Vision Circle

College Graduates and Affirmative Action

If you listen to some people, Blacks don't graduate at the same rate from college as white students because of affirmative action.

Right now, overall, the percentage of Blacks in college is around 14%.

The number of Blacks with a college degree is around 12% while, for whites, it's about 28%.

I bring this up for one reason:

Study: Most College Students Lack Skills
Jan 19 2:43 PM US/Eastern
By BEN FELLER

Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.

Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.

More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.

More than 50%?
That can't be mainly Black students, can it?

One Reason Why NCLB Stinks

This is one of the reasons why I think the No Child Left Behind act is bad policy:

The majority of Maryland's fourth-graders are either reading whizzes or they are stumbling miserably. It all depends on who is doing the testing.

If it's the federal government, only 32 percent of Maryland's fourth-graders are proficient at reading. But if state educators are accurate, 81 percent of fourth-graders have met a passing standard.

A renewed debate over testing erupted across the country after the release of a new round of national assessments in reading and math that showed enormous gaps between the national tests and the state tests required under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Some educators say states might be setting standards that are too low, in essence dumbing-down their tests to meet a federal requirement that says 100 percent of schoolchildren should be able to pass the exams by 2014.

You, Sir, Have Gone Too Far

When Clinton was in office, I believed that the Republicans and conservatives who were crowing about the low moral of the war fighters, "because of Bill Clinton", was taking things too far. In the case of Clinton, it was another case of the "opposition" going too far.

Now, we have this statement by Rep. John Murtha:

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.

I thought in the past, and I think now, that the enemies of the U.S. read and view our news media. Statements like that quoted, does nothing but give strength to our enemies as well has hurt the moral of our war fighters.

Murtha should know better.

Civil Rights

The Civil Rights Movement was about changing public policy to allow full access to the promise of America.

It was about allowing full access to all schools.

It was about allowing full access to the voting booth.

It was about allowing full access to jobs.

It was about allowing full access to opportunities.

It WASN'T about disallowing people to "act the fool". That is a home training and/or moral and/or gray matter issue. It's not a "Civil Rights" issue.

Stopping rappers from spewing filth isn't a "Civil Rights" issue, it is a moral and human rights issue.

Stopping the insane use of "nigger" by Black people is not a "Civil Rights" issue, it is a self-respect issue.

Stopping crime is a moral and community issue not a "Civil Rights" issue.

Lowering the high rate of out of wedlock births is a moral issue and a poverty issue and a social issue, not a "Civil Rights" issue.

At least that's how I see it.

Government Abuse

During the too late "debate" concerning the Patriot Act, defenders of the abuse of power asked for instances of government abuse. In particular, I remember Diane Feinstein defending the Patriot Act.

Wiretaps and search warrants require a high level of proof and permission from a judge. The tools in the Patriot Act are fully consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As Senator Diane Feinstein said, "I have no reported abuses."

OK, so what about this?

Previously classified documents being released Monday show numerous misuses of FBI surveillance, including improper searches and seizures of e-mails and bank records, The Washington Post reported in Monday's editions.

The documents, which were turned over under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, show that FBI auditors have investigated hundreds of potential violations related to the agency's domestic surveillance since Sept. 11, 2001, the Post said.

Some of the violations found in the documents included:

• FBI agents failing to file annual updates on ongoing surveillance, as required by Justice Department guidelines.

• A violation of bank privacy statutes.

• An improper physical search.

• Improper collection of e-mails after warrants had expired.
  

Gun Control Is Shooting With Both Hands

Convicted Calif. sex offender shot, killed by alleged victim

Convicted Calif. sex offender shot, killed by alleged victim

Friday, September 16, 2005

ASSOCIATED PRESS

A northern Idaho man who was shot and killed by a woman he was attacking was a registered sex offender convicted in California, Bonner County Sheriff's Capt. John Valdez says.

A 34-year-old Clark Fork woman shot Christopher Michael Schmidt, 42, Tuesday night during a struggle after she gave him a ride home, Valdez said.

"He grabbed her and physically attacked her and told her she was coming with him," Valdez told the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane, Wash. "There was a struggle and she couldn't overcome him. All the physical evidence matches what she says, all down the line."

----

I lubs me some pistol packin' mommas!

The Analysis

Let's examine some of the details of the speech.

This seems like a strong shot across the bow of the Democrats and the support of Democrats by Blacks.

Empowerment zones?
Vouchers for schools?
Business creation?
Funding for home ownership?

It sounds like a New Deal with the Republican twist. And, I have to say, I don't see how Black Democrat politicians can not support what was proposed. So, he just defanged the CBC as they were trying to grow back their canine teeth.

The President's speech was really a lot of hot air. What comes next is the House and the Senate going through their processes to get the bill, pun intended, on the President's desk.

But, there are storm clouds forming. Already there are complaints coming from some Republicans asking how this is going to be funded.

For the Black people who say "Bush doesn't care about Blacks," given that Blacks will be the primary recipients, it seems like those comments are "shown" to be false.

For me, I say wait until the bill is signed and watch what programs are cut to pay for NOLA repair.

The game is on!

Bush Speech Analysis Coming Up

After I do some work around the house, (I took off today after pulling
massive hours doing work in FL), I'm going to break down the Bush
speech.

I am prompted to do so because, like I said, there are things that
Blacks should like in the speech. Plus, after seeing excepts of last
night's Nightline, where Blacks in the Texas Dome like what they
heard, if this gets through, the Dems are in a world of hurt.

Lets be real for a moment. How can Dems claim people are racist to
support what Bush says? How can Black Dems call supporters of what
Bush said, sellouts or Uncle Toms?

Bush's Speech In NOLA

Uhhh....
The speech sounded good.
He hit things Blacks, in theory, should support.

More later after sleep.
Have I mentioned that business travel gets old?

Katrina: The Race Aftermath

Right now, one of the things being discussed in the aftermath of Katrina is race.

Well, as usual, it's infantile if you ask me.

But, THIS is what should be watched. This is race in America, 2005: Old-line families plot the future. Note the class issues that are also involved.

The power elite of New Orleans -- whether they are still in the city or have moved temporarily to enclaves such as Destin, Fla., and Vail, Colo. -- insist the remade city won't simply restore the old order. New Orleans before the flood was burdened by a teeming underclass, substandard schools and a high crime rate. The city has few corporate headquarters.

The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."

...

Black politicians have controlled City Hall here since the late 1970s, but the wealthy white families of New Orleans have never been fully eclipsed. Stuffing campaign coffers with donations, these families dominate the city's professional and executive classes, including the white-shoe law firms, engineering offices, and local shipping companies. White voters often act as a swing bloc, propelling blacks or Creoles into the city's top political jobs. That was the case with Mr. Nagin, who defeated another African American to win the mayoral election in 2002.

The Government Fails, Time and Time Again

The government fails, time and time again, and it is due to its massive size, politics, hubris, incompetance, and graft.

While I wasn't blogging when the Department of Homeland Security was created, I stated in web forums and email lists that creating that department was nothing but a waste of time and money.

If its main job was to prevent another 9/11, all that had to be done was to add a cabinet position to head over seeing of the different 3 letter agencies to make sure that they share information in a timely and efficient manner. Then all that had to be done was to give that position the authority to fire people at will and remove regulations that prevented information from being shared. That position should also have had an inside track to be able to go to congress and state what laws needed to be changed or removed to bring down the legal barriers between the different 3 letter agencies.

Note: Some of those laws are the reason for "The Wall" and those laws are on the books because of prior abuses by the different 3 letter agencies. I know this, but some of the resulting regulations were a burden.

As anyone should be able to see right now, putting FEMA under Homeland Defense was a stupid move. And putting Brown in charge of FEMA was also a stupid move. Yes, it was everyday politics, but the man is in over his head.

Before the hurricane, the mayor of New Orleans said that because of the size of the hurricane, the people of NOLA would be essentially on their own. After the hurricane hit, he was on the air, rightly, blasting lack of a response from the federal government.

Well, he should have included local government and state government in that, but he didn't.

Note: I'm on the road again and I just don't feel like web surfing to find the links to back what I'm writing. Yeah, I'm lazy, cranky, my head hurts, and I ate some bad airport food that is tearing my stomach up. So go look for it for yourself.

The local and state authorities told those who couldn't get out to go to the Super Dome. They did. Then they were subject to searches before being allowed to enter the Dome. The local authorites in the Dome, apparently, couldn't do anything about the criminals who entered the Dome and took advantage of the situation. They should have let people keep knives and such.

Note: I've started to question what is being reported about the crime. Not because of race issues, but because of things like this. Yeah, I linked it. It's in another tab right now, that's why.

Trying to get back on track....

The local and state government failed those who couldn't get out. They failed the hospitals. When the local police were in search and rescue mode, they let the looters rules, so they failed to protect those who needed protecting.

The authorities are sending children without parents or guardians to locations outside of LA. Now you have parentless children, possibly STATES away from their family. Children are being harmed while being saved. This is like foster care. When it goes right, it goes right. When it goes wrong, the foster care system destroys families and harms kids. (Don't. Even. Get. Me. Going. About. The. Foster. Care. System).

There is a radio interview being played on talk radio concerning a woman who is relaying her experience with FEMA. FEMA asked her for an address. She has none. They asked her for her telephone number. She has none. She was calling from a temporary space set up by Allstate. The location? A field. They asked for a fax number. She had none.

Oh, and let us not forget about the NOLA evacuation plan that called for buses to be used to transport people out of The Big Easy. Instead, they are flooded.

That's the government in action.

The government is best at confiscating money from tax payers. But otherwise, people should consider to be on your own and operate from that premise.

If you didn't know before, now you know.

And to anyone who is surprised by what I'm writing, it's because you never asked, otherwise I would have told you something like this before.

"We Don't Need No, Ed-u-cation"

That line is from Pink Floyd, "The Wall". I think about the song when the talk show pundits, spinmasters, and liars "discuss" the Able Danger situation.

We are going to discuss the 3 letter goverment agencies: NSA, CIA, and FBI.

The NSA is the evesdropping agency of the the United States. Because of prior abuses by this agency, the NSA is bound by law to only do its spying on entities outside of the geographic boundaries of the U.S. Entities are people and American owned businesses. Additionally, anyone legally in the U.S. is considered to be, for the sake of spying, a U.S. citizen.

The CIA is a "spying" organization of the U.S. It is allowed to conduct espionage activities in the defense of the United States.

The FBI is a law enforcement organization of the U.S. It is allowed to "spy" on U.S. citizens for the purposes of gathering information to be used in the prosecution of individuals believed to have committed crimes.

What does this have to do with "The Wall"?

Everything!

Let's use this story that appeared in the UK Times Online as the discussion point.

According to Colonel Shaffer, a small, highly secret intelligence unit known as Able Danger had used data-sorting techniques to identify Atta and his accomplices as possible US-based terrorists by mid-2000, but military lawyers prevented the team from sharing their information.

Colonel Shaffer said that lawyers working for the Special Operations Command of the Defence Department, cancelled the meetings because they believed that the surveillance techniques used by Able Danger could be understood as a violation of the rights of people who were living legally in the US.

That's all you really need to read. The information about the terrorist group was collected on people who legally reside in the U.S. If there was concern about breaking The LAW, how can this be blamed on the Clinton administration and the so-called "Wall" that the "Clinton administration put in place"?

The fact is, the "Wall" is a set of laws enacted before Clinton was in office. It is NOT a set of regulations or guidelines put in place by each administration.

Background information of the 3 agencies listed and more.

AMT: Government In A Nutshell

This is the reason why the congress-criters, who all know that the alternative minimum tax is a problem, aren't doing a thing about it.

"When the stock market took a nosedive, we were stuck with huge amount of AMT which we could not pay even if we sold all the stocks that we exercised," said one recent letter. "My brother was hit by the AMT and is now facing financial ruin," said another.

For a host of worthy reasons, Connie Mack, a former U.S. senator who chairs the panel, reported it will recommend repealing the AMT.

He had no sooner uttered these words when a chorus of voices said the government's accounts couldn't stand the revenue loss, which would have to be made up some other way.

As always, follow the money.

Sucking Off Of The Government Teat

• S.B.A. loans.
  
• F.H.A. loans.
  
• Government backed student loans.
  
• Pell Grants.
  
• Fannie Mae.
  
• Sallie Mae.
  
• Research Grants.
  
• "Pork" from congress as a part of the transportation appropriations.
  
• "Pork" from congress as a part of the military appropriations.
  

Someone tell me my it is only Blacks are singled out as "sucking off of the government teat"?

Ward Connerly

OK, I've been writing that Ward Connerly has taken advantage of affirmative action programs. I have no problem with people taking advantage of such programs.

I've come to understand affirmative action programs, in government contracts, as being pure set asides OR requirements that companies who win government contracts use some percentage of "disadvantaged companies" as subcontractors. Here "disadvantaged companies" tend to mean minority and/or women owned companies.

LaShawn Barber found it "repugnant" that I mention this because in previous "discussions", she has mentioned that she discussed this with him and he denied it.

So, I did some Googling...

The African American website had this:

Though some of his critics believed that Wilson contributed to his success, others disagreed. In addition, a Jet article cited a story in the San Francisco Chronicle which stated that he had accepted $140,000 over the years in affirmative action contracts from the government. Though roughly half of his business did indeed come from the government, Connerly disputed that it was affirmative action money, telling Donna St. George of the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, "I don't think there's a minority around who hasn't benefited from the climate of inclusion that affirmative action has fostered. But I have never gone after the preference." He mentioned that he never listed himself on minority rosters, nor did he apply for minority "set-asides." However, Ayres in the New York Times reported that Connerly had indeed listed his firm as minority-owned in order to "keep all the benefits of a government contract." Pooley in Time, on the other hand, noted that Connerly had only disclosed his race after it was required.

The article mentioned is one that Ms. Barber said that Connerly disputed. The full article can be found here.

A follow up article by the Chronicle stated the following:

Contrary to the report, Connerly did not register as a minority businessman before receiving a 1989 contract for $1.1 million. Kent Smith, executive director of the Energy Commission, said he erred when he told The Chronicle that the contract was awarded under the state affirmative action law.

Although the law had been enacted when the contract was awarded, the law was not implemented at the Energy Commission until 1990.

It then continues:

Connerly did, however, receive two Energy Commission contracts in 1992 and 1994 as a minority businessman and agent for the California Building Officials, a group that, by law, had to be trained in energy conservation. The contracts were legally awarded without competitive bidding.

In an effort to explain his use of the program, Connerly submitted a statement last month to the Energy Commission that read in part: `We are disclosing our group identities solely because the state procurement process requires that minority and women owned businesses be used and it would work an extreme disadvantage to the proposer of this proposal to involve an additional subcontractor merely to comply with the (minority) requirement.'

This comes from the first article:

Connerly, in an interview, acknowledged that his firm participated in the `repugnant' race-based program, but he denied that it was affirmative action. Instead, he characterized the program as a `policy that requires that every contract . . . include participation of at least 15 percent of minority businesses and 5 percent of women.'

OK, that looks like an affirmative action program. In fact, this type of requirement has been called such and fought against by people who disagree with affirmative action. Lastly, Connerly filed a law suit against the law that required contractors to get minority contractor participation, but after the report.

Unless I'm missing something here, it looks like he took advantage of affirmative action programs. It doesn't matter that he didn't go after "disadvantaged" set asides or "disadvantaged" company participation.

On Frank Rich, Karl Rove, and Plame

Frank Rich writes an editorial in the New York Times arguing that the outing of Valerie Plame and the prosecution of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper represent something far worse than Watergate. It represents nothing less than the crumbling of American democracy. While I think Rich has the kernel of a case here--given the decline of transparency, and the decline of investigative reporting--he's definitely off his rocker. And while some bloggers seem to understand, they all neglect a painfully obvious point.

The whistleblower that needed to be protected in this case was Wilson. The best way to protect him was to punish the person/s responsible for outing his wife. The best way to do this was to get the journalists aware of the person/s to reveal that information to the public.

Though it is apparent to me that Robert Novak should be the one behind bars, I cannot think of any other way to get what is now commonplace knowledge.

For some reason, Rich is actually arguing that ROVE is the one needing protection, that protecting Rove protects the third estate.

When nothing could be further from the truth.

You Own No Property, II

Some thoughts on the fact that local governments can now, in the open, take your land for private use:

• People really don't own property in the U.S. anyway. If you did, there would be no way a government can take your property for failing to pay the real estate tax on it.
• White America, meet urban renewal.
• If you think public corruption is bad NOW, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.

You Own No Property

In a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can take your property under the guise of public good, and then give/sell the stolen property to a private interest.

Before, when the government did it, it had to sneak to do it. Now they have "the right" to do it in the open.

Let's see...

A developer lines the pockets of select politicians and then asks the local government to consider a block of property for "improvement." Those politicians who are on the take have received donations from the developer, then push through an "urban renewal plan" that benefits the "public good". They then grab your property, pay you "fair cost" which is less than what you could get if you sold it on your own, and then "sell it" to the developer for a little more than the government paid. The developer then makes a killing "renewing" the property.

So one of the best ways to ensure security for your heirs, is now gone.

This really stinks.

More later...

Prohibition

This is rough. Real rough. I wanted to put it out a few days ago, but it got lost. So, I'm just throwing this out here now.

Years ago, Kurt Schmoke said that the U.S. needs to consider decriminalizing or legalizing drugs to take the profit motive out of the drug trade. That would cause the violence and crime associated with the drug trade to go down.

I somewhat disagree.

Would crime related to drugs go down? Sure. But that's because of the change in legal status. The question to ask is will the crimes committed by people on drugs go up, stay the same, or go down?

Let's assume the government taxes the sale of drugs. What do you think is going to happen to the money? Do you think it will go towards addiction programs?

No. It will go towards the general government fund where the politicians will spend it at their will. That's what happened with the tobacco settlement money. Most of it went to other purposes, not towards tobacco use prevention and addiction programs.

Amersterdam is shown as the model for drug legalization but the proponents don't examine the rise in addiction nor do they examine the break down of families of drug users.

People like to point out that the end of alcohol prohibition took out the profit motive for the mob to be involved in alcohol production and distribution.

Not exactly. "Moonshine" production and distribution still occurs. It is a low key multi-million dollar business.

Let's assume it does become decriminalized. What would the local dealers do? Maybe run cigarettes? In New York and Maryland, states with high cigarette taxes, state authorities are finding out there is a growing business in shipment of cigarettes to get around the taxes placed on them.

My point? New illegal areas of making money will be found.

Why not concentrate of getting kids to not get involved in selling drugs in the first place? Maybe the problem is it is "harder".

Mind Benders

• If you ask, "Why are you supporting the use of fillibusters when white Dixiecrats used fillibustering to stop the Civil Rights Bill?", I will respond, "Why are you supporting school vouchers when school vouchers were used by white parents to send their children to private acadamies to get around school degregulation laws?"

• Who knew that Antonin Scalia was against judges who have "faith"?

  Earlier Scalia had said, “In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.”

Tax Ramblings

So, this year I had to write another check to the I.R.S., and again I wasn't happy. I made, what I thought were, the necessary adjustments and still I owed. But at least I didn't get caught in the A.M.T. trap that 2 other people I know did.

The A.M.T. has been talked about by politicians on both sides of the aisle, yet nothing has been done about it.

Why? Could it be because they both want to spend our money? Naaaahhhhhhhhh. We know only the Democrats spend our money.

So, I was sent a link about a government program that over spent its budget by hundreds of millions of dollars, is running late, isn't going to produce what was supposed to be produced, and is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars more to "complete".

Wonderful.

I have to sign onto an idea I heard somewhere else.

Let everyone who gets a check from their employer be responsible for sending in their own taxes. That way, when the government does something silly with our tax money, maybe the public will feel the pain and do more demanding on the public officials to spend our money better.

I guess I should mention that I get rowdy about taxes this time of year. And I guess I should mention that I was told that the A.M.T. will get more people next year and in 5 years, about 60% of middle class families are going to get hit.

So, why are the congress-criters not doing anything?

Sunday Talking Heads

Of the Sunday talking head shows, Fox Sunday and Meet the Press are the cream of the crop. Meet the Press, in my opinion, towers above all. Russert really is non-partial in his questioning and does not let the politicians get away with much.

Today, I saw Fox Sunday but not Meet the Press. If you watched the show, and if you are not so much of a partisan that you just refuse to admit "your side" is ingenuous, then you have to admit that the Republican and Democratic senators discussing judges and the blockage of voting for judge appointees are a good reason why politicans are held in such low regard.

Fact: Republicans did not allow many of Clinton's appointees to get a vote by using secret holds or just refusing to allow appointees to get a vote in the conference committee. If Republicans want to discuss constitutional issues, then they have to admit that there is no constitutional support for conference committees in the Constitution.

Fact: Democrats are not allowing some appointees to get a vote by invoking the fillibuster tactics. Republicans have firm ground in saying that judge appointees, by tradition, have not been fillibustered, although there is one situation in the 1800s that it happened.

From my point of view, they both came off looking like snake-oil salesmen. They both are playing the American public for fools.

Nuclear Haterade: The "I Hate WalMart" Nut Jobs

Now, why in the world would any politican want to do something this stupid?

Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.

But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.

It's one thing to have the "not in my back yard" nut jobs crying about WalMart (while shopping there!), it's totally another thing to create a bill targeting ONE COMPANY and dictating what they have to provide, IN THE FORM OF BENEFITS to the employees!

There are no laws, until now, that requires a company to provide health care! In fact, to me, it makes no sense!

This is going to come back and bite Maryland WalMart shoppers, MANY OF WHOM ARE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, in the ass.

Why?

Do you think WalMart is going to eat this cost? No. They are going to pass the expense on to the customers!

Or, they will do something like provide it's own health care service, which turns out to be no damn good.

Unbelievable.

My Social Security Fix

Give me 100% of the money I already put in.

OR

Give me a federal tax credit for 100% of the money I already put in.

Let me direct investment of the 12.4% of soc. sec. tax that comes out of my check either as employee or owner. Of that 12.4%, allow me to direct what ever is needed for long term disability, life insurance, and long term care.

I'll settle for 50% and 6.2%. The other 6.2% goes towards current retirees and zeroes out when no one else is left on the old system.

No max on IRAs of any kind.

Remove the cap on social security.

Various Links

These links are presented without comment:

"Texas futile care law"

Sleeping lawyers in the court room.

President Bush:

BUSH: Couple issues I do want to talk about, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life. (Cheers and applause.) This is a complex case, with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.

Rope A Dope: ANWR

The Senate voted yes on drilling in ANWR:

The provision would allow oil companies to drill in a coastal plain that covers about 1.5 million acres of the wildlife refuge, which encompasses a total of about 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. More than 10 billion barrels of crude oil are estimated to lie under the refuge, and President Bush today urged that they be tapped to help ease high fuel prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Big whoop. Let's suppose drilling in ANWR happens. Will it really reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil?

Uhh... no?

Think about this for a bit.

Global companies will extract the oil. The oil will be refined at locations that can be any place in the world. It may be refined in the U.S. or it may be refined outside of the U.S. But that still doesn't matter.

The global companies will then send the refined products to where ever the market dictates that it go.

There is no guarantee that the refined product will go to the U.S. for further refining (turning into plastic products) or consumption (fuel).

Thus the opening of ANWR and reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil can't be determined because the oil will go where the market determines it needs to go.

Some believe that China will be the place that it goes because of the growing demand and the growing economy.

It's more oil on the market, but ANWR doesn't appear to be a big enough reserve to make a difference on the global market.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to drill in ANWR, I'm just saying people are being given vaporware.

Hat tips: Ramblings Journal

Booker Rising

Askin Questions

From the Black Commentator:

Instead, the BET founder, who was an early backer of Social Security privatization and organized fellow wealthy Blacks in support of George Bushs bid to repeal the Estate Tax, crafted an agenda designed to peel African Americans away from the Democratic Party

Every once in awhile BC fires off a good nugget.
This ISN'T one of those times.

So what if Johnson asks these questions? Is BC afraid that more Blacks will see things differently and give more consideration to the Republicans?

I'm not one for saying Blacks should go for Republicans because "it's not good to have all eggs in one basket" but this article makes me look and wonder they are afraid to leave Dems behind.

What good is giving the Dems the votes and having no power associated with the votes?

Open Letter From The Black Progress Network

(reprinted in full with permission)

We are the editors of the Research/Information Portal at www.blackprogress.net, which currently features several links to reports, papers, articles, commentaries, critiques, websites/initiatives, etc. that reflect all ideological & political perspectives on topics such as: Business/Entrepreneurship/Capital; Fostering Educational Excellence; The Cosby Indictment & Call to Action; Wealth-Building/The Wealth Gap/Financial & Economic Empowerment; Etc.

We are currently compiling similar information on Social Security Reform & African Americans but have yet to locate any rigorous research/analyses (empirical or non-empirical) that examine the issue -- beyond op-eds -- by black conservative economists and policy analysts. We are therefore posting this message on black conservative/centrist blog sites to seek your help in locating such analyses. (We have located a few by "liberal" economists/analysts such as those at the end of this post.)

It would, of course, be great to have more vigorous discourse on this and other economic issues that are important to African Americans by black conservative, liberal, and moderate analysts/economists alike--discourse that is backed by solid analyses and goes beyond recitation of the talking points of the respective ideological and partisan political groups.

For example, it would have been nice to see such black analysts join the recent debate (?) between Paul Krugman & the Heritage Foundation's David C. John and William W. Beach--see: "Consider A Few Facts About African Americans and Social Security" -- http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012805e.cfm

This brings up a larger question: Why is there no vibrant black conservative think-tank that does rigorous research & analyses on critical issues such as black entrepreneurship and market-based approaches for fostering educational and economic progress in inner-cities, for example?

Such an organization would have been an obvious prominent player in President Bush's Urban Entrepreneur Partnership initiative -- http://www.kauffman.org/news.cfm/582

-- which, interestingly, includes the National Urban League, but not a black conservative organization.

If black conservatives do not think that a black conservative think-tank that counters the liberal Joint Center is necessary (in the way that a Project 21 is in general public discourse), are there black economists/policy analysts at top conservative/libertarian think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution (besides Dr. Thomas Sowell)?

If there are, we'd like to locate their publications. We have checked the websites of Dr. Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University and found no recent scholarly work by them on contemporary black economic development issues (entrepreneurship, wealth-building, etc.), which is perhaps understandable since they are close to retirement. And, of course, they do not have to do any work in this area just because they are black, but it would be nice to have a few black conservative intellectuals in think-tanks doing intellectually rigorous work on critical issues that impact black economic progress.

We recall that the Center for New Black Leadership was founded about 10 years ago for such a purpose, but the organization has yet to have a significant impact and appears to be inactive (the website -- http://www.cnbl.org/ -- currently has no information other than "The future home of the Centre for New Black Leadership").

Many critics of black conservatives wonder why wealthy black Republicans/conservatives, and/or the wealthy individuals and organizations that fund the big and influential think-tanks cited above, cannot finance one that focuses on African American issues.

Establishment of a think-tank that vigorously advances intellectual and policy discourse would be one way of heeding the exhortation by Black conservative & Bush supporter Robert Woodson [National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise], who reportedly noted in the May 1996 issue of Headway magazine:

"In general Black conservatives have not defined themselves in a positive manner. Too many have been reflexive "me-too" conservatives, merely echoing the views and opinions of established white conservatives and their stands against affirmative action, set-asides, and the welfare system?It is important for Black conservatives to offer positive alternatives to be originators of ideas that go beyond the bi-polar debates of the left and the right ... that Black conservatives should be less concerned about what they call themselves, but rather, be concerned how their actions define them in the eyes of everyday people, particularly their own people."

The recent Armstrong Williams debacle has only reinforced "the black-conservatives-are-sellouts stereotype", as blogger LaShawn Barber laments -- http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/08/armstrong/#more-861

As a research/policy/business-oriented entity that promotes discourse and innovative solutions to problems, we at blackprogress.net believe that establishing a vibrant black conservative think-tank that does independent intellectual and practical, action-oriented work to foster entrepreneurship and other market-based solutions for black economic and educational progress (parental education, academic excellence, etc.) will help to destroy these stereotypes.

This will be a potent way to seize the black leadership mantle rather than simply assailing the current black leadership. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation conference on Feb 24 ("Responding to the Call: The New Black Vanguard Conference" -- http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev022405a.cfm) will go beyond bashing liberal leaders (however well-deserved) and examine this and other ways.

We'd greatly appreciate any relevant information. Thank you.

editor@blackprogress.net
///////////////////

Changing Social Security: The Impact on African Americans
http://www.jointcenter.org/news1/NewsDetail.php?recordID=24

The Social Security Privatization Crisis: Assessing the Impact on African
American Families. Maya Rockeymoore, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation,
January 2005
http://cbcfinc.org/pdf/CBCFSocialSecurityPrivatizationReport4.pdf

African Americans and Social Security. Why the Privatization Advocates Are
Wrong. WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104spriggs.html

Social Security Privatization and African Americans: A Comparative Analysis.
Nwafor. Journal of Black Studies. 2005; 35: 248-266
http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/248

When Is A Government Handout Not a Government Handout?

When it's a government handout for something you believe in.

Conservatives have castigated the Black community for "relying on government handouts." However, those same conservatives, for the most part, support the idea of giving money to Black churches, and churches in general, to fund programs that the church may offer.

Personally, I really don't have a problem with the idea. It should be up to the individual church to decide if they want to deal with the regulations involved with getting money from the government.

But, rhetorically speaking, I find it interesting that NOW it's okay to accept the government handout.

Disability and Survior Benefits

When social security reform is mentioned, I keep asking about survivor benefits and disability benefits.

I love the idea about having money in private accounts. But, that doesn't mean the plans shouldn't be investigated.

From Salon:

To begin with, there is no evidence that blacks, as a group, are cheated by Social Security. Yes, whites do live longer than blacks, which means that the average white woman will collect more benefit checks than the average black man. But, Baker points out, blacks also generally make less money than whites, which means that they get a higher rate of return on their contributions to the system. And because African-Americans suffer higher rates of disability than whites, they draw more from Social Security's disability benefits than whites. Meanwhile, spouses and minor children of African-Americans heavily depend on the system's survivor benefits. When economists have studied all that blacks put into the system compared with all they get out of it, Baker says, blacks, as a group, aren't being treated unfairly -- and they may even be doing better than whites.

I will have to look at the numbers to make a conclusion, although something tells me all of the numbers are cooked.

In a Social Security briefing paper, Shelton declares that "almost 80 percent of African Americans over age 65 depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, and more than half rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income." Basically, she writes, "without the guaranteed Social Security benefits they receive today, the poverty rate among older African Americans would more than double, pushing most African American seniors into squalor and poverty during their most vulnerable years."

OK, the Republicans pulled the race card and now the opposition is pulling out their own race cards.

Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams has lost media outlets. What about the others?

Armstrong Williams needs to disclose the names of other people who he knows also accepts money. Or, he needs to say that he will give those people X days to disclose themselves or he will do it.

Publicly, this will give the public an idea of what is going on with media pundits, whether they are partisans, idealists, or hired guns.

This is smelling on two levels. The first, it seems as though Armstrong Williams is being treated more harshly than others. Second, I wonder more how much this really goes on.

On Hate Crimes

I was cruising LaShawn's site and found her inveighing against thoughtcrime. It makes sense, but I think there are two important thigs she's overlooking in actual hate crimes. Motive & Method.

As I said in my Boohabian Hate Crime Standard.

To win a hate crime prosecution, the prosecution has to show a clear expression of group hatred through the felony. It is not a "hate crime" merely because the perpetrator hates people of that group. The crime has to be intended to communicate that hatred of the group to the victim. The idea that police search for hidden hate motivations is antithetical to the notion of hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't enhance your punishment merely for thinking bad thoughts. They enhance your punishment for committing your crime in a manner that creates added psychological injury to the victim and society.

In other words, hate crime is terrorism. It is a crime done not simply out of animus against the victim, but against a group. Committing a hate crime means, or should mean if prosecutors have their heads on straight, that it is a crime designed to intimidate people who were not around. You don't spraypaint 'Nigger' on somebody's sidewalk just to intimidate the residents of one house, but everyone in the neighborhood. You don't car bomb a police station to get back at the cops who arrested you, but to intimidate everyone who depends on the police.

We ask juries all the time to assess the motive of the suspect. Its the entire difference between first and second degree murder. What did the suspect intend to accomplish with this crime. That's the difference. A Hate Crime Standard should mean nothing more nor less than this, was it a terroristic crime. Was it designed to intimidate, or to 'send a message'? If so, then I think rational people will understand and have even less tolerance for that kind of criminal, and their acts.

Social Security

Can someone tell me who has the right numbers concerning the health of social security? By this I mean, when will money coming in under run money going out? How are they basing the projections of money coming in? How can they guess, accurately, the state of the economy 10, 20, 30+ years when they can't accurately guess the state of the economy next year? In fact, the government routinely adjusts economic numbers for the recent past.

They can project the life expectancy of people years in advance. Life insurance companies do it as a matter of survival. But they are constantly adjusting the numbers. How can politicians, today, work off of tables that will be adjusted next year, the year after that, the year after that, and so on?

Those supporting social security reform, do so based on nonsense numbers. Those opposing social security reform, do so based on nonsense numbers.

GIGO is the rule.

Good night.

An Honest Mayor

At last, an honest mayor!

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams cited the "urgent need" to collect revenue in his recent request to continue the city's automated traffic-enforcement program, which added four new cameras yesterday, despite previous assurances that use of the technology is driven by concerns for safety, not profits. "There is an urgent need for the approval of this contract to ensure the continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues," Mr. Williams wrote in a Dec. 16 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp. In the letter, Mr. Williams was seeking support for the District's $14.6 million contract with ACS State and Local Solutions, which the council later approved. ACS, a private company, handles fines for the city's automated traffic-enforcement program.

Wonderful...

Tsunami Fund Raising

OK, this one made me shout at my television:

Bush, Clinton to Lead Tsunami Fund Raising By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush enlisted two former presidents for an ambitious private fund-raising drive for victims of the deadly tsunami on Monday, asking Americans to open their wallets to help the millions left homeless, hungry and injured.

"The devastation in the region defies comprehension," Bush said as he announced the campaign to be led by his father and Bill Clinton. "I ask every American to contribute as they are able to do so."

...

Under the new fund-raising drive, to be coordinated by the White House's USA Freedom Corps, an office that encourages volunteering, Clinton and the first President Bush will solicit donations by doing media interviews and traveling the country. They also will tap into their own networks of contacts to try to pry donations from corporations, foundations and the wealthy, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

What the hell???????

Why is this needed? The American people are stepping up to the plate. For example, donations to Catholic Charities is pouring in at a great rate. I heard that Amazon users, ALONE, have donated more money than some countries.

So why is this necessary?

Is it part of George W. Bush's larger goal of using public money to fund religious programs that address problems in the society? By "encouraging private donations", the idea of getting government out of that business is made stronger. But, it's not necessary! He's getting the government involved in private donations.

Is it part of his larger goal of setting up his brother, Jeb, to make a strong run for president?

He has tapped Jeb Bush to go overseas to "head" relief efforts. Why does he have to go over there? Sure, Florida suffered with hurricanes, but Florida and the U.S. government STILL haven't gotten things straightened out yet.

Why else would Jeb Bush write a Washington Post editorial concerning education in Florida?

This makes no sense otherwise. There is no need for the federal government to be involved in coordinating private efforts. This is another waste of money, like the Department of Homeland Security is a waste of money.

Terrorism

Lately, I've been hearing more people refer to criminals in high crime areas as terrorists. I've been hearing more people refer to drug dealers who apply fear to the neighborhoods where they do their criminal activities as terrorists. I've been hearing people say that the dealers using intimidation is nothing more than terrorism.

I am not a wordsmith and I am guilty of loose use of the American version of English, but the use of terrorism and terrorist, as I have given it, is an abuse of the language that should not be allowed to stand.

I understand the seriousness of crime in some areas. I helped board up a dwelling that was being used as a drug den. A police officer saw what we were doing, parked his car, and watched. Later, the people who wanted to get into the dwelling undid our work and continued to do what they did. The only reason why we boarded up the dwelling is because complaints to the city about the problem resulted in nothing. About 2 years later, a 70-80 something year old woman was dragged into that dwelling and raped. The woman was kind to everyone in the neighborhood. One teenage girl heard what happened and told the police that some people in that dwelling had raped her as well. The city then tore down the building.

If the authorities did their jobs, from policing, to applying correct terms to those convicted, to keeping them locked up when they have committed violent crimes, more people would be willing to speak up and help out the authorities.

We don't need to call criminals terrorists. We need to call them criminals and deal with them as such.

Acting Like A Public School System

This move by the Archdiocese Of Baltimore would tick me off. This may be an example that voucher opponents may use in the future.

There is no freedom of movement here.

Transfer edict angers parents Catholic education chief bans midyear enrollment; Three schools merging into one; Decision made to prevent 'mass exodus' by pupils

By Lynn Anderson
Sun Staff

December 27, 2004

Plans by the Archdiocese Of Baltimore to combine three Catholic schools next fall to cut costs and boost enrollment are angering some parents of children who attend.

They are particularly upset about an edict by the Catholic school system's superintendent prohibiting other schools in the archdiocese from accepting midyear transfers from the affected schools - St. Anthony of Padua, St. Dominic and Shrine of the Little Flower schools - for fear of a mass exodus.

Parents who don't want their children to attend the new combined school are calling Superintendent Ronald J. Valenti's decree - issued in a letter to principals shortly after the Nov. 17 merger announcement - unfair. They worry that if they wait too long to change where they enroll their children, all the open seats will be taken.

"He wants everyone to give the new school a chance, and so he is strong-arming everyone and not allowing them to transfer in the middle of the school year," said Lilly Santmyer, the mother of a third-grader at St. Dominic School in Hamilton. "It is unheard-of. I don't get it."

Parents say they are concerned that the new school - housed at St. Anthony's in Gardenville and named after Mother Mary Lange, a Haitian who became a nun after opening the first Catholic school for black children in Baltimore in 1828 - will offer a different curriculum and larger class sizes. They say detailed information, including preschool schedules, has been slow to come out.

Social Security

Is it just me, or is all of the talk about Social Security reform missing commentary about survior and disability benefits?

For Safer World, Legalize Drugs

As the failed policies of the War on Drugs tread a furious 11th hour conflationary path into the failing policies of the War on Terror, Stanley Crouch - taking a long overdue queue from the former mayor of Baltimore Kurt Schmoke - drops a little common sense.

"For safer world, legalize drugs....,

The recent reduction of the harsh mandatory sentencing once common to New York drug laws makes an interesting combination when thought of with the concept of legalized, taxable gambling. I say that because the real solution to the drug problem this country faces has little to do with how much time some lightweight drug pusher or user is sentenced to spend behind bars. It is not about finding better ways to get the big guys and put them where they belong. That's all a waste of time.

What we need to do is legalize all the drugs and face the consequences. That's right. With drug dealers put out of business, I am sure those consequences would be much less dangerous - and much less expensive - to our society. Legalization could not even begin to approach the downside in the illegal dope world - torture, murder, beatings and sexual exploitation.

Drug money is very nearly the petroleum of the most violent criminal world. It is the fuel that keeps the destructive engine running. Drug violence dramatically influences the nature of public health. The violence perpetuated by drug gangs fighting over turf is one of the bloody burdens the lower class must bear. The health costs of treating those with gunshot wounds, whether actual members of the trade or innocent bystanders, must amount to hundreds of millions over the last 30 years. All those bandages, all of those operations, all of that rehabilitation, all of those crutches, prescriptions, painkillers and wheelchairs.

None of it is free.

So while states, including this one, are considering legal gambling as a way to raise their tax revenues and provide better services for their citizens, I believe that they should start thinking about the same thing in the area of illegal drugs. The taxes from drugs alone would greatly deepen the resources necessary to fight the educational shortages in this nation, for one.

The impact on crime would be enormous because young men seeking the fast track to wealth through illegal drug trafficking would have to calm down. We would save thousands of kids. Who knows? They might even have to take school seriously. At least they wouldn't be found gunned down on a streetcorner or in an alley or some dilapidated apartment. Legalizing drugs would end that. The big drug companies would be quite happy once they were able to take over the kinds of drugs that have made billions for dope lords.

The other advantage with the big drug companies like Lilly and Pfizer is that they would be the only ones able to sustain a fight against the enormous lobby that illegal drug profiteers would underwrite to keep their product in the shadow world.

We have to face the fact that recreational drugs have made their appearance and are part of the colossal market of modern entertainment. They are going nowhere, and it is time for our nation to look at things as they are. When we do, we can take some giant steps that must be taken.

Originally published on December 13, 2004

Foundations Curtail Aid to Communities of Color

I'd been hearing that brothers and sisters of various backgrounds had been leaving organizations like the Ford Foundation in droves, largely because these institutions became unwilling to fund research and programs dedicated to dealing with the problems of black and brown communities. Melvin Oliver who co-authored Black Wealth White Wealth for example, used to be a Vice-President at the Ford Foundation, and now he's an academic Dean in the UC system (either Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz, I forget which).

Turns out people aren't just blowing in the wind.

The report "Short Changed: Foundation Giving and Communities of Color" has been made available by the kind people of the Applied Research Center.

Military focuses recruiting efforts on working class

I recall reading something about Greyhound cutting off rural routes. I'm willing to bet the high school populations of those areas are going to be the recruiting grounds for the future military. Given the degree to which the administration is gutting social programs and now gutting college grant programs I think critics of the administration focusing on the draft are looking at the wrong place. With kids in working class schools cut off from all options besides the armed forces, there will be no problem filling slots.

Vouchers

The blog entry by Scott about the final straw, has me asking, again, questions that seem to not get answered or are hand waved away when vouchers are mentioned.

If conservatives really want vouchers to succeed, they need to do more to at least address the concerns of people who are anti-voucher.

One, does public school funding get cut for those students who remain in public schools? If so, is that a "fair" outcome?

Two for those who stay, now what? People who say that it will force the government schools to improve are either fooling themselves or are straight out lying.

How often does a big government entity actually improve when competition is introduced? Exhibit A is the post office.

Three, let's assume that the competition model works, and competition comes about. What about the rural areas where the less dense population means that there is less of a chance for other opportunitites to be created?

And, for the record, I'm reluctantly pro-voucher. I'm pro-voucher because I believe it's an emergency situation in some public schools. At this point, however, triage is needed.

But I think these are valid questions that need to be addressed.

Your Papers Please!

Some one defend this.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday that "accountability will be carried out" against whoever slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that would have allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American.

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the episode points up the problems created when Congress passes gigantic spending bills at the end of a session, before anyone has time to read them.

Drudge says Istook, R-OK is responsible for it.

Real Cut in Grants

This was in the NY Times.

Bill Clears Way for Government to Cut Back College Loans

The government moved to change its formula for college aid last year, but was blocked by Congress. Now, however, no such language appears in the appropriations bill lawmakers are considering, clearing the way for the government to scale back college grants for hundreds of thousands of low-income students.

The cutback stems from a revision to the formula governing virtually all of the nation's financial aid. Last year, the Department of Education changed the formula on its own, angering members of Congress who contended that it was a backdoor way of cutting education spending without facing the public. The department retorted that it was merely following the law.

Thanks to P6 for this.

The Ownership Society at Work

Nearly 100,000 more students may lose their federal grants entirely, as Congress considers legislation that could place more of the financial burden for college on students and their families.

More here (login is probably required).

Slate on Welfare

Slate's been running a series of email discussions between Mickey Kaus, Jonah Edelman, and some nimnal I forget. The subject is welfare. And it is readily apparent that Jonah talking to Mickey Kaus is kind of like Jordan playing one-on-one with the sixth man of my alma mater's squad...with real life stakes.

I remember talking to a sister at a Michigan State conference on race. The subject was D'Nesh D'Souza. Thank God we didn't talk about him long. The sister was trying to make an argument for going after folks like D'Souza on the lecture circuit. I didn't have a problem with the idea. Sure we need more voices out there, and given that D'Souza is still giving tired lectures on a book that I'm pretty sure is over ten years old...if someone can make money doing it more power to them.

But having a PhD from a real school do it? That's like a waste of resources. Merit matters...and most conservative pundits simply don't have it. (I actually think that Kaus would probably call himself a liberal, but he's definitely a racial conservative.)

Understanding Institutional Racism

Scott, a member of the Conservative Brotherhood, posted this entry titled Understanding Institutional Racism

This hits it on the head.

After turning 65, my father wasted no time retiring. He'd purchased our house back in 1952 for $20,000 thanks to a 3 percent mortgage made possible by the Veterans Administration. Now he was considering an offer of $300,000. With the money they'd get a place in the Berkshires and winter in Florida.

That $270,500 gap reveals a microcosm of race in America. My family is white and Cornelius' is black.

A few of the people I used to work with got help from their parents when purchasing a house. I had no help. I wouldn't have taken it any way, but seeing that most American's home makes up the major portion of their net worth, is it any wonder why there is a wealth gap?

Score One For The Men

This is A GOOD THING.

Dads 'by default' hail new law
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 5, 2004

"I don't feel there's any way for the system to fight it anymore," said Mr. Riddick of Carson, Calif., who has been protesting his child-support order for more than a decade.
The new law, sponsored by California Assembly member Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat, was cheered by opponents of "paternity fraud."

A friend of mine got caught up in this kind of mess.
It's nasty.
Score one for the men.

Robin Hood was a good guy but...

The New York Times has an interesting article about Texas' "Robin Hood" style education policy which attempts to equalize state spending on education. I believe that spending more on public education is a good idea because in the long run it benefits everyone. better educated kids lead to better paid adults, leads to healthier adults, leads to higher levels of production, leads to an increase in small business development, etc.

But in this case it didn't work out that way. Here is the academic paper. And below is the abstract.

School finance schemes control the allocation of $370 billion a year in the United States, but their economics are poorly understood. We examine an illuminating example: Texas' "Robin Hood" scheme, which was enacted in 1994, allocates about $30 billion a year, and is currently collapsing and likely to be abandoned. We show that the collapse was predictable. Robin Hood's design causes substantial negative capitalization, shrinking its own tax base. It relies only slightly on relatively efficient (pseudo lump sum) redistibution and heavily on high marginal tax rates. Although Robin Hood reduced the spending gap between Texas' property-poor and property-rich districts by $500 per pupil, it destroyed about $27,000 per pupil in property wealth. The magnitude of this loss is important: if the state had efficiently confiscated the same wealth and invested it, it would generate sufficient annual income to make all Texas schools spend at a high level. The Robin Hood scheme is stringent but not bizarre: other states' systems share its features to some degree. We provide estimates of the effects of school finance system parameters, which policy makers could use to design systems that are more efficient and stable.

And this is published at around the same time it is revealed that the gap between wealthy and not-so-wealthy schools is growing.

Black Farmer: The Promised Land

This appeared in The Washington Post. It's a story about a Black farmer who is part of the FDA discrimination case.

This story has a lot woven into it. It's a good read.

It has what, I think, most Blacks know about and do every day: persevere. Here's a man, facing some serious odds and family troubles, but still he keeps going.

At first, I thought he just over extended himself. And, in fact, he did. But he kept on going. His drive is what is familiar to me.

Some may say, "This is an example of not letting discrimination stand in your way." To that I say, most Blacks do that and by saying what you did, you demonstrate how LITTLE you think of Blacks, in general.

Africatown pt. 2

I asked what the difference was between Africatown and Chinatown. There are several important differences.

But Cobb recognized one of the significant ones.

I am reminded of a talk between King and Stokely Carmichael. Carmichael had just introduced the term "black power" into the American lexicon, with controversial results. King didn't like the phrase, though he agreed with the content. Carmichael asked King why couldn't black people have power, like other ethnic groups.

King's answer?

Other ethnic groups didn't talk about getting power, they just got it. Irish immigrants never talked about green power...but they got it nonetheless. Talking about it brings atttention. It is indiscrete, and it shows a lack of restraint.

Perhaps because the biggest supporters of this particular venue do not have capital of their own (Dr. Claud Anderson is an author and a popular intellectual, not a venture capitalist) they had to take the more vocal route. An option that the Chinese never needed to take.

Contradiction

Some in the GOP are saying that the number of Blacks owning homes is at a new high, so credit should be given to Bush because of some of his housing initiatives.

Blacks are starting businesses and getting more SBA loans so some in the GOP are saying that the credit should be given to Bush.

The Black unemployment rate is falling so some in the GOP say that the credit should go to Bush.

Meanwhile, the GOP is saying that they foster things so that people don't depend on government, and that Blacks really need these things because Blacks are too dependent on government.

So, isn't there a contradiction somewhere? If you give Bush credit, you have to say that Bush is fostering government dependence. But that's not what the GOP is about, right?

:-)

I look forward to the end of the silly season.

Clinton's Advisory Council on Race - 1998

I have a number of documents relating to race that I should share with everyone. They've been sitting on my hard drive for years doing nobody any good.

The first:
"POVERTY AND RACE: LOCAL POLICY ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS"
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 11, 1998
Download file

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+ + + + +
THE PRESIDENT�S INITIATIVE ON RACE
+ + + + +
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
+ + + + +
AFTERNOON ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION:
"POVERTY AND RACE: LOCAL POLICY ISSUES AND
SOLUTIONS"
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY
FEBRUARY 11, 1998
+ + + + +
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
+ + + + +
The Commission�s Advisory Board met at
Independence High School, Luiz Valdez Performing Arts
Center, 1776 Educational Park Drive, San Jose
California, at 1:00 p.m., Dr. John Franklin, Chairman,
presiding.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Dr. John Hope Franklin, Durham, NC, Chairman
Linda Chavez-Thompson, Washington D.C.
Suzan D. Johnson Cook, Bronx, NY
Thomas H. Kean, Madison, NJ
Angela E. Oh, Los Angeles, CA
Robert Thomas, Fort Lauderdale, FL
William F. Winter, Jackson, MS

OPENING REMARKS:
Blanca Alvarado, Supervisor
Santa Clara County
Aida Alvarez, Administrator
Small Business Administration
PANELISTS:
Moderator: Lorna Ho, KNTV
San Jose, California
Rose A. Amador, President/CEO
Center for Training and Careers, Inc.
San Jose, California
Gordon Chin, Executive Director
Chinatown Community Development Center
San Francisco, California
Amy B. Dean, Executive Officer
South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
San Jose, California
Dr. Denise Fairchild, President
Community Development Technologies Center
Los Angeles, California
Jose R. Padilla, Director
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
San Francisco, California
Dennis Turner, Executive Director
Southern California Tribal Chairmen�s
Association
San Diego, California
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS:
Joyce Lawrence
Louis Rocha
Bob Meggs
Eugene Galvan
Jazmin Sanchez Jonson
Connie Burgess

Send comments to CDC TODAY!

Monday is the last day to comment on proposed regulations that would cut funding for HIV from organizations that said anything about condoms other than the "fact" that they are not effective in preventing the spread of disease. While I understand the viewpoint of those who believe that discussions about sex should be reserved to the private sphere, I think this viewpoint is not based on sound science. If you are interested please read and comment.

Black Business & the S.B.A.

I have a question that's been on my mind recently.

If "dependency on the government" is a bad thing, why is it a "good thing" that during G. W. Bush's first term, Blacks have received more S.B.A. loans?

That's an honest question on my part.

From reading things like Black Enterprise, it's obvious that one of the reasons why Black businesses fail, even though most businesses fail in the first 5 years, is because Black business is under capitalized from the start. So why celebrate Black businesses getting further behind?

The Harlem Project

The one thing I haven't heard many candidates speak on is urban poverty. The proverbial elephant in the closet. I'm willing to bet that I can predict what the candidates would say if they DID say something. Bush would talk about individual initiative and empowering people to help themselves through faith-based initiatives. Kerry would talk about public/private partnerships and tax incentives, along with raising the minimum wage.

After welfare reform passed in 1996, the national debate on poverty seemed simply to shut down. Most conservatives explain poverty by looking to culture and behavior: bad parenting, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, teenagers who don't know the value of an honest day's work. To most liberals, the real problems are economic: underfinanced public schools and a dearth of well-paying semiskilled jobs, which make it nearly impossible for families to pull themselves out of poverty. Canada says he believes that both assumptions are true. He agrees that the economy is stacked against poor people no matter how hard they work, but he also thinks that poor parents aren't doing a good enough job of rearing their children. What makes Canada's project unique is that it addresses both problems at once. He keeps the liberals happy by pouring money into schools and day-care centers and after-school programs, and he satisfies the conservatives by directly taking on the problems of inadequate parenting and the cultural disadvantages of a ghetto home life. It's not just that he's trying to work both sides of the ideological street. It's that Canada has concluded that neither approach has a chance of working alone. Fix the schools without fixing the families and the community, and children will fail; but they will also fail if you improve the surrounding community without fixing the schools.

The article. While no one wants to say it, this idea--which I think we can all agree is worth trying--smacks of The Great Society. Definitely in a good way. I think I know what the data is going to show in a few years, when that first group comes out.

Blacks, Hiibel & The Terry Stop

It turns out that a 'drunken cowboy' is representing a lot of blackfolks today in the Supreme Court. The Hiibel case as reported by Slate:

Cowboy Dudley Hiibel is challenging a Nevada statute, NRS 171.123 (3), which says the police can require someone detained pursuant to a so-called "Terry stop" to identify themselves. The Terry stop�cooked up in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio�carved out an exception to the old Fourth Amendment requirement that people can't be searched and seized absent "probable cause" to believe they'd committed a crime. If "probable cause" signified the level of police commitment necessary for a meaningful relationship with a criminal defendant, Terry authorized the one-night-stand, giving cops the right to initiate quickie detentions�including a brief, unerotic frisk�of folks who are sort of suspicious but not suspicious enough to justify an arrest. Several concurring opinions in Terry said that cops could ask questions during these brief encounters, but suspects had no obligation to answer. But in several cases over the years, the high court hasn't squarely addressed that the rule. The Nevada law, on the other hand, says the failure to provide your name during these stops is illegal. So, here we are.

What are your rights on the sidewalk? They may be about to change.

As Slate offered some comments from the presentation at the Supreme Court, I tend to prefer Ginsberg's line of inquiry. What are neutral facts about you that could be offered to a police officer which are not incriminating? Is your name such a neutral fact? I'm not convinced that it is. I think that what is or is not neutral is entirely dependent on the subjective state of the officer involved, and because of that I would try to be very specific as to what kind of questions an officer might pose which would legally require responses.

For example, what if my name was Charles Manson and since I was just walking, I didn't have my wallet or ID? Is my name a neutral fact? Will he ask me to prove it? Should I have to?

Class jumping?

With Cobb's previous musing from his January 28, 2004 posting of Class, two things stand out to this signifier...what is to come of this "gulf" between the so-called "progressives" and the "envelope-pushers" of black politics?

This will be a fun topic. I'll pick that one up in the near future.

The next matter is, how do we get Black folk to start accomplishing some of the things that we measure ourselves by? "Whitefolks do this," or "Latinos stick together," and other whatnot...how do we get there from here?

One of the challenges is bridging the wealth gap between African Americans and whites.

Another in the legion of challenges that working-class and poor Black folk face is the problem of debt through predatory lending.

An essential tool to bridge the "racial" gap of wealth, and help Black families "jump classes" within the span of one to two generations, is a sound plan to eliminate debt, curtail discretionary spending by delaying instant gratification, and saving. One of the best methods for Black folk to do this, in my opinion, can be found here.

If Black families would start eliminating their debt, stop their use of credit cards, and begin to save, the wealth gap between "races" could be wiped out (yes, I said wiped out, ) in one, two generations tops.

Continued education and will, the everpresent challenge. It will require a sea change in thought about money and what we do with it.

Bush and the Enlightenment

Baldilocks asks the question Did Bush Lie?

My answer?

Nope.

But what he did was worse.

Here's the thing that separates advanced civilizations from civilizations that aren't so advanced. The ability to use reason to change previously held opinions and "facts." While some of my colleagues think this is the purview of the West (more properly thought of as the North), I don't think so. But that isn't really important here.

What Bush has done consistently in both domestic and foreign policy, is take his own belief, and translate it into policy...even in the face of strong contrary evidence. In fact, in some cases (education stands out here) he has actually gutted attempts to even collect information that can be used to contradict hypotheses. For a regular guy, this would be ok...though we'd probably call him a hard head. And let's be fair, we do this all of the time. The vast majority of us hold fast to beliefs that are routinely hamstrung by the facts.

I think that Bush truly believes that there are weapons in Iraq. This is why he continues to say so even now. So he didn't lie at all. But it appears as if he ignored contradictory evidence. Evidence that eviscerated all of the facts the White House posited as "proof" for example. He also ignored variance in international sentiment. While there was unanimity on the point that Saddam was a bad man...there was variance with regards to Iraq's threat level, and with regards to the possession of weapons. There was also variance WITHIN US BORDERS about this issue--not simply among Bush's enemies, but among his bureaucratic allies.

Bush chose not to listen. Instead he chose to listen to individuals who were already predisposed to attack Iraq without provocation. I'm not certain, but I believe this is a war crime.

The State of the Union et al

The Atlantic has an article in its newest issue (not even on the web yet) from folks at the New America Foundation on The State of the Union. I was really interested in their article on tax reform (in a nutshell we should tax in order to both generate revenue AND get individuals to save...hence the installation of a consumption tax along with various other platforms). But while browsing I found an that asks a question I asked a while ago--where are all of the black men? The Black Gender Gap is interesting reading to say the least. Particularly when coupled with a book written by one of my friends at Michigan entitled, The Minds of Marginalized Black Men. Given our economic future I forsee that this book is a harbinger of things to come for white men in rural and suburban areas.

Off to Michigan...and then Berkeley next week. I don't expect to post much. We'll see.

More on Broken Windows

I talked about Broken Windows theory a couple of days ago I think. I hollered at one of my boys about it, and he saw something I didn't catch the first time around.

This theory has been one of the most important in criminology. It was first proposed in an article published 20 years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, written by Dr. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. The theory provided the intellectual foundation for a crackdown on "quality of life" crimes in New York City under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Today, "broken windows" policing is endorsed by police chiefs across the country, its proponents sought out for lectures and consulting around the world. But from the beginning, Dr. Wilson concedes, the theory lacked substantive scientific evidence that it worked.

"I still to this day do not know if improving order will or will not reduce crime," Dr. Wilson, now a professor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, recently said in a telephone interview. "People have not understood that this was a speculation."

Did you catch that? So basically all types of black men and women in places like New York City have criminal records over stuff as small as jay-walking over a theory that according to the primary theorist wasn't even a theory but a mere speculation.

Damn.

Of course this is perfectly obvious (folks never really need theory to throw black men and women in jail) and fits in the groove well. But I'm willing to bet that Dr. Earls theory (backed up by data gathered meticulouslyn and analyzed rigorously) will NEVER generate the same type of fervor. Not without political battles at any rate.

On racial profiling

Prometheus 6 posted an article about the difficulties associated with data collection as it relates to racial profiling. My students found similar problems in Missouri. My thoughts on racial profiling are kind of mixed...while I know it is real, it seems to me another class game fronting like a race game. Think about the image we have of the typical profiling case...some brother driving a benz in a neighborhood he supposedly shouldn't be in. When was the last time a brother in a Yugo was profiled? For working class brothers and sisters I'm thinking that either police deriliction or police brutality are more salient issues.

But to be sure we need to collect data. Maybe it's my old school roots, but I'm thinking that citizens should be doing the data collection simultaneously...and waging the war with data rather than pickets. Probably a bit of Sun Tzu in there too come to think about it.

Crystal Meth

OVELL, Wyo. � Tucked under the snowcapped wall of the Big Horn Mountains, with its cattle and horse ranches and large Mormon church, this could be "that sleepy little town everyone wants," said Nick Lewis, the police chief.

Except for one thing. Lovell, population 2,264, and two nearby towns have become infested by methamphetamine.

In the past two years, about 70 people from this small slice of northwestern Wyoming have been convicted of buying or selling methamphetamine, with more arrests and convictions expected soon, the authorities say. Methamphetamine-related crimes now consume half the time of Chief Lewis's seven-officer force.

The above quote ripped from the headlines of the New York Times. If you're a full subscriber, the entire article can be found here. One of my colleagues used to work in a prison in Missouri doing counseling. From what he tells me, meth addicts glow in the dark. I know that meth (along with drugs like oxycontin) is decimating rural towns in Missouri.

When the drug laws hit these folks like meat tenderizers, we're either going to see a prison explosion unlike one we've ever seen before, or we're going to see a drive to end the drug war.

Bullseye pt. 3

The Army's got a brand new bag. The Godless capitalist thinks it isn't a bad idea. Whatever the case, the Air Force has picked up the ball...I drove by a tricked out Air Force hummer on the way to the office last week. Maybe the young brothers are in the forces?

Nope. The armed forces have pretty much scaled back, though there is some talk about a return to the draft. Where the army, navy, air force, and marines, used to take young brothers (and some sisters) out of places like Detroit like it was nobody's business, there's been a marked attempt to scale back the size of the forces. To use an old school metaphor, the army is trying to become "pimp size." So even though the numbers of working class black, white, and Latino men in the forces are (probably) significantly larger than their proportion in the general population, we can be sure that the gap we're seeing isn't because most of them are in Iraq.

Eventually I'm going to get to some policy solutions, but the Godless capitalist brings up a point. Maybe the army is the best way for young men of various backgrounds to become disciplined and to make a way for themselves. Certainly cities aren't the place for them anymore as manufacturing jobs are being shredded like so much wet paper. If cities have no use for them anymore (I've got Warren/Ralph Ellisonian visions of living mecha cities jettisoning black and latino men out of their pores), then where do they go?

Unless we see a significant political tectonic shift, there won't be a large scale public works project designed to rebuild cities. Unless there's a similar shift in private industry, Rouge Steel is NOT going to be hiring every high school aged graduate in Detroit to work within her dark confines.

So while they aren't there...maybe they should be?

And in as much as hip hop is now the tool used to sell everything from Sprite, to full metal bling bling grills, to Chevrolets, to Ipods....why not use it to recruit? If house music brings me to God, hip hop is the air my generation breathes, the water we drink. But I'll be damned if hiphop lost its revolutionary fervor the minute we lost the distribution rights.

Bullseye pt. 2

So maybe they're all selling drugs? Pulled by the lure of easy loot, (more money than they could make at McDonalds!), fine women, and phat rides, maybe the brothers are simply being pulled (by the lure of money, rides, chicks) pushed (by the lack of other jobs) into the black market (pun intended)?

If you're black or Latino and grow up in the seventies and eighties in working class urban environments, you know drug dealers. At least I did. And if you know drug dealers...REALLY know drug dealers, you know this can't explain the gap.

I heard about Steven Levitt over the summer. A young economist (well, not so young anymore) at Chicago, Levitt has become known for asking unique questions. Like "What does the Weakest Link tell us about Discrimination?" Or "What can we learn by tracking the business patterns of a drug gang?" Or "Do black people with 'black names' lose on the market?" (The answer to this last question he gave at Washington University at a talk, but I was out of my mind and missed it.)

To be honest I think his willingness to pursue these questions really tells us more about the genius of everyday folk when applied to the academy, than about HIS genius. That is, if Economics as a discipline weren't filled with white (and some asian) men of middle to upper class backgrounds, someone would've asked these questions before. But yet and still everytime I try to think about what is possible in political science, I check out Levitt's page, and Christian Davenport's.

I remember some time during the late eighties early nineties the bottom of the crack market fell out. From what I understand the supply of crack grew so fast that the profit margins became very very small...and the product became very very cheap (and crack is already pretty cheap). It was when I heard about this dynamic (which I think led to a return to drugs such as marijuana and heroin), that I really began to think about the economics of the drug trade. How can everyone get paid selling crack, if the product is being sold at a price that is just a shade above the price it's being MADE at? Better yet, if everyone is making massive loot...why do "drug-infested" neighborhoods look the way they do?

Levitt was able to track the activities of a dealer over the course of a few years, starting off with the fundamental question "if everyone in drugs gets paid, why do so many of them stay with their mothers?" He finds that dealers in upper-management positions do make loot, the ones on the ground make something closer to the money they'd make at McDonalds or at the plant (probably a little less than they'd make at the plant).

Now for economists and perhaps black public intellectuals this finding may come as a surprise. For those in the game, or for those who know the game, it shouldn't. Which brings us back to the question...where are they? They can't all be selling drugs, not only because you don't make that much loot selling drugs, if everyone did it....if drug dealers had an infinite supply of labor, low level cats would be making even less than what they make now.

So this isn't it. Can't be.

Bullseye pt. 1

Since I've been a professor at Washington University, I've taught about a couple of hundred kids. Of the black students? Whereas I've taught approximately 30 or more black women, I can remember the men (David, Quinton, Nelson, Akil, Marques, Christopher B., Trumaine, Derrick, Christopher W., and Fred) by name their numbers are so small. Where are they? Part one of a series.

Jill Leovy notes that black men are walking bullseyes. In St. Louis and other cities like it cells of organizers are fighting a losing battle against police brutality, largely because of twin realities:

1. Black men now represent the largest prison population (both absolutely and relatively).

2. Black men have historically been depicted as public enemy #1

So in response to their organizing efforts, these individuals routinely have to grapple with sidesplitting counterarguments like WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS? Now I've said before...I don't believe Mike Tyson was a political prisoner. A lot of the kids I grew up with spent time in the joint for crimes they DID commit. But there are two sets of victims here right? There are the victims who either were hit by crime personally, or get hit just by living in the context. Then there are victims who are hit by the panoptic sort. Because they fit a profile.

Fact. Every (black) friend that I have has been harassed by the police.

Not some of them.

Not most of them.

All of them.

If all the police see are weeds (because of the prism through which they sort people into "victims" and "perps") how the hell can we seed?

Reaching Parents Early

Checked out this article by Raspberry. Though I wouldn't call Raspberry an Old School black conservative, he is OLD.

This piece is deceptive. Check it.

What's the causal mechanism? Lack of vocabulary--->poverty

But isn't the real argument this? poverty--->lack of vocabulary

Instead of "if your kid doesn't talk that much he's going to be poor" it's more like "if you're poor you aren't going to have the resources to talk much and neither will your kid."

This type of slight of hand is a neat jedi mind trick. But while I applaud Raspberry's decision to go into Mississippi to try to give some kids some big words, I'm thinking it's important to keep the big picture in mind. While small scale projects are necessary given the fact that Bush isn't likely to be channeling Lyndon B. anytime soon (except when it comes to stealing elections), we still must recognize that a War on Poverty is (and was) worth waging.

Sweet Home Alabama

It looks like the Republican Governor of Alabama has got Jesus. How else to describe his desire to raise taxes by almost a couple of billion dollars?

Most people think about taxes as if they were...well, TAXES.

Me? I don't like paying taxes anymore than the rest of you do. But on the other hand I understand that taxes pay for the roads I drive on. They pay for the schools my children attend. They pay for the police that pull me over. (only slightly joking here.) The fewer taxes we pay, the fewer services we receive in return. The consequences of this can be seen most notably in places like Alabama and Mississippi.

The governor of Alabama realized this somehow...I say "somehow" because he used to be a Gingrich Republican. Received a number of awards from Grover Norquist (who wants government to be small enough to drown in the bathtub) for his tax cut policies. But when he got to the Governor's mansion, he changed his tune.

He's going to have a tough road to hoe. The Republican Party basically thinks he's a white man's version of Uncle Tom. The Democratic Party supports him, but their base (black voters) don't know if they can quite trust him yet. Can't say I necessarily blame them, as most republicans in Alabama have a checkered history when it comes to black citizens.

But at some point in time if Christians as individual citizens don't live up to the creed of Jesus, the state is going to have to kick in.

Reparations Redux

I have given a lot of thought to the matter of reparations and I'd like to be blunt about my conclusions for the sake of brevity. The answer is that blackfolks will settle for anything they can get because they are so accustomed to not getting what they deserve. African Americans deserve reparations, they won't get them, and the issue will hang around indefinitely with no resolution - rather like the Catholic Church's edict against the use of birth control. It won't matter how well thought out the moral case, it just won't mean shinola here in America. People will go about their own lives knowing that there is a compelling argument against what they are doing, but they won't look closely at the argument itself.

The simple case for reparations is this:
1.There is no statute of limitations on debt. It is either forgiven or not.
2. A man and his progeny have a right to the rewards of his labor.

3. A government, most especially a government of and by the people, should not conspire in the theft of those rewards. The descendents of slaves, through the legal institution of slavery itself and the Jim Crow laws that followed, are the only Americans who have been denied, by government, the inheritance their own forebears energy and creativity would have bequeathed them.

How can conservatives, who are so outraged by taxes, not be outraged by this?

I think conservatives and Republicans are not outraged about anything, they are just calculatingly greedy. I know I am. They care most about the integrity of a system of producing and maintaining wealth. The idea of reparations, taken as a 'transfer of wealth' seems to violate a principle of propreity which in fact it defends.

I think far too many people object to reparations for African Americans because it suggests that they would get wealth in a different manner than everyone else. I believe this to be a racist argument because it doesn't invalidate the claim for reparations, it simply sets up an arbitrary standard of how blacks should behave with no regard to their actual condition or history. It simply says 'not the Irish way, therefore not legitimate'.

What I believe should be done is that serious consideration be given to the form and substance of the reward itself. I strongly believe that African Americans, given some coordination and discipline, could and would develop several strong and well-accepted uses for any reparation payments. In fact, these would be desirable in any case and applicable to the needs of African American anyway. Why then limit the justification of these needs to the political impossibility of a reparations settlement?

When I first thought about Republicanism for myself, one of the first things I asked seriously was, what's in it for me? Where is my patronage and what kind do I want? I have been disappointed to the extent to which, in the African American case, Republicanism is a psychic thing. People seem to get the most kick out of the existentials of calling themselves black Republicans, and calling others fools and vice versa. Blacks are so hung up about wearing the label (or not) that nobody cares about the policies and practices. I exaggerate but you know what I'm saying. My point is that we should be outlining what our political desires are in concrete policy terms first, then worrying about how we can get them second. Instead of reserving all of our energy into theoretical issues like reparations and affirmative action we should be more concerned with the practical benefits owing to party work.

So I'm saying that if one congresscritter can slip in last minute riders on a bill that is going to sail through congress give x billion to y corporation, we shouldn't be spending our resources trying to convince the entire American public about the validity of reparations. Reparations are valid. It's as simple as one, two three, but public opinion is the path of greatest resistance and least reward. Buying a congressman or two is a lot simpler, especially since there is this thing called the Black Caucus. Understand that 15% of America is racist and another 25% on top of that is stupid and apathetic. Instead of trying to convince them that the sky is blue and reparations are good, we should be directing those agents we already control to do what they are already capable of doing. In other words, reparations are an impractical justification for better schools. If you wan't better schools than say so and figure out a way to get them that doesn't require (white) America to strain itself with moral thinking.

The sooner we get on that track, the better off we are.

The Old School Approach to Education

The funding of secondary-education remains problematic, as does the conservative attempt to gut public schools. According to some indicators hypersegregation is even more problematic than it was thirty years ago.

I firmly believe that the best solution to the problem is a variant of the Blair solution in the south. After slavery was ended, hundreds of thousands of formerly enslaved Africans needed to be educated, as well as large numbers of rural whites. In response Henry Blair, a northern Republican senator came up with a bill that would call for massive federal funds devoted to dealing with southern illiteracy. The bill ended up failing...another example of shooting off one's nose to spite one's face.

But this bill, if enacted, would have not only bolstered an important civic institution, but it would have developed human capital. With all of today's talk about focusing on k-12 rather than on johnny come lately programs like Affirmative Action, I think it is probably not a bad idea to revisit old school republican policy initiatives.

SHARPTON UPDATE:

No new changes on the policy front. Blacks are expected to give money, to vote...but for seemingly no other reason than melanin. New school republicans have got a support Al Sharpton campaign going. Wonder why?

On The Intro

I haven't introduced myself formally. My name is Lester Kenyatta Spence. I am an Assistant Professor of Political Science and African Afro-American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis.

I am not an Old School Republican (would've voted for Nader had I been able to register in Missouri in time).

But, like Bowen, I believe that the Republican political enterprise is worth saving from itself, for the larger goal of building a more progressive union. The term "Sankofa" refers to the act of looking backwards in order to go forwards. Looking back to the origins of the Republican Party, what is worth reclaiming? I'd argue that the attempt to use the resources of the state to build wealth and independence is a worthwhile one. Particularly when the goal is to build wealth and independence among the poor and the enslaved.

Thinking forward from looking backward...the current Republican platform against welfare is clear. Welfare builds dependency, destroys families, and removes the communal ties that bind. Fair enough. The problem is that the current Republican platform replaces it with nothing more than platitudes and church donations.

To paraphrase Adolph Reed, only a fool would suggest that NASA build its space program using bake sales. So why would ANYONE suggest that we can replace the largesse of the government with individual initiatives run by churches?

So what do we replace welfare with? How about IDAs? How about a program that gives low income men and women the ability to save money? This can take any number of shapes. Just two ideas off of the top of the head: a tax credit for money put away for entrepreneurial activities...a matching program where the government matches funds put away for a first house purchase. When I think of Republican philosophy at its best--a hard feat, granted--I think of wealth, and I think of civic institutions. Programs that use government resources to build wealth among the poor build civic institutions and build wealth. No brainers...really.

I'll talk more about this in the future, because there is some interesting work being done at the GWB School of Social Work at Washington University.

Whose Mecca?

The State of Georgia is heading backwards once again. A cursory reading of the news shows that the state legislature has every intention of bringing back the flag of segregation once more. I could expend a lot of energy denouncing this retarded move in high minded language, and I'm sure plenty of people will. I won't, not because I am particularly shocked or outraged, but because it is so clear that Georgia is wrong that volume isn't necessary.

The question now centers on how the rest of civilization should make the State of Georgia pay for this moral error made legitimate by the government of Sonny Purdue. I hope that it is drastic.

Sowell at Fairmont, 1980

Just cruising around the web lead me to an interesting dead economics weblog. Within its pages, I found a reference to this book which may or may not be of use. It's certainly interesting because it appears to point to a time at which Thomas Sowell was actively engaged in hacking out policy with other blackfolks. In his current throne as scold to the black masses, this work may be considered a throwback to earlier more optimistic days, but it exists nonetheless.

The Fairmont Papers: Black Alternatives Conference, San Francisco, December 1980 is a collection of edited excerpts from transcripts of the Black Alternatives Conference, sponsored by the Institute for Contemporary Studies, that took place on December 12 and 13th, 1980, at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco.

The table of contents is fairly interesting. Do check out the site.

A Letter to Jim Talent

The following represents a letter I wrote to Jim Talent, now Senator of Missouri. Talent was teaching a class at Washington University, and I got a chance to meet him. I wrote the letter after he noted during one of his classes that African Americans were basically scared by Jesse Jackson into voting for the Democratic Party. I never sent him the letter...but I think it provides a decent starting point as far as thinking how the Republican Party platform could be ported over to African Americans of various class backgrounds:

Rep. Talent I met you briefly during a lecture you gave for a graduate Congress class taught by my colleague. One of the areas you talked about was race and politics, specifically the relationship African American communities have towards both the Republican and Democratic Parties. You argued that to a certain extent the problem that the Republican Parties have with reaching African American communities is a problem of ignorance, to a certain extent a problem of outreach, and to a certain extent a problem of liberal black leadership. I listened to your comments with interest, and I too am interested in ending the stranglehold that the Democratic Party seemingly has on black male and female voters. In line with this, and because of the fact that I study this subject (among others dealing with race and politics) for a living, I thought I would send to you a primer so to speak�what the Republican Party would have to do to attract black voters.

As I see it there are a few platform items that would have to be vigorously fought for and touted:

� Aggressive enforcement of existing Civil Rights Law

As it stands, though the Republican Party has by deed and word fought Affirmative Action for the last two decades, they have (seemingly) done little to fight for increases in the enforcement of existing Civil Rights Law. Given that the Republican Party at least since the late sixties has been known as the party of law and order, it would seem that calling for vigorous enforcement of these laws would be very much in line with the party's philosophy. Though some would argue that this would increase government regulation, a strong argument can be made that the enforcement of the law is not something that can be given short shrift. If the government is supposed to at least protect individuals from having their rights infringed upon, then this would could easily be explained as part of the natural Republican inclination to make sure that government enforces the law and punishes those found guilty of violating it.

� Aggressive stances against police brutality and profiling

The African American community is strongly anti-crime, to the point that they are even against police perceived to have committed crimes. Though the Republican Party has spoken often about vigorous anti-crime policies, they have not focused on either police brutality, or on racial profiling. To a certain extent this is understandable, however given the strong feelings those in the African American community have against police brutality in particular, attacking crime without attacking police brutality is viewed by many as hypocritical at best. Again, if couched in the language of law and order, this does not have to be viewed as an attempt to create "big government."

� Creation of policies designed to build black wealth

Several scholars have noted that the wealth gap between whites and blacks is enormous, even when education levels are taken into account. Whites with a high school education on average possess more wealth than blacks with college degrees. Though in some isolated cases this may be due to individual behavior, for the most part this is due to the fact that throughout most of American history, African Americans were forcibly discouraged from accumulating wealth. As the Republican Party is associated with businesses and with wealth accumulation, and as many members of the African American community believe that political empowerment only comes with economic empowerment, there is a natural link that is waiting to be exploited. Along with policies that help people get off of welfare by finding work, policies that allow people on welfare to save money. I believe that members of the Republican Party have already touted such a program, but this policy is not common knowledge.
The relationship between the American Dream and owning a home was firmly established in America only after WWII and the GI Bill, which was designed to give (primarily white) veterans a chance to buy affordable housing. A similar program designed to spur homeownership in the cities would be powerful. Note that in these two cases are not focused on race, though undoubtedly a number of black citizens (as well as Latino citizens) would be assisted by them.

� Ending coded racial language

One of the points you made was that black liberal leadership were somewhat irresponsible in caricaturing Republican leadership as "racist" and their fear based tactics were keeping African Americans away from the Republican Party. I would like to posit a different hypothesis. I argue that the racially coded language of law and order, of welfare cheats, of quota queens, does more to keep African Americans from the Republican Party than any dozen statements from Rev. Jesse Jackson. Stop this, and forcefully criticize fellow Republicans when they engage in this tactic, and you will go a long way towards building respect and political support.

Given the ties that many in the Republican Party (particularly individuals such as Trent Lott) have with organizations such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, this will undoubtedly be the hardest to accomplish. I noted in our conversation that "racists vote too" and that the majority of individuals with long standing ties to groups such as the CCC or the KKK tend to vote Republican. So among both rank and file members, and party leadership are individuals who to be clear are not interested in the needs of black people.

However, I did not say that this would be easy. The easy route would be to argue that because of individuals like Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Republican Party cannot make progress in regards to black communities. The easy route would be to continue to pander to the lowest common denominator amongst your constituents rather than to build a new vision of American that can compete for the hearts of black citizens. Taking the road less traveled by in this case will lead to short term losses, both politically, and socially. But the long-term gains are enormous-because the bottom line is that the "racists" have no other party to turn to. They will either vote Republican�or they will stay home. And as their numbers are dwindling as we speak�it is a good idea to stop basing campaigns on their ideas and beliefs.

I will leave with this. When strategies designed to attract black voters have been undertaken the strategy has focused on upper-income black voters. This strategy is wrong for a number of reasons�but most important is this-black voters vote their racial interests using their group interests as a proxy for their individual interest. When I vote, my decision is based on which candidate is the best for black people�working on the assumption that what works for black people will work for me individually. What I have given you is a brief example of how the Republican Party can attract black voters of various economic backgrounds�by not diverging one iota from the platform as created by the founders of the party.

If the problem your party faces is truly that of ignorance, I hope that what I have said will help to eradicate that particular problem. The rest is up to you and other interested individuals.