The New Black Woman

Teacher hangs Obama effigy in classroom

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:56:00 +0000

Yeah, this is the professional way to respond to President Barack Obama's calls for firing inefficient teachers as a model for holding failing schools accountable.

The effigy was found in the teacher's classroom by Superintendent Frances Gallo, Rhode Island Department of Education spokeswoman Nicole Shaffer told The Associated Press. Shaffer said the department would not have any further comment. Gallo told the AP on Thursday evening that the foot-tall Obama doll that she saw Monday was hung from its feet from a white board and was holding a sign that said, "Fire Central Falls teachers."

The president of the Central Falls Teachers Union, Jane Sessums, said the teacher, who has not been identified, hung the effigy as part of a "lesson plan." Apparently, the teacher has apologized and asked Superintendent Frances Gallo if he could apologize in writing.

"He understands that his actions affect not just his students but all of us," Sessums wrote. "There is no excuse for what he did."

What sort of lesson was this teacher trying to convey to his students? How to ensure the probability that he will never be re-hired to teach at this school?

If so, the chances of him reaching that goal was more than 99.99% successful.

I can understand why teachers are upset. I can sympathize with the feeling that they are being labeled as scapegoats for the school's failure when the majority of students speak English as a second language. I can grasp the feeling they must have when a student's parents are more apathetic about their child's education. I can even understand the resentment they must feel with the federal and state government imposing unrealistic solutions on a problem politicians have no experience and expertise in dealing with.

While this is an emotional time for teachers, they must remain professional and stoic in the face of their students. They are setting examples of how to respond to difficult situations. No matter what one may believe, the way a teacher conducts him or herself in front of students does have an impact on how they respond to the world and life's problems.

They have to be the grown-ups in this situation.

Woman perseveres after having ears, nose loped off

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:24:00 +0000

Looks like crazy Glenn Beck is at it again

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:00:00 +0000

Clarence Thomas' wife starts tea party group

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:57:00 +0000

Thanks to Mod Lumpkin over at The Board Room for alerting me to this.

According to the LA Times, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is planning to launch a tea party link to her nonprofit organization, Liberty Central. The website of the lobbying organization, which was created in January, will "organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles.

"The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

The article goes on to say how this could serve as a conflict to Thomas, but Thomas shot back, asking if the question was one of liberal bias.

"I don't involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there's a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.

Um, no, it's not a question of liberal bias. It's a valid question as your husband is in a position to make legal decisions that can set intended and unintended precedents in this country. It should be noted that later in the story:

The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses' political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor. Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary's Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband's political office, she said.

More about Thomas:

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP. In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.

Checking out her biography on Liberty Central, Thomas seems to be a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram and is "intrigued" by Glenn Beck. While it calls itself a nonpartisan lobbying organization, it's clear the organization has an affinity for so-called conservative principles. The endorsements are filled with praise from Donald Rumsfeld, Morton C. Blackwell (president, The Leadership Institute), Edwin J. Feulner (president, The Heritage Foundation) and Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin (co-founders and national coordinators of the Tea Party Patriots).

While I have no problem with Thomas wanting to become an activist, this could serve as dangerous territory for her husband. It's imperative for him to make sure the decisions he renders have no potential for conflicts of interests.

I find it fascinating that this woman is a fan of Glenn Beck, our favorite crazy uncle we loathe to take to family reunions.

Furthermore, with her being married to a black man, I wonder if she will turn a blind eye to the racist slogans/attacks on posters and flyers her fellow "patriots" will show at rallies.

Conservatives in Texas re-write history in textbooks

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:14:00 +0000

This story in The New York Times infuriates me. There seems to be a wave of revisionists who seek to modify history and shove their agenda onto the education of the youths in this country.

The Texas Board of Education, on a 10 to 5 party line vote, approved a wave of changes to the state's social studies curriculum "that will put a conservative stamp on history and economic textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

The story notes the BOE in recent years have been locked in an ideological battle between the state's most active conservative activists who question Darwin's theory on evolution, the notion that the nations' Founding Fathers were guided by a separation of church and state and moderate Republicans and Democrats who believe in preserving the teachings of Darwinism and separation of religion from government.

The changes include:

calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
mentioning the votes of Civil Rights legislation in which Republicans supported
an amendment to study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.
an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include Latinos as role models in the state's large Hispanic population were defeated, which caused board member Mary Helen Berlanga to storm out of the meeting late Thursday night.

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

Another Democrat, Mavis B. Knight, introduced an amendment requiring students to study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.” The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, "The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda."

It should be noted these activists are seeking to change what they see as a liberal skewing among teachers and academia in teaching history in the United States.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

Only in Texas can conservatives band together and infiltrate academia with their juvenile interpretations of history. With no experience in history (except for what they've been told by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity), a dentist, a lawyer and a Realtor have come together to rewrite history in their favor.

We've seen the damage social conservatives and talk radio show hosts can do when they attempt to revise history to their liking. Take Glenn Beck, who claimed the three-fifths rule was an "abolitionist provision." Or Karl Rove, who in his new book Courage and Consequences, seeks to re-write recent history. Or Trent Lott, who declared Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign was more about defeating communism than preserving Jim Crow in the south.

I can go on and on about this, but I'm sure you all are familiar of the varied attempts by conservatives to skew history in their favor.

With the rise of Obama, I wonder if these conservatives feel threatened by the subsequent elevation of women and minorities into power. With the news that minority babies will become the majority by 2050, these conservatives are seeking to maintain their position and views in history and society. It's not only about academia shoving left-of-center views down the throats of their children. It's about the fear of losing ground in a society that's rapidly changing around them.

The type of amendments they injected into the curriculum is an attempt to Reaganize academics, to place a Ronald Reagan interpretation onto history and society. The rise of Reagan bolstered conservatives into feeling their views and opinions were under attack by Democrats, progressives, civil rights activists, feminists, homosexuals and anti-war activists. It explains the rise of the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association, the Moral Majority and other right-wing activists nonprofit organizations that have attempted to enforce their views upon America.

Reaganism attempts to lessen the blow racism has on American society. It seeks to white wash the past by elevating the few Republicans who supported civil rights legislation (while ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of white Southern Democrats opposed the legislation and controlled Congress at the time). It seeks to apply a conservative view on the Civil Rights Movement by elevating the violent reputation of the Black Panther Party--while ignoring the fact that the Black Panthers were mainly concerned about the social plight of their communities.

Reaganism also attempts to blur the concrete line between separation of church and state. They ignore the fact that the First Amendment clearly specifies Americans have a right to practice their own religion and freedom to not practice religion. It also glosses over the fact that the First Amendment (which is part of the U.S. Constitution) forbids Congress from establishing a state-sanctioned religion. Instead, they point to a lack of a specific clause that does not establish such separation.

Reaganism attempts to promote capitalism as the more superior economic system than its evil competitor, socialism. Reaganites reject criticisms of capitalism as socialism and communism in disguise. Capitalism is good, Reaganites say, because it promotes individuality, self-advancement and competition, ideals embedded in the American fabric.

The ideology also places McCarthyism in a more positive light. It portrays Joseph McCarthy as an American hero who was determined to expose communists for what they really were: devil-worshiping anarchists who wish to overthrow the American government. They gloss over the fact that McCarthyism and its practitioners ruined the lives of many innocent Americans.

Reaganites have overtaken the curricula in the Lone Star State and have used political maneuvers to change the course of education in the state. This sets a dangerous precedent and will motivate others who practice Reaganism to impose their skewed and inaccurate versions of history onto public education in other states.

New York man in custody after beating woman because she refused his advances

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:10:00 +0000

When I first saw this story, I couldn't believe it. This douche bag had the nerve to beat up this woman in a club's bathroom after she rejected his advances.

The attack occurred around 2 a.m. at Social, a three-story bar and lounge on Eighth Avenue in midtown Manhattan where the 29-year-old victim, a nurse, had gone with a friend, authorities said.

The woman told police that she had rebuffed attempts by the man to dance with her, said police spokesman Paul Browne. When she went to the women's restroom on the second floor, he followed her and burst into a stall.

The man beat the victim until she was unconscious. Her friend later found her in the stall and called 911, believing she might have fallen.

The woman was hospitalized with a broken eye socket, broken jaw and other injuries. When she regained consciousness, she told hospital workers she had been attacked.

Browne said investigators think the man also might have tried to sexually assault the victim.

Luckily, this nut job was caught on Friday by the NYPD. Many women can tell you they've been the victim of man who can't seem to take no for an answer. We've all been at a club or a bar when we've been approached by some guy who can't seem to keep his hands to himself and doesn't understand the phrase "personal space." Not only is this cat spilling his drink on us, but he's blowing his liquor breath in our face.

We all know the routine: we take two steps back, pushes his hands off your waste and tell him, "Thanks, but no thanks." He backs away and slurs, "Damn, baby. What's wrong? I think you are so beautiful and I just want to buy you a drink and dance a little." We continue to turn down his advances and walk away. Douche bag gets angry and, feeling rejected (or emasculated), begins calling us out our name and stumbles away.

Yes, we all know this scene too well. Sadly, this encounter turned violent for this young woman.

What bothers me about these scenarios is these young, immature, greedy boys just seem to feel entitled to a woman's body. These boys, raised in a Western culture that tolerates and encourages sexual abuse, violence and degradation of women, feel any woman is fair game for their taunts. Add a bit of liquor courage and the situation can easily slip into one that's dangerous for women.

It's high time for women to stand up and not take this sort of abuse and imposition from these boys. Yes, we know we are beautiful and sexy, but no, we do not want your unwanted touches and advances.

What will it take for these boys to understand that women are not placed on this earth to pleasure and satisfy you at your will? What will it take for these boys to understand that woman's body is not for them (and your boys) to touch at your own discretion?

Beck: Census' race question an attempt to increase slavery

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:46:00 +0000

I love listening to Glenn Beck's conspiracy theories. They are nothing short of hysteria and entertaining. His latest theory is probably one of his best. While on his show on Tuesday, he pegged the question of inquiring about a person's race on the U.S. Census form:

BECK: Why were they asking the race question, you said when, in 1790? … Right, they want to know, do you count as three-fifths? Do you count at all? So, you have to know how many slaves did you have? People find that offensive today because the idea was, if we’re going to count, we want to know how many are here for services etc. etc. and slaves would get less. Well that’s not right. One. One. ‘I’m not three-fifths, I’m one. Whites are not worth than me.’ Now reverse it, why are they asking this question today?

CO-HOST: Because minorities are worth more than whites.

BECK: Exactly right. So you will get more dollars if you are a minority. So you are worth more as a monitory. Well there is no difference. The reason you don’t answer the race question is because one, everyone counts as one. All men are created equal. If you were offended back in 1790 about slavery and that everyone should count the same, do not answer the race question. How dare you. How dare you. At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery. To try to stop it as much as they can. Today they are asking the race question to try to increase slavery. Your dependence on the master in Washington. No way, don’t answer that question.

I should probably note that Think Progress debunked Beck's claim regarding the origin of the three-fifths clause, saying it was an "abolitionist provision."

To me, Glenn Beck is amusing crazy, not the kind of crazy in which you need to be worried or afraid. He's the kind of crazy that you just push aside and chuckle at. Sure, while you may hate his guts and think everything he says is a complete joke, it's good humor in a way.

He reminds me of Ann Coulter. They both have this type of crazy personality where the main goal is to either sell books or boost their ratings.

In closing, I want to quote a line from one of my favorite movies, As Good As It Gets: "Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here."

Mom accused of circumcising daughter

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:03:00 +0000

Another shocking story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

A 35-year-old mother was arrested for allegedly circumcising her 10-month-old daughter, police said. The LaGrange woman is currently being held in the Troup County jail without bond, Sgt. Chad Mann told the AJC. She faces female genital mutilation and child cruelty charges, Mann said.

"A relative changing the baby noticed that she appeared to be circumcised," Mann said.

The AJC is not publishing the mother's name to avoid identifying the infant. The baby was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, where a doctor determined she had undergone some form of surgical removal of the clitoris, Mann said.

The baby's father was previously granted temporary custody, and he alerted authorities about the child's injury, police said.

"She's in perfect health, other than that," Mann said. The baby is in her father's custody, police said.

Authorities are not releasing details about a possible motive for the mutilation. “Some of the areas of the investigation are sensitive," Mann said.

According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 100 million to 140 million women are living with the consequences of female genital mutilation. Problems can cause severe bleeding, problems urinating and potential child birth problems. The procedure is carried out on girls ranging in infancy to up to 15 years of age.

FGM is the most disturbing procedure done onto the babies and little girls in this world. I can not fathom how anyone can justify this brutality upon anyone.

Miss. school cancels prom after lesbian student request to attend with partner

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:41:00 +0000

I saw this in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution this morning and just shook my head and said, "Why am I surprised?" The student, according to the article, demanded that she be able to attend the prom with her partner and wear a tuxedo.

The Itawamba County school district's policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi had given the district until Wednesday to change that policy and allow 18-year-old Constance McMillen to escort her girlfriend, who is also a student, to the dance on April 2. Instead, the school board met and issued a statement announcing it wouldn't host the event at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton, "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."

First, when did prom become an "educational process?" Is that a joke?

The statement from the district went on to say:

"It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors," district officials said in the statement. "However, at this time, we feel that it is in the best interest of the Itawamba County School District, after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students."

Safety? Well-being? Education? This is not a school assembly where some expert is coming to speak about the Holocaust or World War I. It's the PROM! While it is a school-sanctioned event, I don't think much education goes on at the prom other than how these students eventually learn how to put on a condom afterwards. But, considering the times we live in, I'm sure these students are near experts at that activity.

It's a shame these kids won't have an opportunity to participate in a high school rite of passage because some "officials" are concerned about the safety of the students at the prom if a lesbian student wants to attend with her date. Because, as we all know, those homosexuals can be some dangerous, violent-prone criminals and can corrupt the innocent youth of the community.

The hole Rep. Eric Massa is digging for himself continues to get larger

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:58:00 +0000

This guy is a train wreck, plain and simple. He should have resigned and quietly left to tend to his "health issues" instead of going on the Glenn Beck Show to make a fool out of himself and his constituents. Politico has a great story about this "saga."

Woman tweets during abortion

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:23:00 +0000

This woman is brave for putting her details out there. I'm sure the pro-life crazies are seething at her decision to terminate her pregnancy and give her Twitter followers details of the abortion.

Catholic school rejects student because of lesbian parents

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:10:00 +0000

Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder, Colo., is under fire for rejecting the admittance of a preschool student because the child has two parents who are lesbians, according to 7 News in Denver (photo courtesy of 7 News). The decision drew about two dozen protests during the church's Sunday services.

One protester said, "God and Jesus would not allow discrimination in that way." Another protester speculated as to why the parish made the decision:

"He feels like it's a calling to be strict with upholding catholic principles," said Dave Ensign, president of the Board of Directors of Boulder Pride.

The Archdiocese of Denver released a statement in support of the decision:

"To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."

The pastor of the school addressed the matter in a letter:

If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position - nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?

The core issue for us Catholics on this question is our freedom and our obligation to teach about marriage and family life as our Faith teaches. If parents see the cultural interpretation of what tolerance has become as more important than the teachings of Jesus, then we become unfaithful to the Lord and we lose the meaning of the beatitude, “Blessed are you when they insult you for My sake, for the Kingdom of Heaven is yours.” Many of Jesus’ teachings were not popular. In fact, He was crucified for His teachings.

Glossing over differences on essential matters, and pretending that crucial issues are irrelevant, is not tolerance.

It is relativism, meaning that nothing is important anymore and everyone can have their own interpretation of what is goodness and truth. This kind of tolerance, which is a decidedly secularist invention, seeks to separate all moral discourse from public life. However, those who embrace this kind of tolerance do not, of course, acknowledge that they are imposing their own moral judgments upon society.

The Catholic Church invests in parish schools so as to assist children in becoming disciples of Christ and to stand as a light shining in the darkness that has rejected Christianity and the truth of being human, including the meaning of human sexuality.

For the record, no one is "glossing" over the issue of homosexuality. People who do not meet the "standards" of the Catholic church are not imposing their beliefs and "lifestyles" upon society, like this pastor claims. All these people want is to have the same access and opportunity for themselves and for their children. This so-called secularist intervention is not seeking to "separate all moral discourse from public life." That's a red herring and this pastor knows it. He's doing nothing but drawing attention away from the main issue at hand: being part of an institution that discriminates against those who do not meet these "standards" set forth by the Catholic Church and other forms of religion.

As we all know the Catholic Church has long held firm against the acceptance of homosexuality. In D.C, the Archdioese of Washington gave the city council an ultimatum of discontinuing its social services program it ran for the District if it did not amend its proposed same-sex marriage law.The mayor eventually signed a bill in December to legalize same-sex marriage.

Pope Benedict XVI blasted the United Kingdom's anti-discrimination law, which he said could be used against the Church for refusing to hire homosexuals and transgendered folks. The Pope said:

"Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society," he told them. "The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs."

Let's not forget its anti-feminist stance, condemning women who used birth control pills, as well as artificial fertilization, embryo stem cell research and the morning after pill.

In March 2009, the church defended the excommunication of a woman from the church after she had an abortion following a rape.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops, told La Stampa, an Italian daily newspaper, that the case was sad, but that “the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.”
The regional archbishop, José Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated the mother for authorizing the operation. He also excommunicated the doctors, who carried out the operation for fear that the 80-pound girl would not survive a full-term pregnancy.

(As an aside, the church's decision does not surprise me. I wrote about the Pope condemning condom use and how it is counterproductive to preventing HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa).

I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak to the so-called "Catholic teachings." However, what I can speak to is how these pro-discrimination teachings are a danger to society. We've seen how anti-segregationists used the Bible to justify Jim Crow, the second-class citizenship of African-Americans and banning interracial marriages. We've witnessed how opponents of gay marriaged referred to the infamous Leviticus scripture as "proof" that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn't be condoned in our society.

Using religion to justify your hate is self-serving to the hate monger. Knowing discrimination won't hold up in the secular world, these racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic characters resort to using "God's word" as its last line of defense. These people, realizing the first amendment right to religious thought and freedom is the law of the land, hide behind the banner of freedom of (and from) religion to spew their hate upon the public.

These cowards who rejected this student used their hatred of homosexuals and their intolerance of different ideas to push their outdated agenda down the throats of this child and the parents. It's just that simple.

Racial disparity or valid ethics investigation?

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:27:00 +0000

Joel Dreyfuss at theRoot.com probes the question about whether black politicians accused of unethical conduct are being targeted because of a conspiracy theory or if it's a reflection of the power black politicians have gained within the last decade. For those who aren't familiar with the politicians he's referring to, here's a refresher:

-New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, powerful Democratic member of Congress, who recently decided to temporarily step aside from the House Ways and Means Committee chairmanship amid findings by the House Ethics Committee for violating rules of receiving gifts. He's also admitted failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic, failing to report several thousands dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms, under scruitiny for misusing a rental home for political purposes and preserving tax benefits for oil drilling companies in exchange for donations for a project he supported at City College of New York, according to the CNN story referenced.

-New York Governor David Paterson, who is under fire for trying to influence a young woman who acccused one of his aides of domestic violence. Despite the numerous ethics charges against him, Paterson has refused to resign his seat.

-Former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who was stripped of his chairmanship while serving on the City Council after a Washington attorney found he benefited from a $15,000 personal services contract he secured for sometimes-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt.

Dreyfuss' commentary is interesting, but I'm not sure if I buy into these inquiries being part of a conspiracy theory by the media and those conducting the investigation of these politicians.

He alludes to a November 2009 Politico article that also explores how Congressional Black Caucus members feel about the possibility of a racial disparity in ethics investigations. In the article, Politico points out that while some CBC members are wary of publicly crying racism, they privately believe there is a sort of conspiracy against them:

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

I'm not going to sit here and say that racism no longer exists and that we are in a "post-racial" America. I'm not going to say that race is not a factor in American life. My previous blogs will prove that I strongly argue against the notion that in the age of Obama, we have moved beyond race.

But it's hard to argue against the New York Times' piece about the CBC's spending habits. According to the article:

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

The article also noted the CBC Foundation spent more on caterer for an event in 2008--$700,000 for what was referred to as "Hollywood on the Potomac"--than it did on scholarships. That type of disparity should be enough to leave anyone scratching their heads and say, "Hm..." The Times' piece also points out that the CBC has been criticized for its ties to businesses that are seen as detrimental to its black constituents, such as cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and those in the rent-to-own industry.

It's hard for me to lend my support to organizations that have consistently done nothing to improve the lives of their constituents. It's also hard for me to cry racism just because these men and I share the same skin complexion and race.

For so long, the Congressional Black Caucus has relied on the support--and oblivion--of lay black Americans. Blacks in this country have consistently turned the other cheek and elected shady and cunning politicians just because they show up to a few church services and shout "Praise God!" alongside us in the pews. In the age of Obama, we can no longer afford to shoot for lower standards and mediocre morals and ethics in our politicians. We need to demand more of our black "leaders" (and I use that term VERY loosely) and call them out on their misdeeds.

It's clear that the Congressional Black Caucus does NOT have our interest at hand. These people, for the most part, are wealthy and do not care about the average black family living in poverty or the average black family struggling to send their children to college. Sure, they pass a few token pieces of legislation and run back to their districts to claim they've done something for us. But, when it all comes down to it, the CBC isn't looking out for us.

What do you think? Are these ethics charges valid or do they reek of a racial conspiracy?

Anti-gay politician arrested for DUI after leaving gay night club

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:47:00 +0000

We all should admit it: we love catching hypocritical politicians red-handed. In the latest series of politicians not practicing what they preach, California State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested early Wednesday morning for driving under the influence after leaving Faces, a Sacramento gay club.

According to CBS 13, Ashburn, right, (mug shot taken by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office) had a blood alcohol level of .14 when he was arrested for driving near the state capitol, almost twice as high than the California legal limit of .08 percent.

Ashburn released a statement following the incident:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

Ironically (?), Sen. Ashburn is well known for his anti-gay rights stance. According to Project Vote Smart, he's voted against every gay rights legislation proposed in the state legislature, including Harvey Milk Day, recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriage and expanding anti-discrimination laws.

As we all know, Ashburn is the latest in a slew of Republican lawmakers who tout the preservation of "traditional family values" while on their day jobs, but dive into an entirely different mode after hours. Talking Points Memo has a slide show of these social conservatives and their fall from grace. From the likes of:

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police

Larry Craig, the former Idaho senator who practiced the "wide stance," who pleaded guilty for disorderly conduct after soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a Minneapolis bathroom.

Newscom/KRT

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who lied to his people about hiking on the Appalachian Trail for days when he was really visiting his mistress in Argentina.

Newscom/Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM

Nevada Senator John Ensign, who admitted to having an affair with the wife of another staffer.

Newscom/Ron Sachs/CNP

Former New York Republican Representative Vito Fossella, who after being arrested for drunk driving, admitted he had an affair and subsequent child with another woman.

WDCPIX.COM

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who was linked to a D.C. Madam's escort service.

Newscom

The infamous Ted Haggard, the evangelical pastor who resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals after it was discovered he took meth and "patronized" a male prostitute.

It's amazing how these self-proclaimed guards of traditional family values and reactionary politicians tend to whistle a different tune when it comes to their lives. It's no less compelling that these values pushers like to pigeon-hold the American public to a set of morals and standards they have no intention of following.

NPR story on how colleges fail sexual assault victims

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:54:00 +0000

Above is Laura Dunn's interview with The Center for Public Integrity about her sexual assault while attending college. NPR had an excellent story about the organization's study of sexual assaults on campus. Public colleges and the government agency that oversees them, the report concluded, often fails to protect sexual assault victims. I heard it last week on my drive to work and I was captivated--and livid--at these schools' failures.

Here's an overview of the study's findings:

-Colleges almost never expel men who are found responsible for sexual assault. Reporters at CPI discovered a database of about 130 colleges and universities given federal grants because they wanted to do a better job dealing with sexual assault. But the database shows that even when men at those schools were found responsible for sexual assault, only 10 to 25 percent of them were expelled.

-The U.S. Department of Education has failed to aggressively monitor and regulate campus response to sexual assault. The department has the authority to fine schools that fail to report crime on campus. In 20 years, the department has used that power just six times. And the department can also find that a school has violated a law that prevents discrimination against women. But between 1998 and 2008, the department ruled against just five universities out of 24 resolved complaints.

-Colleges are ill-equipped to handle cases of sexual assault. Most of the time, alcohol is involved. Local prosecutors are reluctant to take these cases, so they often fall to campus judicial systems to sort through clashing claims of whether the sex was consensual or forced.

While in school, I worked on the school newspaper and I got a chance to talk with a registered nurse on campus who was active with informing women about rape, sexual abuse in relationship, etc. I remember interviewing her about her efforts and she said the school's health center saw a steady number of women who said they were raped. The downside, this woman told me, is these women rarely ever pressed charges against their attackers.

I'm going to save my rant about rape culture and this country's failure to protect rape victims and its refusal to educate people about rape for another post. I thought this would be a good time for people to discuss what they feel about the findings.

What's been your experience on college campuses? Have you ever known anyone to have been raped and did not alert the police? Have you heard any stories of people being raped on campus? Have you heard any discussions about certain people on campus who were allegedly rapists?

Nothing like white male paternalism....

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:41:00 +0000

FYI, the excerpt starts at 6:22...

I'm sure that blacks who were enslaved would give anything to live like their descendants are right now. Just sayin'...

Anyway, what is up with these pro-life advocates screaming their belief that black Americans are under siege by those murderous abortionists and organizations like Planned Parenthood? We've seen with the Too Many Aborted campaign that they heavily rely on the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger as "proof" that the abortion industry was founded in part to destroy black babies. What we've also seen with this campaign is the use of scare tactics and falsehoods are the only way these extremists can get their point across. As a result, what we've seen is an eloquent response by myself and other bloggers to these people's tactics.

This whole racist, paternalistic attitude these people have is nothing short of condescending and selfish on their part. Like I said before, they have no interest in advancing the black community. Instead, they seek to impose reactionary laws that revert women back into 1950s.

Keith Olbermann on the Tea Party "movement"

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:24:00 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This video is two weeks old, but it's one of his best. I think he puts into words many of us anti-Tea Party movement have been saying all along: that this "revolution" is grounded racism.

Lauren Ashley's foot-in-mouth moment

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:18:00 +0000

Thanks to Womanist Musings for alerting me to this post. According to FOXNews.com, Ashley, who will be representing Beverly Hills in the Miss California Pageant in November, is coming out in support of what the website calls "traditional nuptials."

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white," Ashley told Pop Tarts.

She went on:

"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

When asked if she was concerned about her comments hurting her chances:

"That isn't really the issue. I have a lot of friends that are gay, and ... I have a lot of friends who have different views, and we share our views together," she said. "There's no hate between me and anyone."

Okay, fine. You are entitled to have your view that marriage is between a man and a woman. You're also entitled to believe that gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexual people are inferior and thus do not deserve the same equal protection under the law.

My problem with Bible literalists (yes, I made that one up) is they like to point to a text written by their so-called God and use it as proof to justify their hatred, bigotry and superiority over those who are different from them. The Bible has lots of edicts that people do not live by, such as women submitting to the man and allowing him to "lead."

God knows more about we do than life? Is she serious? That's probably the most sophomoric interpretation of Christianity and God I've ever heard. This is the problem with Bible interpretation. It's been deduced to basic, juvenile interpretations and explanations that people often neglect to ask the necessary questions and do the cumbersome research that requires true understanding of a certain text. Instead of finding "truth" and coming up with their own interpretations, people instead rely on pastors and other religious leaders who often are promoting their own interests and shoving their opinions and beliefs down the throats of their congregation.

So, Lauren, you have friends that were gay? I'm sure they are delighted to know how you truly feel about what you and your like-minded evangelical Christian friends call "lifestyle choices." I'm sure they are pleased that you have given your belief as to what will happen to them if your God returns to Earth. I'm sure they are so encouraged that you believe they will be struck down by this mythical creature for loving another human being who happens to share their gender.

Some friend...

Haitian orphans go "home"

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:47:00 +0000

Some things that were ignored while CNN's Gary Tuchman was busy playing the role of U.S. reporter blindsided by the "good deeds" of Americans who take advantage of a country's natural disaster and hastily rush into the country to "save" the children:

-Why did these women come to Haiti to adopt?
-How long did this adoption process take place? Were they in the process of the adoption before the quake hit?
-Has it been confirmed that these children were indeed orphans?

I may seem like a cynic, but this whole wave of adoption in Haiti just seems fishy to me as Haiti has never been in high demand as compared to eastern European and Asian countries. Are these people truly concerned about the plight of Haiti's orphans or are they just taking advantage of a country in disarray and going to Haiti because of the probability that the government is focused on other "high priority" issues?

Why are we reluctant to call Stack a murderer or terrorist?

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:37:00 +0000

Other bloggers have brought this into the forefront and even The Huffington Post has an interesting commentary about the refusal of some in power to call a spade a spade.

Chauncey Devega over at We Are Respectable Negroes has a clever profile of men like Stack, whom he calls the "Angry White Man":

He usually listens to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. He prays at the mantle of Jim Crow 2.0 and Pat Buchanan. The Angry White Man loves dressing up as one of the "founding fathers" as he embraces a juvenile and sophomoric understanding of The Constitution. When most deranged he writes political manifestos and commits acts of domestic terrorism. I now introduce to you the newest entry in the rogues gallery that is the Angry White Man run amok: Joseph Stack, anti-IRS domestic terrorist who on Thursday crashed his plane into an office building in Austin, Texas.

Chauncey then goes on to ask is if this story would be covered any different if Stack was an Arab, a Muslim, a brown- or dark-skinned man or "if they were calling for secession, accusing the President of being a traitor, and indulging in seditious behavior, how quickly would the dots be inexorably drawn between this domestic terrorist and the racial group to which he belonged?"

Will Bunch at the Huffington Posts asks basically the same question. He ponders why many in this country are hesitant to call Stack a murderer:

Second of all, aren't these the same people who jump all over anybody who calls an al-Qaeda or Taliban thug a "murderer" instead of a "terrorist," even though at the end of the day that's what even the people who bombed the World Trade Center were -- low-life, no-good killers, a notion that even Republicans understood back in Reagan's day? But now these same people refuse to condemn Joe Stack, let alone call him what he really was: A cheap, heartless murderer.

The one thing that's clear from Stack's vain and nonsensical "manifesto" is that the man was not insane, just an egomaniac who gave no thought to the innocent person he was about to kill, to that man's family or even his own family that he left behind to deal with the mess...after he burned them out of their home. The only insane people here are the ones who call Joe Stack a hero. He wasn't a hero. He was a coward. To see Joe Stack as something more than a two-bit killer is the greatest case of adding insult to injury that I have ever seen.

All this is fascinating to me. Are we really, as a whole, discriminatory in our belief as to who's a terrorists based on skin color, nationality and religion. Has our post-9/11 view of the world colored our perception of who is really a threat to us? Even U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa was reported to have sympathetic views of Stack and his actions. Here's YouTube video posted by Think Progress:

Really? So, a shared hatred for IRS makes it okay for a man to fly a plane into a government building and take the life of, Vernon Hunter, an innocent Vietnam veteran?

I wish I could say Rep. King is alone in his views, but he's not. Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina also ">expressed her belief that Stack's actions were remnants of the "hopelessness many in our society feel." Even Senate newbie Scott Brown gave his opinion about Stack's terrorist attack on a government entity: In an interview with Fox News' Neal Cavuto:

Brown: "It's certainly tragic, and I feel for the families, obviously, that are being affected by it. And I don't know if it's related, but I can just sense, not only in my election but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated. They want transparency. They want their elected officials to be accountable and open and, you know, talk about the things that are affecting their daily lives. So, I'm not sure if there's a connection. I certainly hope not. But we need to do things better."

FNC's Cavuto: "Invariably, people are going to look at this type of incident, Senator, and say, well, that's where some of this populist rage gets you. Isn't that a bit extreme?"

Brown: "Yes, of course it's extreme. You don't know anything about the individual. He could have had other issues. Certainly, no one likes paying taxes, obviously. But the way we're trying to deal with things, and have been in the past, at least until I got here, is there's such a logjam in Washington, and people want us to do better. They want us to help solve the problems that are affecting Americans in a very real way."

As these bloggers have noted, this type of sentiment is baffling not only because it represents a clear double standard as to who is classified as a terrorists, it's also baffling because you have our country's public servants expressing sympathy towards a terrorists. How is this possible in an age of any politician who opposes the War on Terror and the unjust invasion of Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is called unpatriotic and un-American? How is it tolerable that our politicians are able to make these kinds of statements about a man who clearly was in sound mind and body before he committed his terroristic act? Do these politicians believe in this type of action against our government entities or are they just pandering to the largely white, ~~racist~~, anti-government, anti-tax "movement" underway?

I firmly believe that if minority street thugs were writing these kinds of manifestos and making these types of statements towards our government, the FBI and CIA would be more than ready to march into neighborhoods and conduct raids. This country has been more than lax with the treat posed by white supremacists, reactionary, anti-government groups to our democracy. But, as we have repeatedly witnessed over the past two decades, domestic terrorism has proven to be just as dangerous as the likes of Al Qaeda. Angry white men (and women) who rail against government intrusion and entities are just as crazy and determined to take action as the radical brown-skinned men and women who strap bombs to their bodies and take the lives of innocent victims in the of religion.

But, as some of our leaders, the media through its coverage and by the glorification of Stack's anti-IRS beliefs have shown us, as long as you are a white male, your actions aren't terrorism; your actions are that of a man fed up with the government holding you down.

A win for abortion rights in Oklahoma...so far

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:23:00 +0000

According to the Tulsa World, an Oklahoma judge ruled the state's law posting details about women who seek abortions online as unconstitutional.

The law, according to the newspaper, "banned abortions based on gender and required women to supply a host of information to be placed on a public Web site. However, the information would not have identified the women."

The law was struck down because it violated the state's single-subject rule, meaning the law dealt with more than one subject. The state's constitution requires legislation addresses one subject.

The judge also said he struck down the law because of its reference to banning abortion based on gender, calling it "uncivilized."

It's not the first time a judge has struck down a law violating the single-subject rule, according to the newspaper:

In August, Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson struck down Senate Bill 1878 on the same grounds. SB 1878 required a women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The measure also covered the posting of signs in clinics, administration of the abortion pill RU-486 and lawsuits. Both bills were put on hold before they could go into effect after legal challenges were filed. The Legislature currently is reworking the bills, placing subjects in single pieces of legislation.

I wrote about this a while back when the Oklahoma State Legislature was considering the law. In my post, I said:

These scare tactics and intimidation methods are a clear way to scare women from having an abortion. Plain and simple. Unsatisfied with repeated attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade being shot down by various courts, these politicians looking to impose their pro-life agenda onto their constituents have resorted to fear and public ridicule in order to eliminate abortion. These types of laws scare me not only because they violate one's privacy, but they can also be used to justify the publication of information related to other medical procedures.

Not only do I stand by those statements, I also condemn any attempt to justify this law and the purpose for its existence. Bravo to this judge for striking down this law because its clear violation of the state's constitution and for its violation to the right to privacy. Whether these reactionary conservatives like it or not, the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land and any state's attempt to circumvent that right granted to women is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

A commentary about Tea Baggers

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:24:00 +0000

Big ups to TransGriot for her awesome opinion about the Tea Party movement. I'm reposting her entire entry here:

Aww, the poor white wing teabaggers are upset because they've been called by the 'liberal media' on their racism.

While I'm concerned and rightfully so about how hordes of motivated, intellectually challenged conservative leaning voters will affect the mid term elections if we liberals don't stop fighting each other and focus on who the real enemy to our country's recovery is, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at the fact their so-called grass roots movement is made up overwhelmingly of illiterate white people. And yes, it IS about the fact that we have an African-American president in office, so you can stop telling that lie, too.

You've got white supremacists involved. Peep this from Stormfront that Jack and Jill Politics unearthed:

Ladies and gentlemen, I think every WN needs to not only attend the April 15th Tea Party nearest you (I’m going to the Alamo in San Antonio) but then stay involved and help provide leadership to this movement.

I believe that this is the white revolution we’ve been waiting for. It doesn’t look what we expected but this is it.

I’ve seen probably 50 videos on TV showing previous marches and what strikes me is that the participants are all WHITE. It stands to reason . . . we’re the ones being taxed to support Affirmative Action, Welfare and other worthless social programs. It’s our tax dollars going to ACORN and supporting the 12 million illegals swarming into our neighborhoods.

Are 'we're not racist' and 'socialist' your new covert ways of saying the n-word?

And let's not forget all those 'Real Americans' who have the delusionally misguided belief that President Obama is not a United States citizen.

Read the birth certificate and the birth announcement y'all dug up.

Let's not forget that the people shouting 'kill him' and 'He's an Arab' during the McPalin hate rallies (oops, the 2008 GOP campaign) didn't just turn off their televisions and sulk while we giddily celebrated Victory over Conservatism Day on November 4, 2008 or sang 'Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye' to Dubya on January 20, 2009 during the president's inauguration.

They're mad, want to take their version of America back and are what's fueling the Teabagger movement. They are the huddled vanilla flavored masses yearning to breathe free and see the White House reoccupied by a white president and his family in 2013.

Even if the intelligent Black president cut their taxes, gives them affordable health insurance and saved them from a depression caused by the jacked up policies of the previous knowledge- challenged white president and a failed political philosophy they enthusiastically supported, to them, if their president ain't white, it ain't all right.

But hey, just as they've done throughout their history in this country, there are white peeps who will consistently vote and act against their own economic interests, and there are peeps who will eagerly manipulate that for their own purposes.

Exhibit A: The War To Perpetuate Slavery. Southern white males fighting and dying to keep slavery alive. Never mind it was a system that depressed their wages and was keeping them poor while the planter class got rich.

Please stop trying to produce the mythical Black person you claim was at your overwhelmingly white rallies or is part of your movement.

Because unlike y'all, we've learned a long time ago that all our skinfolks AIN'T our kinfolks. So y'all can parade Angela McGlowan, Paul Scott and whatever other Negro sellout or Photoshopped picture you come up with to pimp your message. We Black folks who don't watch Faux News and vote Democratic see y'all for what you are and ain't falling for the okey doke.

On November 2, those of us who truly love this country and don't want the United States to fail need to be at the ballot box voting to insure that ignorance does not rule the day.

Yes, your teabagger movement is racist, and no amount of spin will change that.

Absolute classic.

Homophobic CPAC speaker booed off the stage

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:03:00 +0000

FYI, for those that don't know this, GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies, according to their website.

Okay this quote doesn't make sense:

"Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. Natural rights are grounded in human nature. And human nature is irrational substance in relationships, the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction. Civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights are contrary..."

I would love to hear where he was going with this. Plus, aren't civil rights natural, inherent rights that all human beings are entitled to?

Awesome opinion on abortion, women of color and the anti-choice campaign's use of eugenics

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:06:00 +0000

Pamela Merritt has a wonderful opinion on RH Reality Check on women of color and the anti-choice focus on eugenics:

Just days before the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, a fellow activist sent me a link to a video posted by the anti-choice group Bound for Life. I was vaguely familiar with Bound for Life from having seen their members at protests, signature red tape marked with the word “Life” fixed to their mouths.

The video promoted an action that Bound for Life participated in at a new Planned Parenthood clinic being built in Houston. The spin for this specific protest caught my attention. The angle – that reproductive health care providers are organized to increase abortions by people of color in a plot to commit genocide for profit – has been in play by anti-choicers for years. That theory has been, is now, and will always be insultingly paternalistic in its assumptions about women of color seeking reproductive health care. The allegation is also picking up steam this Black History Month.

The first time I watched the video I was struck by the theories promoted through it – that communities of color are tragically ignorant of some long standing genocidal plot and desperately need organizations like Bound for Life to come to educate us, that the size of a reproductive health care clinic is in some way connected to it’s intended scale of abortion services and that the location of that clinic (in communities of color) is proof of some long standing genocidal plot. Bound for Life isn’t alone in putting forth these arguments. Anti-choice groups recently put up billboards in Georgia claiming that Black children are an endangered species and other organizations, like The Radiance Foundation, target religious people of color with the same anti-choice message; their stated goal being to illuminate, educate and motivate their audience.

The fallout from this rhetoric is hard to measure, but I’ve heard of the black genocide conspiracy for years. I am an activist in my home city of St. Louis Missouri and many of the young women of color I work with are aware of the rumors and ask questions about them.

In Missouri, where young people are often denied access to medically accurate comprehensive sex education in public schools, rumors can often be taken as fact. In my volunteer work I have met young women who thought drinking a certain soft drink would either prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections; others who have heard that contraceptives give users HIV; and some who were convinced that the withdrawal method protected them from sexually transmitted infections. In the absence of knowledge, dangerously inaccurate information reigns supreme without challenge or correction.

It is in that knowledge-vacuum that the black genocide conspiracy hopes to set up shop, with hopes to take advantage of the fruits of anti-choice labor that has systematically removed sex education from sex education. It’s more than ironic that anti-choicers--who work strenuously to deny to medically accurate sex education and prevention programs to young people of color--are now trying to rally communities of color through a pseudo-community education program built on the myth of black genocide. It’s far more than ironic…it’s shameful.

As a woman of color and a reproductive justice activist, I am appalled each time I hear the black genocide rap. Quotes by Margaret Sanger are tossed out as if she were a prophet, as if reproductive choice a religion, and as if pro-choice activists were fundamentalists bent on staying true to Sanger’s words as a person of fundamentalist faith would to the word of God. In reality, Margaret Sanger was a person whose work paved the way for legal access to contraceptives in this country. Sanger’s personal beliefs on eugenics were and are wrong and do not hold any place in the mission of reproductive justice or reproductive health care providers. We do not associate the Ford Motor Company with anti-semitism, despite the well documented history of it’s founder Henry Ford in collaborating with Nazisand we should not associate contemporary reproductive health care providers or the reproductive justice movement with eugenics because of some views expressed by Margaret Sanger.

But the truth has little to do with the black genocide scare tactic. The truth is that reproductive health care providers open clinics to provide access to the full range of reproductive health care services in communities that need safe and affordable health care. Those services include yearly cancer screenings, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, education on how to prevent sexually transmitted infections, education on how to prevent unplanned pregnancy and abortion counseling and services.

The truth is:

Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later stage and are more likely to die of cervical cancer.

Black people make up 13 percent of the population in the United States yet account for more than 49 percent of AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death for Black women between the ages 25 to 34, and the second leading cause of death for Black men between the ages 35 to 44.

Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Forty percent of Black Americans report being uninsured at some point from 2007 through 2008.

Black women continue to die from breast cancer at alarming rates and a recent study found that half of Black teenage women reported having had one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

Clearly there are a lot of health-care related reasons why reproductive health care providers seek to provide services to communities of color.

Women of color are not children unable to make health care decisions, our children are not a species on the brink of extinction through an organized genocidal plot and justice is found when a people are unbound and empowered by medically accurate knowledge rather than dogma. This Black History Month, despite well-produced marketing campaigns designed to spark fear and perpetuate myths, we must recommit ourselves to the struggle for reproductive justice in our communities. Now, more than ever, we need to address the realities on the ground and reject the conspiracy theories being shouted by the anti-choice mob.

I'm glad someone addressed this issue as it has been nagging at me. I'm amazed how how little the paternalistic nature of this black genocide campaign has been addressed by fellow bloggers and the mainstream media covering the metro-Atlanta billboards. The whole notion extreme pro-life groups have that the black community is oblivious to the "abortion industry's" plot to exterminate our race and their in-vain attempts to save us from the "abortionists" is just not only condescending, but reeks of remnants of the white man's burden. These pro-lifers feel it's their duty to save us from the so-called genocide abortion doctors are unleashing upon our people and to bring us into civilization, i.e. turning our backs on the right to choose.

I've blogged about the billboard campaign in the metro area and gave my two cents about the issue. Furthermore, I want to address the issue of referring to black babies as an "endangered species."

To me, using the term species to describe black babies implies that these pro-life organizations have an inherent belief that black babies are inferior to other (white) babies.

Or, as these pro-life people may argue, they are trying to draw attention to a problem "plaguing" the black community: the higher rate of abortions among black women. Denigrating a group of people does not draw attention to the cause you are advocating; it draws attention to your underlying beliefs about the group of people you're seeking to "protect."

The bottom line is this, pro-lifers: black women are not feeble-minded people who are unable to make decisions about their reproductive health. We don't need you coming into our homes and imposing your reactionary beliefs about reproduction onto our lives. Like white women, we are perfectly capable of utilizing our constitutional right to have (or not have) an abortion. Black babies are not endangered species, needing your protection from those evil Planned Parenthood folks. Black babies aren't some distant species needing your special attention to "save" from extinction. They are not some foreign animal.

Your lies and distortions about abortion and a genocidal campaign underway in our community by those evil pro-choice advocates are falling onto deaf ears. It's a shame you all have to resort to these scare tactics just to get yourselves on the news and airwaves.

The black community does not need you to come "save" us from our haze of denial. We need you to take your inherent racist, superior attitudes about us someplace where they will be accepted.

No, I don't miss Bush--nor do I want him back

newblackwoman@gmail.com (The New Black Woman) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:56:00 +0000

Like the woman in the coffee shop said, if these people feel the government is against them, why not stand up and show their faces? If you are proud enough to display your anger and frustration on a billboard, then why not feel proud about who you are?

And, no. I do not miss former President Bush. As far as I'm concerned, his eight years of isolationist policies and destructive national (No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, government bailouts, etc.) and foreign agendas (one unjust war, oblivion to the Middle East, ignorance of international laws, shunning the international community, etc.) have left this country in shambles.

So, no, I don't miss Bush. This country needs to stay out of the bushes.