Recently there has been a national conversation about race and racism, but this conversation has been inadequate at best and detrimental at worst. The problem is that the conversation has not been about racism as a systemic and institutional problem, but the conversation has been about whether or not individual acts of prejudice constitute racism. This conversation then completely ignores the structural problems that create racial disparities, and therefore completely misses the point of what our national conversation about race should be about. Perhaps the most significant source of structural racism is the United States justice system, where justice is not always blind.
According to a recent study, a defendant accused of killing a white person in North Carolina is nearly three times as likely to get the death penalty than someone accused of killing a black person. This study looked at death sentence in North Carolina over a 28 year period, and examined 15,281 homicides in the state of which 368 resulted in death sentences. The results of the study where that the odds of receiving a death sentence in cases where the victim was white were 2.96 times as high as the odds in cases with black victims. This finding is not unique. According to another study, blacks who kill whites are significantly more likely to face the death penalty in Maryland than are blacks who kill blacks or white killers
Race is not only one of the determining factors in who receives the death penalty, but in who is stopped by the police, especially when police are racially profiling. In New York 575,304 people stopped and frisked by the New York Police Department last year, and information was gathered on individuals being detained to build a database on citizens who had not committed any crime. According to a report by New America Media, 87% of those who where detained where people of color. While Governor Paterson recently signed a law that made it illegal for police to randomly detain and frisk individuals and to compile their private information, this illustrates another example of the structural racism that exists in the justice system.
The debate over immigration has been pushed into the national conversation since the Arizona state legislature passed Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, otherwise known as SB1070. Since Arizona Governor, Republican Jan Brewer, signed SB1070 into law there have been seven separate lawsuits filed against the law, including a lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice. In federal court last week Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments from both sides of Salgado v. Brewer, and this week Judge Bolton will hear arguments in the case brought by the Justice Department. These lawsuits argue that the law is unconstitutional on different grounds including that it violates civil liberty, that it causes racial profiling and that it is an unlawful regulation of federal immigration law.
This law has come at a significant price to Arizona. While the state is facing a budget deficit of more than $4.5 billion dollars, the law is going to cost the state millions of dollars. In addition to the $10 million in initial cost of implementing the law, county and municipal law enforcement agencies will be forced to spend millions of dollars enforcing the law. According to the Immigration Policy Center law-enforcement agencies in Yuma County alone will have to spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; jail costs would be between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; attorney and staff fees would be $810,067-$1,620,134; and additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs. Arizona will also be affected by Latino and immigrant populations that may migrate to states with less hostile environments towards these populations. According to a 2008 study by the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, the Latino and immigrant generated $10.2 billion in state economic output, and generated tax revenues of roughly $776 million.
We have already seen some impressive efforts in this campaign season to do a bit of résumé padding, particularly as it regards things military; so far Illinois' Mark Kirk has managed to turn himself into a kind of camouflage Austin Powers, while Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal's trying to catch up with some "Vietnam" service of his own that no one else in the theater of operations exactly knew about.
But now, in the race for Alabama Governor, we may have seen something that takes us to a whole new level of "inflation": the Republican candidate is running an ad that not only suggests that he served in Vietnam...it seems to imply that he actually died there, and has now come back to save the State.
Which is some serious irony indeed, considering that the candidate is actually a medical doctor.
And with that, let me introduce you to the either living...or undead...Dr. Robert J. Bentley.
It has been one year since protesters gathered on Tax Day, and in the time since political observers have attempted to understand and explain the Tea Party movement. The mainstream media has covered the Tea Party as a political sideshow, the conservative media has embraced the Tea Party as their audience, the Republican Party has attempted to exploit the Tea Party for political gain, the Democratic Party has used controversial Tea Party rhetoric as political fodder, conservatives have both embraced and dismissed the Tea Party, and liberals have raised their concerns about the movement. The Tea Party has been a fascinating political movement to observe, and it is a complicated thing to explain. After a year of observing the movement, attending the rallies, town hall meetings, and debating individuals within the Tea Party movement I have an understanding of how the movement is viewed by those that are within the movement, the ideological divides within the movement, and the political realities of the movement. However, I have also observed the background motivations in the movement, and that privilege plays an important role in the Tea Party movement.
What is it like to be gay in Aggieland? Much of how that question is answered depends on your perspective. After interviewing several undergraduate and graduate students that either identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, I found that there where shared experiences but different opinions on being a member of the GLBT community at Texas A&M. I interviewed several people from across the spectrum of the GLBT community.
Texas A&M University is known as being one of the most conservative universities in the country, and it is also known as one of the least tolerant universities of alternative lifestyles. In the Princeton Review's most recent college rankings Texas A&M ranked as the campus with the most conservative students and the fifteen least accepting of alternative lifestyles. Although, over the last three decades Texas A&M has made strides in becoming a campus more accepting of alternative lifestyles. Some of the most important improvements have been made in the resources available to Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) students.
I sat down with one of the most active members of the Texas A&M GLBT community and discussed his experiences. Lowell Kane has been the program coordinator of the GLBT Resource Center since it opened in September of 2007 and is one of the advisors for the student organization GLBT Aggies (GLBTA). One of the most knowledgeable people not just about the current GLBT community, but also the history of the GLBT community at Texas A&M, he provided me with a wealth of knowledge and perspective about being gay in Aggieland. Kane came to Texas A&M for graduate school in 2005, and described his experience as a member of the GLBT community in Aggieland as "a mixed bag."
This week on Information Underground our guest is Boadicea, the Managing Editor of progressive blog the Texas Kaos. Our topics of conversation will include include the progressive blogosphere in Texas and the upcoming 2010 political campaigns and elections.
As a result of a recent event involving an aircraft and underpants Representative Peter King (R-Not From Iowa), the senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, has again come forth to bring his expertise on questions of international terrorism to the national debate.
King, a Congressman who represents a district that straddles New York's Long Island (NY-3), previously served as the Comptroller of Nassau County and a member of Hempstead, New York's Town Council, which wouldn't seem to be the kind of résumé that would give you much credibility in this arena-but Mr. King is a special case.
You see, Mr. King knows a great deal about terrorism...from the inside...because for many years the personal cause that drove his life was to be an active and public supporter of a terrorist group.
And that's why, today, we'll be connecting the dots between Congressman King and the Irish Republican Army.
After a decade-long slide into semi-irrelevance, it's now being announced that the major television broadcast networks are considering leaving behind the "free TV/advertiser supported" business model in order to turn themselves into something more closely resembling a cable operation; the idea being that they could create a second revenue stream from the same "subscriber fees" that are paid by cable and satellite operators to all the other channels those operators carry.
This has become necessary, according to the networks, partly because the market has become so fragmented...which, naturally, is cable's fault-and presumably the fault of the disloyal viewer, as well.
Another reason driving the change is related to the desire of the networks to have a source of revenue that's more reliable in times of economic downturn, when advertisers often try to husband scarce resources by cutting back on all their expenses, particularly advertising dollars.
Will this new change in the business model reverse the fortunes of the networks?
Is it possible that the networks are simply poor business managers?
And what about...Krystal Carey?
Tune in for the rest of the story-and we'll find out.
The Coalition for Life holds an annual fundraiser to finance its anti-choice agenda, and each year the even usually attracts about 1,500 people to hear a pro-life speaker. Last year former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican primary presidential candidate Mike Huckabee spoke at the event. This year it is expected that former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson will speak at the event, but it was announced that the keynote speaker will be former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
According to the Coalition for Life's web site the reason that they have invited the former governor to speak at the event is because "Jeb Bush has been very consistent in keeping a pro-life record." Among the reasons that the Coalition cited for this invitation was also the former governor's "attempted to have the unborn child of a severely disabled woman be appointed a court guardian."
In 2003 22-year-old woman living in a group home in Florida was raped, the woman was mentally disabled and had the cognitive and emotional capacity of a 1-year-old child. In addition to this she also suffered from cerebral palsy, autism and was prone to violent seizures. These conditions would make it very difficult for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, in fact death is a real possibility if a woman with these conditions where to attempt to deliver the baby. Despite these facts then Governor Bush decided that it was more important to ensure that the pregnancy was carried to term, and that the abortion that could save the mother's life should be prevented from happening. Because of the ensuing legal battle the woman was forced to carry the pregnancy to term despite the risk, but a Florida appeals court panel later ruled that the action could not be taken by the state.
I have a story today that comes from my predilection to "self-syndicate", meaning that I post my stories far and wide, in the same way a newspaper columnist is syndicated nationally-or beyond.
After I post, I know others will also post my stories to their sites, a topic that was itself the subject of a recent conversation.
To keep track of it all, I use the Google...but I recently wondered if that's actually the most effective tool for the job-or not-so as an experiment I recently challenged several search engines to go out and seek the same search term.
We find out today...and the results are, indeed, interesting.
I have a Thanksgiving story for your consumption that has nothing to do with turkeys or pumpkin pie or crazy uncles.
Instead, in an effort to remind you what this holiday can really stand for, we'll meet some people who are thankful today for simply being free.
It's a short story today, but an especially touching one, so follow along and we'll take a little hop across the Atlantic for a trip you should not miss.
Our favorite irascible media tyrant is in the news once again, and once again it's time for me to bring you a story of doing one thing while wishing for another.
We have heard a lot about the...how can I put this politely...challenges Murdoch seems to face associating factual reality with his reality, and we could have lots of fun going through his factual misstatements-but instead, I want to take on one specific issue today:
Rupert Murdoch says he hates it when people steal his content from the Internet to draw readers to their sites...which is funny, if you think about it, because he has no problem at all stealing my content (and lots of yours, as well) for his sites.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
After being involved with Planned Parenthood for eight years, either as a volunteer or as an employee, Abby Johnson suddenly resigned this week and joined the Coalition for Life. So why would someone who had dedicated so much of their life working for reproductive rights suddenly not only change their views on abortion but on the complete scope of reproductive rights? After conducting an investigation and interviewing several sources it has become clear that this was not a spiritual awakening.
The story that Johnson has repeated is that she had a "change of heart" after witnessing an abortion through an ultrasound. According to an interview with ABC News, Johnson held the probe on the patient's abdomen during the procedure, and according to that interview Johnson was unclear as to the reason why she was there during this procedure because it was not a normal part of her duties. According to an interview with World Net Daily, Johnson said that for "whatever reason, the physician had called me back to assist with the procedure."
However, Johnson did not just happen to witness the procedure, and the procedure did not actually even take place at the Planned Parenthood that Johnson was the director of in Bryan, Texas. Johnson was visiting another clinic in the Houston area; she was there visiting a doctor that Bryan clinic was considering utilizing for abortion procedures. Johnson was specifically interested in the doctor because of the very fact that the doctor used the ultrasound, which makes the abortion safer, more efficient, and many believe more humane for the fetus. Confidential sources also confirmed that Johnson was pleased by the visit to the doctor and impressed with the procedure.
Over the past few days we have been talking about Washington State's Referendum 71, which was voted on this week. If passed, the Referendum will codify in law certain protections for same-sex couples.
In the first story of our three-part series we discussed Washington's unusual vote-by-mail system; in the second we examined the pre-election polling.
Today we talk about what happened Election Night at the R-71 event and where the vote count stands today...and where it might end up when we're all done.
We have lots of geeky electoral analysis ahead-and as a special bonus, we have video of the event, including an exclusive interview with Charlene Strong, the woman who became one of the icons of the pro-71 campaign.
It's a lot to cover, so we better get right to it.
For over a year and a half I have been a volunteer escort at the Planned Parenthood reproductive health care facility in Bryan, Texas; this particular facility is located in a town home to arguably the most conservative public university, Texas A&M, and is known as one of the most anti-choice areas in the country. Located just steps from Planned Parenthood is an organization that opposes reproductive rights, the Coalition for Life. The fence that surrounds Planned Parenthood serves as the frontline between those that support reproductive rights and those that opposed reproductive rights. This week someone crossed from one side of the fence to the other: the director of the Planned Parenthood joined the Coalition for Life. How could something like this happen? The story is more complicated than the mainstream media is reporting.
Early on Saturday mornings, the days during which surgical abortions are performed; I arrive at Planned Parenthood and walk through the double doors and sign-in on the volunteer check-in sheet. I put on the yellow and orange volunteer vest, and check out a security badge. Over the next several hours I spend my morning escorting clients into the facility. Volunteer escorts meet clients at their cars and welcome them to Planned Parenthood, and as soon as the clients open their car doors the protesters being shouting through the fence. Escorts simply walk clients from their automobiles to the front door of the facility, and this demonstrates to the clients that we are there to support them. After clients leave the facility escorts walk the clients back to their automobiles, and then ensure that they have a clear path out of the driveway.
The protesters outside of the facility will shout through the fence at the clients the entire time they are arriving and leaving. Also, the protesters will stand along the driveway holding brochures and pamphlets while attempting to get the clients attention. The brochures and pamphlets include factually inaccurate information and intellectually dishonest claims. Often the false link between abortion and breast cancer is claimed in the literature, despite the fact that according to the American Cancer Society "the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer." Also, the claim is made that women who have abortions will suffer "post-abortion syndrome," however, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as a legitimate medical condition by either the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Psychiatric Association.
It was during these mornings that I met Abby Johnson, the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan. Johnson was always open to talk about the issues dealing with reproductive rights, and I have always known her to be an outspoken and an opinionated advocate of reproductive rights. Sometimes Johnson would visit with the volunteer escorts in front of the facility, and complaints about the protesters seemed to always be one of the topics of conversation. When it comes to the protesters Abby had plenty to complain about. As a volunteer and then later as an employ of Planned Parenthood, she had seen times when the protesters were much more aggressive and much more hostile towards the clients, volunteers, and employees. In fact Johnson herself has been the victim of harassment, and even death threats. While Coalition for Life does not claim responsibility for the actions of all of the protesters, the Coalition for Life facilitates an atmosphere that contributes to those actions.
Every day during 40 Days for Life protesters stand in front of the fence at the Planned Parenthood in Bryan, and every day they spread misinformation and lies to the patients that utilize the clinic for reproductive health care. The protesters regularly attempt to pass information to the clients of Planned Parenthood both verbally and in written form. However, much of the information that the protesters try and give the clients is both intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect. Often false information is given about the services provided at Planned Parenthood and the facts about abortion and reproductive health care.
One of the pamphlets that are often given to clients, titled "10 Reasons to Avoid Planned Parenthood," includes several factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. The first claim listed is that the services at Planned Parenthood focus only abortion, and that while over 6,000 abortions were performed less than 300 women received prenatal care. The truth is that according to annual reports abortion only makes up 7% of the total services provided at Planned Parenthood. Also Planned Parenthood does provide both prenatal care and adoption refers for women that chose not to terminate a pregnancy.
According to the Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas 2006 annual report, 87% of the patients visited Planned Parenthood for family planning: 89,611 out of the 103,004 patients. Also, 4,969 people were tested for HIV and counseled on prevention. Only 6,811 patients who visited all of the area Planned Parenthoods, including the Houston metropolitan area and Bryan-College Station, terminated pregnancies.
Another distortion of the facts include implying that surgical abortions are dangerous, even though less than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.
We are now about two weeks away from the November election in Washington State, and one item on the ballot that has national attention is Referendum 71, the so-called "everything but marriage" proposal that would give same-sex couples more rights and protections than they have today.
There has been a lot of conversation about whether it will or won't pass-and a lot of conversation about whether it should pass.
I hope it does, and if you live here I encourage you to vote "yes" November 3rd.
But that said, you may not be aware that Washington has an electoral system in transition, and that as a result of the transition Washington has some idiosyncrasies that will make forecasting the results a bit tougher, and determining the results a bit slower.
We'll talk about that today, and by the time we're done you should have an appreciation of the odd way in which things can work out-and that, absent a landslide, we aren't likely to know the results on Election Day.
