Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. Change won't happen unless you work to make it happen! But sometimes even your best efforts don't provide the results you were looking for. Or sometimes a situation is just so completely outrageous that all you can do is say ... YIKES!
The author of this is unknown to me, but it seemed worthy of posting.
How Racism works...
What if Michelle Obama walked 5 kids including a pregnant 17 year old on stage? Would racism change the perception?
What if a video surfaced of Michelle Obama being cleansed of witch craft by a black preacher?
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said 'I do' to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife at the age of 42 (for a 22 year old heiress) after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the 'Keating 5'?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
The country is a little more compassionate today because one of our most strident bigots is dead. Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator, is dead at 86.
Nicknamed "Senator No", Helms built his extremist conservative career opposing civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art. Helms opposed providing assistance to people who had fallen on hard times, once proposing that funds for welfare be cut in half.
“I didn’t come to Washington to be a yes man for any President, Democrat or Republican,” he said in an interview in 1989. “I didn’t come to Washington to get along and win any popularity contests.”
Perhaps his most visible accomplishments in the Senate came two decades apart. One was a 1996 measure that tightened trade sanctions against the Marxist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The other, a 1973 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, prevented American money from going to international family planning organizations that, in his words, “provide or promote” abortion. He also introduced amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for foreign aid, welfare programs and the arts. [...]
In the 1980’s he took on the National Endowment for the Arts for subsidizing art that he found offensive, chiefly that of the homosexual photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and of the artist Andres Serrano over his depiction of a crucifix submerged in urine. He later led an ill-fated attempt to take over CBS, exhorting conservatives to buy up stock in order to stop what he saw as a liberal bias in its news reporting.
He was also well known for holding up votes on treaties and appointments to win a point. His willingness to block the business of the Senate or the will of Presidents earned him the sobriquet “Senator No” — a label he relished. [...]
He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.
“Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said, “and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle.” [...]
In 1993 Helms had a run-in with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a freshman senator from Illinois and the first African American woman elected to the Senate. Moseley-Braun led the opposition to Helms' proposal to renew the United Daughters of the Confederacy's design patent on an insignia featuring the original flag of the Confederacy.
The patent had expired, and the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to renew the design patent. (Moseley-Braun was a member of that committee.) Helms then decided to attach legislation for the design patent as an amendment (Amendment 610) to the National Service Bill. His comments to the full Senate were that the Judiciary Committee's previous action was "An unintended rebuke aimed at 24,000 ladies who belong to the United Daughters of the Confederacy who work together as unpaid volunteers at veteran's hospitals and many, many other places" (Congressional Record, 1993, S9251). The Senate then prepared to vote on the bill, which would have guaranteed passage of Amendment 610 as well.
Before the vote could take place, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African American woman elected to the Senate, was pulled by her staffers out of Judiciary Committee hearings and notified that the United Daughters of the Confederacy's (UDC) request for patent renewal was being re-introduced as Amendment 610. To her surprise, it was about to be voted on in the full Senate. Moseley-Braun rushed to the main floor to try to stop the vote.
I can still remember Senator Moseley-Braun taking the microphone that day and refusing to give it up. Word quickly spread through the NOW office and we all rushed to the conference room to watch what was happening on C-SPAN.
Her filibuster on the Senate floor that day led to protests from some of her colleagues who at first were unwilling to challenge Helms. They repeatedly asked her to give up the microphone, to which she replied: "I've got the mic and you've got the problem." It was clear she was NOT going to give up control of the mic until she had the votes needed to defeat the bill.
Rob Richie at The Center for Voting and Democracy noted: "After Moseley-Braun argued in an impassioned speech that the confederate flag was an emblem of slavery, the Senate, which had earlier approved the patent, reversed itself and voted 75 to 25 to reject it."
THAT is the kind of passion missing from the Senate today.
Probably more widely known was Sen. Helm's use of racism to defeat challenger Harvey Gantt.
Trailing in a tough re-election fight in 1990 against a black opponent, Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, Mr. Helms unveiled a nakedly racial campaign ad in which a pair of hands belonging to a white job-seeker crumpled a rejection slip as an announcer explained that the job had been given to an unqualified member of a minority. Mr. Helms went on to victory.
One of the first events I attended as a new staffer at the National Organization for Women was a fundraiser for Harvey Gantt. There is no question the country would have been much better served by a "Senator" Gantt, than we ever were by Jesse Helms. The NOW national conference is coming up in a few weeks, and I fully expect to see some of the participants sporting "Helms NO" T-shirts, buttons and tote bags. They've been a staple for the 20 years I've been a member.
Now that we have presumptive nominees for the two major parties, the media must now decide which one it intends to support -- because as we all know, the media does play favorites.
While he was certainly the favorite during the primary, the luster seems to be coming off Sen. Barack Obama as we head into the general election. And now that a sexist media no longer has Sen. Clinton to kick around, they have turned their focus on Michelle Obama.
Her fist bump becomes a terrorist symbol and her every word becomes representative of what a racist media calls "an angry Black woman."
Cal Thomas says that America only sees "angry Black women" on television.
Jane Hall: If they can’t prove he’s a Muslim, then let’s prove his wife is an angry black woman. I think it’s going to get ugly.
Cal Thomas: And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country. They’re usually angry about something. They’ve had a son who has been shot in a drive-by shooting. They are angry at Bush. So you don’t really have a profile of non-angry black women.
Gee, Cal thinks there isn't a "profile of non-angry black women" on television? I guess he's never seen any of these women -- who are terrific:
It seems every time we turn around Sen. Obama is apologizing for something! How clever that he doesn't have to make the questionable comments, and can try to appear to be above it all. That's not going to fly much longer Senator.
So what is Obama apologizing for now? This:
Let me be very clear in saying that if I thought for one moment that Sen. Clinton felt entitled to the nomination because she is "white" I would drop my support for her in a heartbeat. Fortunately, I don't have to do that because this is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.
On this point, Father Michael Pfleger is wrong.
Is there "white privilege" in this country? You bet. Is it a good thing? Hell no. Is this the way to address it? Absolutely not.
There is no question in my mind that "white privilege" exists, and that some people do feel entitled to benefits simply because they are white. It's also true that sexism exists, and that probably many of those same people believe they are entitled to power because they are men.
And there is no question that far too many corporations have benefited from the exploitation of both people of color and women. It's been going on for a very long time.
There are racial problems that need to be addressed, just as there are issues of sexism that must be addressed.
We must not allow ourselves to fall victim to a divide and conquer strategy, and THAT is the problem I have with Father Pfleger's message.
Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday. [...]
''I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble -- and believed in love,'' Fortune told The Associated Press.
Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.
''There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause,'' the court ruled in a unanimous decision.
Her husband died in 1975. Shy and soft-spoken, Loving shunned publicity and in a rare interview with The Associated Press last June, insisted she never wanted to be a hero -- just a bride. [...]
''The law that threatened the Lovings with a year in jail was a vestige of a hateful, discriminatory past that could not stand in the face of the Lovings' quiet dignity,'' said Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the ACLU.
''We loved each other and got married,'' [Loving] told The Washington Evening Star in 1965, when the case was pending. ''We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants.''
Loving v. Virginia changed the marriage landscape for interracial couples. It is often cited as a reason why same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. As Mildred Loving said, "the law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."
Sean Bell was celebrating with friends the night before he was to be married. It was a bachelor party turned tragic when in the wee hours of the morning -- on his wedding day -- Bell was killed as police officers fired 50 shots at the unarmed man.
The three officers on trial for the shooting were acquitted of all charges today. This simply cannot be justice.
Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.
Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a Queens courtroom packed with spectators, including victim Sean Bell's fiancee and parents, as at least 200 people gathered outside the building. [...]
The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.
Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.
A conviction on manslaughter could have brought up to 25 years in prison; the penalty for reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, is a year behind bars.
The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo — an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration.
Pictured above is Sean Bell with his fiancee Nicole Paultre and their daughter.
With two candidates poised to make history it's inevitable that discussions of race and gender will abound. Here is a piece in The New York Times by Nicholas Kristof that presents information that seems possible to me. But you be the judge:
Our Racist, Sexist Selves
... The unconscious is playing a political role this year, for the evidence is overwhelming that most Americans have unconscious biases both against blacks and against women in executive roles.
At first glance, it may seem that Barack Obama would face a stronger impediment than Hillary Clinton. Experiments have shown that the brain categorizes people by race in less than 100 milliseconds (one-tenth of a second), about 50 milliseconds before determining sex. And evolutionary psychologists believe we’re hard-wired to be suspicious of people outside our own group, to save our ancestors from blithely greeting enemy tribes of cave men. In contrast, there’s no hard-wired hostility toward women, though men may have a hard-wired desire to control and impregnate them.
Yet racism may also be easier to override than sexism. For example, one experiment found it easy for whites to admire African-American doctors; they just mentally categorized them as “doctors” rather than as “blacks.” Meanwhile, whites categorize black doctors whom they dislike as “blacks.”
In another experiment, researchers put blacks and whites in sports jerseys as if they belonged to two basketball teams. People looking at the photos logged the players in their memories more by team than by race, recalling a player’s jersey color but not necessarily his or her race. But only very rarely did people forget whether a player was male or female.
“We can make categorization by race go away, but we could never make gender categorization go away,” said John Tooby, a scholar at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who ran the experiment. Looking at the challenges that black and female candidates face in overcoming unconscious bias, he added, “Based on the underlying psychology and anthropology, I think it’s more difficult for a woman, though not impossible.”
Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, agrees: “In general, gender trumps race. ... Race may be easier to overcome.”
The challenge for women competing in politics or business is less misogyny than unconscious sexism: Americans don’t hate women, but they do frequently stereotype them as warm and friendly, creating a mismatch with the stereotype we hold of leaders as tough and strong. So voters (women as well as men, though a bit less so) may feel that a female candidate is not the right person for the job because of biases they’re not even aware of. [...]
Women now hold 55 percent of top jobs at American foundations but are still vastly underrepresented among political and corporate leaders — and one factor may be that those are seen as jobs requiring particular toughness. Our unconscious may feel more of a mismatch when a woman competes to be president or a C.E.O. than when she aims to lead a foundation or a university.
Women face a related challenge: Those viewed as tough and strong are also typically perceived as cold and unfeminine. Many experiments have found that women have trouble being perceived as both nice and competent.
“Clinton runs the risk of being seen as particularly cold, particularly uncaring, because she doesn’t fit the mold,” said Joshua Correll, a psychologist at the University of Chicago. “It probably is something a man doesn’t deal with.” ...
... I simply assumed that the discrimination that women faced around the world was rooted in misogyny; now I wonder if sexism isn’t the better term. Let me explain the evolution of my thought.
Initially, I focused on misogyny because women in so many places are targeted for particularly brutality. For example, in South Asia, acid attacks are common against women, but almost never against men. Likewise, many different cultures report incidents in which women are picked out and stripped naked or otherwise sexually humiliated, in ways that rarely happen to men. And as best the records tell us, women were executed about twice as often for witchcraft as men. Granted, in conflicts men and boys are invariably killed at far higher rates than women and girls, but that’s functional: it facilitates robbery and reduces the men’s ability to bear arms in a rival militia. In contrast, women are often assaulted in ways that seem less functional and just gratuitously barbarous. The rape-caused fistulas in Congo are one example. So all that is why I tended to reach for misogyny as an explanation.
Then in the reporting for this column, I spoke to evolutionary psychologists who emphasized the distinct origins of racism and misogyny/sexism. Racism seems based in a hard-wired tendency of ancient humans to divide into groups to improve odds of survival, and it was an evolutionary advantage to be able to identify strongly with your own tribe and to fear or kill members of other tribes. That may be why even very small children — even infants — draw racial distinctions or other in-group/out-group distinctions.
In contrast, the evolutionary origins of attitudes toward women were based presumably less on hatred and more on desire to control them and impregnate them, so as to pass on one’s genes. Acquiring and enforcing a harem, so as to improve the odds of one’s own genes being passed on, might involve ruthlessness, enslavement and brutal beatings, but there was no evolutionary incentive for gender hatred as there was for hatred of different tribes. And of course much of the anti-women behavior around the world, from genital cutting to bride burnings to sex trafficking, is typically overseen by women themselves, and it’s easier to see their behavior as opportunism or deeply-embedded sexism than as hatred of fellow women. So that’s why I wonder if sexism, in the sense of discriminatory attitudes toward males and females, isn’t a better way of thinking about the issue than misogyny, in the sense of hatred toward women. [...]
I can’t say I’m fully convinced of the argument I’m making. There are still the acid attacks and similar behavior, which I find hard to explain short of misogyny. And maybe the distinction between sexism and misogyny is artificial. Wife-beating may be rooted in the male desire to control a mate and ensure that she passes on his genes and no one else’s, and such behavior isn’t driven by hatred of women in the way that lynchings were driven by racism or that attacks on gays were driven by homophobia. But for the woman with multiple broken arms, that may seem a meaningless distinction.
Tuesday was another busy day, but I did stop for 40 minutes to listen to Sen. Barack Obama's speech. I must confess that I was able to focus on it for about 20 minutes, and then I found myself drifting off to thoughts of what I needed to do.
I also found myself thinking that I do agree with what he is saying, and there is no question that he is good at delivering a speech, but at the same time there was something missing.
I'm not sure this will come out the way I hope it will, but here goes.
There is absolutely no question that racism exists. Just as there is absolutely no question that sexism exists. What I am still so frustrated about is that we have now heard a 40 minute speech on racism, and we have yet to hear anything about the sexism that has gotten so bad some progressive bloggers have called for a strike against certain progressive blogs.
These so-called progressive blogs have allowed people to use language that is incredibly hateful and misogynist in talking about Hillary Clinton, or in responding to people who support Sen. Clinton.
Where is the 40 minute speech addressing this?
When do women get to hear someone say this contest should not be about what Hillary looks like in a pantsuit, that she is only a Senator because her husband cheated on her, or hear her called "Shrillary" for speaking out passionately on issues of the day?
In all the comments I've read regarding Obama's speech, these two most clearly touched on my thoughts about the speech.
There's one significant (to me) issue I have, and it's his failure to mention Clinton (at least in the prepared text), at whom some of Wright's invective was personally directed. It probably wouldn't bother me except for the fact that Obama's been a little ungracious to her on a personal level during this campaign. Clearly, they and their surrogates have provided plenty of reason for them not to like one another, and maybe they don't—but they are still colleagues and ideological allies at the end of the day. And, call me old-fashioned, but I still would like my president to treat people, even people with whom s/he has disagreements, with respect, despite Bush having spent the past seven+ years trying to make that expectation an antiquated notion.
I don't like it when I see Obama turn his back on Clinton, or refuse to look at her during debates. I don't like that he has failed to say he expects his supporters to vote for her if she gets the nomination, and has generally ignored issues of sexism—which I strongly suspect is not because he doesn't care about it (he is the father of two daughters, after all), but because he worries that its mention will remind people of his opponent.
It's an attitude that really rubs me the wrong way. One of the things I always really liked and admired about John Edwards was the fact that he was demonstratively respectful of his opponents. Even when he debated Cheney, who is arguably one of the most loathsome political figures in American history—but was also the vice president, the office of which deserved respect, even if the man who held it did not—Edwards looked at him when he spoke.
That says more about Edwards, ultimately, than it does about Cheney—which is something I feel like Obama hasn't quite grokked yet. He looked utterly contemptuous of Hillary when he would give up only "You're likeable enough," again, without looking at her save for a sideways glance, after she graciously noted how "very likeable" he is.
It's a decidedly unkind moment—and because, as Morrissey once so eloquently put it, "it takes strength to be gentle and kind," it also whiffs of weakness. I had the same feeling reading Obama's speech today, when he references "the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling" and seems to be casting that sideways glance at Hillary, without actually looking at her. [...] It wouldn't kill him to note that she's more than "likeable enough." Actually, it would make him a lot more likeable, too.
I figured. What Obama wants to do is pivot it back to Clinton vs Obama, and get the Republican attack on him through Wright off the table, so he's equated Wright and Ferraro multiple times in the speech. We'll see if the Clinton surrogates fall for it or rise above and ignore it.
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
...We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low.
Sean Wilentz has written an article called Race Man -- How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.
Watching Obama national co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. following the New Hampshire primary, it seem clear to me that HE was certainly playing the race card. It kind of makes you wonder why no one called him on it.
Couple this with the MSM (and many progressive blogs) acting like cheerleaders for Obama, and it's not surprising the most qualified candidate for president is in a virtual tie with a lesser qualified candidate for the nomination.
One of the terrible legacy's of the Reagan administration is the decimation of the Federal Communications Commission.
Before the Reagan years there was a limit on the number of radio and television stations one corporation could own. There was a "fairness" doctrine, which meant that broadcast stations had to give equal time for opposing points of view.
Clear Channel would not exist without Ronald Reagan, and there would be more than five corporations who owned the media in this country.
All the broadcast outlets that air programs featuring hate mongers like John Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, and the cast of FOX News would have to provide equal time for the Keith Olbermann's, Rachael Maddow's and the Air America gang.
The previous post revealed the hate filled speech of John Gibson. Bill Press is also calling out the bigotry of radio talk show host Bob Grant.
It’s alive and well – on talk radio – WABC in New York – and talk show host Bob Grant.
Grant’s record of racist, hate-talk is as old as he is.
He once complained about New York: “Minorities are the Big Apple’s majority, you don’t need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it. To me, that’s a bad thing. I’m a white person.”
He hated the fact that Magic Johnson was still alive: “Why is it taking so long for the HIV to go into full-blown AIDS?”
And he was disappointed in Ron Brown’s plane crash: “I have a hunch Brown might be the lone survivor. But then, I’m a pessimist at heart.”
Radio & Records magazine announced plans to honor Bob Grant at their March meeting in Washington, but changed their mind after complaints about his hateful comments.
Get this. So now conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Neal Boortz are threatening to boycott the meeting because, they say, Grant’s First Amendment rights are being violated.
I say let the assholes stay home!
UPDATE: Speaking of the presidents we hate and their legacy, Dr. Zaius has a GREAT post up about George Bush. It's a must read.
Susan Faludi wrote about it in 1991, the inevitable backlash that occurs anytime gains are made by individuals within a group. A backlash is the spread of negative stereotypes, such as the comments made by Chris Matthews about Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Over the past few months we've seen another backlash emerge, one based on race. Racist incidents have taken place in communities and on college campuses. And recently a sports reporter made an inappropriate comment about what fellow golfers would need to do to catch up with Tiger Woods in tour wins. The commentator was suspended for the comments, and now a magazine editor has lost his job over the same incident.
Ten days after a Golf Channel anchor was suspended for her use of "lynch" in commentary on Tiger Woods, an editor was fired Friday for illustrating the controversy with a noose on the cover of Golfweek magazine.
Dave Seanor, vice president and editor who took responsibility for the noose cover of the Jan. 19 issue, was replaced by Jeff Babineau.
"We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country," Turnstile Publishing Co. president William J. Kupper Jr. said. "We were trying to convey the controversial issue with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic."
It took CBS far too long to deal with Don Imus. It looks like the media is starting to "get it." The public is simply not going to stand for blatant sexism or racism.
History could be made this summer, if Democrats select either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama as their presidential nominee. As they campaign, I guess it was inevitable that a backlash would ensue. How long will it take before this sort of thing becomes an anomaly, and not the rule.
Sentencing guidelines for people convicted of crack cocaine vs powder cocaine have long been viewed as racist. Crack cocaine users, who are mostly Black, have received much harsher sentencing that individuals convicted of using powder cocaine, who are mostly white. That will soon be changing.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted today to make retroactive its new federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, raising hopes for reduced prison terms among thousands of mostly black federal inmates and defying stiff opposition from the Bush administration.
The seven-member commission voted unanimously to allow about 19,500 federal prison inmates, most of them African American, to seek reductions in their sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine, a relatively cheap and highly addictive form of the drug.
Under the decision, approximately 3,800 prisoners could become eligible for release within a year after retroactivity takes effect March 3. [...]
The commission changed its guidelines effective Nov. 1 to reduce a wide disparity in prison sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. Under laws passed by Congress in the 1980s, a person convicted in federal court of possessing 500 grams or more of powder cocaine with intent to distribute receives a five-year minimum sentence, but the same sentence is applied to similar offenses involving as little as 5 grams of crack.
The vast majority of defendants convicted of crack possession are black, while most of those convicted of powder cocaine possession are white.
Of course the Bush administration is opposed to this, and we all know why. For the same reason given by Kanye West to a national audience following the Katrina disaster: "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
Here is a quick look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission decision to allow federal inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses to apply for reduction in their prison terms:
WHO
Inmates serving sentences for crack cocaine crimes. An estimated 19,500 inmates -- out of more than 36,000 crack cocaine convicts -- could be eligible for reduced sentences.
Eighty-six percent of federal inmates convicted of crack cocaine crimes are black.
HOW
An inmate, federal prison officials or a federal judge can start the process. All applications are reviewed by a judge, who has final say on whether to reduce an inmate's sentence.
LIMITS
A two-year reduction in prison time is the maximum most inmates can expect.
WHEN
The decision takes effect on March 3, 2008.
Nearly 10 percent of the eligible inmates could be released on the effective date.
About 23 percent of the qualified inmates could be released in the next year.
Almost half the inmates (47.3 percent) could be released by the end of 2010.
Two of every three eligible inmates could be freed from prison by the end of 2012.
Sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Justice Department.
I have not written much about the Jena 6, but it is certainly an issue that has been on my mind. It's such a clear example of the racism that exists in this country. To think otherwise, is to be blind to reality.
If you are a believer, it borders on blasphemy for the DA to invoke Jesus into this case.
What I find truly sad about all this is the utter silence from the white clergy in the community. They have aligned themselves with the white community, to the detriment of the community they so often CLAIM to represent, which is "ALL of God's children."
As someone who does not attend worship services, but who was exposed briefly during my youth to the Christian faith, I do recall one song that clearly these pastors have forgotten. It's the only song I remember from my one and only week of Sunday school: "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world."
If anyone feels a need to invoke the name of Jesus in this case, let it be to pray for justice for the Jena 6.
Black ... driftglass asked everyone to wear black today -- and even though it's late in the day I wanted to toss in my support. I must have sensed it, because I am wearing something black.
The motor city area, Motown to some, is host to two major conferences this week -- the NAACP and NOW.
The NAACP is wrapping up a week of meetings, which included a keynote address by NAACP National Board of Directors Chairman Julian Bond.
... this is the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock School integration crisis. We honored the courage of the Little Rock Nine and their parents by holding our May Board meeting in Little Rock, along with our Daisy Bates Education Summit. In a cruel irony, the United States Supreme Court observed the 50th anniversary of Little Rock by gutting Brown v. Board, the historic case which gave birth to Little Rock and was supposed to end school segregation.
Until about 25 years ago, remarkable progress toward that goal was made under Brown. “From 1954 to 1982, [Supreme Court] Justices of all persuasions – from William Brennan to Lewis Powell to William Rehnquist – agreed that race-conscious integration policies stand in harmony, not tension, with Brown.”
Indeed, for most of us, the notion that race ought not be considered in remedying racial discrimination is ludicrous. Now the ludicrous has become law.
The Bush Court, on the same day the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list, removed black children from the law’s protection. In two cases from Louisville and Seattle, the Court held by a 5 – 4 vote that those school systems could not voluntarily use race in assigning students to schools.
This is the most radical in a line of cases beginning in the 1980s that questioned race-conscious policies. Only Justice Kennedy stood between this ruling and total disaster. Four members of the Court – the right-wing brothers Scalia and Thomas and Bush appointees Alito and Roberts - would have prohibited any use of race in remedying school segregation.
The truth is, there are no non-racial remedies for racial discrimination. In order to get beyond race, you have to go to race. To suggest racial neutrality as a remedy for racial discrimination is sophistry of the highest order.
At a time when school segregation is increasing, a plurality of the Court would condemn minority children to secondary status before they’ve even started secondary school.
The NOW annual conference promises to be just as exciting, as activists address concerns over the sharp right turn of the Court and the upcoming presidential election.
A young man is murdered, his friends gather to attend his funeral ... on the way to the service more than 30 of them are arrested in a police sting. Their crime? Walking while Black.
The police officers hopped from their vans and cars with shouts of “Hands up,” “Don’t move,” and “Get on the ground.” Someone in the crowd of young people yelled, “Nobody run” — and nobody did, witnesses said. The teenagers were frisked, forced up against a fence or a wall, or pushed to the asphalt.
Those watching said the mood was almost subdued as the handcuffs went on, the loudest sound the whir of a television news helicopter hovering above. “None of us understood what was going on,” said Dana Hollis, whose teenage daughter was arrested. ”Everything just happened so fast.”
Thirty-two young people, the youngest 13, were arrested the afternoon of May 21 in Bushwick, Brooklyn. They had been walking as a group to the subway, which they planned to take to Coney Island for the wake of Donnell McFarland, 18, who had been fatally shot a week earlier.
According to the police, the young people were "exchanging gang signs, wearing T-shirts with a gang name and bounding atop cars when they were arrested." But neighbors stated otherwise.
The charges are misdemeanors: unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct. No drugs or weapons were found, and there were no injuries to those arrested or to the police. The officers did not draw their guns. Yet this roundup of Brooklyn teenagers and young people has gotten widespread attention.
What crime did they commit? Who was hurt? What property was damaged? The answers ... none. Is it any wonder why some people fear the police as much as they do criminals?
First it was Fox News that ran video of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers while reporting on the indictment of Rep. William J. Jefferson on bribery charges. Now, ABC news has apologized to former Washington, DC Mayor Marion Berry for running his picture when promoting a "World News" story about a man suing a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing his pants.
Both Roy L. Pearson, who filed the lawsuit, and Barry are black. Barry's picture ran for East Coast feeds Tuesday when Pearson's story was "teased" at the beginning of the news. It was corrected for later editions, spokeswoman Natalie Raabe said.
So, are these cases of mistaken identity, or not so subtle racism?
While reporting on the indictment of Rep. William J. Jefferson on bribery charges, Fox News mistakenly ran a photo of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan instead of Jefferson. Both congressmen are African American.
Fox blamed the mistake on a 22-year-old production assistant hurriedly grabbing a wrong videotape. Fox's Washington bureau chief, Brian Wilson, said he was mortified by the error.
On Tuesday, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum said about the Jefferson story: "We mistakenly ran the wrong videotape accompanying that story and we apologize for that error." The apology apparently wasn't accepted by Conyers.
"Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced," he said Tuesday. "This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network's complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology."
Fox claims the production assistant grabbed the wrong tape. So I guess when he was told to get tape on "Jefferson" he grabbed the tape labeled "Conyers" ... yeah, right.
That's right, the RNC as fired all their phone bankers. The excuse reason given is that the phone bank technology is outdated and difficult to maintain. A spokesperson for the RNC told the conservative Washington Times, "the RNC was advised that we would soon need an entire new system to remain viable."
Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times.
An RNC spokeswoman is denying there has been a drop-off in contributions, but former employees are telling a much different story.
"Last year, my solicitations totaled $164,000, and this year the way they were running for the first four months, they would total $100,000 by the end of 2007," said one fired phone bank solicitor who asked not to be identified.
Republicans have traditionally had a larger base of small-dollar donors than Democrats, but their base is upset and their small-dollar donations are starting to dry up. And the main reason for the drop off?
There has been a sharp decline in contributions from RNC phone solicitations, another fired staffer said, reporting that many former donors flatly refuse to give more money to the national party if Mr. Bush and the Senate Republicans insist on supporting what these angry contributors call "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
In September 2005, during a benefit for Hurricane Katrina survivors singer Kanye West caused a stir when he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well, now it seems that Bush's base doesn't care about brown people, either!
Time catches up with everyone, it would seem. The Republican Party had done a fantastic job of keeping the theocons, neocons, paleocons and corporatecons united under a big tent by playing both ends against the middle--but eventually, that jig had to come to an end, and now we're seeing it in action with the immigration issue. Bush and the Republicans are compromising and "granting amnesty" to keep their corporate masters happy, and the base is finally getting around to realizing that they have, in fact, been sold down the river. And they've finally stopped parting with their dollars in the hopes that this election cycle will be different.
Looks like corporate America will be choosing the next Republican presidential candidate.
What if Michelle Obama walked 5 kids including a pregnant 17 year old on stage? Would racism change the perception?
