Posted by Dr. Terence Fitzgerald on May 28th, 2009
“Come on boy; you know the routine. Assume the position.”
Yes, unfortunately in these here United States of America, my skin is my sin. The luck of possessing a hue associated with Africa and the ownership of a Y chromosome carries a heavy burden. The burden was front and center this week within the story of Bonnie Sweeten of Feasterville, Pennsylvania . Ms. Sweeten made a frantic phone call to 911 from Philadelphia, on May 26th from the trunk of a car where she told authorities that she and her 9 year old daughter were, after being rear ended earlier. She went on to say that after the accident, after exiting her SUV, she and her daughter were then kidnapped. The story caught national attention from NBC to Fox news. The police, the amber alert system, and the FBI all pulled their efforts together to save them damsels in distress from the “evil doorers.”
You might ask yourself, who would commit such a disreputable deed? Well it was “two Black men” of course! And of course they were driving, of all cars, “a Cadillac.”
Well today, we found out it was all a disgusting hoax. In fact, the two were bound for Disney World. After taking out thousands of dollars from her family account and buying two tickets to Florida, mother, with her child, were later spotted boarding a plane in Tampa which led the local police to their hideout with Mickey at the Grand Floridian Hotel in Orlando. On Thursday, May 28th, the Today Show discussed the issue of Michelle Henry; District Attorney for Bucks County Pennsylvania, who was asked by the newscaster whether this was a case of racial profiling. Ms. Henry avoided the question raised.
My frustration observed in writing this entry is not without merit. For this country has a long history of feeding a stereotype of Black males as dangerous, oversexed, with out a moral compass [See the book, The Assassination of the Black Male Image by Earl Ofari Hutchinson]. Where again you might ask?
Published: 5/21/09, 3:26 PM EDTRead the article.
By THOMAS WATKINS
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Latino street gang waged a racist campaign to eliminate black people from a Southern California city through attempted murders and other crimes, according to federal racketeering indictments unsealed Thursday.
"(Varrio Hawaiian Gardens) gang members take pride in their racism and often refer to the VHG Gang as the `Hate Gang,'" the main indictment states. "VHG gang members have expressed a desire to rid the city of Hawaiian Gardens of all African-Americans and have engaged in a systematic effort to achieve that result by perpetrating crimes against African-Americans."
Douglas J. Besharov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says: "There are social costs of being poor, though it is not clear where the cause and effect is. We know for a fact that on certain measures, people who are poor are often more depressed than people who are not. I don't know if poverty made them depressed or the depression made them poor. I think the cause and effect is an open question. Some people are so depressed they are not functional. 'I live in a crummy neighborhood. My kids go to a crummy school.' That is not the kind of scenario that would make them happy." Another effect of all this, he says: "Would you want to hire someone like that?"The quote comes from a Washington Post article - one of the recent articles I've seen out on the web detailing the ways in which you have to be rich to afford being poor!
But if the president nominates an individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question: Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary -- anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?As though that's not exactly what W Bush did. And then, to have the unmitigated audacity to say this:
With such high stakes, the American people rightly expect greatness in our highest jurists -- the greatness personified by John Marshall and Felix Frankfurter and anticipated from John Roberts.Yeah! He sites Justice Roberts as someone with judicial restraint. Meanwhile, Justice Roberts shows every indication of at least really, really hoping Sec 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, by the way, was just reauthorized 3 years ago, is overturned.
-- Impartiality. The nominee should demonstrate an ability to fulfill the oath to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich," regardless of the judge's personal feelings toward the parties in the case or the political groups to which they belong.It's almost enough to make you sick on the stomach. "Heurrr!" (My attempt at articulating that sound people make just before they get sick. You know, so just imagion in your head.)
. . .
-- Legal Expertise and Judicial Temperament. The nominee should demonstrate a mastery of the law, an ability to apply the law to complex facts, and the skill to craft plain and enduring opinions that lower courts, lawyers and the people can understand. The nominee must also demonstrate the humility necessary to be subordinate to the law that he or she will interpret. Great justices recognize the limits of their own power and defer to the wisdom of the people, effectuated through elected representatives and expressed in the written law.
The Senate's examination of the nominee's impartiality, integrity, legal expertise and respect for the rule of law will be rigorous and fair. Senators should refrain from making political attacks on the nominee's character, leaking background materials or taking quotes out of context to create a caricature of the nominee.Though, now that he's said it, I find it least likely that he'll actually live up to his own standard.
We've gone from the child trying to boss you around to the child now seeking your approval, right? And how do you respond? You then respond by approving of their humble behavior. No, no, no. This isn't teaching your child false humility, that they're worth less than other people. This is teaching your child true humility, that everyone is worth as much as them. And this isn't approving of their bad attitude. It's approving their response to you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You gave them what they wanted. But you've taught them that they can get that by being nice. You know, "you get more with sugar than with vinegar." Or, some such saying. Whatever.
Now, it may not go as scripted in every case and lets deal with two probable situations. Let's say your child responds with, "You better cut my crust off." Here, you take away the sandwich, which now has no crust, until they behave. Again, you're not engaging them in battle, not sharpening their strong will. In this case, you're just demanding respect. That's fair. They don't get what they want until they do what you want by respecting you. That's fair. Then, situation #2, let's say your child doesn't respond to your kindness with kindness or such. Let's say kindness has no effect on them whatsoever. No emotional response at all. They never put on a sheepish face and seek your approval. Then instead smile snarkly and just say "ok." Darling, I hate to have to be the one to tell you, you might be dealing with a psychopath.
Don't get me wrong. It's not standing up for my independence that my mother has a problem with. Here's the problem: by defending my independence, I have to challenge the idea that she's right. Her problem is with me challenging her. And she has this old-school, discredited, idea that a child should never, ever go about as though the parent is wrong. Well, on second thought, when it comes to other people and their children, it's okay. When it comes to me and her, it's not. All my life, I've felt like she's disrespected my agency of choice. Trust and believe, even children have the ability to choose and they like to exercise their ability to choose. Yes, set boundaries. Don't let your child choose what's for dinner, choose what you cook. But whether or not your child eats dinner is up to them. Let them sit there hungry. They'll eat eventually. And most important, you've let them exercise their right to choose on matters dealing with them. But you've set the boundary that they don't choose on matters under your control.
But really. If your child has realized their independence from you as a separate individual, be glad about that. That's something that has to happen for healthy human growth and to become a healthy adult. And in fact, if your child never asserts this independence as a separate adult, they will either grow up to be everybody's doormat, or they're a psychopath who can adjust as needed before they strike to kill.
When they assert their independence from you as a separate individual, assess the situation. Is this decision ultimately about you or them. If it effects you as in the previous pb&j example, diffuse the situation with kindness. If it effects your child, like what shoes they wear on any random day just to go out, again, diffuse the situation with kindness. And this kindness says, "Okay, you can wear those shoes."
Or, if they're trying to wear sandals during winter, this is what you do. You acknowledge that they want to pick out their shoes themselves be inform them, teach them, that sandals will make their feet cold. You done two things here: one is letting your child know s/he's been heard. That's very important. Everyone wants to be heard and one of the things that exacerbates an argument between my mother and me is that she never lets me know I've been heard. This also helps them understand for themselves as a separate individual that you don't wear sandals during winter cause your feet will get cold. Next winter, you have to tell them they can't wear sandals. Then, after acknowledgement and teaching, let them choose among the pairs of acceptable shoes. If you have a stubborn child you refuses you, still don't fight back. Don't sharpen their stubbornness. Just continue acknowledging, teaching, and offering alternative choices. Children's attention span isn't long enough to be stubborn for very long. And if you're pressed for time, just put a pair of shoes on their feet and toss them in the car screaming and crying. Again, a child's attention span isn't long enough to scream and cry about shoes. Just as sure as you're born, they'll notice something else and move on.
Now that I've gotten all that off my chest, let me go practice what I preach and try kindness on my mother. I ask that those of you who know the words of prayer, pray for me.
I'm kinda tired now so just leave your thoughts and I'll respond later.For black children, you don’t want to know. But I’ll tell you anyway. The poverty rate for black kids was 34.5 percent in 2007. If the national unemployment rate rises, as expected, to the vicinity of 10 percent next year, the poverty rate for black children would rise to 50 percent or higher, analysts at the institute believe.
I would also like to point out that this indicates the power women have when we work together, period, for anything. Sex may be the most apparent thing that occurs to women in regard to shared power, but here in the US, we have substantial political clout. Remember, women make up the majority of voters. Whatever we want, if we worked together, we could get. More days for family leave. Affirmative action. Equal pay. More vacation days. The US works more days out of the year than any other industrialized nation. The English and French don't understand how we maintain emotional and mental health with only 2 weeks of paid vacation. I don't think we do. And we certainly don't maintain any kind of political health. People are so busy and tired from one day to the next, they don't really pay attention to what's going on in their local, state, and federal governments. They don't really pay attention to policy debates. Sound bites stand in for substantative arguments.
Take healthcare, for example. The conservatives don't want public healthcare just for its own sake. Not that it's bad. Not about keeping government small. They just don't want public healthcare taking money from the large and power insurance companies. Have you heard these people? They'll go for healthcare reform so long as there's not the option to buy into government provide healthcare competing with the various private options. Two problems with this: 1) whatever happened to the concept of free market competition? 2) I thought anything provided by the government was substantially inferior to anything provided by the private sector. Why the worry about government insurance competing with private insurance? But what the publicans will say is that they don't want state beauracracy making decisions that doctors and patients should be making. If more voters would think about it, that argument is empty. First off, no one's suggesting government beauracracy make decisions that doctors should be making. Secondly, it's not like private insurance cos aren't denying claims and costing people their lives all the time. That's part of what's keep the cost of private insurance so high! Paying to have enough people to deny claims.
And speaking of healthcare and women, if enough women worked together to get single-payer healthcare, we could have it. I am woman, here me roar!
Story Highlights
The Texas State Board of Education is set to appoint a social studies curriculum “expert” panel that includes absurdly unqualified ideologues who are hostile to public education and argue that laws and public policies should be based on their narrow interpretations of the Bible.
TFN has obtained the names of “experts” appointed by far-right state board members. Those panelists will guide the revision of social studies curriculum standards for Texas public schools. They include David Barton of the fundamentalist, Texas-based group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerence of homosexuality.
Barton, former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, is a self-styled “historian” without any formal training in the field. He argues that separation of church and state is a “myth” and that the nation’s laws should be based on Scripture. He says, for example, that the Bible forbids taxes on income and capital gains. Yet even such groups as Texas Baptists Committed and the Baptist Joint Committee have sharply criticized Barton’s interpretations of the Constitution and history.And what in the world is the point of putting a right-wing evangelical minister on a social studies panel?
Barton also acknowledges having used in his publications and speeches nearly a dozen quotes he has attributed to the nation’s Founders even though he can’t identify any primary sources showing that they really said them.
Some state board members have criticized what they believe are efforts to overemphasize the contributions of minorities in the nation’s history. It is alarming, then, that in 1991 Barton spoke at events hosted by groups tied to white supremacists. He later said he hadn’t known the groups were “part of a Nazi movement.”
In addition, Barton’s WallBuilders Web site suggests as a “helpful” resource the National Association of Christian Educators/Citizens for Excellence in Education, an organization that calls public schools places of “social depravity” and “spiritual slaughter.”
The Peter Marshall Ministries Web site includes Marshall’s commentaries sharply
attacking Muslims, characterizing the Obama administration as “wicked,” and calling on Christian parents to reject public education for their children.Marshall has also attacked Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. In his call for a spiritual revival in America last year, he called traditional mainline Protestantism an “institutionally fossilized, Bible-rejecting shell of Christianity.”
“It’s absurd to suggest that Texas universities don’t have accomplished scholars in the field who are more qualified than ideologues who share a narrow political agenda. What’s next? Rush Limbaugh on the ‘expert’ panel? It’s clear now that just appointing a new chairman won’t end this board’s outrageous efforts to politicize the education of our schoolchildren. It’s time for the Legislature to make sweeping changes to the board and its control over what our kids learn in public schools.”
“With Don McLeroy’s confirmation hanging in the balance in the Senate and Lawmakers considering 15 bills that would strip the state board of its authority, these board members continue trying to push extremist politics into Texas classrooms. It’s as if they’re daring the Legislature to call them on it.”The full press release is available here. You can learn more about Barton here and Marshall here.
Obama Vs. Schwarzenegger: White House Threatens To Rescind Stimulus Funds
Rachel Wiener, 5/8/09
The 20 plaintiffs, one of whom is Hispanic and also identified as white, claim that the city's decision to scrap the examination results before any promotions were made violated their rights to be employed in an environment free from racial classification.I wasn't too sure about the tests being thrown out. There are lots of issues surrounding test taking that go beyond the glib, "just study and you'll be fine." There is a such thing as stereotype anxiety, and it's real. Now, I feel absolutely sure about the questionability of the tests. Oral questions? That's what sunk it for me. Now. If there're records of oral examination that someone could go back and look over, and after getting some experts it's found that race didn't impact that section of the examination, fine. Until then, what's up with that portion of the exam. The problem I have with oral examinations is that it seems hard to get around the grading being subjective. And please don't make me go into how looking black and sounding black has a negative effect on the employment prospects of black people, cause without knowing exactly what happened, subjectivity equals racism.
All 20 plaintiffs would have qualified for promotion to lieutenant or captain had the test, which the city purchased for $100,000 from a consultant, been used by the city civil service board. No blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. The test was divided between written and oral questions.
The problem is that some conservative justices clearly see the New Haven case as an opportunity to advance their plan to outlaw all race-conscious decisions by government. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pressed that view during arguments last month when he wondered aloud what would happen if a city abandoned a test because black firefighters had scored disproportionally well. The implication was that taking race into account to advance minority participation is the moral and legal equivalent of Jim Crow laws.And here's a suggestion. When it comes to resolving the conflict between "workplace diversity and the prohibition against race-based decisions in hiring and promotion": specifically prohibited the hiring and promotion of whites and males, yes, some people are both, on the basis of race or gender. The problem this country is facing is white supremacy and privilege. This is not a pro-black country. I think Pat Buchanan can relax.
That long has been Roberts' view. But for the full court to embrace it in this case would oversimplify the issue of racial equality and create new national standards from the unusual facts in one fire department. The court shouldn't use this hard case to make bad civil rights law.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared extremely skeptical about Congress's conclusion that such an extension was needed. "Obviously no one doubts the history here and that the history was different," he said, referring to the history of discrimination in the states covered by Section 5. "But at what point does that history . . . stop justifying action with respect to some jurisdictions?" The chief justice apparently gave little credence to the information gathered by Congress over 10 months and 21 hearings that contemporary -- not just historical -- discrimination exists and justifies the extension.Read the article and comment below.
