congress and the Administration wrestle over what healthcare reform legislation will look like this fall and seek to put together a bill that will not increase the federal deficit, many are concerned that the cost of Medicaid -- healthcare insurance for the poor and disabled will continue to swell.
Well, this might sound crazy, but one way to make this legislation pay for itself, and deliver on the promise of accessible, affordable and high quality health care, would be to outright dissolve the Medicaid program . . . by ending poverty as we know it.
Radical, certainly. But radically humane as well, not to mention highly beneficial to hard-working taxpayers who live in the richest country in human history, yet suffer one of the most abysmal health care systems of the developed world.
GEICO Car Insurance to Pull Advertisements Away from Glenn Beck Program
Insurance Company Joins Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson in Distancing Themselves from FNC Anchor
OAKLAND, Calif.--Adding to a growing list of advertisers distancing themselves from controversial Fox News personality Glenn Beck, GEICO has pledged to re-direct their advertisements away from Beck's program on the Fox News Channel. The decision by GEICO comes on the heels of announcements made last week that LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson were distancing themselves from Beck after the news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people."
"On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program," said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck's program."
"We applaud GEICO and all of the other companies who have stepped forward to pull their ads from Glenn Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "Beck's rhetoric is dangerous to the fabric of our democracy, and we are heartened that so many big companies feel the same way. We won't stop here -- we're going to continue our fight to see that as many of Beck's advertisers pull their support as possible."
Two weeks ago, ColorOfChange.org called on its 600,000-plus members to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Glenn Beck to cut off their advertising support of his work. More than 75,000 members responded to the call by signing a petition directed at advertisers.
Last week, ColorOfChange.org received confirmation from LexisNexis that they pulled their ads from Beck and have no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The ColorOfChange.org email urged members to go visit http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/, where they could send letters to executives of target companies. With more than 600,000 members, ColorOfChange.org is the largest African-American online political organization in the country.
Each of the above links go to a respective YouTube video, all of
which are worth watching. But if you have to choose one, Afro-Netizen
most certainly recommends Rev. Lowery preachin' about "good crazy". If
you need a hearty laugh and a spiritual uplift and only have five
minutes, this'll surely do the trick!
By Dedrick Muhammad and Barbara Ehrenreich Guest Contributors
To judge from most of the commentary on the Gates-Crowley affair, you would think that a "black elite" has gotten dangerously out of hand. First Gates (Cambridge, Yale, Harvard) showed insufficient deference to Crowley, then Obama (Occidental, Harvard) piled on to accuse the police of having acted "stupidly." Was this "the end of white America" which The Atlantic had warned of in its January/February cover story? Or had the injuries of class - working class in Crowley's case - finally trumped the grievances of race?
Left out of the ensuing tangle of commentary on race and class has been the increasing impoverishment-or, we should say, re-impoverishment--of African Americans as a group. In fact, the most salient and lasting effect of the current recession may turn out to be the decimation of the black middle class. According to a study by Demos and the Institute for Assets and Social Policy, 33 percent of the black middle class was already in danger of falling out of the middle class at the start of the recession. Gates and Obama, along with Oprah and Cosby, will no doubt remain in place, but millions of the black equivalents of Officer Crowley - from factory workers to bank tellers and white collar managers - are sliding down toward destitution.
For African Americans - and to a large extent, Latinos - the recession is over. It occurred between 2000 and 2007, as black employment decreased by 2.4 percent and incomes declined by 2.9 percent. During the seven-year long black recession, one third of black children lived in poverty and black unemployment-even among college graduates-- consistently ran at about twice the level of white unemployment. That was the black recession. What's happening now is a depression.
Black unemployment is now at 14.7 percent, compared to 8.7 for whites. In New York City, black unemployment has been rising four times as fast as that of whites. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that 40 percent of African Americans will have experienced unemployment or underemployment by 2010, and this will increase child poverty from one-third of African-American children to slightly over half. No one can entirely explain the extraordinary rate of job loss among African Americans, though factors may include the relative concentration of blacks in the hard-hit retail and manufacturing sectors, as well as the lesser seniority of blacks in better-paying, white collar, positions.
But one thing is certain: The longstanding racial "wealth gap" makes African Americans particularly vulnerable to poverty when job loss strikes. In 1998, the net worth of white households on average was $100,700 higher than that of African-Americans. By 2007, this gap had increased to $142,600. The Survey of Consumer Finances, which is supported by the Federal Reserve Board, collects this data every three years -- and every time it has been collected, the racial wealth gap has widened. To put it another way: in 2004, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family had only one 12 cents. In 2007, it had exactly a dime. So when an African American breadwinner loses a job, there are usually no savings to fall back on, no well-heeled parents to hit up, no retirement accounts to raid.
All this comes on top of the highly racially skewed subprime mortgage calamity. After decades of being denied mortgages on racial grounds, African Americans made a tempting market for bubble-crazed lenders like Countrywide, with the result that high income blacks were almost twice as likely as low income white to receive high interest subprime loans. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, Latinos will end up losing between $75 billion and $98 billion in home-value wealth from subprime loans, while blacks will lose between $71 billion and $92 billion. United for a Fair Economy has called this family net-worth catastrophe the "greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern U.S. history."
Yet in the depths of this African American depression, some commentators, black as well as white, are still obsessing about the supposed cultural deficiencies of the black community. In a December op-ed in the Washington Post, Kay Hymowitz blamed black economic woes on the fact that 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers, not noticing that the white two-parent family has actually declined at a faster rate than the black two-parent family. The share of black children living in a single parent home increased by 155 percent between 1960 to 2006, while the share of white children living in single parent homes increased by a staggering 229 percent.
Just last month on NPR, commentator Juan Williams dismissed the NAACP by saying that more up-to-date and relevant groups focus on "people who have taken advantage of integration and opportunities for education, employment, versus those who seem caught in generational cycles of poverty," which he went on to characterize by drug use and crime. The fact that there is an ongoing recession disproportionately affecting the African American middle class - and brought on by Wall Street greed rather than "ghetto" values - seems to have eluded him.
We don't need any more moralizing or glib analyses of class and race that could have just as well been made in the 70s. The recession is changing everything. It's redrawing the class contours of America in ways that will leave us more polarized than ever, and, yes, profoundly hurting the erstwhile white middle and working classes. But the depression being experienced by people of color threatens to do something on an entirely different scale, and that is to eliminate the black middle class.
We must not let Big Telecom segregate the Internet
By Malkia Cyril, Chris Rabb and Joseph Torres
Originally published on The Huffington Post and cross-posted elsewhere
When Fox News’ Glenn Beck called President Barack Obama a racist this past July, the online advocacy group ColorOfChange.org launched a campaign to convince advertisers to boycott the show. To date, some 280,000 people have joined the effort, and more than 60 companies have pulled their ads.
CNN parted ways with Lou Dobbs last month after civil rights groups and Presente.org mobilized thousands of Latinos online to call on CNN to dump the talk show host for spewing hate against immigrants for years.None of this — not these advocacy efforts, not countless small business success stories, not even the election of President Barack Obama — would have happened without a free and open Internet. For communities of color, the Internet provides us with a unique opportunity to speak for ourselves without first seeking the approval of gatekeepers or having to secure major funds to do so. But the big telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to create an effectively segregated online community where they will act as our gatekeepers.
[T]he big telecommunications companies
like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast
want to create an effectively segregated online community
where they will act as our gatekeepers.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now considering new rules that could protect the fundamental principle of “Network Neutrality” once and for all. Net Neutrality prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, discriminating against or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice — such as e-newsletters, blogs, social networking sites, online videos, podcasts and smart-phone apps. It is not that network owners are secretly plotting to stifle free speech – at least not usually. But they have an undeniable, rational interest in creating a pay-for-play model for the treatment of communication on the Internet. Commercial websites that pay will get speed and quality and the non-commercial uses of the Net will be collateral damage – relegated to the slow lane. It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons; it’s that our speech is not important to them because it’s not going to make them money.
Many of the most valuable things we do online
are non-commercial; they exist because the Internet is
the first mass media system with no gatekeepers
to dole out privilege to the highest bidder.
The Internet provides our communities with a medium to access services, find jobs, connect to friends, make inexpensive international phone calls to family members, and to advocate for social change. Many of the most valuable things we do online are non-commercial; they exist because the Internet is the first mass media system with no gatekeepers to dole out privilege to the highest bidder. That freedom and openness is what makes the Internet different from broadcasting and cable. It makes it valuable to our communities. We can’t allow Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers to deliver substandard Internet service to our communities.
Telecom Companies Want to Create Second-Class “Netizens”
But the big phone and cable companies want to get rid of Net Neutrality and control how the public accesses the Internet. These companies want to charge websites extra tolls to secure the fastest speeds online, while favoring their own content and services over their competition’s. Those unable to pay will be banished to the slow lane online, becoming second-class “netizens” without the same freedoms given to those with more money and influence.
This threat to Internet freedom isn’t hypothetical. Verizon got caught blocking text messages sent by the pro-choice group NARAL to its own members – though they backed down immediately under public pressure. Comcast has also illegally interfered with file-sharing on its network, a practice that earned them a rebuke from the FCC.
Who will protect the online rights of marginalized communities against the raw profit motive of big business? We urge leaders in our community not to yield to the underhanded scare tactics that corporations like AT&T have used on our communities.
We Must Reject a Separate but Unequal Online WorldOne of those scare tactics is the claim, pushed by phone and cable companies, that Network Neutrality poses a threat to digital inclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does Net Neutrality expand media diversity and access by ensuring fairness and nondiscrimination by big corporations, it will prevent the kind of media consolidation that has happened in the broadcast industry by helping our communities develop a diversity of civic and commercial online enterprises on a scale that represents our growing online numbers.
It’s not necessarily that they want to block our speech for political reasons;
it’s that our speech is not important to them
because it’s not going to make them money.
A primary reason for the digital divide is that the cost of fully engaging in the online world is just too expensive for many in our community. Broadband in the United States is among the slowest but most expensive of any industrialized nation. After years of consolidation, the largest telecom companies have gotten away with price-gouging our communities because of a lack of competition in the broadband market. More choices for broadband service – not permitting more discrimination – are the key to bringing down costs. Scrapping Net Neutrality in order to consolidate control over the Internet by cable and phone companies is not the answer. More market control won’t give them more incentive to sell low-cost high-quality services to low-income communities. Our communities will still be subject to the same business case that have marginalized us in the first place –households that don’t have a lot of money to spend. Shareholders aren’t charities, and we are foolish to expect otherwise.
But more importantly, we should not be sacrificing an open Internet to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining. The answer to the digital divide cannot be to deliver a second-class, closed Internet to our communities.
The historic fight against discrimination by groups like the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens has led to great societal change, laying the groundwork for the election of a president of color. We urge our colleagues in the civil rights community to fight with us to ensure that telecom and cable companies are not allowed to discriminate against our communities or interfere with our capacity to speak for ourselves without first asking AT&T, Verizon or Comcast for permission.
Several civil rights groups have spoken out in favor of passing Net Neutrality regulations, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, UNITY: Journalists of Color, and ColorOfChange.org.
[W]e should not be sacrificing an open Internet
to bribe phone and cable companies not to practice forms of red-lining.
We are living through a critical moment in our nation’s history. The FCC is going to decide whether the Internet will remain an open platform that allows for the greatest number of voices to participate in our democratic society, or whether it will be a closed network controlled by the big telecom companies.
We are concerned about the dire consequences of living without Internet freedom. It would create a separate but unequal online world where our communities are unable to use the Internet to compete or to advocate for justice when we have been wronged.
We need civil rights, media justice, community-oriented and grassroots organizations to stand together to make sure effective Net Neutrality regulation will protect our communities from the predatory practices of the phone and cable industries.
[L]iving without Internet freedom . . . would create a separate but unequal online world
where our communities are unable to use the Internet
to compete or to advocate for justice
when we have been wronged.
As with past civil rights struggles that successfully expanded access, thwarted discrimination, destroyed legalized segregation, and created broad opportunity, so too will the cause for Internet freedom.
Malkia Cyril is the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. Chris Rabb is the founder of the online community Afro-Netizen and is a visiting researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Joseph Torres is the government relations manager of Free Press and former deputy director of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Afro-Netizen on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 at 12:01 PM in Commentary/Opinion, Community & Consumer Activism, Media Reform, Media/Technology, Net Neutrality, Public Policy, Publisher's blog, Race, Culture & History, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Afro-Netizen, AT&T, broadband, broadcast, Center for Media Justice, Chris Rabb, civil rights, Comcast, digital divide, FCC, Free Press, Glenn Beck, Internet freedom, ISPs, LULAC, media consolidation, media justice, media ownership, media reform, NAACP, NABJ, NAHJ, net neutrality, netizens, network neutrality, Open Internet Coalition, segregation, separate but equal, social change, social justice, Verizon
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us