Should blacks be satisfied with Obama's jobs speech?

This week in theGrio I provided an analysis of President Obama's speech on jobs:

In his speech, Obama unveiled his $447 billion American Jobs Act, which offers a mix of tax cuts, jobs and infrastructure funding. Digging deep into the details and analyzing both the policy implications and the rhetorical symbolism of his speech, the president addressed issues that directly impact the black community and the rest of the Democratic base, and speak to their concerns. In other words, it is a good start, if nothing else. 

However, consisting of two-thirds tax cuts, to some degree the president's jobs plan resembles a conservative Republican proposal. Further, he did not specifically discuss the high rate of black joblessness -- a unique situation, to be sure -- and therefore failed to adequately allay the concerns of some of his prominent African-American critics.

For more, go to "The Heart of the Matter with David A. Love" at theGrio.

Why Clarence Thomas owes African-Americans an apology

When Ginni Thomas -- the Tea Partying wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- left Anita Hill a voicemail message asking for an apology, she got it all wrong. It's really Clarence Thomas who owes the apology, to the black community that is.

During his confirmation hearings in 1991, America was introduced to Thomas. And his handlers and boosters created a Horatio Alger, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps story of a black man who emerged from a meager upbringing in Pinpoint, Georgia to become an embodiment of the American dream. We learned that he had Gullah roots. As someone with Gullah ancestry myself via Charleston, South Carolina, I must ask what happened to Thomas to make him run away from his people and forget from whence he came. Justice Thomas is part of the high court's conservative majority (led by Justices Roberts and Scalia), and often is regarded as the most rightward judge among his peers. His record on the bench tells the story:

An originalist, Justice Thomas believes in the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. That is bad news for black folks, and presumably for Thomas as well, given that under that judicial philosophy, he and all other blacks should be in chains on someone's plantation.

Thomas staunchly defended gun rights for African-Americans by cynically making an argument that had hints of Malcolm X or the Black Panther Party. He suggested that black people needed guns to protect themselves from the mob violence of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. True, but that argument seems misplaced in the realities of present-day black America, when young black men in the cities are shooting each other to death. The staunch second amendment advocate had nothing to say about that.

In Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Thomas dissented from the court's majority opinion which said prisoners were covered by the constitution's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." Consistently, Thomas and Scalia have dissented when the court ruled in favor of prisoners who alleged cruelty, including the case of an inmate who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard, a prisoner who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot sun. Thomas even believed that an inmate who was slammed against a concrete floor, punched and kicked by a guard for filing a grievance did not have his constitutional rights violated.

According to Thomas, such harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote. And while his outrage over the tasering and beating of his suicidal epileptic nephew in a Louisiana hospital was understandable if not laudable, never has he shown any sympathy for the one in nine prison inmates suffering from mental illness. It is understandable that Thomas' former law clerk John Yoo was investigated for writing memos in the Justice Department justifying torture of terror suspects.

In another case dealing with the death penalty, Thomas concluded in a concurring opinion that a defendant's childhood misfortunes or poverty should have no bearing in a case. And he sided with the minority when the court's struck down random drug searches by police at highway checkpoints because they violate the right to privacy.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE AT THEGRIO.COM

5 years after Katrina, does Obama care about black people?

From theGrio:

It is hard to believe that five years have passed since Hurricane Katrina swept over the Gulf Coast, devastating the region, killing over 1,800, displacing thousands and leaving $80 billion in property damage. But five years it has been nonetheless. And of course, we all remember the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, which led to the flooding of that great city and the deaths of hundreds, many of whom were poor and people of color with nowhere to hide.

Those levees--seemingly constructed of little more than lego, silly puddy and tape, not exactly a marvel of American engineering--stood and fell as a symbol of years of government neglect. The Bush administration's lack of a response to the plight of the mostly chocolate city of New Orleans following Katrina of was a potent example of America's callousness towards poverty and black and brown people.

Speaking of then-President Bush's bungling of the Katrina aftermath, Kanye West said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well, now we have an African-American president named Barack Obama. And while much has changed in the Gulf Coast region since 2005, many things have remained the same as far as black people are concerned. And while the president has taken steps to improve the quality of life in the region, he has been criticized for not doing enough to help African-Americans who are being left out of the recovery efforts. Plus, the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf Coast hasn't exactly helped things. Now is a good time to ask the question, does President Obama really care about black people?

Despite a $10.5 billion relief aid package under the previous president, the Bush legacy in the Gulf is one of incompetence, with some racism and classism mixed in. Public perceptions combined with a healthy dose of reality made it appear that the fix was in for the disproportionately black victims of the region. It speaks to a conservative hatred of government and claims that government does not work. So, when politicians who subscribe to that ideology get into office, they find the worst people to run the agencies they don't like, in order to blow it all up and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Mama Grizzlies' claws come out on race

From theGrio:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin passionately defends Dr. Laura's racist rant and use of the "n-word" on the radio. Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle thinks the color black is "thoroughly evil." And Orly Taitz hates President Obama so much that a federal judge fined her $20,000 for filing frivolous lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship.

What's going on here?

There appears to be a new women's political movement brewing in America these days, but not at all a healthy one for women, or politics, or for black people for that matter. I'm talking about the "mama grizzlies"-- including Sarah Palin and the women who admire her, the women in the Tea Party and the birther movements. And there are the women running for office from the far right wing of the Republican Party--the only wing that seems to remain of the party of Lincoln, not to mention Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary McLeod Bethune. But that was another time and another place.

Whenever you look around, it seems that one of these "mama grizzlies" has something horribly tasteless and offensive to say about black people. The question that we must ask is: is there something inherently anti-black about these loony ladies of the right?

There's no question that Sarah Palin, in those days of the 2008 presidential election campaign, brought attention to these new women of the right and elevated them from obscurity. As the Vice Presidential running mate of John McCain who was able to see Russia from her house, Palin saw a black-socialist-Muslim radical in the form of Barack Hussein Obama, and she didn't like what she saw. She said Obama was "palling around with terrorists" and he did not see the U.S. like other Americans. Such talk stirred up the crowds at the McCain-Palin events, which often doubled as retro pro-segregation pep rallies, with twenty-first century upgrades (fear of a black president as opposed to fear of integrated schools). One woman in one of these crowds was so emboldened that she told McCain Obama is "an Arab", to which McCain responded in disagreement, angering the mob, or rather crowd.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Why Fox News' 'Southern Strategy' could sink the network

From theGrio.com:

Fox News host Glenn Beck recently compared America under the Obama administration to the Planet of the Apes. Fox News doesn't like black people, so is it any surprise that blacks don't tune in?

Recently, Think Progress reported that according to the Nielsen ratings, only 29,000 black viewers have watched FOX News Channel this television season, out of 2.102 million total viewers. This means that African-Americans make up a mere 1.38 percent of FOX's total audience.

That's a pathetically low number of black folks, but we shouldn't be surprised in the least. After all, given that network's recent treatment of the Shirley Sherrod story, its long history of race-baiting, and the racially-offensive statements of FOX on-air hosts such as Glenn Beck, it only makes sense that black people would not tune into a TV network that disrespects and scapegoats them, and calls them out of their name, so to speak.

But does it matter? With a diversifying U.S. population, does it matter that Fox News, a major news outlet, only seems to cater to a white audience? Could a lack of diversity come back to bite Fox News?

The Fox News coverage of the Shirley Sherrod affair revealed once again that the network not only has a problem with the truth, it has a black people problem. Fox aired a heavily edited video of a speech given by the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official, via conservative blogger and media hitman Andrew Breitbart. The video of Sherrod, who was speaking before an NAACP function, gave the impression that she was a racist who had refused to assist a white farmer in need in 1986. In reality, Sherrod--who became a civil rights activist after her father, a black farmer, was murdered by a white farmer--understood the need to help this poor white man who was in the same boat as poor blacks. But that narrative of reconciliation did not fit with the conservative mantra of "black racism" echoing from Fox News, a reaction to the NAACP's charges of racism in the Tea Party movement.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

Is Mel Gibson the biggest hot mess in America?

From theGrio:

Mel Gibson is in a lot of trouble these days. In a voicemail message to his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, the actor, producer and director apparently went on a verbal rampage, laden with racist and misogynistic expletives.

In a released audiotape, he referred to Latinos as wetbacks, and told Grigorieva that "if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault."

Gibson is no stranger to racist and sexist rants. Four years ago, Gibson was arrested for drunk driving. He told the arresting police officer, who was Jewish, "F***ing Jews...the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." He also asked a female officer "What are you looking at, sugar t*ts?"

But this time, he might have gone too far, and his career could suffer for it. Gibson's agent WMA decided to drop him as a client because he is unmarketable. "There's nothing to do for Mel Gibson at the moment," a spokesperson for the agency said. "No one will touch him with a 10-foot pole."

But Gibson is not alone in his over-the-top behavior. Fox News jester Glenn Beck just started a university, and decided to book the Lincoln Memorial--on the anniversary of Dr. King's March on Washington--to hold a march of his own.

Rush Limbaugh said President Obama wouldn't have been elected if he weren't black, and Oprah wouldn't have become rich if she weren't black. What do Beck, Gibson and Limbaugh have in common? They are all a "hot mess".

We live in extreme times when people are saying and doing outrageous things.

Politicians do and say anything and everything to get votes; racist comments are back in style; celebrities seek attention and implode before our eyes and banks and oil companies create disasters of biblical proportions.

theGrio has compiled a Hot Mess List, an examination of people, events, topics and concepts that go over the top, offend our standards of good taste, make us cringe, and sometimes even make us laugh.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Miranda ruling proves Supreme Court is out of order

From theGrio:

The recent Supreme Court decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins makes two things perfectly clear: Miranda rights, or what is left of them, will never be the same. And the high court has become a radical and extremist activist body that will take your rights away in a second.

In a 5-4 decision, the highest court in the nation ruled that criminal suspects who want to remain silent and not talk to the police must explicitly tell police they want to be silent. In other words, according to the court, you have to speak up in order to shut up. And that makes no sense at all.

The Thompkins decision was split in the usual way, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining Justice Anthony Kennedy for a predictable conservative majority. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sonia Sotomayor in the dissent.

And this majority has eroded the legacy of the landmark 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona, in which police must tell a suspect during arrests and interrogations of his or her right to remain silent and right to an attorney. That is how the well-known Miranda warnings came into being, a protection against self-incrimination and the abuse of state power. But now, in order to stop an interrogation, suspects must tell the police they are going to remain silent-- the same way they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Van Chester Thompkins, a criminal suspect, remained silent for most of his three-hour police interrogation, until he uttered a few responses that implicated himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Michigan. Thompkins appealed his conviction on the grounds that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent. Well, the majority said that wasn't enough.

"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which, counter-intuitively, requires them to speak." The justice added that "The broad rules the Court announces today are also troubling because they are unnecessary to decide this case."

This ruling is typical of a conservative majority that has been out on the attack when it comes to the rights of everyday people. Let us not forget their decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ended the ban on corporate political spending on First Amendment grounds. President Obama said the ruling gives "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

For all of their posturing at every Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Senate conservatives really do not care about judicial restraint and the threat of judicial activists who write new law from the bench. If they did, they would not confirm radical nominees that, well, legislate from the bench. They key is that these conservatives want judges that will toe the company line of fewer rights for the many, and more rights for the few, especially the corporations. This has been the game plan of the conservative movement since the days of Ronald Reagan, and one must give them kudos for getting it done.

And their latest victory in Thompkins is a decisive blow to an important legal doctrine that all of us with a J.D.learned in law school-- and all criminal suspects learn one way or another.

So, given this mess in which we find ourselves, what are our options? First, President Obama can attempt to mimic President Franklin Roosevelt and try to stack the court with one or two extra seats. However, it didn't work for Roosevelt, whose court packing plan was harshly rebuked, ultimately discouraging any subsequent attempts at the same thing. Plus, there is no evidence that the current president has the stomach or the disposition to take such a risk. But it would provide for outstanding political theater.

Second--and this is the more likely scenario--Congress could add extra seats to the court with a simple majority vote in both houses. This is what FDR should have done. The current number of nine justices is not a rule etched in stone. The number was originally set at six, and that number has fluctuated over time.

But such a move would require guts, courage, and foresight, none of which are readily available in this Congress.

Other than that, there's always attrition, not to sound too cruel. Perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas will look for another line of work other than his current position destroying the hopes and dreams of black people. Maybe we can hope for another retirement or two on the Supreme Court in the coming years, and more opportunities for Obama to shape the court in his own image, any image other than its current form.

Hip-hop and politics have a long history behind the mic

From theGrio:

This weekend one of hip-hop's hottest acts, Drake, lent his talent to protest offshore drilling. On Sunday, the 23-year-old rapper performed at the 'Stop The Offshore Drilling" rally at the 9:30 Club in Washington D.C.

In May, hip-hop veteran Talib Kweli released a single about another hot political topic. It's called 'Papers Please' -- and it voices his opposition to Arizona's new immigration law.

Hip-hop and politics have been together for a long time, and there are no signs the two will break apart soon. Although there were the naysayers who once dismissed hip-hop as a fad and predicted its untimely demise, this is an art form, a culture, and a political movement that is not going away.

Starting out as the CNN of the ghetto, and a medium to express the hopes and frustrations of a disenfranchised community, hip-hop went from knocking on the door of the mainstream to becoming the mainstream. And over the years, hip-hop evolved from hating the president--and vice versa--to dining with the president. Who would have imagined just a few years ago that the president would have hip-hop on his iPod, or even own an iPod for that matter?

Black Music Month is a perfect time to examine the politics of hip-hop--and where it's going next.

"Hip-hop had a long political engagement; hip-hop almost starts as a political movement," says journalist and cultural critic Touré. "People from the street need a voice--we have no voice. So we have to have something to say."

Touré believes that hip-hop speaks up for the underdog. "And it evolves into people like Chuck D who are like shadow-senators for a group of people who felt voiceless and could go on Nightline or could go on other shows or could speak back to Arizona when they didn't want to do the MLK holiday and be a national bullhorn saying 'this is wrong'," he said.

"Black people throughout the African Diaspora tend to be an oppressed people. We have always held our artists, musicians, and writers accountable for using their voice to uplift and educate, especially in times of turmoil," says hip hop artist Giovanni "G." Turner, who is also president and in-house counsel of RAHM Nation Recordings,LLC, and a University of Miami lecturer of English.

"We saw this most recently during the Haitian earthquake. Jay-Z, whom by no one's account, not even his own, is a 'political' rapper, but when the black community was stricken with tragedy, we all turned to him. In fact, not only was it expected he issue a statement, record a commemorative song, and donate money, I argue he would have been ostracized had he remained silent."

"Everything is political," says Russell Simmons, co-founder of Def Jam and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network. The hip-hop community, according to Simmons, "speaks to the next America and reminds them of what's important, so that's political." Simmons also believes hip-hop is a very progressive community that believes in giving to others and uplifting people from poverty. These days, according to the hip-hop trailblazer, every hip-hop artist seems to be involved in philanthropy: "You can't name the politicians who have charities, they're on one hand, you can name them. But every rapper has a charity."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Limbaugh and Robertson use Haitian earthquake to spread racism

From theGrio:

It is hard to believe that anyone would use the tragic earthquake in Haiti as an opportunity to spew racist hate speech. In light of the devastation in that island nation, who would exploit the victims' suffering for political points, make fun of them, and blame them for their plight? Certainly, if anyone is capable of such behavior, it would be Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

Following the 7.0 earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and claimed countless lives, perhaps thousands, radio host Rush Limbaugh said the following: "This will play right into Obama's hands. Humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to, to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in, in this country. It's made-to-order for him. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there."

Meanwhile, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson reacted to the disaster by asserting that Haiti has been "cursed by one thing after another" since they "swore a pact to the devil." "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about," Robertson said. He added: "They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Unfortunately, racial hatred, disrespect and disregard for Haiti is not a new phenomenon. The poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, Haiti was also the world's first postcolonial black nation. And it was the only country to gain independence through a slave rebellion. Although Haiti became independent in 1804, the United States did not recognize the nation until 1862, after the Southern states seceded from the Union.

The Dominican Republic, controlled for a time by Haiti in the 1800s, has harbored racial animosity towards its neighbor for years--even though both populations are predominantly of African descent. Although the Dominican Republic was the first nation to provide aid to Haiti, relations have been marred by DR immigration policies and the mass deportation of Haitians, the exploitation of Haitian labor in the DR, and a history of persecuting and executing Haitians living in the DR.

America has a long history of exploiting Haiti-- occupying the country, propping up ruthless puppet dictators and supporting its death squads. France and the U.S. meddled in the Caribbean nation's affairs, and allegedly forced out President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during a coup in 2004. And the U.S. has maintained racist deportation policies which allow fleeing Cubans to seek asylum in America, but require the interdiction of Haitian refugees that make it to the Florida coast.

The recent remarks made by Limbaugh and Robertson reflect the racist attitudes harbored by many Americans towards Haiti--as a poor, black voodoo nation. And the hateful comments made by these two men, however offensive and cruel, are no surprise. Rather, they are part of a pattern of hateful speech.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pat Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that God allowed the attacks to occur because of America's moral decay. After Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, he suggested God was angry over abortion. That year, he also called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In 2006 Robertson claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he tried to make peace with the Palestinians. And Robertson once said that gay marriage would lead to child molestation.

Moreover, Rush Limbaugh has made numerous racist comments over the years. Once he told a black caller on his radio show to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." On another occasion he asked his audience: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" Of civil rights groups, he said that "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." Limbaugh-- who was dropped from a group bidding for the St. Louis Rams football franchise-- referred to the NFL as "a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons." He also called basketball "the favorite sport of gangs." And in recent years, he has enjoyed playing the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on the air.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but people must act responsibly. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Limbaugh and Robertson are fanning the flames of racial hatred. The public must hold them accountable for the damage they have caused, as they mock the damage created by that deadly earthquake.

Is Negro the new black?

From theGrio:

It looks like the word "Negro" is back in style these days, for better or for worse. And it appears that white Americans are most eager to blow off the dust and put the term to use.

It all started in 2007 when Rush Limbaugh began playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show. More recently, the U.S. Census decided to reintroduce the category of Negro on the new 2010 census forms. A decade earlier, 56,175 people wrote in the response "Negro" on the census form for their racial identity.

In Game Change, a new book about the 2008 presidential campaign, Senate majority leader Harry Reid referred to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." And Rush Limbaugh recently said, "It was Negroes that brought Ted Kennedy his booze."

Is Negro the new black? If America has decided to resurrect the word and reintroduce it into daily life, it is worth looking at the pros and cons of such a decision.

The Pros
1) The word Negro hearkens back to a time of black self-sufficiency and pride. Some black elders still refer to themselves as Negroes. The word bears a positive connotation for them. It reminds an older generation of a time when African-Americans, facing racism and limited opportunity, had no choice but to band together and help each other. This was a time when black-owned businesses flourished, a strong sense of community existed, and civil rights organizations fought the good fight.

2) People can use the word Negro instead of the other N-word, guilt free. Black people who like to use the so-called "N-word" among their peers but are reluctant to do so due to the social stigma have an alternative that sounds similar but with less baggage. The same holds for racist whites.

The Cons
1) Negro reminds people of slavery. The word Negro can conjure up images of slave ships, whips and chains, human chattel and the miniseries "Roots." I am reminded of the old slave auction notices that always featured the word "Negroes" in large, boldface type. Surely, that grabbed the attention of the prospective slave owner. One such advertisement from the late eighteenth century in Charleston, South Carolina read: "To be sold...A Cargo of Ninety-Four prime, healthy NEGROES, consisting of Thirty-nine Men, Fifteen Boys, Twenty-four Women, and Sixteen Girls." An 1860 slave auction poster from Columbia County, Georgia read "Sale of NEGROES, Mills, Mules, Hogs, Farming & Mining Tools, Wagons and Carts."

Another notice from Charleston read: "To be sold on board the Ship Bance Island...a choice cargo of about 250 fine healthy NEGROES, just arrived from the Windward and Rice Coast. The utmost care has already been taken, and shall be continued, to keep them free from the least danger of being infected with the SMALL-POX.... Full one Half of the above Negroes have had the SMALL-POX."

Maybe we just don't want to go there.

2) The word is associated with Jim Crow segregation and white paternalism. In the continuum of changing racial labels, "Negro" may be more dignified than "Colored" or "boy", but not as empowering or forward-thinking as "black" or "African-American". In the minds of some, the term Negro is part of an era when blacks did not enjoy full citizenship. After all, Negroes endured billy clubs, police dogs and water hoses. They drank from separate water fountains. Negroes could not sit at lunch counters, were made to sit in the back of the bus, and faced lynching if they stepped out of line. Consider this 1963 quote from Malcolm X: "The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals, by the Government itself. But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God."

3) People should be able to name and define themselves. We've already been there. There is no evidence of a groundswell of support in black America for a return to the word "Negro." A group of people has the right to decide what it will answer to, regardless of what Glenn Beck thinks.

So, when you consider whether we should bring back the word Negro, please consider the pros and cons. Negro please, that is.

California chooses education over prisons

From theGrio:

With California a fiscal basket case, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently unveiled a draconian 2010-2011 budget for his state. He hopes to close a shortfall of nearly $20 billion through $6.9 billion in federal funds and $8.5 billion in budget cuts. On the chopping block are state aid to public transportation, schools, services for immigrants, in-home care and prisoner health care. Plus more than 200,000 children will no longer be eligible for health insurance.

Part of the problem is that prison spending is too costly, unsustainable, and indefensible. In California, prisons eat up over 10 percent of the state budget, while the state's public universities are only 7 percent. And California spends $18,000 more per prisoner than the ten largest states, according to the Governor's office.

Schwarzenegger recently proposed changing the state constitution so that no less than 10 percent of the budget would be allocated for higher education, and no more than 7 percent would be spent on prisons. California has the right idea when it comes to ending its prison boom and investing more in its future. But other states should follow suit as well.

"Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future," Schwarzenegger said in his January 6 State of the State speech. "What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy. I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education."

For the Golden State-- the largest economy in America, crippled by high unemployment and the housing crisis--harsh fiscal realities are forcing lawmakers to seriously question the ways in which taxpayer funds are allocated. In many ways, California's prison problem is a profoundly American story, the culmination of years of misplaced priorities and failed policies.

Politicians, eager to please voters with a tough-on-crime stance, passed draconian laws that were popular yet made no sense. These unfair laws--with catchy names such as "Three Strikes"-- led to a swelling of the prison population, with more people behind bars and with longer sentences. Special interest groups such as the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) have donated millions of dollars to political campaigns and successfully lobbied for stiff drug laws and longer prison terms. Prison overcrowding has become such a problem that a federal court found the conditions unconstitutional, and ordered California to cut its prison population by as many as 55,000 inmates.

The poor, African Americans and Latinos have been disproportionately affected by the prison boom. Three-quarters of incarcerated men in California are of color.

Meanwhile, California's students cannot afford to go to college. The state's public university system has suffered from budget cuts and a recent 32 percent tuition hike, which has sparked student protests.

Throughout the country, state governments are faced with a cash shortage and expensive, burgeoning prison populations. Unfortunately, desperation often serves as a factory for bad ideas. For example, Arizona is considering privatizing its 40,000 inmate prison system, including its death row. And Pennsylvania has decided to ship 2,000 prisoners to cash-needy Michigan and Virginia in February to address overcrowding issues.

But ultimately, states cannot outsource, privatize or ship all of their problems away. The answer is to develop thoughtful and effective alternatives to incarceration, decriminalize nonviolent drug offenses, and broaden opportunities for educational and economic advancement. And Black and Latino youth should have a future filled with something better than prison bars. Spending more on prisons than colleges is a recipe for disaster.

Five New Year's resolutions for President Obama

From theGrio.com:

With the first calendar year of the Obama presidency at a close, the White House should reflect on its successes and failures over the past year - and gear up for 2010. There's nothing like a new year to set things right; an opportunity to double your efforts in some areas, or to refocus and completely change course in others areas.

President Obama should be pleased with his accomplishments to date. He has brought competence, intelligence and sensitivity back to the Oval Office. Further, he is able to juggle various balls at the same time, which is important, given the huge mess his predecessor left for him. And the United States is once again a respected member of the world community. But the next 12 months are crucial. This historic and potentially great presidency will become a one-termer unless some drastic changes are made for the coming year. So, President Obama should make the following New Year's resolutions:

1) Create a jobs program in America, not Afghanistan

With massive unemployment and an epidemic of home foreclosures, the economy is foremost in the public's mind. People need jobs. They witnessed how the government coddled Wall Street, and rewarded wealthy bankers for wrecking the economy. Now they wonder if and when they will receive their own personal bailout.

Job creation must be a top priority on the White House agenda. As the economy will not repair itself, the government must step in with a massive jobs program, New Deal-style. But with the nation hemorrhaging precious billions of dollars to fight unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is less able to tackle its domestic crises.

2) Throw Rahm Emanuel under the bus

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, has not served the President well. And he is the target of progressive groups because of it. They hold him responsible for the administration's abandonment of a government-run, public health insurance option, and the industry giveaway masquerading as health care reform that has emerged from Congress.

Emanuel reportedly told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal on health care with renegade Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a troublemaking thorn in the side of reform-minded Democrats. In addition, Emanuel was instrumental in cutting a deal with the pharmaceutical industry, in which the drug companies agreed to cut prescription drug costs to seniors by $80 billion. In return, the White House agreed to oppose the importation of cheaper drugs into the country, and a reform measure allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.

President Obama came to Washington in the image of a change agent who would upset entrenched interests. Concerned more about Machiavellian expediency than what is right, Emanuel wants to accommodate those entrenched interests. This tactic threatens the legitimacy of the Obama administration, which is why he must go.

3) Abandon this bipartisanship folly

From the outset, Obama made overtures to conservative Republicans in an effort to bridge the ideological divide. Working together in a spirit of bipartisanship is a worthy and noble goal, provided you have a willing partner.

Although Obama placed some Republicans in cabinet positions, the GOP as a whole has had nothing on their minds other than the destruction of this presidency. This sentiment was reflected by Senators Jim DeMint and Joe Wilson of South Carolina. DeMint called health care Obama's Waterloo, and said that if Republicans could stop healthcare reform, it would break the president. Wilson interrupted the president's September address before Congress by shouting "You lie!" Meanwhile, Obama has wasted precious time trying to court the support of a few Republicans, with little to show for it. Therefore, he must ignore the national sideshow that the Republican Party represents, and concentrate of what the people elected him to accomplish.

4) Grow a backbone and stand up for campaign promises

During the campaign, Obama was a symbol of change who represented bold, new leadership. Now with the reins of power in his grasp, the president has lost some of his luster. Unfortunately, he seems reluctant to stick out his neck on the issues for which he so eloquently advocated during the election. Refusing to weigh in on important legislation - and opting to allow a dysfunctional Congress to carve out the details - the president apparently is willing to accept whatever he is given. Obama must take true ownership of the government, and use the bully pulpit to shape policy in his image. How does he plan to win battles in the future if he refuses to fight for his signature issues, like health care?

5) Don't forget who brought you to the dance

President Obama's supporters, particularly the progressive base, had a great deal riding on his election. Now, their enthusiasm has dampened because they have been taken for granted. Moreover, if the administration continues to disappoint liberals by failing to deliver on their issues, low turnout from the base will damage the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. We won't even discuss Obama's 2012 reelection bid. The White House must come correct on a host of issues, including financial regulation, green jobs, and the environment. The base was there for Obama in 2008, but now he must show that he will stand by them.

It isn't too late yet, but much time has been wasted already. The new year can be a fresh start for President Obama, should he choose to take advantage of it.

Four ways Tiger trapped himself (VIDEO)

Tiger Woods is by no means the first athlete to sleep around with women, and he certainly won't be the last. Yet, Tiger has found himself with all of his private business unraveling in the public eye, in ways that other personalities have avoided. How is it that Woods managed to get caught so red-handed, while others in the same situation do not?


To read the full story, click here.

Focus should be on Tiger's public failures

Original link from theGrio.

On Tiger Woods' Website he said, "I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone."

But rather than paying attention to aspects of Tiger Woods' life that should remain purely personal, people should instead focus on his failings as a public figure. As an athlete, Woods has excelled and assumed a preeminent leadership role. But as a black athlete who owes a great debt to those giants who came before him, Woods falls short.

There is a long tradition of prominent African-American athletes who have spoken out on social issues and political causes, sometimes even risking their careers and lives in the process. They view themselves as an integral part of the community, and they give back to the community that produced them.

Consider giants such as Paul Robeson, who spoke out against racism and fascism, and was a trade union and peace activist. Senator Joseph McCarthy singled out Robeson for his political activities by in the 1950s, and his passport was confiscated for eight years.

Muhammad Ali refused to fight in Vietnam because his religious beliefs as a Muslim wouldn't allow it. As a result, he was arrested and stripped of his championship title, and his boxing license was suspended. NBA legend Bill Russell was a vocal civil rights advocate who participated in the 1963 March on Washington, and challenged racism in the NBA. Tennis trailblazer Arthur Ashe was arrested for protesting against South African apartheid and the treatment of Haitian refugees.

And today, NBA star Tracy McGrady is a human rights activist who is helping to improve the lives of children in the Darfuri refugee camps, the victims of genocide in the Sudan.

Meanwhile, there has been no word from Tiger on issues of racism and social injustice, even when he is the target of racist attacks. Woods didn't mind when Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman said on the air that young players should "lynch him in a back alley." And in 1997, fellow golfer Fuzzy Zoeller called Tiger "that little boy", and suggested that Woods should not have fried chicken or collard greens at the Master's Club Champion's Dinner. Zoeller apologized for the remark. Three days later, Woods issued a written response, calling Zoeller a "jokester" who likely did not mean to offend.

Woods has an organization, the Tiger Woods Foundation, which, according to its website, "is giving youth the skills to lay their own groundwork for the future." The foundation says it has helped more than ten million children. Woods' foundation has a questionable five-year deal with the oil company Chevron, which is the title sponsor of his annual fundraising golf tournament. The target of numerous lawsuits, Chevron has been accused of committing human rights abuses around the world, contaminating the Amazon rainforest, and supporting brutal military regimes in Nigeria and Burma (Myanmar).

And as sports writer David Zirin reported on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, Tiger Woods refuses to denounce the prevalence of sex slavery and slave labor in Dubai, a resort city known as the Disneyland of the Persian Gulf. A sparkling city of excess built by slave labor from the Indian subcontinent, the Philippines and Africa, Dubai is the home of Tiger Woods' $100 million golf course and resort.

If a descendant of slaves will not speak out against slavery - including slave labor from which he might benefit - what will it take for him to open his mouth?

For the nation's first billion-dollar athlete, perhaps the paper is just too good to pass up. Some people in the spotlight believe that when the money is rolling in, you should not make waves otherwise you might threaten those corporate endorsements and sponsorships. Ultimately, there are far more important things, including your reputation in the community, your sense of social responsibility, your character and integrity, and even your soul.

Tiger Woods should be commended for his athletic prowess and commercial success. However, he did not make it to the top of the ladder by himself. He stands on the shoulders of those black athletes who demonstrated their heroism by taking a stand off the field, off the court and off the course. Tiger's wealth and prominence demand that he do more. Remember, for those who forget from whence they came, that ladder of success also goes down.

Lou Dobbs has finally been deported from CNN

From theGrio:

http://www.thegrio.com/2009/11/lou-dobbs-recently-announced-that.php

Ohio rapist shows high price of prisons ignoring rehabilitation

From theGrio:

http://www.thegrio.com/2009/11/ohio-rapist-shows-high-price-of-prisons-ignoring-rehabilitation.php 

Hypocrisy reigns for critics of the first non-black Miss Hampton U

Hello everyone, I just became a contributor to theGrio, a new website launched by NBC News earlier this year.  My first comment piece on Hampton University is here.  It also appeared on MSNBC's website.