Afro-Netizen

Supreme Court voter ID ruling steeped in history of willfull negligence

When I read on my cell phone this morning that the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling supported the state of Indiana's law that requires voters to present either a driver's license or passport in order to vote, I got a cold chill down my spine.

On the surface, it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling: folks need to prove who they are when they go to vote to avoid potential voter fraud. The reality is that what is reasonable for many white collar and blue collar voters is not so reasonable for those invisible Americans who have not earned that amorphous  moniker of "middle class".

These invisible souls are our country's poorest citizens who do not travel internationally (and thus, do no have passports) and who often cannot afford to own cars, the insurance on them or the gas in them (and thus, are far less likely to have a driver's license).

The fact that this quietly pernicious law may become federal law one day if Democrats capitulate is one matter of concern. The other is how this may impact next month's Indiana Democratic primary (and elections beyond this season) is quite another, given that the poor tend to be disproportionately Black and Democratic.

All this aside, the shudder of dread I felt when reading about this ruling came not from what may yet come, but what has already been inflicted on generations of marginalized Americans before and after the 15th and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In today's Washington Post article on this subject, reporter Robert Barnes quotes Justice Stevens as follows:

Stevens noted that it is "fair" to infer that "partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in Indiana's decision to pass the law.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," he wrote.

"Valid neutral justifications".

As a genealogist, family historian, student of history and scion of enslaved Americans, an image immediately came to mind: that of letter my great aunt Mary showed me that was addressed to my great-great grandfather, Abraham Miller of Louisivlle, Kentucky, who was denied his Civil War veteran's pension despite having served honorably, and having attained the rank of sergeant, because he could not produce his birth certificate.

Clearly, to ensure that the U.S. treasury's funds were not depleted due to mass fraud by undeserving individuals claiming to have served in the Civil War, this measure was a "valid neutral justification".

The problem? My ancestor was the property of his White uncle, Dr. Warrick Miller, from whom he inherited his surname, a quarter of his DNA, and the grave disadvantage of being born Black in America.

Sgt. Miller was denied his due as one of over 200,000 Black soldiers who served in the Civil War because while he was given the "privilege" to serve his country, no such privilege was conferred to him as a veteran when seeking the promised remuneration he so desperately needed as an infirmed husband and father of nine.

He could not produce a birth certificate because he was born into slavery, and official birth certificates were not issued to human chattel in Kentucky or elsewhere in antebellum America. The policy requiring birth certificates for veterans' pensions was a much higher standard than what was required to give one's life to save the union. This was not by accident; it was by design. And there's nothing neutral about that. His government willfully neglected him because he was Black, less-than, other, powerless. Veteran or not, he did not count (anymore). He was disposable like the lives and rights of today's poor.

My ancestor died a miserable death and in poverty right before the outbreak of World War I, exacerbated by the "valid neutral justifications" of the government for which he fought.

Indeed, there are "partisan" motivations, as Justice Stevens so graciously concedes, and then there are the long shadows of evil that have cast darkness on the systemic injustices these so-called "neutral" laws & policies will not soon address, let alone cure.

So-called neutrality cannot continue to be the presumptive default for laws and public policy in a nation with such persistent inequality; such measures must be reparatory, equitable and most of all, humane.

Politics is local

I've opined digitally and privately since (at least) 2004 that America was nowhere near ready to elect a Black person president.

I have demurred that my vote would most certainly count much less than those lucky Democrats who voted on Super-Duper Tuesday this past February.

I have often said that society and corporate media over-emphasize presidential (and electoral) politics to the detriment of local races and other forms of meaningful civic engagement.

In less than two hours in my adoptive Philadelphia, I may be proven wrong on all counts.

I think if Obama wins the Pennsylvania Primary tonight, we may be that much closer to inaugurating an African American president on January 20, 2009. While I do not believe that Billary will concede tonight -- or perhaps at any point before the Democratic National Convention in August -- I believe all, but the most loyal Clintonistas will jump ship within days or weeks (if not seconds or minutes) from an Obama victory tonight.

I did not believe early on that Pennsylvania would be in play this far along in the race for the Democratic nomination. But it has. And it was only within the past two months that I realized my state of Pennsylvania might decide if the Democrats nationwide would usher in the first Black person or the first White woman Democratic "presumptive" nominee.

If Obama wins this primary, it will be in no small part due to the new and previously disaffected and marginalized voters who for election after election the national Democratic Party and Philadelphia's Democratic machine has systematically ignored. These marginalized folks are Philadelphia's poor Black and Latino voters who live in forgotten communities of poverty and hopelessness.

But there has been a glimmer of hope that has sparked an amazing energy among young and Black people, in particular, that I have not seen in the 20 years I have been voting in presidential elections. An energy that will surely die if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

I live in a predominantly Black precinct in a multi-racial neighborhood in Northwest Philadelphia.

I have worked the polls in my community for the past two years, and have colleagues who have been doing so since the New Deal who haven't seen such civic fervor, attributable to the candidacy and unique campaign of Barack Obama.

In a local state representative race I have been working on since this summer, the Democratic electorate has grown by one fifth since the last presidential primary in 2004.

I see a diversity of people buying, wearing (making and selling) iconic Obama t-shirts whose metaphorical value far exceed their street value.

I voted for Barack Obama this afternoon and felt a unique tingly feeling I will not soon forget. It was a uniquely powerful and symbolically rich moment for me as a Black voter born two years after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King and exactly five years after the assassination of Malcolm X.

I voted for a Black man who has lived to be older than these two great Black men and who may do what they could not likely have even fathomed: that a Black person could be nominated by either party as their candidate for president.

I do believe that structural inequality and institutional racism exist in this country despite this auspicious political feat. However, I also believe that the means by which Obama has catalyzed and organized his supporters, more people may participate in electing him president in November (if he wins the Democratic nomination) than any other president in U.S. history. And like the Civil War that definitively reunited a fractured nation, the people who will be responsible for electing the first Black president will not be the same old, predominantly White electorate. Rather, it might be a very different looking demographic mix of voters that may influence 21st Century civic engagement as it relates to not just presidential politics, but local races like the one I've been working on all these months and non-electoral activism so crucial to strengthen our still fragile democracy.

Imus attacks Obama (Surprise, surprise)

(Hat Tip to Dallas Progress blogger, Michael Davis.)

Friendly reminder to Obama: "Do you."

By Chris Rabb

I am not a high-priced, nationally-recognized Democratic political guru like Mark Penn, James Carville, or David Axelrod.

I am a mere mortal not blessed with modest intelligence wrapped in the seductive candy-coating of white male privilege.

I do, however, know this: Obama needs to dunk on camera . . . often!

No, I don't mean dunking donuts in a good cup of "joe" at the corner diner in Smalltown, Pennsylvania just before it's time for the hard-scrabbled blue collar folk have to clock in at the local factory and whose votes Obama covets on April 22nd and beyond.

I mean: Take that rock to the hole, Black man!

Assuredly, his various advisors don't want to draw too much attention to him being Black and all -- particularly since the Pastor Wright debacle. But if there's one kind of Black guy almost all White working class guys like, it's ballers.

In fact, if you looked on the walls of 10,000 random rec rooms of White working class homes in exurbia and rural America, I'd bet you'd find nearly as many Black sports heroes on their walls than you would see White swimsuit models.

More importantly, you'd find more Black ballers posterizing White boys than White boys holding black bowling balls.

I get it: working class White guys bowl.

Guess what? Obama's no working class White guy.

He can spend the rest of his campaign through the Democratic Convention working on his form. But no matter how much he improves his bowling game, it will still be bowling.

And say what you like about what White working classfolk are in to. The simple fact remains that White guys do not live vicariously through professional bowlers -- be they White or Black (assuming there were Black professional bowlers).

Quiet as it's kept, many millions of White guys dream of being Black basketball players. And whatever draw bowling may have on that demographic, it will never surpass the beauty and catharsis of basketball. And it is this game that will indelibly mark Obama's viability and unique vitality in this race for president.

Simply put, Obama's got game and needs to show it. Racial stereotypes be damned!

I remember that scene on the tarmac back in the spring of 2004 when John Kerry and John Edwards tossed around the pigskin between campaign stops. It was Camelot 2.0. It was a thing of beauty, perhaps shallow beauty. But I knew that for many Americans -- men in particular, I think -- it was a reassuring thing to see otherwise rich Beltway politicos do what so many guys are programmed from pre-pubescence to learn: how to throw a good spiral. I'm not saying this highly gendered programming is right. I'm stating that it is what it is. And if Obama's true to himself, he'd be gripping a basketball -- not clumsily flinging a bowling ball.

Wind-surfing? Not so much.

Yes, basketball is a highly racialized sport. Yes, seeing Obama dunk on some unsuspecting Secret Service agent may make some subset of the White male electorate a bit self-conscious. But for the majority of American voting-age men, seeing Obama handle his business on the court will not in the least bit alienate him from his faux image as the first (Black) post-racial presidential candidate. In fact, it will racialize him in a way that insulates him the most from the vicissitudes of modern American racism. It will make Obama that Black guy who's the best positioned for White America to love: that charismatic, non-threatening Black athlete (who just happens to be smart).

Forget Obama the constitutional law professor. Forget Obama the civil rights attorney or community organizer. Forget the Ivy-educated Halfrican whose long-time pastor too many Whitefolk believe hates America.

Just let him clutch that rock, and all else will fade away when Obama drains it from the top of the key.

NOTE TO AXELROD: Let Obama shoot every chance he gets -- and in front of as many cameras that can fit into whatever high school gymnasium he visits in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

Leave the bowling to Billary and McCain.

Why? Because Obama's athleticism on the court will be a slam dunk for him in at the polls. It ain't rocket science. But that doesn't make it any less true.

So, Barack: Lace up and "do you," bruh!

Conceding the point

Last night, Barack Obama conceded Hillary Clinton's point during their 20th candidate debate that if indeed reject is a stauncher word than denounce, then Obama both rejects and denounces Minister Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of his candidacy.

This seemed to draw quite a few laughs from the studio audience. But it was no laughing matter to many of us Blackfolk who have seen this zero sum game played time and time again against Black public figures in and out of politics.

Simply put, this denunciation was made to prove that Obama is not an "anti-Semite" and a true friend of Israel.

Attack-dog Tim Russert casually paraphrased a conveniently and ubiquitously unconfirmed quote attributed to Minister Farrakhan in which many mainstream journalists believe he called Judaism a "gutter religion". In the 74 minutes before Russert's racist and hypocritical inquiry of Obama regarding whether he will publicly repudiate Minister Farrakhan, it was the only time he made either candidate respond to a question based on a quote for which he himself did not provide a source.

And because the only answer a viable Black candidate seeking the support of a predominantly White electorate can give is one that Obama proffered last night, an opportunity for real dialogue about real issues of race and culture was missed -- an opportunity that could have better served the interests of society than the nefarious litmus tests forced upon Black public figures to remain socially acceptable by having to denigrate controversial Blackfolk who may sometimes powerfully express the legitimately complex and diverse sentiments of segments of Black America whose views are so often marginalized and/or purposely misrepresented.

In a parallel universe, wouldn't it have been wonderful if Obama said:

"Tim, you have no standing to ask me that question about denouncing Farrakhan as long as NBC continues to employ hate-mongerering commentators like Pat Buchanan. In fact, CNN has no standing as long as it continues to validate the bigotry of commentator Bill Bennett."

Or perhaps Obama could have been coy and responded to Tim's racist water-carrying by saying:

"Gutter religion?! Farrakhan said that? Really? I never heard that. When and where did he say that? I'd really like to see the transcript or video of that speech."

Or maybe Obama could have said:

"On what basis should a candidate denounce the support from an individual, organization or country? What is the criterion? One offensive comment? One alleged offensive comment? And to what extent is that offense mitigated over time or substantive acts of good faith and/or positive contributions to society?"

When is the last time you heard a White reporter ask a White candidate if they would publicly repudiate an unaffiliated individual who has endorsed them in unsolicited fashion? Was this asked of Mike Huckabee when bigot James Dobson, founder/president of Focus on the Family endorsed him? Pre-dead-and-buried Jerry Falwell? Drug-addled hypocrite Rush Limbaugh?

If Obama were truly post-racial, the question would not be asked. That's how we know that despite his meteoric success thus far in this race for the Democratic nomination, he is still just one of us -- good, bad or indifferent.

It is worth emphasizing the point that corporate media in particular have by no means forgotten that Obama is just another Black public figure who needs to be reminded of his place when straying too far from their "color-blind" path to Utopia.

And even with a Black man in the Oval Office, as long as corporate media's highly validated talking heads like Tim Russert continue to ask racist questions like that to Black candidates, we can be reminded that even unprecedented electoral victories will not confer to Blackfolk the power and privilege we will need to avoid being subjected to the indignity of such offensive questions.

Can we expect more of this if Obama clinches the nomination? Yes, we can.

The legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King on electoral politics

In previous MLK holidays, I have posted a transcript of the most under-referenced half of one of our society's most popularly touted speeches delivered by Reverend King on 1963. I have called it "The Broken Promise" speech more commonly "branded" (double entendre intended), the "I Have a Dream" speech.

But today's passages penned by this prolific "drum major for justice" and published posthumously (in the January 1969 issue of Playboy Magazine) have been chosen given the current presidential election cycle wherein with the first Black presidential candidate to win the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is vying for the Democratic nomination against the first female presidential candidate to be considered a front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

Postings here have been noticeably sparse regarding the election and all of its various mini-dramas. So as the harbinger primary approaches in South Carolina where the Black electorate may represent the majority of voters who show up at the polls on Saturday, the following passages from Rev. King's writings provides some historic prescience -- particularly in light of how Hillary Clinton have chosen to misrepresent Reverend King's political prowess:

One of the most basic weapons in the fight for social justice will be the cultivate political power of the Negro. I can foresee the Negro vote becoming consistently the decisive vote in national elections. It is already decisive in states that have large numbers of electoral votes. . . Negroes are even the decisive balance of power in the elections in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia. So the party and the candidate that get the support of the Negro voter in national elections have a very definite edge, and we intend to use this fact to win advances in the struggle for human rights. I have every confidence that the black vote will ultimately help unseat the die-hard opponents of equal rights in Congress -- who are, incidentally, reactionary on all issues. But the Negro community cannot win this victory alone; indeed, it would be an empty victory even if the Negroes could win it alone. Intelligent men of good will everywhere must see this as their task and contribute to its support.
    The election of Negro mayors . . . has  . . . had  a tremendous psychological impact upon the Negro. It has shown him that he has the potential to participate in the determination of his own destiny--and that of society. . .--but this is not the ultimate answer. Mayors are relatively impotent figures int the scheme of national politics. . . The necessary money to deal with urban problems must come from the federal government, and this money is ultimately controlled by the Congress of the United States. The success of these enlightened mayors is entirely dependent upon the financial support made available by Washington.
    The past record of the federal government, however, has not been encouraging. No president has really done very much for the American Negro, though the past two presidents have received much undeserved credit for helping us. This credit has accrued to Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy only because it was during their administrations that Negroes began doing more for themselves. Kennedy didn't voluntarily submit a civil rights bill, nor did Lyndon Johnson. In fact, both told us at one time that such legislation was impossible. President Johnson did respond realistically to the signs of the times and used his skills as a legislator to get bills through Congress that other men might not have gotten through. I must point out, in all honesty, however, that President Johnson has not been nearly so diligent in implementing the bills he has helped shepherd through Congress.
    Of the ten titles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, probably only the one concerning public accomodations--the most bitterly contested section--has been meaningfully enforced and implemented. Most of the other sections have been deliberately ignored. The same is true of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which provides for federal referees to monitor the registration of voters in counties that are eligible where Negroes have systematically been denied the right to vote.

On Obama's historic win in Iowa

I worked for Illinois' first Black senator, Carol Moseley Braun, back in the '90s.

I was a young (not so idealistic) legislative aide who handled constituent correspondence on select issues -- legislative and otherwise. Part of the "otherwise" included endless hate mail that I quickly learned I was not to destroy. I was instructed by the office manager to weed out anything remotely resembling threats on Sen. Moseley-Braun's life or well-being. That mail was set aside for the FBI's due diligence.

While reveling in Obama's impressive victory in Iowa, I listened intently to a number of pundits reflect on his victory speech and making comparisons to Bobby Kennedy, and I was brought back to my days on Capitol Hill working for Carol Moseley-Braun and the dread I felt knowing that many people wanted her dead irrespective of her intelligence, eloquence, charisma, advocacy for women and children, her Christian faith or moderate legislative agenda.

To far too many fellow Americans, she was seen as little more than an uppity nigger. It would seem that Obama's that much more of a threat to these hateful hordes among us in blue and red states alike, as evinced in a recent racist blog post by anonymous coward hiding safely behind a computer somewhere between sea to shining sea. (Hat tip to über-blogger Pam Spaulding.)

I fear Obama's fate as a front-runner. I think about murdered politico Bobby Kennedy -- an ultra-wealthy White public servant, and the fear he instilled in an unknown mass of the White citizenry in 1968. And my concern heightens that much more for Senator Obama and his family amidst of his auspicious win this evening.

All the incisive jokes that Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, D.L. Hughley have made over the years regarding the inherent dangers of being a Black president lose all humor to me in this current political environment where Barack Obama may soon assume undisputed front-runner status for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I covered Obama's historic convention speech in '04 that put him on the national political radar, and wondered aloud back then if he would one day be our first Black president.

Perhaps he will be more viable than I have thought in recent months as someone who, like millions of other cynical (but reasonable) Americans of all races, has believed American voters would not elect a Black man for president. And more cynically have quipped that I don't ever want to see a Black president to avoid any unduly heightened expectations of the Commander in Chief. But then I'm reminded by a fact lost on (read: ignored by) many mainstream journalists and pundits: that 20 years ago another long-shot candidate, Jesse Jackson Sr., shocked America and the pundit class by winning 5 primaries by Super Tuesday and trailing the ultimate presidential nominee, Michael Dukakis, by a mere 2% delegate margin.

Did I mention that was twenty years ago?!

So when we talk about Obama's new ascendancy and Dean's short-lived "revolutionary" campaign back in '03-'04, let's give credit where credit is due with regards to ground-breaking, insurgent Democratic campaigns.

Anyway, I congratulate the Obama campaign on its victory in Iowa, and I hope against hope that any continued success does not bare any higher cost than it is worth, and that the wave of young and first-time voters who the Obama and Edwards campaigns engaged and energized will see tonight's victory not only as a victory for one candidate, but for the power of civic participation that (should) transcend electoral politics and charismatic leadership.

Baisden "apologizes" to ColorOfChange.org

The following text is ColorOfChange.org's response to ABC Radio host Michael Baisden's so-called apology.

We'll let you draw your own conclusions about Baisden's motives.

Email to members

From: "James & Van, ColorOfChange.org"
Date: November 13, 2007
Subject: Baisden's "apology"

Dear ColorOfChange.org member,

Last Friday, less than 24 hours after you and thousands of other ColorOfChange.org members wrote to his bosses at ABC Radio, Michael Baisden issued an "apology."^1,2 It shows that we got Baisden's attention, and that wouldn't have happened without you.

We hoped Baisden was really going to step up, but he didn't.

Baisden's statement fails every test of a decent apology. First, it misleads listeners about how he came to defame us. Then, it misrepresents the real interests of the Jena 6 families, to take another shot at us. Finally, it tries to sweep all the damage Baisden has caused under the rug, while doing very little to rebuild his listeners' confidence in ColorOfChange or in online organizing as a strategy.

Michael Baisden could be a valuable ally in our stuggle -- but we can't accept a dishonest apology that spreads more misinformation. This isn't just about defending ourselves, it's about being true to the values we have at ColorOfChange. An important part of our mission is holding those who claim to be our leaders accountable for their actions. For us to do that in this case, we can't in good conscience accept Baisden's partial and misleading "apology."

Baisden's "apology":

1) Baisden said his staff had been given "inaccurate information," and referenced the documentation on our website as if it were new to them. But the truth is that we gave the Baisden show everything they needed to confirm that the money was going where it was supposed to go weeks before the broadcast.⁴³ And we have the documentation to prove it.⁴  This wasn't a problem of not having "reliable sources." It was a problem of deliberately ignoring them.

2) While "apologizing," Baisden continued to sow seeds of doubt about ColorOfChange by misrepresenting the desires of most of the Jena 6 families. He claimed that four of the six Jena families insist that ColorOfChange stop fundraising on their behalf. Other than Marcus Jones, no parent has ever told us they want us to stop fundraising. Baisden refuses to reveal the letter that he now says was signed by four of the six families (and earlier claimed was signed by "all" of them); but in the past week, we have confirmed with the five other families, directly and through their attorneys, that they want us to continue fundraising for their children. We have, of course, honored Marcus Jones' request that we stop fundraising for his son, after hearing it on the radio.

3) Baisden said he's "relieved to have put this behind us." But unfortunately, it's not that easy. Baisden has done serious damage to ColorOfChange.org's reputation. He has played on understandable fears among Black folks -- that organizations are going to take their money and run with it. This doesn't only damage ColorOfChange. It damages Black people. It damages the movement for change that we and our allies are trying to build.⁵  And it will take far more than a few partial and misleading apologies to undo that damage.

Moving forward, we are exploring every option to repair that damage in a constructive way and to clear our name with our members and with Michael Baisden's listeners. Hopefully, Michael Baisden will be a partner in making that happen.

In times as serious as these, this kind of drama and distraction absolutely sickens us. We know it sickens you. We thank you, and our allies and partners in the Black blogosphere,⁶ for standing with us to help set the record straight and defend our work together. We look forward to continuing the work that we do, and, with your participation, to make America a better place for Black folks, and everyone else.

Thank You and Peace,

-- James, Van, Clarissa, Gabriel, Mervyn, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
   November 13th, 2007

References:

1. "Response to Color of Change," Minglecity.com, November 9, 2007
http://www.minglecity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1307

2. Audio clip from Michael Baisden show, November 9, 2007
http://colorofchange.org/baisden/apology/audio.html

3.  "False allegations on the Michael Baisden Show"
http://www.colorofchange.org/jena/baisden/

4. Fax from Yvonne Gilliam, Michael Baisden's publicist
http://www.colorofchange.org/jena/baisden/documentation/fax.html

 

5. Emails from our ColorOfChange members regarding Baisden's allegations.
http://colorofchange.org/baisden/apology/emails.html

6. Black bloggers on Baisden's attack
http://colorofchange.org/baisden/apology/bloggers.html

 

 

 

Afro-Netizen supports 10Questions video question on publicly financed elections

Jena 6, the Black netroots & the importance of media literacy

Recently, a storm has brewed over allegations by popular radio host Michael Baisden that progressive advocacy group, ColorofChange.org, has defrauded one of the Jena 6 families.

It is a serious, unsubstantiated and ridiculous charge from a man who took the lead in the corporate radio  community to advocate for and promote the Jena 6. But that said, while we're all entitled to differing opinions, we're not entitled to different facts.

Afro-Netizen unequivocally supports ColorOfChange.org. They represent the future and power of renewed civic engagement in our communities. They honor the spirit of generations of Blackfolk and other freedom-fighters who organized around the message instead of merely venerating a given messenger.

ColorOfChange.org promotes and thrives on decentralization, diffusing influence and resources to individuals from all walks of life to get involved in ways that the cults of charismatic leadership discourage and corporate media fear.

I do not know Micheal Baisden, nor listen to his show (and rarely listen to corporate radio). So, this is really not a counter-attack. Because, really, this is not about whether Baisden is "good or bad". It's analogous to the common expression, "Do you see the glass as half-full or half-empty?". Because in actuality, any many contexts, the best answers come from related, but unasked questions like, "What's in the glass?" and "Who's glass is it?"

Michael Baisden may not be an employee for ABC Radio, but as long as ABC doesn't kick him off the air, he's doing their bidding. And doing their bidding is essentially producing consistently high ratings to increase their advertising rates and revenues towards maximizing shareholder value for what is a publicly-held media titan -- one of only a handful of such behemoths that is strangling our democracy and so-called "free speech".

ColorOfChange.org is a progressive, independent and under-resourced non-profit. It is a labor of love by its stakeholders, manifested as an innovative civic enterprise whose potential is only limited by the commitment, creativity and energy of its ever-growing membership.

ColorOfChange.org is an honorable and vital member of 21st Century freedom-fighters with whom Afro-Netizen stands shoulder to shoulder.

Interestingly, on Michael Baisden's own website, he chose to highlight his Jena-related activity with a photo of him & Rev. Al Sharpton, while giving no mention to ColorOfChange.org nor the Black netroots community whatsoever who predated his on-air efforts to promote the Jena 6 affair.

But again, this matter is bigger than both Baisden and ColorOfChange.org.

This is about whether we allow corporate media to facilitate COINTELPRO 2.0 to divide and conquer the emerging Black netroots community.

Many entrenched Negroes who have poo-pooed those of us in the Black netroots community as lap dogs of "white liberal activists" (read: MoveOn.org), are afraid that they will have to become accountable to the rhetoric they have almost begun to believe after all these years without the antiseptic of transparency.

The reality is, Afro-Netizen need not name names in this regard. But toward interested readers doing their own research on who's promoting whose agenda, as my late hell-raising activist maternal grandmother (inspiring the moniker "Geronimo" by Baltimore politicos) liked to remind me sternly: "Consider the source!" (Not unlike the ever sanguine pearl: "Follow the money.")

This is why media literacy is so important to disadvantaged communities who do not genuinely control their own media. Because if we knew who owns what and what they are are about, the current and future Baisden-like fiascoes would be taken for what they are: distractions from the much larger threat of media consolidation at the expense of widening and amplifying the diverse, autonomous voices of communities color.

And for all the good things Baisden may have said or done around Jena and other salient issues, if you haven't heard him mention "media literacy", "media consolidation" or "media justice", now you know why.

Fueling the flames of the incendiary word "nigger"

Last week, I was invited back to Farai Chideya's Bloggers Roundtable on her nationally syndicated show on NPR show called "News & Notes".

Apparently, a previously scheduled guest bowed out at the last minute, and I was honored to fill in moments before going on air.

Farai threw me right into the fray by asking me what I thought the implications were of rapper Nas' soon-to-drop album tentatively titled: Nigger.

In short, I said that I'd have to withhold judgment until I heard the lyrical content. It could be just a PR stunt to sell CDs. It could also be a political statement worthy of making in the manner he framed. Or perhaps it will prove to be some combination of the two.

However, what I suspect bothered many listeners including the pseudonymous blogger, "The Angry Independent", of Mirror on America, is the belief that I "support" use of this word.

If that's what he and others took from my short commentary on the show, it's clear I have a lot to learn about articulating my opinions more clearly.

Of all that I had to say on the subject, this is what The Angry Independent chose to quote from me:

“Nigger is (an acceptable) part of the Black dialect.”

Notice the parentheses around "acceptable". Actually, given that I did not say that word, I think it should be in brackets. But, hey, I'm just a (semi-literate) apologist spraying "nigger" around like an malevolent skunk.

For those of you who did not hear the actual segment, feel free to listen to it here.

Or if you prefer to just read that part of the transcript which The Angry Indian chose to ignore or just infuse his own assumptions about my personal motivations, then by all means read on:

I use the word.

[Farai: "In what context?"]

In Ebonics! This is part of Black dialect. Now, it can be used in different ways.

I try to minimize how I use it.

I don't use it in public. I don't use it around my children. I tend not to use it as a crutch.

You know a lot of those folks who say this word should be buried and dead, I've heard them use it.

. . . I will use it among people -- in an intimate environment. . . a trusting environment, where people know my tone and my intent, and what type of person I am.

But I'm not going to call some random person that. And I'm not going to use it in mixed company. . .

I don't use it in an intergenerational context. People older than babyboomer.

It is a profane word. But there is beauty in profanity. Ever heard of Richard Pryor? . . .

This is  much different statement than "profanity is beauty", with which I wholeheartedly disagree and suspect many young artists (of VARIOUS musical genres) naively believe.

My goal here is not to proselytize though, it is to discuss this matter in a respectful, good faith manner and context.

I have friends, colleagues and relatives who do not agree with me on this subject. And I am comfortable with that. However, I do not think that people who disagree with me are idiots or disingenuous. I do think that there are some folks who can only feel right or validated by denigrating others. To me, this is a sign of (among other things) great insecurity.

I do not use the word, "bomb" at airports and other such venues for obvious reasons. However, I have not decided to refer to bomb as the B-word as though there is something inherently dangerous about the word.

In the 1990s I used the expression "da bomb" along with millions of other Gen Xers as slang for "that's great", similar to the other colloquialism: "dope". And by acknowledging use of this word, I hope that this is not taken for condoning heroine use by America's youth.

The fact is, I don't support the use of the word nigger nor do I demand its obsolescence. I understand its complex origin, uses and impacts. And as a consequence, I use it situationally and (what I believe is) responsibly in my life. I'm not proud of it, nor the least bit ashamed of it either.

My ire is raised when folks who use it behind closed doors proclaim publicly that it should never be used under any circumstance.

I am angered when we choose to focus on symptoms and not solutions to their underlying causes -- matters that deserve far more attention and care than a single word. Call me crazy, but I'd like to bury poverty and injustice. We do this, and eventually "nigger" as it was originally conceived will die a quick death. And maybe, just maybe the ignorance around how and why its complex uses and impact are important will die with it.

Farai did not ask me to speak on behalf of all Blackfolk. She specifically asked me how I used it, to which I responded honestly.

Perhaps that was not the bourgeois thing to do, but I believe in the power of authenticity to cut through the classist subtext I sense in this public discourse on "nigger".

In essence, I hear: "Nigger" can only be used by niggers. And in Chris Rock logic: There are indeed niggers among us Blackfolk. And quietly, niggers get what they deserve based on how they think, act and betray the rest of us "good" Black people.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that's what The Angry Independent thinks (or thinks about me). But this matter transcends whatever two random bloggers may think or blog about this topic. And more importantly, it should not include or depend on the Wolf Blitzers of our conglomerate-tainted media.

Assuming the average White person has learned to accept that "nigger" is 1) a highly dangerous word for him/her to use -- particularly within earshot of Black people, 2) is not conducive to fostering racial harmony, or 3) is inappropriate in polite conversation, then it seems what those Blackfolk ranting and raving about the so-called "N-word" are so concerned with is (some) people's use of the word within and by the Black community within earshot of Whitefolk.

If that's one the real, unspoken motivations of the wanton pallbearers for "nigger", then so be it. But know that that is not how this subject has been publicly framed. In other words, don't say let's bury "nigger" forever when you really mean, "Let's not give Whitefolk yet another reason to pity or loathe Blackfolk's self-destructive culture."

So, if I'm condemned by folks who I feel believe the latter, I know there's little to nothing to say to them that will change their sad and feeble little minds.

But for those folks with whom I respectfully disagree who genuinely seek to snuff out this controversial word regardless of what White people think, I'm all ears.

After all, we can agree that language is indeed a significant form and expression of power. However, how that power is manifest and can evolve is open for debate. And when we actually debate the merits and not engage in ad hominem attacks that would make the fabled Willie Lynch cry tears of joy, then maybe, just maybe, the time we spend talking about a word will be reallocated to eradicating the oppressive conditions from whence it drew its greatest strength.

Afro-Netizen proudly sponsors 10Questions.com

Over this past summer I was interviewed on a couple different radio shows on NPR and Air America, and the hosts asked me what I thought about the CNN/YouTube Presidential Debate (Democrats). To paraphrase, I said,  "it sucked".

At the end of the day, some random assemblage of CNN employees and consultants ultimately decided which video questions of the thousands that were submitted were "TV-worthy", thus stripping away the most organic and important elements of participatory media CNN claimed to embrace.

The CNN/YouTube Debates used this powerful new medium poorly and in bad faith. I quipped to the radio hosts that I'd like to see a candidate-free presidential debate that focused on analyzing candidates' positions on issues most important to the general public. Well, I'm glad to say that toward this end, my colleagues at TechPresident.com have innovated once again!

The rigorously creative folks at TechPresident.com called me up to ask if Afro-Netizen would come aboard to sponsor and promote 10Questions.com. Micah Sifry gave me the "elevator pitch", and I replied, "You had me at 'Do you wanna . . .'". I realized that 10Questions had the potential to do what corporate media structurally resists doing: trusting in the collective wisdom of the public, in this case, the private citizens who choose to engage in this fascinating civic experiment.

So, here's the quick-n-dirty synopsis of 10Questions:

ROUND 1

1. You ask a video question addressed to the presidential candidates (& upload it via YouTube, Blip.TV or Yahoo Video, tagging it with "10Questions").

2. You vote on the best questions.

3. The top ten questions get selected.

ROUND 2

1. The top ten questions are presented to the candidates.

2. Candidates post their video answers.

3. You decide if they actually answered the questions.

Afro-Netizen sees in this ground-breaking project a (sadly) unique opportunity for us Blackfolk and other marginalized Americans whose concerns and priorities often fall outside of "mainstream" discourse to express our diversity of thought and perspectives as individuals while simultaneously committing to rally around those few questions that evoke the most visceral response in us communally.

I recommend to Afro-Netizen readers the following:

1) Craft an actual question (not a speech).

2) Make that question clear & specific.

3) Consider a question regarding an important issue that you haven't heard asked of a 
    presidential candidate on TV.

4) Frame the question within the context that acknowledges structural inequality and/or a
    commitment to social, racial and/or economic justice.

5) If you do upload a video question, please remember to tag it with "10Questions" and
    "afronetizen" (so that the 10Questions folks can pull it and we at Afro-Netizen can   
    monitor the efforts of submitters who learned about the project through us.)

6) Be sure to add a clear, descriptive title to your video.

If you do not have access to a webcam, do not want to be on camera, or simply want to share your question(s) with Afro-Netizen to invite our readers to submit them, feel free to do so by shooting us an e-mail at: 10questions@afro-netizen.

Spread the word! And let's get to it!

(To share this post with others via e-mail, you can copy & paste the following URL into the body of your message: http://www.afro-netizen.com/2007/10/afro-netizen-pr.html .)

The Jena in us

Since the day of protest in Jena, Louisiana, there has been a flurry of interest in reporters from the mainstream press in contacting some of us in the Black netroots/blogging community about how and why the massive organizing and presence of Blackfolk in this small rural town represents a fulcrum for social media in Black America.

I've spoken at length to various reporters and academics since September 20th, and I have said many things no more eloquently as the many profoundly gifted activists and bloggers who have covered the Jena matter far longer and more consistently than I.

The reporters that have contacted me, all of whom have been White men, have appeared to express surprisingly nuanced and thoughtful approaches to covering this story and its much larger implications. However, from their laptops to their editor's desks is a treacherous journey that reinforces the need, beauty and power of social media like blogging which disintermediate the politics of the gatekeeping class from the writer and the reader.

The cogent vignettes that linked the visceral impact of the Jena trials for Blackfolk and the OJ verdict for many Whitefolk somehow were eviscerated before making it to print.

Then, just this morning, my wife handed me a draft of a writing project she's working on. And there at the top of Page 1 was this:

That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing which we black are wise.
Her bandage hides two festing sores
That once perhaps were eyes.

--Langston Hughes

Deep within the being of Blackfolk is a shared wisdom and maturity about what Justice feels like, and equally important, how Injustice wracks our centuries-battered collective soul. This sixth sense is borne of oppression and our cultural fortitude and improvisational gifts that allows our spirit to remain indomitable, even in this most adverse situations.

This sense bespeaks the clearly felt vulnerability of our citizenship and our intimate familiarity with living in a land of abundance and great opportunity frought with the complexities and paradoxes associated with how much of this abundance and opportunity was created on our backs.

Prophet Hughes wrote many years ago what I felt much of the time I was too paralyzed to write about the Jena Revolt: Jena has been in us long before protesters were in it.

We protest

We protest because the boys of Jena 6 and their families need to know they are not alone.

We protest because the Jena travesty is not about a nooses that were hung on a now-felled tree, but the noose of injustice that remains around the neck of Black America.

We protest because few people know "state-sponsored terrorism" like Blackfolk.

We protest because Jena is not a rural Southern town, it is a state of mind -- not from the 1950s, but of the here and now in every American town, suburb and city from South to North and sea to shining sea.

We protest because Jena exemplifies with such brutal clarity the racialization of crime in our society.

We protest because what happened in Jena is worthy of substantive national attention and action and OJ's most recent transgression is not.

We protest because the media we trust most are the media we control -- directly or indirectly -- traditional and digital alike.

We protest because society at-large needs to know that the American Dream will remain just that -- a dream -- without aggressively committing to the fight for racial justice long after Jena fades from the far too few headlines it has received compared to much lesser matters.

We protest because so often the Black accused are guilty before proven innocent, and the White accused (a la the Duke LaCross angels) so often are given the benefit of the doubt and relevant facts about their backgrounds are omitted to conform to the racial mythologies that serve the status quo.

We protest because we are moved to do so, not because any charismatic leader told us to do so.

We protest because we are following our our consciences, not polls.

We protest because we know that leaders do not draw crowds, crowds attract (more) leaders.

We protest because "we are the leaders we have been waiting for".

We protest because we know that large groups of organized Black people help disabuse our fellow Americans of any faulty notions of mass complacency in our communities.

We protest because we draw strength and comfort from the fact that just by showing up in unity behind the most humane and reasonable of missions represents one of the greatest perceived threats to so-called peace and the safety of the privileged and their property.

We protest because we believe in Frederick Douglass' salient words that "power concedes nothing without a demand" -- especially from an equal or greater power.

We protest because we believe that power, in the words of Dr. King, is "the ability to achieve purpose".

We protest because we believe that our leaders are not who corporate media say our leaders are, but those who speak up, stand up and organize when it is often inconvenient and unpopular to do so.

We protest because we know that this is an inter-generational struggle led by Blackfolk and inclusive of all who stand for justice irrespective of hue or heritage.

We protest because we believe -- and history has shown us -- that everyone has a role in the struggle for long-term social change.

We believe that "we" is whomever sees reflected in these words something that affirms or inspires them to act for the common good.

We protest not to beg, implore or seek permission or validation from those who fear us or abuse our trust, but to symbolize the work we have already done thus far and will continue to do when all the camera crews have left the scene to follow OJ or Paris Hilton.

We protest in peace for justice because America still knows neither, and the ghosts of Selma abound with every needless incarceration of our youth.

We protest on behalf of our boys and girls who have become society's poster-children for criminality and dysfunction because it is in our centuries-old tradition to resist all forces that have sought to cage our spirit, from the Middle Passage to Hurricane Katrina.

We protest because if not now, then when?

On honoring our Black fathers

On the same day my father would have turned 75 years old, I received the following e-mail today forwarded to me by my brother:

Hello….

I am gathering stories about African American fathers to include in a book I am writing, hence my reaching out to you. What is or was your relationship with your father? What is his story?  Who is he as a man?  How does/did he show you what a father is?

Reading about our African American fathers today, one would think they don’t exist or they are few and far between.  We hear and read….”they are absent and unsupportive parents”. I happen to know many, including my own, who are present and very supportive.  I want to hear about your father, or a father you know who does not fit these and other stereotypes that are continuously perpetuated.  I am determined to show our fathers who love and have been there for us…the fathers we see everyday…the ones greater society continues to depict as non existent.  Help me show what we know; they do exist in the African American community.

Here is what I am asking of you….

Tell me about your father or one that you know. You can share a short anecdote, or a tradition or pastime you share/shared with him or maybe a moment when you stepped back and realized “he was just being a dad”.  Tell me when you realized his role as a father helped you develop into the person you are today.

Please feel free to send this e-mail to others who have a story to tell as well.

As I mentioned earlier, my goal is to share these stories in a book I plan to publish in the first step in my quest to change the labels of our African American men.

Please send your responses in Word format to: aafwritingproject (at) ameritech (dot) net .

Include your name and e-mail address. 

I will contact you with additional information.   

Thanks…let’s change the stereotypes plaguing our African American Fathers by sharing our stories.

Nancy

I am holding back tears of joy and grief as I write this, reminded of the innumerable ways my father represented the very best of Black manhood/fatherhood and also struck by the daunting realization that with his loss (and my amazing Black grandfathers who predeceased him), the daddy I must look to now is the one who stares back at me in the mirror everyday who loves his two boys every bit as much as my daddy loved his two boys.

 

More on the CBCI-Fox News debate mess

While packing for my trip to Chicago earlier tonight, I saw a video commentary by the ubiquitous media man, Roland S. Martin on TV One.

He spoke passionately about Blackfolk supporting the scheduled CBC Institute's presidential debate series, encouraging the A-List Democratic contenders to rejoin the first precariously scheduled debate on September 23rd, having chosen to withdraw from the prospective debate due to the CBCI's affiliation with the Fox News Channel (as vehemently criticized by a loosely-organized cohort of Black netroots activists).

In sum, Martin said that withdrawing from the debate was wrong, and that it would negatively impact the CBCI's goal of bringing important Black issues to the fore, and that they should not be pressured by the likes of MoveOn.org, white liberals, and "their Black companion group, ColorOfChange.org".

So, if my strong affiliation and respect for ColorOfChange.org automatically makes me a lackey of white liberals, what does the CBCI board's unwavering commitment to the Fox News Channel make it? Hmmm . . .

While, indeed, MoveOn.org does not have a strong track record or reputation for reaching, engaging or representing a racially diverse membership, neither does the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to cozy up to Senate Republicans, does it?

The fact of the matter is that while Blackfolk need to cast a critical eye on all broadcast/
corporate/mainstream/independent media, those outlets that are consistently, flagrantly and explicitly racist should be considered the low-hanging (poison) fruit in the eyes of enlightened Blackfolk and others who are committed to fighting racism and other institutional forms of bigotry. As such, we are called to speak out against and disempower such media outlets by choosing not to validate them -- as the CBCI has committed to doing -- as a so-called news-gathering organization.

The fact is, Fox News reaches a much smaller audience than ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS (regardless of their declining news and overall ratings). Fox News also has a much smaller audience than the Tom Joyner Morning show or Steve Harvey's radio show. Moreover, YouTube.com (owned by Google), Facebook.com and MySpace.com (yes, I know it's own by Fox News' parent company, NewsCorp) also dwarf all of Fox News' audiences combined. In fact, the top 5 so-called progressive political blogs reach far bigger (combined) audience than any of Fox News' most popular shows.

So, why then is the CBCI determined to turn a deaf ear to the hue and cry to the growing contingent of perceived pesky "white liberal"-venerating dilitantes seeking to keep Black institutions accountable to, well,  . . . their own mission statements?

Afro-Netizen doesn't have a magic crystal ball. And perhaps the reasons are varied and complicated. Regardless, one thing is clear: If those of us in the Black netroots community don't continue to raise hell (loudly, visibly and virally), who will?

While one can argue that the best leaders also know how to follow, in the final analysis, leaders lead, right?

Or perhaps we can reflect on this current debacle as a teachable moment, showing us how the arrogant and short-sighted "leadership" of some public servants in our community represent instructive misteps providing rich lessons for how such individuals ultimately fare who choose to serve others' more opaque interests over the clear best interests of their own constituents.

However the CBCI leadership comes out of this fracas, one thing we should all be able to agree on is this: "The revolution will not be televised" -- and certainly not by the Fox News Channel.

 

Liveblogging on Farai Chideya's "News & Notes" radio show

It has taken the inimitable media maven Farai Chideya to pull me back into the blogosphere after an unexpected hiatus due to the sudden death of my maternal grandmother and muse, Madeline Wheeler Murphy.

She was a veteran journalist and community organizer in Baltimore, Maryland -- Farai's neck of the woods.

I have no doubt that if she had not sustained a massive stroke several years ago which made such a wizard of tongue and pen functionally illiterate overnight, my grandmother would have joined me (if not preceded me) in the blogosphere. She was online before most of my peers and colleagues in 1996, and she was a fearless, inexhaustibly curious and gifted woman. (But more on this amazing woman in a separate post.)

So, I see this opportunity to participate in her "Bloggers Roundtable" section of her show as a very appropriate on-ramp back into cyberspace, having Black female journalist bookends representing the ancestral presence of my grandmother on one side of me and the future of Black journalism on the other.

Today, the "News & Notes" Bloggers Roundtable discussion will cover YouTube/CNN's pseudo-digital presidential debate, Michael Vick's animal torture addiction, CBS sending little white boys out in the wild, Congressman Keith Ellison using the H-word (i.e., Hitler) in reference to Team Dubya and BET's new family values show changing its name from "Hot Ghetto Mess" to "Racism on Auto Pilot". (Or is it "We Can Do Better"?) Well, a fetid rose by any other name is still a fetid rose, right?

Lastly, if you are not listening to "News & Notes" right now -- or cannot because it airs passed your bedtime or not at all if you're in cities like Chicago or other metro areas whose NPR affiliates are not enlightened enough to carry this wonderful show, then you can listen to Farai & Co. here.

A young(ish) cynic reflects on flip-flopping in the CBC's ranks

My grandmother loved to quote Twain: "The only thing sadder than a young cynic is an old optimist."

Grandma Murphy, a veteran community activist/writer in Baltimore, has taught me a lot of things throughout my life. One of her most important and enduring pearls of wisdom has been her admonition that "everything is political". Grandma Murphy would go on to drive the point home that "even flushing the toilet is a political act". (And she meant that in a literal sense despite the clear metaphorical value of her example.)

As a young(ish) cynic navigating this post-9/11 Digital Age, this latest round of non-sense with the CBC Institute trying to convince itself, CBC members and the public at-large that it is a representative and relevant organization reveals something perhaps only a cynic may see at first glance.

I do not dare say that this is definitive or based on any inside information I have been leaked, but I suspect that if the CBC Institute hosts a highly rated presidential debate, major advertisers -- I mean potential contributors -- will want to "support" the CBCI which probably could stand to get a couple more bucks in its coffers.

I also suspect that since fully validated and influential members of Black America may not be aware of this CBCI/Fox fiasco as created by the Black netroots community (a term which most Americans are still largely unfamiliar with), an all too large subset of CBC members have chosen to add their names to a letter requesting that the Tier 1 candidates (i.e., Obama, Edwards & Clinton) rejoin this scheduled debate because the risk of not signing it has far clearer and potentially worse implications than signing it. But this is the game of politics. And I do not take it personally. But I do most definitely take it seriously.

There are some outstanding legislators who have chosen to sign the letter because they think it's the best thing to do  (but not necessarily the only or right thing to do) at present. As with family members, on some things we will agree, and on others . . . fuhgeddabowdit. And like family, if an elder has wronged someone else in the family, rarely is confronting the elder in public or in mixed company appropriate or effective.

Perhaps this cyber-cynic has a bit of optimism in him after all. Because I bet a few of the begrudging signatories want those of us leading the anti-Fox/CBCI partnership brigade to win with flying colors.

While I gather this CBC letter was leaked by a member who was not a signatory, I do not doubt that with the right tools, opportunity and support, collaborators on the inside can help our cause because 1) they know our position is consistent with their collective's professed raison d'etre, and more practically 2) they see that the writing is on the wall: the Black netroots ain't goin' away. In fact, it gathers force every day. And one day real soon those signatories are going to need us  . . . far more (and far more often) than the Faux News Channel!

CBCI leadership regroups around proposed presidential debate

A letter begging Barack Obama to re-commit to participate in the Fox News/CBC Institute presidential debate has been shared with Afro-Netizen by our good friends at ColorOfChange.org. It was leaked to them by a member of the Congressional Black Congress (CBC) and now referenced in a Hill article that went to press today.

The letter to Obama begins: "Please, baby, baby, baby. Please!" Woops, that's the subtext, not the actual verbiage.

Seriously though, click on the image to the left to read the full letter yourselves.

Please remember that some weeks ago, as spearheaded by the valiant work of ColorOfChange.org, a number of Black bloggers and other progressive-types railed on the CBCI for peddling this ill-conceived and dubious partnership with the Faux News Channel, and as a result, Edwards, then later Obama (and finally, Hillary) dropped out of participating in the scheduled debate.

The CBCI leadership's response to our collective critique was that CBC members did not control the actions of the independent CBCI. But now that it has egg on its face and will be coming alone to the poorly attended dance, the CBCI has leaned on CBC members to help them validate themselves in the eyes of the mainstream media.

The problem here (and there are plenty) is that it's not the mainstream media that the CBCI should be seeking validation from: it's Blackfolk who give a damn. And guess what? If they forget this fact, we won't!

Glover & Venezuela's Chávez; Hillary & Gretna, Louisiana's Sheriff Lee

Politics produces strange bedfellows, as the saying goes (or words to that effect). But strange or not, bedfellows do speak volumes about the public figures they're in bed with -- even for just a one-night stand.

Case in point: actor/progressive activist, Danny Glover, has just inked an $18-million deal with Venezuela's new Villa del Cine, a state-owned movie studio, to produce a feature film on Toussaint L'Ouverture, the father of the New World's first Black republic, Haiti. Kudos, Brother Glover!

This is not the first time Glover has worked with Venezuela and its internationally popular president, Hugo Chávez.

I have no beef with this union. In fact, I think it's a good thing. However, it is sad that a respected actor such as Glover cannot raise a measly $18mm (by Hollywood standards, anyway) for a Black, 18th-century version of '