So Much for Judicial Temperament

You had to know that Uncle Thomas was waiting for the day when he could finally tell a version of his story of the Anita Hill fiasco where he wasn't under oath and wasn't under the scrutiny of the media watching his every move, facial tic and breath to make sure that he was telling the truth.

Well, today's the day.

And, neither being under oath nor able to be compelled to be put under oath, what a tale Justice Clarence apparently tells.  According to him, not only was Anita Hill a terrible lawyer and incompetent, but anyone who agreed with her was a terrible EEOC employee too.  We expected that.  Here's the unexpected part:  according to Justice Thomas, Anita Hill's accusation that he was a porno freak and harasser was ludicrous and Uncle Thomas was "one of the least likely candidates imaginable" for the charge of sexual harassment because....wait for it.....he'd purportedly made clear a desire to run an agency staffed mainly by minorities and women.

This is the type of astute logical reasoning that has made reading Supreme Court decisions penned by Clarence Thomas especially painful for lawyers the past 15 years.  If anyone can explain why insisting on a diverse work environment (assuming that this is his true feelings) means that a person can't be a stank ho getting off on porn and chasing skirts at the same time, I'll buy you a cookie.

(It will have to await another diary my discussion of what appears to be Justice Thomas trying to again "put his Black on," since this "I'm for advancement of the historically oppressed" narrative of his is now the second recent reference I'm aware of -- the first being his lengthy diatribe in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 in which he partially garbs himself in his long-discarded Black Nationalist past and tries to evoke the ghost of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall as justification to eviscerate Brown v. Board of Education with a backhanded argument that, basically, Black people can't trust white people to ensure our equality, so we should stop trying to demand that the law ensure it - no, I'm not joking go read it yourself!).
Set aside the Anita Hill story, since 16 years later none of us are going to change our minds about it based on anything written this late in the game (I believed her then, and believed her now; David Brock's memoir admitting that Anita Hill was demonized and viciously attacked solely for the purpose of advancing Republican aspirations of putting a Black face on conservativism on the high court was merely icing on the cake for me.)  Isn't the real issue, for those of us who despite all its flaws respect and value the rule of law that a sitting judge has no business making public statements of a political nature or making intemperate statements about individuals? I thought - but maybe I'm wrong - that this type of behavior was antithetical to the idea of "judicial temperament", i.e. cool and dispassionate perspective remaining above the fray in the interests of justice.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider publishing an attack on a former employee while still sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land to be "above the fray."  I consider it -- 16 years after the fact -- yet another piece of evidence of the bitterness and anger that others have reported possesses and obsesses Justice Clarence Thomas to his soul.  It's just another piece of evidence that he can't just let go and move on, even having won the battle to be confirmed (even if his elevation to the Supreme Court is one of the low points of American racial history, part of the Bush Sr./Reagan strategy of using self-hating Negroes as the mouthpieces to reverse the civil rights legacy furthered by Justice Thurgood Marshall.)  What is surprising is that despite having emerged utterly victorious in his fight to be elevated to the Supreme Court, the reputation of what all agreed was a good lawyer trashed in the process, Justice Thomas is now 16 years later carrying around what I like to refer to as an "OJ" grudge:  a soul-eating, soul-destroying rage that belies all balance and passage of time, a rage that has no rational relationship to the alleged "harm" that was caused.  As was written in the Washington Post a few years ago, when it comes to his confirmation, Justice Thomas is a man with a long, long, vengeance memory:

Thomas retains a special animus for certain civil rights activists and liberal interest groups such as People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice. He blames them, in large part, for the damage done to his reputation. "These people are mad because I'm in Thurgood Marshall's seat," he told one visitor.

A Thomas friend who talks frequently with the justice said Thomas keeps a list in his head of who was for and against him during his confirmation hearings. "It hurt him a lot, I'll tell you," said this friend, who would speak only if not named to preserve his relationship. "And he's still bitter."

OK that's some scary shit, that a man on the highest court in the land still carries in his heart an "enemies list" from 13 years earlier.  Are we going to make him recuse himself if and when these individuals and groups come before the High Court, as we would with any lower court judge? I've seen no evidence that this has ever happened, with Justice Thomas.  We couldn't even get Scalia recused when the bias issues were far more patent.

Sure, some will call Justice Thomas' new book what he calls it - just his "memoir" or "autobiography", necessarily setting forth his views on a variety of subjects as part of talking about his life.  And, yes, everyone expected it to be written at some point; getting to sell a book is sort of one of the perks of the job, as it is with all high-powered jobs (I'm reading Alan Greenspan's at the moment.)  But at the moment I'm racking my brain to remember any judge who did so while he was still on the bench deciding cases.  What is it about Clarence Thomas' situation that his renewed attack on Anita Hill -- his version of it, anyway -- had to be told now?

(Is he going to retire? Lord, I don't think I can afford to hope that much.)

Black Out: Jena Six National Day of Action!!!!

(I have not been posting my recent work here because my new home is at Maat's Feather, but realize that there are still some folks coming here to read me rather than the new site, so as enticement, I'm cross-posting this here!)

In another karmic twist, today's Inspiration from Edward Brooke -- who cautioned us all as Black folks that you do what you have to do -- is a good entry point into the purpose of this short diary reminder.

Today is the Jena Six National Day of Action, aka Blackout Day.  A day of spiritual solidarity for those of us who could not answer Color of Change's call to travel to Jena today with the thousands who have taken busses, planes and cars -- in the old school way -- to make their way Down South to Jena, Louisiana and make their voices heard in person.

 
So today we are all are asked to take action and show our colors in solidarity with the Jena Six and the thousands of demonstrators -- students, grownups and folks of all stripes -- who have made their way down to Jena, Louisiana today to be march through the streets of town and be heard about racist injustice. 

Today was to have been the continued criminal sentencing date of Mychal Bell, the first of the children convicted in the Jena Six case.  Instead, Mychal Bell remains in jail despite the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana and his original trial court throwing out his charges.  No charges are pending against him now, mind you, but LaSalle Parish DA Reed Walters insists that Bell -- who cannot make bail and has been rotting in jail for over a year now, longer than he'd have likely been sentenced to had he been tried as a juvenile as he was supposed to have been -- remain there until the DA's appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court runs.

Yet that racist asshole still insists that his purposeful overcharging of the Jena Six had to do with race.

But today is not a day of complaint - today is a day of action.  So take action in all of the following ways, in solidarity:

Wear Black!!: Not only is Black beautiful, Black is back, baby.  Let them see a living example today of my tagline for this site:  Black is the new Black.

Reach Out!!:  I continue to be amazed how few people know this travesty of justice is occurring, even at my law firm where we are now helping (as many others have also now stepped up) to try and right this thing.  So tell this story of modern day nooses, racist law enforcement and of Black children being railroaded simply for finally getting "sick and tired of being sick and tired."

Step Up!!:  If you have not yet joined the nearly quarter million people who have signed the Color of Change petition demanding that all charges against the Jena Six be dismissed by DA Reed Walters, aka the Nouveaux Bull Connor, and that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco use all her office's power to intervene, do it!!.  The link is here:  Petition to Free the Jena Six

Be Heard!!: Call and e-mail and write letters to all the players in this travesty with the power to stop this thing:  Louisiana Governor Blanco, Senators Mary Landrieu and Bobby Vitter, LaSalle Parish officials, including but not limited to the lamented Mr. Reed Walters himself.  Make your voice heard.

Dig Deep!!:  Mychal Bell remains in jail for one reason, and only one reason:  poverty prevents him from posting the bond necessary to be free pending any new juvenile proceeding (if Reed Walters really has the balls to re-file).  Mr. "End Your Lives with the Stroke of a Pen" Reed Walters set Bell's bail at $80,000, requiring a significant bond deposit to free him.  The other families have begged and borrowed to free their children and provide them a defense - some have had to pay for private bar legal assistance despite out of state pro bono counsel being able to lend a hand to now reduce some costs -- and are hanging on by a thin thread.  So even if you've got only $5 (and you know you do - did you stop at Starbucks this morning?) send it to the families, to let them know they are not alone.

(Hey, if even David Bowie -- one of my favorite rockers! -- can step up and dig deep to do his part, the rest of us have NO excuse)

Reach Out!!:  To the boys themselves.  Hillary Clinton rightfully called what is going on in Jena a "teaching moment."  It is, for all of us.  But it especially is for the six young men -- children -- who are caught up in the middle of this thing.  Please ma'am, please sir, won't you take a moment to send a postcard, or note, to them (particularly Mychal Bell, who remains in jail) to let them know that you care?

Separate, we are powerful.  Together, we are unstoppable. 

And we are ALL tired of being sick and tired, where white supremacy exercised through racially disparate justice against Black folks are concerned.

And, In Today's Mortgage Meltdown News: Investor Blame and Black Neighborhood Destruction

Numbers about 1Q and 2Q 2007 foreclosure activity (BEFORE the markets started melting down in July and August, mind you) were released by the Mortgage Bankers' Association Wednesday. They should frighten anyone who understands anything about the impact of foreclosure activity on not only home values, but on overall access to credit -- the engine that that everyone admits has been fueling Dubbya's so-called "robust economy" in a country where many contend that consumer spending represents 2/3 of the GDP.

They are frightening because, as of the end of June, 2007, in addition to the 0.65% of mortgages in the foreclosure process, 5.12% of the mortgages which were not in foreclosure were "delinquent", i.e. the mortgage payments were at least 30 days behind. 

That means that, right now, 1 in every 20 home mortgages in the United States is behind and, thus, at potential risk.

1 in 20.

Driving that figure is the devilish detail that everyone from the government to the mainstream media keeps clinging to like a life preserver without grasping the horrific big picture of "1 in 20":  the percentage of subprime loans that are currently delinquent, which right now is at 14.82%.  That number is huge, but I can see folks out there shrugging since, after all, these were the folks who "really couldn't afford" a home.  (I can literally see them, having read the litany of "its their own fault" many times whenever prescient folks tried to blog about this crisis, both before it happened and now.)

Even if we assume that myth about "it's their own fault" is true for the subprime borrowers for the sake of argument, setting aside all the urban legends about who gets placed in subprime loans and why that underlie such a conclusion, how does one explain the fact that right now 2.73% of prime mortgages -- 1 in every 36 -- are delinquent right now, too? (Up from 2.54% at the beginning of the year.) 

I know how I explain it.  I explain it by looking yet again at the source of the problem which the Fed and Wall Street and frankly most folks left and right keep wanting to avoid blaming:  the investment markets.

And the more I look, the angrier I get.
What makes me the angriest is that the market-makers and the feds know the truth about why this situation has occurred, yet the media keeps trying to blame it all on "subprime borrowers" (with the implication that these folks are where the irresponsibility originated.)  Yet as FRB Chairman Ben Bernacke quite candidly admitted in May:

Whereas once most lenders held mortgages on their books until the loans were repaid, regulatory changes and other developments have permitted lenders to more easily sell mortgages to financial intermediaries, who in turn pool mortgages and sell the cash flows as structured securities. The growth of the secondary market has thus given mortgage lenders greater access to the capital markets, lowered transaction costs, and spread risk more broadly, thereby increasing the supply of mortgage credit to all types of households.

These factors laid the groundwork for an expansion of higher-risk mortgage lending over the past fifteen years or so. . . 

The practices of some mortgage originators have also contributed to the problems in the subprime sector.  As the underlying pace of mortgage originations began to slow, but with investor demand for securities with high yields still strong, some lenders evidently loosened underwriting standards.  So-called risk-layering--combining weak borrower credit histories with other risk factors, such as incomplete income documentation or very high cumulative loan-to-value ratios--became more common.  These looser standards were likely an important source of the pronounced rise in "early payment defaults"--defaults occurring within a few months of origination--among subprime ARMs, especially those originated in 2006.

Although the development of the secondary market has had great benefits for mortgage-market participants, as I noted earlier, in this episode the practice of selling mortgages to investors may have contributed to the weakening of underwriting standards. . . In addition, incentive structures that tied originator revenue to the number of loans closed made increasing loan volume, rather than ensuring quality, the objective of some lenders. . . . Intense competition for subprime mortgage business--in part the result of the excess capacity in the lending industry . . .may also have led to a weakening of standards.  In sum, some misalignment of incentives, together with a highly competitive lending environment and, perhaps, the fact that industry experience with subprime mortgage lending is relatively short, likely compromised the quality of underwriting.

The accuracy of much of the information on which the underwriting was based is also open to question.  Mortgage applications with little documentation were vulnerable to misrepresentation or overestimation of repayment capacity by both lenders and borrowers. . .Some borrowers may have been misled about the feasibility of paying back their mortgages, and others may simply have not understood the sometimes complex terms of the contracts they signed.

Despite this candor in the ivory tower about the huge role that investment strategies in the securities markets played in the current meltdown, both the MSM and pundits perhaps well-meaning but truly ignorant about what was happening continue to trumpet the false notion that homeowners were the ones primarily irresponsible, instead of victimized by a greed-fueled money-making engine -- the secondary mortgage-backed securities market -- that cast its fishing line far and wide, with increasingly attractive bait (the "American Dream" of homeownership, already seductive as a cultural narrative but tarted up with a predatory readiness on the part of lenders to originate mortgages with high debt-to-income ratios, high debt-to-value ratios, zero-interest and negatively amortizing notes, and reduced credit and income worthiness scrutiny; whatever it took to close and thus provide more mortgage paper for reinvestment in the secondary market) for the primary purpose of increasing the pool of mortgages available for sale in the secondary market, where it is all about money, and nothing but money.  Excess money, which can thus be played with -- something that most families in our country today know nothing about, since they have been in a negative-savings posture now for nearly three years.  Something that had not happened since the Great Depression.

I know that there are those who might be asking why I spend so much time discussing financial/mortgage issues and what it could possibly have to do with Black people.  My reason is obvious, although it seems not too many Black bloggers are writing about it:  the borrowers disproportionately forced into the subprime market, with the often-resulting predatory mortgage underwriting, lending and servicing practices that arose to sustain the feeding of investment paper to the secondary markets were disproportionately Black homeowners  The Center for Responsible Lending confirmed in 2004 and has reconfirmed several times since what those of us on the ground already knew:  African-American homes (and neighborhoods!) are at risk.  Over 50% of all African-Americans, and 42% of Latino borrowers, who got mortgages were shoveled into subprime loans, quite often regardless of income level or creditworthiness.

It is that market/credit discrimination which led to situations such as that which existed in New Orleans, where at the time of Katrina, 26% of all homeowners held subprime mortgages and, today, 50% of the mortgages held by African-Americans are subprime.  The servicers of those mortgages were not exactly sympathetic when Katrina hit, requiring the intervention and public shaming of public interest groups such as ACORN before they would offer the same forbearance terms that were automatically offered to the borrowers of prime loans.  Even then, forbearance came with all sorts of fun "exploding time bombs" built in, such as a homeowner being required to make the payments deferred during the forbearance period all at once to avoid foreclosure, amongst others.

(Now you know another reason why so many Katrina displacees can't Return Home.  A reason that has gotten almost NO media attention.)

But it isn't just New Orleans, a formerly majority-Black city missed by a natural hurricane only to now find itself at risk of being eaten away by a financial one in a couple of years as all those 2/28s and 3/27s start resetting.  Other Black majority cities are too on the cusp of the Eve of Destruction thanks to the mortgage crisis, too.  Just as we were historically shut out of the credit and mortgage markets due to discriminatory investment practices, let in comparatively recently only through investor greed, we are now being shut out again and our non-white majority communities face disproportionate risk of being decimated by the current mortgage debacle. 

Our cities, like the 82% Black city of Detroit, Michigan.

Our suburbs, like the 51% Black city of Cleveland, Ohio.

Our newest regional giants, like the 61% Black city of Atlanta, Georgia.

And our Black urban enclaves, like the approximately 80% Black neighborhood of Bedford-Stuvesant/East New York and the 72% Black neighborhood of Jamaica/Hollis in New York City, New York.

Beginning to see a trend, yet?

I have always believed that at least one reason that most folks didn't care about well-known predatory lending and mortgage servicing practices involved race, and the fact that heretofore, many of the victims associated publicly by the MSM with mortgage problems were non-white, most often Black.  In light of that, a more cynical, heartless, person than I am would be grateful that at least now the problem has gotten so bad that white folks too are beginning to suffer, since it was only when that started happening that folks finally started talking about legislative solutions to try and ensure that "mainstream" homeowners, having been hooked and reeled into the system by the promise of the "American Dream" for motives that had little to do with altruism and everything to do with the greed and excess of the investor and servicer classes, do not suffer from this crisis -- whose making has been largely ignoreda and pooh-poohed for a long time.

So what's a person to do? What's a neighborhood to do, when you have stories such as that which ran in Wednesday's NY Times called Can the Mortgage Crisis Swallow a Town? (Yes, it sure as hell can.)

I don't have all the solutions, or even some of the solutions.  But I do know that the worst possible thing is for the credit markets to shut out everyone but perfect borrowers with perfect-sized Fannie and Freddie guaranty-eligible loans right now, which is being increasingly reported. With discrimination still running rampant in the credit markets already, such a contraction is the LAST thing that Black and Latino homeowners and their neighborhoods in crisis need.  All that a return to traditional underwriting in the midst of this crisis does is ensure that most of the victims of this crisis, particularly those of color, will have no fair chance at escape.

And the cynical suspicious person in me wonders how long it will be before all these neighborhoods will be gentrified, homes formerly raising Black children in security now belonging to enterprising folks who just happen to have disposible income (which is not something that most families of color have, or anyone else too much these days) and jump on a "good deal", the bones of the formerly non-white communities being decimated by foreclosure picked clean as if they had been had at by vultures, after they die.  Since they are, inarguably, dying.

(No, for the record, I am NOT objective about this issue.)

Blogging for Justice: Free the Jena Six

(This is going up here a day after I posted this on Maat's Feather on the Day of Blogging for Justice for the Jena Six. Feel free to come over for discussion!).

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This diary is part of the Afrospear campaign (the call for which was made by Bro. D. Yobachi Boswell - hat tip to him!) to raise our voices against the travesty of justice being played out in the case of six teenagers known as the Jena Six.  Why this campaign? Well, the Afrospear press release today makes it plain:

The Afrosphere Jena 6 Coalition "ask that the mainstream traditional media step forward and discharge their duty to provide coverage of this vitally important event to their viewers and readers and act as "the fourth institution" of governmental "checks and balance" that constitutional framers intended the press to be."

I regret only that this diary is coming late in the designated day, a victim of 48-hours of work-crisis I won't bore the reader with.


When I was in law school, my first-year moot court assignment was about free speech, and high school students.  The central issue in our mock case was whether a 1952 Supreme Court case that evaluated the right to free-speech against the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Black folks to live free from public expressions of racial hatred and white supremacy -- Beauharnais v. Illinois -- was still good law that would govern racially-based speech.  In Beauharnais, a white man was convicted under an Illinois libel statute making it a crime to exhibit in any public place any publication which "portray[ed] depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion" or which "expose[d] the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy."

Mr. Beauharnais was convicted because he was handing out what the Beauharnais court quaintly called "anti-Negro literature" on the streets of Chicago.  (I'll let y'all click the link to the case and read some of it for yourself; then tell me if it sounds all that much different than Ron Paul or Michael Richards, 55 years later.)

Justice Frankfurter, writing for a bitterly divided majority, relied on the 1942 case which enunciated the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, Chaplinsky v. United States to conclude that the Illinois statute under which Beauharnais was charged was constitutional, well within the police power of the State to keep the peace following centuries of slavery and white supremacy.  Justice Black, writing the lead minority opinion in Beauharnais (despite having been part of the unanimous ruling in Chaplinsky where race was not an issue, claimed that the First Amendment was virtually inviolate, such that speech inciting race hatred, like that advanced by Mr. Beauharnais in Chicago, was protected under it without regard to asserted countervailing rights, such as those arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, which were not equally absolute.  And, as a portend of today's High Court reasoning in a variety of contexts involving race, we were told that this was for our own good.  Justice Black's eloquent dissent in Beauharnais ended by warning "minorities" that, in essence, we should be careful what we ask for (the right to be free from public assault on our characters and dignity) because we may get it:

If there be minority groups who hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark:

"Another such victory and I am undone."

Ultimately, because that's what our professors made plain was the "only right answer", those of us who were eager 1L's being exposed to modern Constitutional law in the area of race readily, even if sadly, concluded that Beauharnais was no longer good law, having been impliedly if not expressly overruled by Sullivan v. New York Times.  Yet I wonder from time to time whether our High Court's accidental or purposeful retreat from the interpretations of the First Amendment which balanced free speech against the societal injury of racial fighting words and concluded that the societal harm from certain speech was so severe as to justify public (although not private) censorship -- as affirmed forth in Beauharnais and its predecessor case, Chaplinsky -- is directly correlated with this country's shift, beginning in 1953 with Brown v. Board of Education from an overtly-white supremacist nation to a covert one, as Blacks and whites in this country came more and more into constant contact with each other over the objections of most whites.  With the result that white supremacy was forced under ground by the law which, as set forth in Beauharnais, (which was fatally undermined by Sullivan v. NY Times but has never been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court, much the way that Brown v. Board of Education just was by Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. #1), criminalized attacking the character of people of color through "free speech" in public.

I wonder because had Beauharnais in particular not been effectively overruled ot make way for "absolute" First Amendment rights -- rights that the story of the Jena Six should confirm even for the staunchest racial utopianist tare not rights that all races enjoy equally on the ground in America -- perhaps the "racial free speech" act that began the saga which ended with the criminal case of the Jena Six would have never been necessary.  Or, even if it had been, it certainly might have been nipped in the bud as soon as one of the country's most ancient symbols of racial terror was hung from a tree in Jena, Louisiana last September, 2006.

On the assumption that a reader seeing this diary might not have actually heard of the Jena Six (since that's what I was told last time I wrote about this case a month ago), here's my synopsis of the facts as they are known today following the trial and conviction of the first of the Jena Six, Mychal Bell:

In September, 2006, a black student at Jena High School asked school administrators whether he could sit under the "white tree," a shade tree on school grounds that had historically been used only by white students in the largely-segregated town of Jena, Louisiana.    After hearing that he could sit wherever they wanted, he did. 

The next morning, he and the other Black students of Jena High School were greeted with three nooses hanging from the "white tree." -- in the school colors, I guess to make them more noticeable. 

Following an investigation, Jena High's principal identified the responsible parties - three of the school's white students.  To his credit, he recommended expulsion.  He was overruled, however, by the School Superintendent, who imposed only a three-day suspension as punishment.  Trying to justify this to the media later, this paragon of academic virtue said that the act was not a threat to anyone; instead it was just a simple case of happy teenage foolishness: "Adolescents play pranks."

Spoken as only a true redneck of the South could speak, about a symbol of racial violence that is as well known in Jena, Louisiana as it is everywhere South (and many places North!) of the Mason-Dixon line.

Naturally, the Black community got a bit upset.  Parents started trying to identify who to complain to.  The Black students of Jena High went a different route.  They (apparently spontaneously) reached into the wellspring of political action that has served justice well for millenia:

They decided to collectively protest by ALL sitting under the white tree at the same time.

Anywhere other than America, the point would likely have been proven by that act.  But we're not talking about anywhere.  We are talking about a small Louisiana town (that is nonetheless the largest town in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.)  A town whose population of just under 3,000 is 85% white, with only 350 Black residents in its borders.  A town that still refers to its single Black school board member as "colored" and that has a town barber who seems to find it a point of honor that he has never cut a Black man's hair.

In light of this, the official reaction to this collective political action by our young Black youth in Jena (which puts me in mind of that great understatement from "Stand by Me" spoken by one of the few white castmembers: "It appears that [the] students have assembled in an exercise of their First Amendment rights.") was not entirely unpredictable, especially in America today.  Jena High's administration called a mandatory student assembly. LaSalle Parish's DA, Reed Walters, accompanied by 10 fine representatives of LaSalle Parish law enforcement, came to address the students.  Students contend that the DA threatened the protesting Black students with retribution if they didn't stop making a fuss about the noose incident.  He reportedly also said to these young men and women the  words that were portends of the nightmare that the Jena Six now face:

I can be your best friend or your worst enemy.

I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.

After this assembly, and the DA's "laying down the law"  students were reportedly put on lock down for the rest of the school week. 

Despite this "mandatory cooling off" at Jena High, things remained tense throughout the fall, reportedly calmed only by the fact that it was football season -- which is a big deal in the South, no matter what race you are.

Yet on the night of November 30, 2006, someone set fire to the main academic building of Jena High School. Nobody knows who did it, to this day.

  It doesn't matter, I guess, since the next night, Friday December 1, 2006, a Jena High black student named Robert Bailey Jr. accepted an invitation to a party held at an establishment normally frequented only by whites in Jena.  Upon his arrival, he was punched in the face, knocked down, and jumped by several white youth who were present.  Of this gang of thugs, only one student was (subsequently, and much later) identified.  Instead of facing what Robert Bailey Jr. now faces -- which is up to 80 years in prison -- this upstanding young white citizen was given probation, and asked to apologize.

The next day, a white man who may, or may not, have been at the party the night before got into a verbal fight with three Black teenagers, including Robert Bailey, Jr. at the Gotta Go convenience store outside Jena.  At some point, the white guy pullled out a shotgun from his vehicle and brandished it at the Black kids.  Their response was to wrestle it from him, and run away with it (no doubt to ensure they would not be buckshotted as they fled). They called the police, and reported the incident.

They were subsequently arrested and charged with theft of the shotgun.  (No charges were filed against the white man who brandished it at them.)

On December 4, 2006 - Monday -- back at school at Jena High, a white student named Justin Barker, allegedly began taunting Black students, including Robert Bailey, Jr..  He called them niggers repeatedly and expressing support for the white students who hung the nooses and beat up Bailey.

(Justin Barker's mama obviously has not taught him the fine Southern arts of minding your own business and knowing when to shut-the-hell-up.  Equally obviously, she *did* teach him the fine Southern art of feeling entitled to break the law just because he is a privileged white male kid who is afraid of a butt wuppin' by uppity darkies.  I say this because young master Barker this May decided to bring a loaded hunting rifle onto the Jena High school grounds with 13 rounds in it, I guess since he knew that Mychael Bell was about to go to trial.

This criminal act is, of course, something that in our post-Columbine era -- where young students are arrested for writing fiction stories in class even hinting of possible school violence -- you'd have thought would have landed Justin Barker under the jailhouse.  Yet LaSalle Parish law enforcement clearly decided that this was just another case of "adolescents play pranks" since after Justin Barker was quite belatedly arrested, he was promptly released on only $5,000 bail.  Juxtapose this outcome with Mychal Bell's bail of $90,000 for getting into a school fight - if you dare risk your head exploding.)

This was the proverbial camel-breaking straw, I guess, for the young Black male students of Jena High School who witnessed it.  Justin Barker was apparently knocked out cold with a single punch, and while he was down, allegedly kicked by several black students.  He was up and about by the time the police and ambulance arrived.  After being scanned, treatened and released at the hospital, he attended his school's ring party that same evening.  He reportedly had to spend the next week on Tylenol.

Would that the Jena Six had it so good.  For their headache, six black Jena students -- Robert Bailey Jr. (17), Mychal Bell (16 - charged as an adult), Carwin Jones (18), Theo Shaw (17), Bryant Purvis (17), and an unidentified 15-year old were each arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder because of their alleged involvement in the beat-down of Justin Barker.  Their bail amounts ranged from a low of $70,000 to a high of $138,000 (for Robert Bailey, Jr.)  Most remained in jail for months until their poverty-stricken families could post bond.  Mychal Bell and Carwin Shaw have never left jail - neither of their families could afford to bail them out.

The Jena Six were all expelled from Jena High School, their academic careers now officially over.

While there was a great deal of pressure for the students to plead guilty, Mychal Bell (represented by a white public defender) refused to plead guilty to a felony.  This prompted the DA to immediately reduce the charges on the morning of trial to second degree aggravated battery (in Louisiana, battery with a dangerous weapon.)

I know you're asking:  what dangerous weapon?

Mychal Bell's tennis shoes, with which his feet were shod when he allegedly kicked Justin Barker.

(I will one day write a diary about how I feel as an attorney knowing that in the State of Louisiana, there are *multiple* cases actually concluding that sneakers are a dangerous weapon.)

Mychal Bell's fate was swift, and once again, predictable -- since his public defender put on no witnesses on his behalf, whereas the DA put on 17 witnesses -- all white, including young master Barker.  Trial was held before a white judge, and an all-white jury selected from an all-white venire, on which sat two friends of the DA, a white witness' relative, and several friends of witnesses for the prosecution. Mychal Bell's parents could not attend the trial to support their son, excluded by the rule that normally excludes trial witnesses to avoid tainting their testimony -- yet Justin Barker was permitted to attend, despite his also being a witness governed by that rule.  A gag order was even placed on Bell's parents, preventing them from letting the world know that their son was on trial for an aggravated felony only for racial reasons.  At trial, 11 white students, 3 white teachers and 2 white school nurses gave varying testimony about whether Mychal Bell did, or did not, do anything to Justin Barker.  Justin Barker admitted he did not know whether Mychal Bell even touched him.

But this is Jena, Louisiana.  So after only 3 hours of deliberation, Mychal Bell was convicted on July 28, 2007 of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit it.  He is scheduled to be sentenced on September 20, 2007.  He faces a maximum sentence of 22 years in prison.

The remaining members of the Jena Six have not yet stood trial.  They all still face charges of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit attempted murder, their charges having not been reduced by the LaSalle Parish DA.

The first time I blogged about the Jena Six, in a diary called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree it was shortly after I first heard that Mychal Bell, a young Black man in high school -- with a promising athletic future, status on the school honor roll -- and what I have now learned is a a minor juvenile record, for getting into fights and vandalism (something that my own son faced as a teenager, his temper having once been inconsistent with a zero-tolerance world) -- had been convicted by an all-white jury of aggravated assault on one of his white peers, such that he faced up to 22 years in prison for what under normal circumstances would have been deemed a high school fight justifying, at best, his suspension and, perhaps a juvenile court referral. 

But the circumtances of Jena are not "normal circumstances".  

Not normal, unless you view the circumstances that have led to six young men -- all children, in my eyes -- facing what is now between 22 and 80 years in prison for a high school fight as normal through the gauzy lens of racial history in America, in which Blacks have always had to confront the "fighting words" aspect of America's love of Free Speech - but have almost always been punished severely for reacting, as the Supreme Court in both Chaplinsky and Beauharnais recognized, as normal human beings would react to fighting words - by fighting white racist speech with their bodies, the only power that usually they have to stop it.  To know the facts of the story in Jena, Louisiana as they relate to the Jena Six is to experience an evocative, frustating, memory -- perhaps a collective memory -- of what we thought was a different time when we could neither fight in self-defense to save our own manhood and womanhood or protest peacefully against it without meaningful risk of life.  The memory of a time they said was done now, in our colorblind, post-Dr. King society:  when public terrorist threats against Black folks for simply exercising their God given rights was not an uncommon thing.

(And for those self-serving racist naysayers out there like the LaSalle Parish School Superintendent, make no mistake, hanging nooses was a terrorist threat -- the threat of lynching at the hands of whites -- and it is that terrorist threat that was the genesis and remains at the root of the poisonous tree of racist injustice known as case of the Jena Six.  For what other American symbol (other than the white sheet and hood of the Ku Klux Klan) is more recognizable to Black folks born and raised in America as the harbinger of the end of Black lives for exercising their rights -- it was once called "being uppity" -- than the hangsman's noose?

I thought we learned all those lessons -- about long ago.

Yet Jena Louisiana obviously continues not to learn its lessons.  This is evident when their white supermajority -- 85% of the town -- has spent more time complaining that they are being unfairly branded as the collective racists they are than about the unfairness of what they almost all also admit was a schoolhouse fight that should not land someone in jail for 22 years.  This was evident when on Tuesday, nine children -- children who have a right to free speech, or did before the Supreme Court's decision in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case -- were suspended on Tuesday from Jena High School for were advised that wearing their tee shirts advocating to "Free the Jena Six" were "disruptive."  Wearing tee shirts in a school that has no dress code.

It seems that the good white citizens of Jena, Louisiana have not yet learned what justice really means outcomes which are just, not just the procedural appearance of a courtroom show called "justice." True justice does not waste time trying to sweep injustice under the rug, or deflect from injustice, as Louisiana is desperately now trying to do by doing something of questionable legality:  releasing information about Mychal Bell's juvenile record to the media, in response to what is an increasing hue and cry against the injustice of the Jena Six case.  This retributive, self-serving and quite likely illegal act on the part of LaSalle Parish is clearly, along with most things Jena these days, is a travesty of justice.

The travesty of justice in Jena, Louisiana is the old evocative story I mentioned above:  The story in which Justice in America for Black folks is, increasingly again, Just Us, when it comes to the criminal law.

It is likely to always be so, here in America.

Unless we fight.

Since I am not an advocate of kicking ass and taking no prisoners as a method of social change, except rhetorically, unless one has truly has no other options, all that is left is for folks like me -- mothers like me of young Black men -- to tell the story and spread it far and wide.  Tell it so that it is never forgotten and it is front and center.  Until justice, which like the symbol of my blog, Maat's Feather, is done grounded in truth.

But if we don't tell the story, protest this injustice, nobody will.

Since the mainstream media does not care about these young Black men in Jena - go check out how few stories they have written, even today, about the resurgence of sanctioned Jim Crow misconduct in American law enforcement that is evinced by this story.  

Since Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) of Louisiana, who has the power to instantly stop the railroading of these children doesn't care -- go check out the form letters she sent us all when we wrote to beg her to intervene. 

We won't even mention Bobby Jindal or Emperor George W. Bush.

They don't care in Louisiana about the lives of young Black children.  They don't care that whites are again from an early age free to taunt and levy psychic -- and PHYSICAL -- threats and injuries at Black children.  Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this question:

Why is it that we know the names of ALL of the young Black men that allegedly did wrong in Jena, Louisiana (except for the one that the law expressly prohibits the press or anyone else from naming due to his age), yet we know NONE of the names of the several white youths who committed the acts of harassment, terrorist threats, threatened and actual violence which created the racial tinderbox that ultimately exploded in a loss of patience -- the final moment of "sick and tired of being sick and tired", for which the Jena Six's lives are now being thrown away, legally, before they have all even become old enough to vote?  Not ONE of these white hooligans names has ever been printed in the press that one can find on the Internet. 

Not one of the names is publicly known -- even the allies of the Jena Six have not printed them.  Except for one - Justin Barker, the so-called victim of the Jena Six.  This is not accidental, even if it's not conscious.  It's merely a continuation of the same unconscious white supremacy that makes sure that when a Black person commits a crime, his race is announced to the world, but never mentioned when a criminal is white.  It's because their young white lives, even though they have all done dirty and there has never been any dispute about that, are perceived as still having future value despite their bad acts -- not just in Jena, Louisiana, but everywhere.  So, unconsciously or consciously, they are allowed protection of their future reputations despite their being the catalysts in this travesty of justice.  In contrast, the Black youth who were involved and who were demonstrably the responders, not the instigators, are obviously seen as having no future worth protecting.  If they were, then why are they all facing sentences that guarantee they will finish growing up behind the walls of a hellish Louisiana prison, and if they are given the maximums, will likely die there as well?

Yet they don't care anywhere else either.  Because the travesty of justice that is occuring in Jena, Louisiana in connection with six of our Black youth is happening all over America now, in increasingly frequent travesties of justice small and large that are collectively condemning our young Black men's futures before they've even had a chance to become legal men.  There was a quote in one of the first articles I ever read about the Jena Six that makes it plain what time it is for us in light of that:

You better get out of your houses. You better come out and defend your children - because they are incarcerating them by the thousands. Jena's not the beginning, but Jena has crossed the line.  Justice is not right when you put on the wrong charges and then convict. I believe in justice. I believe in the point of law. I believe in accepting the punishment if I'm guilty. If I'm guilty, convict me and punish me, but if I'm innocent, no justice.

I believe in those things too, and have since long before I ever took my oath as an attorney all these many years ago.  Which is why I'm glad that we have had today to blog for justice for the Jena Six - our youth, being snatched away from us by the injustice of ongoing white supremacy in America and its handmaiden, prosecutorial discretion in the hands of racist whites. 

But, since when it comes to the Jena Six, neither the media nor the politicians stumping for our votes seem to care much (including, except as a member of the collective Congressional Black Caucus since I cannot find any public statement he has yet made about the Jena Six despite being the only Black man running for President at this time -- Senator Barack Obama /sigh.) 

So it's up to us to care, since they are OUR children, that our young men are being railroaded into figurative death -- their youth being potentially stripped away from them, merely for a youthful loss of temper that those much older probably would have had long before young master Justin Barker got the ass-whuppin his racist mouth had coming to it.

Here's the call to action:  those of you who believe in justice -- those for who the words of Dr. King about the nature of justice and his wise counsel that where injustice is concerned, what affects one, affects all --  those of you in solidarity, raise your mouses.  Raise your virtual pens.  Beauharnais v. Illinois may no longer be considered good law, but some words are still fighting words. 

So let's fight.

Since we cannot and should not in a just world need to use our fists, let's fight through our blogs.  But don't stop there.  Fight through our letters and phone calls and through taking our bodies to the streets in protest if we have to, to save these young men's lives from the travesty of justice unfolding in Jena.

Blog for justice today, and tomorrow and until we as Black people actually see it as something more than a one-off whenever whites accuse us of committing crimes against them.  Justice for the Jena Six, whose finally getting sick and tired of being sick and tired have them now facing between 22 and 80 years in prison for a schoolyard brawl.  Justice the New Jersey 4, young Black women who like the Jena Six had no criminal records yet who are now serving between 3 and 11 years in prison merely for defending themselves against a gender-based physical attack on them grounded in their status as lesbians -- despite videotape proving they acted in self-defense against, not as instigators of, violence.  Blog for justice for the survivors of Katrina who rang bells in the Big Easy yesterday on the Second Anniversary to both honor the souls of the dead and to warn future generations that the tide may still one day rise against us - unless we are ever vigilant.

And after you're done blogging, please take the time to read the words of those other Afrospear members who have taken up the cause of justice through their blogs today for the Jena 6, and follow their links to action:

Wayne Hicks @ Electronic Village

D. Yobachi Boswell @ Black Perspective

Daz Wilson @ Ultraviolet Underground

Francis Holland @ Afrosphere Bloggers Association

Jim D. Walton @ Black in Business

6. Cooper @ Wonderland or Not

7. Yolonda @Ebony Mommy

8. Vanessa Byers @ Vanessa: Unplugged

9. Sincere @ http://sincere-thoug...

10. Pia @ Courting Destiny

11. Adrianne George @ Black Women in Europe

12. Eddie Griffin @ Eddie Griffin BASG

13. PB @ Savant Writer

14. Tom Autopref @The Small Business Weekly

15. Dave J. @Wandering in Ether

16.  B. Medusa @ Mnemosyne

17.  Shawn Williams @Dallas South Blog

18. Deidra @Black and Missing but Not Forgotten

19.  AAPP @ African American Political Pundit & African-American Opinion

20. Invisible Woman @Invisible Cinema

21. Plez @PlezWorld

22. Mahogony Diva @ Mahogany Diva

23. Saba @ Greasy Guide

24.  Out of the Jungle

Alberto Gonzales - Latest Rat to Abandon the Ship

One of the fun things about being a crack-of-dawn person (even today, on my birthday) is that sometimes you get greeted with news that can't help but make you grin from ear to ear.

The resignation of the disgrace with a law license known as the (now former) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is one of them.

The most telling part of the New York Times' article is that "Bush accepted [the resignation] begrudgingly."

This tells me that despite his apparent willingness to perjure himself before Congress; despite glad endorsement of torture; despite his cold-blooded justification of spying on Americans (and everyone else too); despite his zealous pursuit of the federal death penalty even over the concerns of his own prosecutors; and despite his willingess to trash the government careers of good lawyers solely because they did not follow his Party's party line, Gonzales hadn't yet completely lost his sense of personal survival. 

Perhaps like Karl Rove, his resignation over the objections of George Bush is clearly the act of a man who saw that he'd better get while the getting is good.  (Not that this absolves him from perjury but knowing the historical temperament of Congress, they are less likely to pursue him if he's gone.)  Gonzales' former master President George W. Bush may still be drunk on the elixir he quaffs as So-Called Leader of the Free World, but Gonzales apparently hadn't forgotten that big ass bullseye painted across his forehead while they were drinking their asses off, and decided that he'd better get sober before he ended up in the drunk tank.

(Although I think they call that federal prison......)

A lot of folks are going to lament today that the Democratic Party didn't "get" Gonzales and be angry.  I am not angry.  Since I am not about retribution, I am about saving the country from its descent into a rogue state.  So the more of these anti-American architects and masters of George Bush's fascist-in-training government pick up and leave, the greater the chance we might actually get our country back.

I won't even spend time talking about the shame and disgrace that Alberto Gonzales is as a person of color who was given so much blessing given his humble origins as the son of migrant workers, only to have chosen to use it to do evil in the world for the benefit of the white and the wealthy instead of those from whence he came, such that despite all of his awards from various minority Bar Associations, he ends his government career with his name forever remembered as a giant blot on this nation's fundamental principles of justice under the law. I'll let someone else far more eloquent have at that one.

The Rich Get Richer. The Poor? Maybe Homeless

Something that not too many folks are talking about in connection with the mortgage and market shakeouts is the divergent impact of this problem on communities, depending on the demographics.

At present, there still appears to be no meaningful harm to the upper end of the housing market in terms of either devaluation or a flattening sales curve.  For the wealthy, real estate business (as opposed to mortgage-backed securities investment, anyhow!) appears to still be booming.  Inventories in some of the more "upscale" (almost all white and Asian) places to live in the Bay Area are just around 30 days - which means that sales are beyond brisk.

While there is a temporary panic over the fact that jumbo loan financing (that which exceeds $417,000, the maximum loan amount that can be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac) shut completely down two Fridays ago and thus, high end folks had to pony up even more money for closing home deals, the word on the street is that this was only temporary and now business is inching upward again already (no doubt because those who can come up with more cash are doing so.)

Would that the working and middle class had it so good.  With plummeting values and sales non-existent, with some "not upscale" communities (like east and south San Jose, where there are lots and lots of Brown people) now faced with more than a 1 year inventory of homes up for sale, things are grim and California is facing the highest levels of foreclosure activity it has seen in a decade.

At the same time that prices for housing continue to go up - but only if you want to buy in the "right neighborhoods."

In other words, the rich continue to make each other richer, through their homes - median prices continue to rise for them, even as they plummet for those whose only real asset was the equity in their homes.  It at times feels like well-off folks (not to mention the equity purchasers and foreclosure rescuers, for whom RealtyTrac conitnues to be valuable) are presently having an orgy, that they are driving prices up at the same time they know how bad it is out there for more modest homeowners whose struggle to become homeowners far more closely reflects the original meaning of the "American Dream" than the new money which followed the post-Reagan era of personal greed.
The frightening proof in the pudding about what we face here in California as a result of the "mortgage liquidity crisis" is seen in the number of trustee's deeds recorded - after homes were actually sold on the auction block, the ultimate failure of lending that historically both borrowers and lenders have done everything possible to avoid, such that they heretofore were a comparatively rare occurrence in life. 

Not anymore. 

The percentage increase in the most devastating event to occur in a homeowner's life -- one's home being sold at public trustee's sale -- in those California counties which house huge numbers of the poor/working/lower middle-class population in of our state -- particularly in the rural/farmworker counties -- in just one year should bring any decent person close to tears:

San Bernadino County:  986.9% increase

Contra Costa County:  1,154.8%

San Luis Obispo County:  1,200%

Stanislaus County:  1,350%

Monterey County:  1,825%

Yuba County:  2,000%

Kern County:  2,032%

El Dorado County:  2,125%

Merced County:  3,328.6%

Yolo County:  10,200%

(Source:  DataQuick)

That the state's bottom line of trustee's sales is "only" 799.2% more than it was a year ago in light of the numbers I've listed above is something for celebration, only if you're in one of the neighborhoods whose average pulled the listed numbers down to "only" 799.2%.

This is occurring all over the country and while this diary won't post all the data, it isn't hard to find, and confirm.  For those skeptics -- almost all employed by the real estate sales industry at this point -- who insist insanely that all this shakeout of low-income communities is either (a) just a fluke given the high cost of California housing or (b) a natural correction in the marketplace -- I urge them to review ALL of Dataquick's market reports that are publicly available as a starting place: 

For Portland, Oregon (21% fewer homes sold, but at a 2.6% higher price);

Seattle, Washington (23% decrease in home sales yet prices rose 7.6%) 

Miami, Florida (33.3% decrease in sales yet prices rose 5.1%)

Honolulu, Hawaii (in most expensive zip codes, price per square foot rose between 3.7 and 115.2% yet fell in less costly neighborhoods)

Nashville, Tennessee (sales decreased up to 11.8% in most expensive neighborhoods yet prices rose up to 13.3%)

Chicago, Illinois (many exclusive residential areas, such as Lake Forest, Hinsdale, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Oak Park, River Forest, Winnetka and Western Springs, saw sales decrease as much as 39.4% yet prices increase up to 34.3%)

Sure, there were a few communities going in a slightly different direction, where prices were actually going down a tiny bit, but it is (a) tiny and (b) they are all markets which boomed as people fled the central urban areas in the past 10 years -- in search of affordable home ownership:

Denver, Colorado (16.3% increase in sales with 3.3% decrease in price)

Las Vegas, Nevada (43.8% decrease in sales, 3.7% decrease in price)

Phoenix, Arizona (32.8% decrease in sales, 5.4% decrease in price)

Oh well, no point talking too much about the obvious. 

Especially since I didn't write this diary to talk about homeowners. 

What prompted this diary was not the ongoing crisis in the news about housing.  What prompted this diary was this week's effort to help my young son, a hard worker but just starting out, find an apartment for himself, his lady, and their baby who is coming in January.  Because of the sticky wicket of pregnancy discrimination against his woman (another diary in and of itself), my son is currently the sole support for his family.  He makes $21,000 per year.  After taxes, he will bring home around $19,000 of that, since you can't avoid social security and disability taxes no matter what you do.

In the Bay Area, other than living in dangerous neighborhoods or dilapidated housing (and I know what they are, living in the 'Hood myself, so my standards are not the traditional bougie standards) this week I could find no 2-bedroom rental unit on the market for less than $1,350 per month.  $16,200 per year.

(Subsidized housing, you say? Not even - our local county has not had any available Section 8 vouchers since 2001 and their waiting list is, yet again, closed; now nearly every county in the Bay Area is in the same position. )

Fortunately for my son, I can and will obviously be helping his new family with serious financial subsidies, even if it won't be easy for any of us since my income is not All That.  But it is better than them being in the streets; that they at least won't have to face  Yet even when his partner returns to work after the baby in 6 months or so, even between the two of them they will make just barely enough to afford the cheapest unit for their new family which is available right now here in the Bay Area.

That gave me serious pause, but not as much pause as the next question that popped into my mind, which was this:

What is the rental market going to be like in in six months to a year, after the country is fully engaged in the *practical* fallout of the mortgage meltdown crisis? What will rental housing markets look like after hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of families are forced to move when they are evicted following foreclosure?

It is that question which caused me to almost stop breathing.

Obviously, folks have to live somewhere when they lose their homes and, just as obviously they will be renters (nobody is going to allow their home to be foreclosed if they have any ability to avoid it; since they won't be homeowners again for at least 2-5 years simply because of the credit impact of the foreclosure).

But where?

Superficially, at least, one can take some comfort in the 9.6% rental vacancy rate nationally.  But only cuperficially.  But if you scratch that number, two things become clear.  First, in urban markets, the vacancy rate is nowhere near 9.6% - it's been less than 4% for years.

Second, most of the existing rental housing vacancies are higher priced rentals.  One-third (1/3) of all rentals in the United States cost more than $800 per month.  As housing is considered affordable only if it costs less than 25%-30% of gross income or using the most free-market friendly percentages30% of net income, an $800/month rental unit is affordable only to a family who grosses $3200 a month - $37,000 per year.

Before you say "Big Deal, that's not that bad" remember that the median family income in the United States as of the last publicly released data set (2005) was $46,242 per year. And that median family income continues to decrease as it has since the dot-com bust, especially for lower income workers. As of 2005, nearly 1/2 of all US households reported earned income of less than $30,000; 2/3 reported less than income of $50,000. Of the 111 million households in the United States at that time, 42.5 million (38%) of them had total household income of less than $35,000 per year in 2005, despite the "average/mean" income in the United States exceeding $62,000 at that time. 

What does this all mean? Well, it means if nothing else that in 2005, rentals at an $800 rent level were unaffordable to a large number of families.

But it also means that in urban erntal markets, where folks would have signed over their firstborn for a rental at $800 a month two years ago, since many rents were multiples of $800 in price at even that time, most working folks can't really afford to both have a nuclear family and keep a decent roof over their heads.  Take a look at the Bay Area as an example:

Bay Area Housing Affordability Data

This was the case all over the country in 2005. 

Don't believe me? Well take a look at this map, created with the last-reported national data. .  The "lower income colors" predominate all but small financial oasises (oases?) nationwide:

The third thing that one needs to remember is that (according to the reports linked above) nearly 50% of multifamily housing units (apartments, the only thing that's affordable in urban markets) stayed on the market less than 60 days.  This meant that it was rented as soon as availability was announced, practically. 

In other words, there has historically been nowhere near enough affordable rental housing for who needed it, when they needed it.

But that was in 2005.  Before the bottom fell out of the mortgage markets and credit markets, and folks started losing their homes. 

You can probably all guess where this is going.

Things are going to get very very ugly.

Because at some point, those homeowners who are being now wiped out (and wiped out they will be, for they will expend everything to try and save their homes) and will be in direct competition for rental housing with those who are lifetime renters, already competing in a expensive rental housing market that has lately required 2-3 minimum wage jobs to keep a decent roof over their heads. 

We all know what that means.  As is always the case in "free markets", those who have more to spend on rental housing will begin to displace those who have less to spend.  Since, in a free market in which there are many renters, few "affordable" units, and almost no governmental controls on landlord pricing or landlord evictions, landlords can afford to "pick and choose" who to rent to.  And why would a landlord take or keep a tenant that only just makes the rent payment, who could be late at any moment if they lose their job, when the landlord is now being solicited by families that have more income (even if not enough to be homeowners?) Why would any landlord not do what has been the tried and true method to success in the residential real estate rentals market:  rent to the highest bidders with the "best" credit ratings and the most disposible income?

(After all, it's not like we have a right to ask those fortunate enough to earn property to actually *choose* to make less profit off of it for the good of society, or anything socialist/communist like that.  This is America, damnit.)

Since we know the past, we know the future, once former homeowners start flooding the rental marketplace again.  The poor, with nowhere else to go, because God isn't presently building any more land and the land that was previously built already is built to capacity, will be outmaneuvered, and thus out of the few secure and decent places to live that are available to them.  In numbers that nobody knows yet - but will likely rival the dot-com boom, where in places like the Bay Area working folks slept in barns and in cars and in shifts on other people's floors, because there was simply no housing available at all that they could afford to rent.

But who cares about the working poor?

After all, if even before the mortgage crisis hit, many poor renters were still already largely being left out, and across the country decent safe sanitary and affordable housing continued to be out of reach for many working folks, there is no question that as the mortgage crisis continues, the poor will become the transient, the discarded, the homeless, in a free market that encourages property owners to maximize their profits.

The housing crisis dialogue has so far been solely at the owner and investor levels, and Lord knows there is plenty to talk about and to fear at those level, where long-standing working class neighborhoods and communities -- many of color -- are standing on a rug that is slowly being pulled out at one end with everyone standing on it listing and on the verge of toppling.  But the analysis can't stop there, because all those millions of homeowners who are facing possible displaement have to have somewhere to go when they don't have homes anymore.  And the only place they can go already doesn't do its job of housing working folks at a price most can handle.

Those who are seeing and trying to cope with this crisis know this, which is why after a couple of weeks of watching the financial markets masturbate their players with billions of dollars to keep each other standing, all while those markets are pulling up access to credit faster than a moldy carpet -- and thus guaranteeing that millions will be in crisis when their mortgages reset, are speaking up just a little bit louder about the bottom line:

If this crisis is to be solved, it is the homeowners who must be saved.  And fuck the banks, hedge funds, lenders and brokers, unless they are coming to the table to sacrifice of some of their previosuly windfall level profits to make it happen.

Yes, things are so devastating that, at least here in California, non-profits from all sectors, financial to legal, have banded together (which is the Ghostbusters' equivalent of dogs and cats living together; trust me) and called for a six-month moratorium on *all* foreclosures in California until solutions are found. This call was first made in May, when the recorded defaults (the first step in the California foreclosure process) were at around 54,000 for all of 2007.

How time flies in the blink of an eye:  With 179,559 new foreclosures being initiated in the United States in the month of July, 2007, California managed to contribute 39,000 foreclosures (72% of the previous annualized total) to that total in a single month.

I'll end with a rant, one that I have been dedicated to for the past 26 years and continue to believe to the depths of my soul:

Decent, Safe, Sanitary and Affordable Housing is not a commodity.

Decent, Safe, Sanitary and Affordable Housing is a Human Right!

Even if you're not a homeowner or investor.

In the Presence of Giants

Yesterday morning, after a bleary-eyed drive up to the City of Berkeley, CA following a night with Lewis Black at San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall (in which he advocated for the election of Santa Claus rather than yet another same-old same-old politician labeled Democrat or Republican, or, at a minimum, forcing whoever won to wear the red suit as a unifying force for the country) I began my work day to the sounds of the drums first approaching, and ultimately being played to the heavens by the Youth as they danced into Zellerbach Hall.  The conga, the snare, the timbale, of varying rhythm melody yet all nonetheless in harmony with the same, insistent calls.  (Polyrhythmic music, as they some it in today's newfangled music labeling language.  We used to say "The Drums", knowing exactly what that meant.)

The Drums, as a Call to Action.

And as my body responded -- couldn't help but respond, though Lord Knows that part of me that is bougie TRIED to stay in her auditorium seat along with most of the other "professionals"! -- for 20 minutes of that musical Call to Action, as the bodies of virtually every Black person in the room (and a few whites as well) responded because it is impossible not to respond if you HEAR the drums, I knew I was going to spend the day in the presence of giants.

When was the last time you were at a professional conference that started that way?

Yesterday I was fortunate to attend the 4th Annual CraigsList Boot Camp here at Berkeley. The Boot Camp is a one-day training and networking event for non-profit volunteers, employees, and leadership.  Having been done in the Bay Area for the past four years, the Boot Camp is now expanding, traveling to other cities, to replicate the synergy that happens when you take thousands of people all separately dedicated to Doing Good in the World and put them all together.

But, as someone said yesterday, the Bay Area is the incubator.  The proving ground, for political Calls to Action.

A Call to Action that need not -- should not -- be limited to the non-profit world.

I could write about all the inspiration and practical wisdom I absorbed (and shared in my totally limited way) about Doing Good in the World through non-profit action, including the wry wisdom shared by Ami Dar, founder of Idealist.org, the central web portal for volunteerism and non-profit community action these days.  But as will become clear below, I'm not going to do that.

I can't ignore, however, the fierce luncheon keynote by sister Aimee Allison.  It was not just inspiring to those committed to non-profits and the work they do, on the ground in the grassroots (even ringers like me who work for the Man while redistributing as many of his assets as I can through pro bono).  Her call to action was *revolutionary*.  She pretty much indeed called for revolution even as she did not literally say "revolt!".  Revolution against the system, revolution against the boundaries that cause non-profit leaders and organizations to feel they have to "play the game" confusing many of the folks in the audience with her bluntness, revolution against the mindset that one has to sell out one's values and beliefs just to chase the Man's money.  Revolution against the war and what it is doing to the youth in Iraq and here at home.  Revolution against failure, in light of what is happening to our country in the era of Emperor George W. Bush and the coming descent into economic, if not actual, madness of our country.

And, yes revolution against the mindset that real, political, revolution requires activists to put their energies always towards being "in politics" instead of making the equally activist choice to spend energy and commitment and time locally, doing small good works to create the change we wish to see.  Each one, reach one.

(Not bad from a woman who ran for office in Oakland on the Green Party ticket, the Democratic Party choosing to go with the same old, same old broken promises Democratic incumbent, knowing that it would change absolutely nothing for the poor in Oakland and not caring -- because that's how party politics is played.)

Normally I'm sluggish at professional conferences after lunch.  Not yesterday. 

My only disappointment from the experience is that there were only 50 or 60 or so brothers and sisters to hear Ms. Allison -- or the Drums -- out of an audience of nearly 2,000 in Zellerbach Auditorium yesterday to hear her.

I returned home with a wallet stuffed to the gills with business cards from activists in the non-profit world, because I made a point of meeting as many brothers and sisters going Good Works as I could (as well as dozens of others) .  Networking, they call it in the professional world.  To be inspired, to offer my firm's legal help to their organizations to those who expressed a need, to simply feel renewed in their presence.  And I was renewed.  I met brothers who are helping those who have paid their debt to society get reconnected when they are out, leveraging foundation resources to help folks pay their restitution and get jobs and reconnect with the positive aspects of their children and families.  I met sisters who were working to try and unite gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and heterosexual brothers and sisters in the common struggle to attack HIV/AIDS in our youth. I met both brothers and sisters whose sole non-profit mission is to inspire youth teaching *them* how to be activists in the grassroots; training them and teaching them to pick up the torch and raise it high.

At the end, I walked out with three energizing principles of non-profit activism laid down at the beginning of the day by the Executive Director of CraigsList Foundation, Darian Rodriguez-Heyman, still playing in my head, along with the drums that never stopped punctuating them all day long:

Pick Big Problems to Bring Into Your Life

Collaborate, Collaborate, Collaborate

Less is More

I could spend hours writing about how each of these mental slogans resonated with me personally.  But that is not necessary - because the important thing is that these simple prescriptions are apt for activism, period, not just in the non-profit world.  They are just valid for those of us who blog politically, as they are for those who are in the grassroots.

Perhaps they are even more necessary for Leftist activism than even in the non-profit world, given how much drama, infighting and ego politics plague too many blogs on the Left, these days, lessening the effectiveness of them all and almost destroying some of them.  Politics and political blogging is plagued, just as much of the non-profit sector on the Left is, with Drama (with a capital "D"), infighting and ego politics.  Things that, no matter how Evil we call our right wing opponents, are far less distracting to them in terms of actualizing their goals than they are to us who are on The Left.

I could write lots more but I am trying to start actually applying wisdom so I am going to try really hard to apply the "less is more" prescription to my blogging.  Since lots of folks say that my diaries are Too Long (and thus, as a DailyKOS commenter once said to me having not actually read the diary he was commenting about without actually reading the diary at issue, "nobody is going to read this.")That outcome defeats the purpose of my writing, which is to communicate and inspire and reach out to others who are all fighting the same causes, even if in different ways or with a different emphasis.

So, instead of my usual wordy tactics, I'll just issue a simple call to action to bloggers:  get out into the grassroots.  Take your activism into our communities, not just to the self-selected Internet which has passion but lacks too often a sense of what it is like to work collaboratively with real people.  Quoting the most famous campaign of that infamous sweatshop-enabling athletic shoe company, Nike:

Just Do It.

RIP, Nana Baffour Amankwatia II (Asa G. Hilliard III)

©Georgia State University

There are names that instantly put me on the Wayback Machine.  Back to when I was a young college student, far away from home and for the first time really thinking through who I was and what I believed independently from my family's identity and family's beliefs.

Dr. Asa Grant Hilliard III, reported to have passed at the age of 73 a few days ago in Egypt (possibly from malaria) during the annual ASCAC Conference, is one of those names.

The teachings of Asa Hilliard are some of the foundational pillars of who I am today and my approach to Black issues and Black people.  For Dr. Hilliard first exposed me to the idea of Pan-Africanism.  Afrocentrism.  But far more importantly, Asa Hilliard did not just expose me to these ideas:  he then taught me how these concepts mattered, and why they mattered, within the field I thought then would be my career, clinical psychology treating African-American patients.

Not to mention that it was Asa Hilliard who first taught me -- along with other young Black scholars at Stanford in the late 1970's and early 1980's -- about Ma'at.

Asa Hilliard's biography is way too long and impressive for me to accurately cover it all in one diary, so you can find it here.  I can only summarize it briefly.

In the field of educational psychology, Dr. Hillard's work was responsible for elimination of mandatory IQ testing of Black children in San Francisco, as he was the first researcher who showed the cultural biases inherent in the examinations, biases that, when children performed poorly because of them, permanently limited the life chances of youth, particularly those Black youth who but for the testing would be identified as "gifted" through other educational measurements. 

His dedication to improving the life chances and self-esteem of Black children through education was complete, leading him to co-found the National Black Child Development Institute in 1970, while newly resident at San Francisco State.

In later years, Asa Hilliard argued forcefully for the elimination of all standardized IQ testing, contending that the well-known findings of inherent bias and inaccuracy of IQ testing for students of color were simply evidence of a tracking system that fails in everyone to measure what it claims to measure.  He continued to argue for educational psychology's return to models developed to test malleable intelligence as a means of avoiding what he believed was the inherently destructive and limiting messaging of standardized IQ testing on children.  This was true even as he believed in a quality public education for children; Dr. Hilliard was an opponent of the charter schools movement, recognizing the racist original motivations of that movement, and urging Black parents in particular not to allow the public schools to be destroyed by those who impetus for creating the movement were grounded in Black inferiority.  Instead, he argued that the failure of public education -- even in Black-led school districts -- was fundamentally a failure of will through the denial of resources to do whatever it took to educate children, regardless of socioeconomic status, and that this, and that this -- NOT the poverty of the students -- was where much of the problem with education lay when it came to the underperformance of Black poor children and, indeed, all poor children, in the public schools.

You'd have thought that Dr. Hilliard, being quite busy challenging long-standing orthodoxies in the field of educational psychology that had harmed children's educational progress, would have been too busy to develop an alternative speciality.

You'd have been wrong.

From early in his career, Dr. Hilliard became a profilic researcher and writer about Africa, and Ancient Egypt -- Kemet -- in particular.  It was ultimately his pursuit of knowledge in this field that led to his departure from his tenured position at San Francisco State - where he'd served for 18 years, including as Chair of the Education department - to Africa itself, where he lived for several years including in Liberia before returning to accept a tenured position at Georgia State University as Professor of Urban Education. 



Each year, he along with other Afrocentric scholars of the Association for the Study of Classic African Civilizations, which Dr. Hilliard helped found, would have their annual conference in Egypt, which would usually conducted on the banks of the Nile itself by Dr. Hilliard and others.  The theme of this year's conference, which was as much a spiritual journey as professional conference, was Raising Ma'at to the Height of Heaven, is poignant to me, since it was during this year's conference that the severity of Dr. Hilliard's fatal illness became apparent, and passed several days later, just before his birthday.

I was fortunate enough to have sat in several guest lectures of Asa Hilliard's at Stanford as a psychology student, and to visit his classroom several times while he was a professor at San Francisco State University in educational psychology.  The first time I heard him lecture was when he presented his visually assisted lecture, Free Your Mind:  Return to the Source, (which later became a television show but, back then in 1978, it was a slide show) an adventure in primary source images of Egypt and ancient African civilizations.  What I remember most about Dr. Hilliard's teaching was the simplicity of his thesis as it related to the education of Black children, and their psychological well-being.  His central argument, which was that it was necessary to a non-Eurocentric focus on history for the development of self-esteem, and to reconnect children affirmatively with a past, a culture, that we still mimicked today in bits and pieces, by teaching them the greatness of our civilizations in Africa, particular Egypt, which he rightfully pointed out the west has been trying to label to make a non-Black country pretty much forever, given its historical greatness.    Everything he said made sense (especially the Egypt part, since when I was growing up we were taught in elementary school that Egypt wasn't even in Africa - and they even showed us a bogus map at least once that I personally remember to prove it.) 

What made Dr. Hilliard's teaching forceful and engaging pedagogy for me as a college student was that rather than polemic, Dr. Hilliard insisted to all of us that our mission was not to take what he said as the gospel about Ancient African cultures, the Blackness of Egypt and ancient cultures in the East that we pretend were not influenced by Africa and the attempt to eradicate all visual trace of the nexus between them, the ongoing preservation of aspects of ancient belief systems such as Ma'at from Africa in our culture and their suitability as theoretical foundations for treatment modalities when treating Black people, particularly children.  Instead, Dr. Hilliard almost constantly punctuated everything he did and said to us with the admonition to go do the research ourselves, to learn it for ourselves - but that, unlike most folks, we must always always use primary source material for our study.

That is a rule I still try to live by, today.  Even as I am no longer pan-African, but an Afrocentric multiculturalist, in my approach today.  Even though I am now a lawyer, not a psychologist as planned (or teacher, as Dr. Hilliard once told me I should strongly consider instead during one of the two face-to-face conversations we had, way back in the day, at a mutual friend's home.)

Suffice it to say that while his conclusions about what some of that primary source material meant continue to be a subject of legitimate scholarly debate today, and always likely will be, Dr. Hilliard's insistence upon primary source materials as it related to all things African, including forensic research intended to be used to develop teaching methods for African American children, made him not only unquestionably a solid and honest researcher -- but an expert, in the fields of both psychology and ancient African history.

To say that he lived his life without controversy would be a lie, in the sense that as one of the earliest educators in the field of Pan-African studies, he has always had many fierce mainstream critics (some, but not that many, still attack Dr. Hilliard's work not on the grounds that his theories about education, psychology or the nexus between each and African educational and spiritual methods were unsound, but indirectly, making arguments about scholarly failings in other Afrocentric works such as Stolen Legacy to delegitimize the entire field and everyone working in it.)  Given that for some, attacking Afrocentric scholarship has become their life's work, since they are paid handily for it, that's to be expected.

He never let it detract him from the work.  And for those who knew Dr. Hilliard, that was to be expected, too.  Because he knew how important the work was, for us all, and that our very survival as a people depended on it.  This was his way of thinking, and it's hard to argue with it since it makes So. Much. Sense:

No matter where Africans are-on the continent or in the diaspora-our condition is the same. We are on the bottom and descending. The "maafa" [Kiswahili term for "disaster" or "terrible occurrence"] continues to take its toll. We are unconscious, unorganized, unfocused, and lost from our purpose. Our strongest visible leadership is in hot pursuit of minimal narrow goals like 'integration,' 'civil rights,' 'jobs,' 'voter registration,' etc.  We seek minimal adjustment and temporary comfort by assimilating to whatever the political, economic and cultural order may be, even when that order is itself in chaos, or driven by values that are anti-African. . . .

When we "dream," we often do not dream original dreams; we merely seek relief from pain.  As a result, the dream does not encompass a meaningful plan or strategy which is connected to mobilization. . . .

We do not know who we are, cannot explain how we got here, and have no sense of our destiny beyond mere survival.  Most of us hope to hitch a ride on someone else's wagon with no thought whatsoever as to where that wagon may be going. We have no destination of our own.  Ask our leadership, ask our women, men or children on the street what our agenda is.  Ask them what plans Africans have and what we want to build for ourselves within the next five, ten, twenty-five, seventy-five or one-hundred years? We are so used to having others make long-term plans for us that the idea of our own five-year plan is petrifying to us.

I know that those those like me who were blessed to have ever spent a day learning in rapture and awe of his intellect, your thorough scholarship, and his fierce dedication to the cause of education and psychological health for Black youth, send blessings and thanks to the maker for him, now that he is going Home, having started his journey by passing from this life in the place that all who knew Asa Hilliard understood he loved more than any other - the ancient and beautiful land known as Kemet (Egypt).

For the sparks he lit in generations of students of African descent, like me, all over the world, through his candid words and fierce scholarship in furtherance of the cause of Black people, we can not only give thanks, but commit to keep carrying his very heavy torch and using it to light up the diaspora.

So, Rest in Peace, Dr. Asa Grant Hilliard, III.  Rest in Peace, Nana Baffour Amankwatia II, so named by the  Ghanaian village that honored you by renaming.  If there was any man living today who I know spent his life in the glad tidings of hard service to the truth, for the benefit of his people, yet still was able to face the scales of Ma'at with his heart truly lighter than her feather, it was you. 

The "Silver Lining" of Newark and Black/Latino Conflict

If I believe the papers, the murders last week of three promising Black youths in Newark (and the attempted murder of a 4th) have come with a silver lining:  the community of Newark is, at least for now, united, various factions all setting aside the political differences with everyone from Mayor Cory Booker - who is facing a recall effort from disillusioned constituents.  To reports of arch-rival gang members agreeing to (at least for now) lay down their weapons.  All have come together, apparently, in grief and commitment to Do Better, going forward.

Glad tidings at one important level.

Yet I am torn.  I am torn because of the mixed messages about the value of our people, our youth, depending on whether they are seen as "doing the right thing" or "being a bad seed". 

On the one hand, it seems clear that the members of the Newark community have been "shocked" into the welcome understanding that, despite their differences, they are a community.  Thus, when violence comes after one, it comes after all.  The attack is on everyone.

On the other hand, I grieve -- I cringe -- reading that somehow, overnight, that with the murders of these college-bound children, the Newark community has found unity that only days ago it utterly lacked.

IMO, that sense of community should not be affected by the fact that the attack was on "the best and brightest", especially when the victims are the youth.  Or -- and this is the part about which I know reasonable minds will disagree -- even when the perpetrators are. 

Perhaps some of that unity would have been well-spent on the children who allegedly murdered them beforehand.  Or well-spent in the future, as the community heals itself.

But why does it take the senseless death of our "good kids" to accomplish a sense of unity and family in our communities? Are we without meaning to sending the message that "bad kids" deserve to die -- and thus, because they are "less deserving", it is just "same old same old" when they are murdered? Are the only legitimate "victims" in a situation like this those that did not succumb to "badness"?

It seems to me, from where I sit in my 'hood, that so many kids who are victimizers are also themselves victims from an early age:  victims of poverty, victims of confused messaging, victims of an "I got mine, get yours" culture, victims of a society that will spend billions in tax dollars to punish them but almost nothing to support and nurture them growing up, victims simply of folks not feeling that they were a priority, when it came from everything from time to taxes.

Take the kids who are reported to have been in the majority of the killing group in the Newark playground last week, for example.

I do not know much about the murderers arrested in connection with the Newark slayings - so far, there isn't much written about them, other than that they were Latino gangbangers or wannas affiliated with (or claiming, even if not formally jumped into) MS-13.

(Those who have any meaningful experience in the 'Hood understand, I bet, that there is a likely correlation between the suspects signing MS-13, and the fact that the college students were not just murdered, but executed.  No matter how much the mainstream media believes politicians and law enforcement who insisting that "we don't know" that the Newark murderers were really gangbangers and that it seems like it "was just a robbery."

Here's my educated guess, as someone who once was solicited to join a gang - New York's La Familia, open to me then only because I had a Puerto Rican sweetie - 3 decades ago:  The young victims were picked by what all agree was a "gang" to fulfill what they perceived as a precondition of formally entering into "family."  Maybe it was indeed the Mara Salvatrucha, which like the Bloods and Crips and Sureños and Nortenos and all the other modern versions of "gang", usually demands blood for blood; demands the murder of innocents to show the ultimate loyalty to "family".

Stranger blood, when you can get it.

It's sad when one can look back with nostalgia on the days where gang initiation was simply a matter of getting your butt whupped.  Not that I ever experienced it, because I declined my one invitation and, back in the day, you could actually do that and live.)

But either way, I grieve for the children involved here.  I grieve for their mothers.  And fathers.  Both those children who were murdered and those who did the murdering.

How can we not grieve for a 15 year old who has thrown his life away when it's reported that even as he went out to commit madness with his "crew", he was perceived by people as being forced to accompany them, because he was in tears? Is a child like that really "bad" -- so bad that we are given no pause by the fact that his life has now ended figuratively as he was taking literal life? According to the news, 1/2 of the suspects in the Newark murder were younger than the people they killed.

That has to make you sleep worse at night. 

(I do not know what to make of the ringleader who fired the first shots, and apparently also managed to squeeze in shaking down terrified residents and raping a 5-year old in his spare time, all at the ripe old age 28.  I know that it was not that long ago that 28 seemed old, to me.  Mature.  Now, nearly 18 years past that point myself, it seems just barely out of childhood.  Perhaps because it's not that much older than my eldest child.)

The second reason that I have mixed feelings is not about childhood, but about the fact that Newark's new found community unity does not yet appear to confront that in Newark and elsewhere, cultures are colliding.  I admit that this story of apparently random murder of "good kids" in Newark (which already rocked me very hard coming right on the heels of the Chauncey Bailey murder) rocked me to the core when I learned of the ethnic identity of the assailants.  Because this story is getting too familiar for those who keep up with news in urban areas out here in California.

There are some Latino folks out there who are killing Black folks.  Because they are Black. 

This phenomena, which most argue is Mexican-Mafia prison culture spilling out into the streets, has been one of those ugly "keep under the rug" secrets about the members of two downtrodden communities colliding in Los Angeles for several years now.  And, for want of a better term, one of them negotiating space and neighborhood primacy through violence.  Some have referred to it as "ethnic cleansing", this upsurge of Latino murderers purposefully targeting African-American victims.  It certainly gives one pause, especially when one realizes that in LA, the pressure cooker for this type of heinousness at the moment -- police are telling Black folks not to go certain places -- Canoga Park, most recently -- else they place their lives at risk, that's how out of hand it's gotten.

I don't know yet that it's ethnic cleansing, and agree with those who say that the phrase is now being deliberately misused by white supremacists to further their own anti-immigrant agendas.  On the other hand, what do you call it when folks of one ethnicity are targeting strangers for random violence based on their Black skin, as cannot be denied is an increasing phenomena?  If even the Southern Poverty Law Center -- which has made a mission out of following what it deems hate crimes -- is concerned, the rest of us need to be as well.  Those who claim that this is nothing more than "gangs killing gangs" are ignoring, accidentally or otherwise, that some of the victims have nothing to do with gangs, (such as the 14-year old girl Cheryl Griffin murdered in January, or the homeless brother killed in Highland Park.)  Even if any victims of these targeted hits do have gang-affiliations, that fact does not obviate the truth if any of them were also marked for death based on their race. 

Or does it, in a world where we unite as a community over the death of "good kids" but seem not to care much about the ongoing death of "bad" ones?

  I am given pause by the fact that those trying to put the lid on the "ethnic cleansing" narrative are spending so much time dismissing it all on the grounds that "it's just gang members."

So, one has to ask: in light of the execution-style manner in which the four youths in Newark were killed by what all agree was a Latino gang (whether or not it is MS-13; that's totally secondary) over what the police want us to believe is a simple robbery, is the jockeying for position that is infecting LA now spreading to other urban centers cities where Blacks and Latinos share not only their downtrodden conditions vis a vis the man, but living boundaries as well?

Damn, I certainly hope not.

For the record, I don't see what is going on in LA as "ethnic cleansing" so much as jockeying for position using the same anti-Black mindset as has historically plagued new arrivals to our American shores - this time around aided by the lethality of freely-available guns.  Jockeying done by entire generations who have learned both that in America, the bottom of the heap continues to be Black folks (Native Americans excepted; everyone continues to forget them) *and* that when one has no real prospects in life, power is most often wielded most effectively from the business end of a gun.

The same impetus that causes ignorant Black folks to target victims for crime based on assuming they are illegal immigrants, based solely on their visual Latino ethnicity. 

It seems to me that of all the aspects of long-delayed community unity now evidencing themselves in Newark, we need to encourage another dimension of unity from in this horrific crime that unites Blacks and Latinos -- in a good way -- through the common fact that no matter what the motives, it is our youth ("good kids" and "bad kids") whose lives are swirling down the drain.

Do we even have any common purpose, Blacks and Latinos in America? I always believed we did, even though I do not agree that the common purpose needs to be furthered through turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, which no serious researcher now disputes adversely impacts unskilled and low-skilled African-American workers no matter how much well-meaning white liberals insist differently without citing any evidence and by ascribing -- backhandedly -- to racist shibboleths regarding the inferior work habits of Black folks.  I think one could discuss the answer to that question "What is our common purpose" all day long, and have a million views emerge.  And we probably need to do just that.

But it seems to me that one common purpose is self-evident and is a true basis for unity no matter what else is going on with economic competition.  All competition for jobs and power and status in America aside, and there's lots of it right now, Blacks and Latinos still both clearly have the common purpose of seeing our not-white children grow up, thrive and survive in a racist society.

I hope everyone can agree that our youth killing each other is not exactly the way we're going to get there. 

Social Science Permission for the Segregated Residential Status Quo

(As a major hat tip, if you ever want to find news affecting Black folks that evades folks like me who are always burning the candle at both ends, you cannot do much better on the 'Net than Prometheus6. His page is a must-read for me whenever I can.)

I'm thanking P6 because but for him it would likely been a while before I found the article he linked from the Boston Globe about the latest research findings from Hah-vad:

Diversity is bad for communities.

(At least, in the short- and medium-run)

Whether purposeful or simply fortuitous social science timing (I assume the latter), it didn't take long for someone to announce empirical data to psychically reinforce the emotional message of the Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved with Community Schools vs. Seattle School Dist. #1 that segregated schooling resulting from white flight/white residential segregation was not a problem for which a legal remedy should exist.  That someone is Robert Putnam of the Saguaro Seminar, Harvard's think tank on civic engagement.  And now, sure enough, we have empirical evidence suggesting that indeed neighborhood homogeneity -- including racially segregated neighborhoods -- has real benefits and diverse neighborhoods come with a real down side.  Specifically, according to the research the down side of diversity is that mixed/diverse communities are characterized, according to Putnam's research with all of the following indications of social ill:

Reduced levels of voting

Reduced volunteerism

Reduced charitable giving

Reduced levels of neighborly trust

Increased television watching!

One has to give Putnam credit as a studiously honest researcher.  Reading between the lines (because he never says why he chose to do the study but the repeated focus throughout on immigration policy and heavy citation to researchers whose work is in the area of immigration belies an original agenda) it appears that Putnam set out to prove that the diversity created by mass immigration was a net benefit to communities.  Then, when his data came in showing the opposite of his null hypothesis, instead of freaking, he published anyway, admitting that he is seeking to have peer review provide criticism for his new hypothesis that diversity reduces "social capital" in the short- and medium term in all United States communities he sampled.

That takes guts.

(He also appears to have hammered away testing the robustness of his data before taking a position when it first appeared inconsistent with both his hypothesis and his "common sense".  That doesn't happen much anymore and it's very nice to see.)

Putnam also gets major credit as a researcher for realizing that the reasons for the phenemona he observed -- what he calls "hunkering down" in diverse communities, accompanied by a reduction and/or lack of either engagement with, of trust between, diverse neighbors -- may be for very different reasons depending on whose behavior you are looking at and when in time you are looking at it.  He is especially honest when he notes that that immigrants are not immune to these phenomena (even as he tries to give them a pass on anti-Black sentiment, consistent with most immigrants who deal with the question; no surprise there) and that issues relating to African-Americans may well have their genesis in white supremacy/historical discrimination as much as anything else. Even though the purpose of Putnam's research, and this publication, was clearly NOT to answer the question "Why?" so much as identify the phenomena he saw.

(Of course, nobody ever asks "Why" when it comes to interracial relations in America.  It's too loaded a question in a country busy trying to elect a Black man president (or at least one who is 1/2 Black, since so many of his non-Black supporters keep bringing up his white mama) so they can, finally -- where dealing with structural institutionalized racism and white supremacy is concerned -- sing "Free at last, free at last - racism is officially dead we are free at last".)

All snark aside, reading the actual white paper (which I encourage everyone to do by clicking this link) Putnam clearly realizes that his data raise a number of questions about American social policy as it has been advanced by liberals over the past 45 years, but none so clearly as the idea of diversity and integration providing an immediate benefit for Americans and America as a whole.  Putnam seems almost afraid of talking about this too much, perhaps because it violates orthodoxy for those on the left spectrum of politics.  Yet it is clear that he is also afraid of his unexpected findings being misused by evil people for evil, hateful purposes, such as undoing the clock on racial progress.  The tension between both feelings is, IMO, what leads to the most quotable quote in the entire white paper:

It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity. It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.

Given the number of times that Putnam emphasizes points for which he cannot cite empirical support yet outside of the work place (such as his claim that nearly 1/2 of folks now worship in integrated churches, particularly evangelical metachurches; and his suggestion that historically immigrants didn't *really* take on hatred of Blacks as a condition of "becoming white"; it was just a coincidence - obviously he has not read much of the rhetoric of the times) it seems evident that he still wants to believes that in the long-term, diversity is a net benefit, a social good.  And he cites longitudinal work done in other countries to highlight this, perhaps knowing that at present, he can cite no American data to support the claim.

I think it's fair to say that most well-meaning folks share his hope and his view about the future, when it comes to diversity in our country.

But I'm not sure it matters much.  We all know that, in keeping with the rule "Make hay while the sun shines" that Putnam's work is going to bring joy to the hearts of both hard core white supremacists and guilty white liberals (who were most of the ones that engaged in white flight out of the Northeastern cities) all over America.

Given that we now know that the death knell of civic engagement (at least in the short-term and medium-term horizon; nobody has said when the long-term benefits will start kicking in) is trying to live next to folks not like you, it's apparent that the Supreme Court had the ultimate right of it when it disavowed any compelling state interest in integrated education and has fully embraced the idea of grave harm in compulsory integration when one is faced with residential segregation in white-flight communities. 

The science says so.

Thus, with this study collectively whites (and wanna's; increasingly in this country some non-white immigrants treat Blacks no better than the descendants of Europeans do, to the point where they are also engaging in anti-Black employment discrimination, and occasionally outright anti-Black violence) now effectively have permission to continue doing something that they have been doing ever since the Warren Court's jurisprudence started undoing de jure segregation in the 1950's -- make sure that they live away from more than a handful of Black folks.  While now being able to actually cite reasons that have nothing to do with the usual "code" for "I don't want to live near too many Black people".

It's for the good of the community, you see.

So, since we have no idea when all the long-term benefits of diverse neighborhoods will start kicking in, it seems to me that we must come to grips with the fact that what we thought was doing the right thing in trying to integrate may in fact be diametrically opposed to the right thing. 

At the neighborhood level, anyhow.

But.....Setting aside legitimate fears that the reactions to this study will be the same as they were to the 1960's Moynihan paper contendng basically that Black folks' problems all came them being trapped in a "tangle of pathology" pretty much from birth and that -- with deteriorating conditions for most Black folks today -- we'll soon be in yet another era in which "Blacks' only problem is their inferiority" becomes the public justification for ongoing racism, I think the Putnam study nonetheless has a silver lining for the advocates of diversity.

For example, even though it does not itself study this particular subject, after a brief review of the literature Putnam does does offer one extremely positive conclusion about diversity:

There is scientific consensus that in the most intellectually-stimulated workplaces, diversity is a must to achieve the best professional solutions.

In other words, it seems clear that the best thing for American businesses and the workplace is precisely the opposite of what is going on right now and historically, where race-based employment discrimination has been relatively unabated.  There is increasingly no remedy for such discrimination, because the standard of proof under existing law is increasingly unfavorable to worker claims of covert discrimination --with a small death knell coming in the Supreme Court's most recent narrowing of the jurisdictional period for wage discrimination in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire.  With fewer and fewer cases being resolved through either of the two federal agencies responsible:  the almost-crippled-since-2001 EEOC (private employment/contracting) or OFCCP (for federal government employment/contracting), which presently has an estimated 50,000 case backlog, one can only hope to fall on a larger social good to make the case that we should keep fighting to diversify the workplace.

This, it seems to me, give us here in America that larger social good and presents an excellent opportunity for a win-win situation.

I'm willing to move forward with new ideas instead of relying on the old ones that are clearly failing Black folks, largely across the board, and have only driven white racism underground and into the subconscious rather than eradicate it from American hearts.  Anything for a change.  Boldness is, it seems to me, required.

So, therefore, for what it is worth I hereby officially assuage all white folk henceforth of any guilt they might have quietly felt because they turned tail and ran to the politically and racially homogeneous suburbs from whatever neighborhoods Black folks moved into at more density than the average raisin in a bowl of vanilla ice cream the minute we reached the raisin tipping point (statistically, something between 5 and 20% of the population.)  They are from this moment free from any obligation to let us live next door, go to their schools or hang out at their social gatherings (even though their college students seem hell bent on making sure we attend their parties -- at least in spirit!)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be willing to make a deal:  white folks will ensure that the majority of Black folks who are educated and play by the rules can finally get decent jobs at fair pay across the board (finally!) commensurate with their skills and ability despite the  obstacles for Blacks still firmly embedded in Corporate America when it comes to breaking the glass ceiling into positions of power and authority, such that law abiding Black job applicants get treated worse than white criminals, and without regard to little things like whether we have Black sounding names.  In exchange, Black folks will continue to live in racially-segregated neighborhoods with each other and eschew henceforth worrying about whether white students are in our schools, or worrying about having to come together to do things like stump during election time for our favorite candidate or collect funds for the local library.  And we'll all be a lot better off, because we'll all be apparently watching way less TV.  In other words, we're one big happy family during the day when folks are taking care of business and getting things done, and at night nobody will ever again have to worry that someone not like them will be observed through the peephole knocking on the door needing to borrow a cup of sugar at the end of the work day.

For those households like mine in which multiple races live in the same home, we get our pick about where to live, simply because we got it going on like that.)

I can't think of too many Black folks that would turn that type of proposal down, can you?

RIP and Thank You, Oliver Hill

(Hat tip and props to Lilith who posted this comprehensive honoraria of Oliver Hill's life when the first news broke; I'm now posting the draft I had to abandon because work called, as always!)

Oliver White Hill, the last of the titans who brought the original desegregation cases consolidated in the now-moribund Brown v. Board of Education passed this week, at the age of 100.

Oliver W. Hill is not one of those names that most folks think of when they think of Brown.  The late Justice Thurgood Marshall is usually who folks remember.  Occasionally, they remember the master strategist Charles Hamilton Houston who mentored Justice Marshall, as well.
Yet Oliver Hill was bringing desegregation cases just as long as Justice Marshall, having been in the same Howard Law School Class - the Class of 1933.

Beginning in the 1930's, from his home state of Virginia, Oliver W. Hill was fighting the good fight, to provide busing for Black students to access better schools, funding for Black school facilities and texts that were equal to that received by whites, you name it.  Yet most would contend that his highest and best work was in taking the case that begame his contribution to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS.  Hill's case, Davis v. Prince Edward County was ultimately one of the four consolidated separate but equal cases addressed by the Supreme Court's decision Brown v. Board of Education holding segregated schools to be inherently unequal, and thus unconstitutional.

For those who study the civil rights movement, Hill's name is recognized, quietly, as one of the original heroes when it came to desegregation litigation in the US, being awarded with the Springarn Medal award in 2005, for example, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999.  Oliver Hill remained a practicing lawyer advocating for civil rights and civil liberties until he was 90, even after he became wheelchair bound, and lost his sight.  Rumor has it that although Hill had gotten frail over his passing years, he could still recall the cases he brought as if they were the day before.  (That's a Big Deal, to me.  I know I don't have that much game, and I'm only 1/2 way to 90.....God bless that type of commitment.)

But a household name he is not.

I'm not sure he ever wanted or needed to be.  If you look at Oliver Hill's most prominent case, the Davis case, you see many parallels between how he practiced law and the clients he practiced law for.  I see the synergies because the Davis stemmed from the actions of another hero(ine) of the civil rights movement --whose name is often forgotten today --  a young teenager named Barbara Johns. 

In 1951, Barbara Johns was a 16 year old who was sick and tired of being sick and tired of the degraded physical conditions, lack of funding and lack of college-oriented course offerings at her Black high school, Moton High School, compared to the white high school in her town, Farmville, Virginia.  After black parents tried and failed repeatedly to persuade the county to equalize funding and facilities, young Ms. Johns took matters into her own hands.  Showing strategic skills that some of our US military generals could probably learn from, she organized and led a strike of 450 high school students which lasted for weeks.

This strike caught the attention of the NAACP, and Oliver Hill, and (with the students' permission that their case could seek to obtain integrated schools, not just equal funding) led to Hill's filing the Davis case.  As history confirms, they lost, with the Virginia courts embracing segregation so long as there was equality - all the way to the US Supreme Court, which reversed all over courts in its holding that segregated education was inherently unequal.

Yet when it was over, Barbara Johns did not hit the lecture circuit, end up on television, or gain any prominence.  Neither did Oliver Hill.  Both kept working at what they did best, what they had fought for from the beginning.  And, so, just as Barbara Johns died in 1991 a small town librarian, Oliver White Hill passed as a well-regarded, yet still in the trenches rather than in the spotlight, Virginia lawyer.  Neither of them having ever apparently sought the limelight and fame that their bravery and willingness to attack the status quo on behalf of Black folks would have given them a right to. 

Especially after Prince Edward County, furious over what began as Barbara Johns and 116 other student plaintiffs going to the Courthouse with Oliver Hill as their NAACP lawyer and ended with a commandment from the US Supreme Court to desegregate and a series of court decisions shutting down all of Virginia's facile attempts to avoid that, shut down its entire public school system for five years in a collective act of racist defiance aka "massive resistance" rather than comply with Brown -- an act that Prince Edward County apologized for only four years ago and for which reparations in the form of scholarships were provided -- but only after advocated fiercely by a guilty, private white citizen for depriving more than 1,000 Black children the free and appropriate education to which they were entitled.

Oliver Hill remained in the trenches in Virginia that entire time, continuing to fight to desegregate schools, work and other places where racism limited life chances for Blacks in Virginia.  His role in the national movement towards desergregation largely unknown today, except to those who followed.

Despite him not being known to everyone, Oliver W. Hill was nonetheless a central figure in our legal history as a people here in the United States struggling for equality in the 20th Century, and we should honor his memory.  Reasonable minds can and do differ on whether desegregation efforts were truly worth the sacrifices, especially now that Brown as precedent has been gutted using its very own words in that twisted, facile display of right-wing reasoning engaged in by the Roberts Court in Parents Involved with Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. #1.  But there's something to be said for the view held by Oliver Hill, who once contended:  without Brown as the philosophical foundation, Dr. King's subsequent work likely would not have stood a chance.  That may very well be the truth.

A nice way to honor Oliver White Hill, if you are so inclined, would be to donate to the Oliver Hill Foundation, formed in 2000 to support young law students who wish to work furthering the causes of civil rights and civil liberties through law.  Or, check out Hill's autobiography, The Big Bang:  Brown v. Board of Education (available through the Foundation). We need to support institutions of this type -- owned and managed by those with the most at stake -- which funnel cash and support to those up and comings who will have to carry on the work, but might need a little help, in the field of law. 

Two Black Institutions, and One Black Future, Murdered in One Hit

(Photo © Oakland Post, Archives)

On Thursday, the news was abuzz from the moment I got in my car, heading to work.  A Black community hero had been gunned down right here in the Bay Area.  Shot in broad daylight by a masked gunman while walking to his job at 7:30 AM.  His name was Chauncey Bailey, Editor in Chief for the African-American newspaper in Oakland, the Oakland Post.  News Director for SoulBeat, the East Bay public-broadcast television program aimed at Black folks.

(Photo ©Trace3, Flickr.com (2007))

On Friday, the news was abuzz from the moment I got in my car, heading to work.  There was a hardcore police raid going on in Oakland, which had cordoned off San Pablo Avenue, one of two major thoroughfares.  At the time I was listening) to the radio, 15 out of 19 people had been arrested on warrants for kidnapping, murder and other heinous crimes.  This was the news about the raid on The Your Black Muslim Bakery, a fixture in the Oakland community for four decades, having been opened during the heyday of Black Power by a man who called himself "Dr. Yusuf Bey", a member of the original Nation of Islam under the Hon. Elijah Muhammad.     


It was only hours later the KGO folks came out and said straight what they'd been hinting in their usual sensationalist coverage all morning:  these two events were related. 

And so it was.  Because, yesterday, we learned that a 19-year old named Devaughndray Broussard -- a baby younger than 2 of my children, and a handyman at the Your Black Muslim Bakery  -- had confessed to murdering Chauncey Bailey, because he was being "good soldier" of the Your Black Muslim Bakery.

(Photo ©Oakland Tribune (2007))

So with just a couple of shotgun blasts, two community institutions and yet another tiny piece of our people's future went to their literal and figurative death.

When Chauncey Bailey was taken out early Thursday morning, in a broad daylight hit, nobody knew why, although if you knew anything about Oakland you knew that Chauncey Bailey had pissed off a lot of people in his decades as a reporter:  gangbangers, government officials, corrupt folks generally, you name it.  He was Old School Black and by all accounts a reporter fiercely dedicated to getting the news to the Black community despite several adversities, professionally and personally (although he was engaged to be married).  I personally first heard of Bailey in around 2002, when I was really beginning to focus my professional attention almost exclusively on subprime mortgage lending and the systematic targeting of predatory mortgages, predatory mortgage servicing, and predatory mortgage brokering on African-American homeowners, especially here in the Bay Area.  Chauncey Bailey wrote repeatedly about subprime lending and the grassroots efforts by community organizations, like ACORN to help communities like Oakland that were targeted for these bogus loans loans long, long before the MSM started finally caring six months ago when mortgage companies started failing en masse and financial giants like Bear Stearns were melting down from their aggressive willingness to securitize subprime and Alt-A mortgage backed securities, including through sales to hedge funds.

(As a totally unrelated aside, can I get a "Poor Baby!" for the recent troubles of Bear Stearns, parent company of EMC Mortgage Company, rumored to be one of the worst predatory mortgage servicers according to those who keep track of complaints and lawsuits, to the point where even those in the federal government whose theoretical job it is to look into this type of stuff (Federal Trade Commission) actually had to pay at least some attention?  No? Well, OK then =))

When the story of Chauncey Bailey's murder first broke, nobody knew exactly why Bailey had been killed, or by whom, but it was shocking, to say the least, though - because Bailey commanded such respect as a reporter, even from those folks whose feet he'd previously held to the fire.  Besides, reporters don't usually get killed in the line of duty (except in places like Iraq), right?

Well, maybe they do.  Even worse, maybe they do by people who you'd think, from their history, were on the same side as them. 

As appears to be the case with the murder of the pro-Black Chauncey Bailey, at the hands of a "good soldier" for the pro-Black Your Black Muslim Bakery.

The story of the Your Black Muslim Bakery's descent into madness from its glory days is depressing, indeed.  Founded by Yusuf Bay, Sr. and moved to Oakland in 1971, the Your Black Muslim Bakery was initially a neighborhood bakery selling the usual bean pies, carrot cakes and other Muslim foods.  Its founder said that he was trying to serve as a positive influence and role model to Black people, encouraging our entrepreneurial spirit and the ideals of self-reliance.  Thus, Bey, through the Bakery, did all the things that Black-empowerment oriented people at the time tried to do.  Fed people.  Sponsored community education classes, including in particular religious classes associated with the Nation of Islam.  Stuff like that.

One thing that it also did was take in young brothers coming from the prisons having paid their debts to society, and gave them housing they could afford and jobs when no one else would.  Those who did well, and raised themselves up, were apparently ultimately permitted to take on the family surname, "Bey".  And a number of young men over the years did. 

The Your Black Muslim Bakery grew over time into a financial empire, with more than a dozen businesses and various contracts, including with the Oakland Airport.  The Bey family, biological and non-, ultimately controlled a multimillion dollar enterprise that nonetheless served as a community institution in the East Bay at the same time.  Its actions and reputation was beloved by much of the grassroots in Oakland.

Yet over time, there developed a dark reputation associated with the bakery and, in particular, some of the men who made up the Bey clan.  Rumors of assault, kidnapping, and other scurrilous behavior circulated.  All hell started breaking loose in 2003, when Yusuf Bay, Sr. was accused of having molested and raped four young women over a period of 20 years, having fathered several of their children. 


I know those of us who know our history will realize that this type of scandalous behavior with young impressionable girls sounds depressingly familiar.

Bey, Sr. was facing trial for charges relating to one of them when he died following complications for colon cancer surgery in October 2003. Bey, Sr.'s death appears to have been the beginning of the end for the Your Black Muslim Bakery as a legitimate community institution.  (Indeed, today there is still a "Coming Soon!" notice on the page of the bakery's website intended for his obituary, 4 years after Bey, Sr.'s death.)  Within four months after Bey, Sr.'s death, his named-successor and CEO of the Your Black Muslim Bakery businesses, Waajid Bey, disappeared and was later found buried in the Oakland Hills, murdered.  Antar Bey, Yusuf Sr.'s son, was gunned down in what was deemed an attempted carjacking, a few months later.  That led to 19-year old Yusuf Bey, IV becoming the heir to the business empire created as a vehicle of Black empowerment.

Perhaps because at 19 most people don't know anything about business, the organization's downward spiral accelerated at that point.  In late 2005, Yusuf IV decided that he'd personally had enough with liquor sales in the Black community - a sentiment many would agree with.  So he reportedly led a bunch of equally young and foolish folks into several immigrant-owned liquor stores in Oakland and proceeded to trash them if he found out that the owners were Muslims, saying that drinking was against Islam.  Bey IV managing to get himself caught on videotape in the process and, thus, arrested and charged with vandalism and hate crimes (because of the religious targeting) to boot.  Not satisfied, a few months later he allegedly tried to run a bouncer over with his car after being ejected from a nightclub/strip joint, and ended up charged with attempted murder. 

Obviously, this type of youthful exuberance left young Yusuf Bey IV too busy to actually run the business.  It therefore makes perfect sense that he ran it into the ground, such that last year, the bakery ended up in Chapter 11, staving off its creditors.  (Unfortunately, because the bakery reportedly wasn't forthcoming in bankruptcy with its books, that case was involuntarily converted to Chapter 7 recently.)  Meaning that, even before the nightmare of Thursday and Friday, the bakery, and its glorious legacy, was truly finished.

Chauncey Bailey was working on a story about the Your Muslim Bakery when he was murdered.  Speaking truth to power, and carrying on the earlier tradition of the East Bay Express in exposing the ugly and criminal side of the Bey empire.  Just as he'd done regularly where corruption was concerned.

This time, it cost Chauncey Bailey his life.  At the hands of his own people, who claimed to be serving the same community he was serving, for the same stated reasons:  love of, and service to, the Black community.

And it is that depressing, painful, fact that caused me to spend my entire Sunday researching and writing this admittedly-long piece.

I have to ask:  Has the wanton devaluation of life and community that has routinely been dismissed as "ghetto" and the result of a "dysfunctional underclass" now become so entrenched that it will now reach out to claim our most venerable institutions and beloved voices? Are we witnessing the cooptation of instruments of Black power, for the same twisted purposes -- silencing our most important voices speaking truth to power, out of nothing more than ego and greed -- as we accused the Man of having?  And will it again lead to the utter devaluation and delegitimization of our community institutions which, at least in part, did try to do some good even if the flawed human beings in charge of them also did some evil?

If that happens, what happens to our people's hope?

It hurts to ask questions like this about why Chauncey Bailey's life ended on Thursday morning.  Why the Bakery now stands as a symbol of Oakland's shame instead of its Black pride.  It really does.  But despite I think we who love Black people simply have to ask questions like that.

Because if we do not, ghosts of Malcolm X's assassination 42 years ago, also at the hands of folks who had peripheral association with the  Nation of Islam, following what they thought was the lead of Minister Farrakhan (who admitted his rhetoric saying that Malcolm basically "deserved to die" for publicly criticizing Elijah Muhammad for hypocrisy -- also with young girls/women -- and breaking off the Nation created the climate which ultimately led to Malcolm's X's death) may raise up yet again to slay Black folks coming together as a pragmatic solution to our problems, yet again. 

For the record, the thuggish-ruggish rogues posing as members of the Nation of Islam by dressing like members of the Nation claim that they are not in fact affiliated with the real Nation of Islam led by Minister Farrakhan, and the Nation says the same thing.    They say they are, instead, Black Muslims.

I've been alive 46 years and lived in various hoods the entire time.  Somebody please tell me what the difference is, if you're not like me and willing to give up hours at a time just to make sure you know who is who?

Anyhow, everyone says the Nation and "Black Muslims" have nothing to do with each other, and I pray that's true.  I need it to be true even as I have real disagreements with the Nation of Islam's beliefs, belief in ridiculous science-defying fantasies such as Yacub's Tale at the top of the list.  But to date, I have never heard of the Nation of Islam being associated with hating and violence and brutality on anyone, all white folks' baseless and guilty projections whenever they think about the Fruit of Islam and potential violence notwithstanding.  Never.

Except once:  in connection with the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Malcolm X by members of the Nation of Islam, all who I suspect *thought* they were doing the right thing by ending the life of someone they perceived brought "dishonor" to the Nation.

Is the Bey crew going to claim the same thing?  Chauncey Bailey was certainly not Malcolm X, after all.  He was a reporter, and a media man.  Yet he was also a staunch believer in serving the underserved community with news, from a Black perspective and, in his local Oakland way, a hero and visionary.  So in that sense, he was indeed very much like our beloved El Hajj Malik al Shabazz:  a needed voice for our community who was willing to work hard out of love for our people.

And yet Chauncey Bailey has now fallen at the hands of a young man who apparently had struggled long and hard, finding a "family" at the Your Black Muslim Bakery.  A young man who, as so many youth do today, let his sense of absolute loyalties to the organization he felt had lifted him up get in the way of that common sense which says you don't go killing folks just because they say something you don't like, following a leader (Yusuf Bey, IV) of the same generation who, apparently, doesn't realize the difference between self-defense and violent thuggery when it comes to making an otherwise perfectly-legitimate political point about the ongoing exploitation of, and harm to, Black communities through the liquor store industry.    A young man raised under the gang-mentality ethos, making it all about your crew, right or wrong, who said he was just "being a good soldier" when he killed Chauncey Bailey on Thursday.    A young man who was, thus, willing to murder someone old enough to be his father in cold blood on the street trying to save "face" for those persons who he had embraced, because they had first embraced him.

History hasn't exactly repeated itself, but the parallels shouldn't be ignored, either. 

I'm going to end with a personal rant, and plea, knowing that precious few will see it but it will make me feel better nonetheless.  It has to do with all these newfangled "Black Power" organizations that don't emerge with their own identities, but vamp on the glorious institutions of our collective past. 

This posing of young brothers behind the identities of legitimately-established Black Power organizations in order to now claim to speak for Black folks PISSES ME OFF.  We have these folks associated with the Your Black Muslim Bakery, who claim they are "Black Muslims" but not part of the Nation of Islam.  Yet they purposefully dress just like members of the Nation, to the point where if you could have copyrighted the trademark suit and bowtie back in the 1940's, the Nation could now sue these folks for trademark infringement.  And we have the so-called "New Black Panther Party", reportedly founded by Nation of Islam reject the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, an organization so scandalous in its hatred and ignorance that the Huey P. Newton Foundation, heir to the father of the REAL Black Panther Party, felt compelled to call the New Black Panther Party out publicly as posers and deem their beliefs antithetical to the values and beliefs of the Black Panther Party.

In other words, the youth have utterly, completely, misread the messages of the Old School revolutionaries, and appear to be torn schizophrenically between a genuine desire to help Black people and the the New School cultural values they were born and raised in, where rage and selfishness and pettiness are allowed to cause them to do and say Stupid Simplistic Shit.  Stupid Simplistic Shit that sets the cause of all of us back.

(Case in point - what sane pro-Black organization would actually unconditionally *support* "No Snitching" when it is clearly resulting in the escalation of unsolved murders of Black women, men and children all over this country and people feeling imprisoned in their homes out of fear by thugs? Answer:  None - yet the "New Black Panther Party" does, just so they can "stick it to the man" aka the cops.  See NBPP Platform Point #7.)

These "new school" organizations, by failing to establish their legitimacy and through their tomfoolery, run the risk of delegitimizing for the larger society Black folks legitimate claims to freedom with their anger and rage and acting out as opposed to work and sacrifice and education of our communities.  Because they don't have no sense. 

Senate Democrats Choke on Bush's Brass Cojones - AGAIN

From the moment I heard yesterday that George Bush had decreed "No vacation if you don't pass a covert wiretapping bill I will sign" I knew how it would go down.  Odds were better than 75% that there would be a brief public theatre of outrage, followed by quick capitulation by enough Democrats to ensure that Bush got exactly what he demanded and folks would still be on time for their "recess parties". 

And, sure enough, that's exactly how it went down in the Senate, which voted to approve the Republican covert spying bill by a vote of 60-32 thanks to the help of 16 Democrats. 

Not even a serious kerfluffle:  it was over before I got home from work. 

So, as predicted, thanks to Democrats we have from the Senate express reauthorization of Bush's originally-covert wiretapping program, an evil assault on the Constitution adeptly renamed to assuage the ignorant, as all anti-citizen programs implemented by the Bush Administration have been:

I give Bush, much as I despise the man, credit for one thing:  he has balls of steel.  He knew that on the question of covert wiretapping, he had neither the support of the courts nor the American people.  And everyone else knew that Bush needed Congress to sign off on the program because -- even when writing in secret as the FISA court has been -- his DOJ has gotten pimpslapped hard over the wiretapping program at least a few times by the courts now, starting with the fiery decision issued by the Honorable Anna Taylor Diggs last August (a sister's sister, show her some love.)  Yet, as most good hustlers do when they are backed into a wall, Bush took a public position as if he was packing political AK-47's in both hands loaded with something more than blanks in them and simply demanded that Congress give him Americans' figurative privacy wallet.

And, having never learned to tell a real gun from a toy pistol, 16 Democratic senators peed on themselves, and handed it over. 

Sure the authorization (it's not just a reauthorization, since the measure passed yesterday gives Bush even *more* than he wanted, according to the ACLU and Senator Russ Feingold) is only for six months.  But does anyone think that any meaningful testicular or uterine growth is going to happen for the 16 Senate Democrats who folded on this thing in six months - when we are closer to the general election and it will appear even more "risky" politically? 

I've not been elected to Dog Catcher, but let me tell you how *I* would have handled Bush's tantrum yesterday, in light of the political reality that they could not block Bush's veto of any bill they wanted, but still had the majority of the votes in the Senate:

I'd have let him breathe the exhaust in my car as I was speeding away to my vacation.  And I might - if my spare hand were not busy enjoying a highly unhealthy post-orgasm cigarette - have flipped him the bird out my driver's side window on the way down the road.

After all, what exactly was Bush going to do if the Democratic members of the Senate just called him on his bluff to "make them" keep working? What could he have done? Have legislators arrested since they disobeyed his command to "Stay till you give me what I want?" 

From where I sit, the only possible "worst thing" that could have come from the Democrats just saying "See Ya!" when Bush pretended that he had the power to make them stay in session was provoke a Constitutional Crisis.  But we already have of those anyway with the Executive Branch thumbing its nose at valid Congressional subpoenas, so another isn't really all that special.  Given this, what did Democrats really have to lose by not just saying to Emperor Bush:  "Bring it, baby!"?  Absolutely nothing.

But they had everything to gain. Starting with the credibility they've been losing in a torrent of poll anger with Congress since January.  After all, if the Democrats that folks returned to Congress last year for the primary purpose of getting a handle on things -- starting with the War on Terror -- keep asking "How High" just because a fascist-in-training President with a 24% approval rating for his handling of the "War on Terror" yells "Jump", all while kvetching that their legs hurt because they keep landing on the Constitution, what real good to us - or anyone else - are they as a political party?

Obviously, I'm not the only American who feels "not much."  I mean, if Bush's 24% approval rating is poor, and poor it is, what do you call a 3% approval rating for Congress' handling of the war?

I know what I call it.

I call it the Democratic Party working day and night to put itself back in the minority in both houses in 2008, that's what.  Starting with their repeatedly doing chickenshit things like giving into the tantrums thrown by the toddler currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just because they want to go on vacation.

My Second Home @ Maat's Feather

Has been a long time in thought, almost as long in deed, and finally has got enough sheetrock up on it for me to invite company over.

So this tiny post is to announce the launch today of a new, Afrocentric, community blog space, Maat's Feather, and to invite those interested in Black voices and Black dialogue on all things political and non- to come set a spell. This new blog is not intended to replace Political Sapphire; I'll still be posting essays here, same as always, hopefully more than I have in the past year. But essays written alone don't spur thought or thought testing. Only dialogue does, with those of like mind, and not-so-like mind. And I hope that's what takes place there, over time. I hope that in creating a place where that can happen, it will happen. We need it to happen.

Because IMO, Black folks are running out of time to renew our dialogue with each other. A dialogue with others is simply not enough.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

(Cross-posted at my new Afrocentric community blog, Maat's Feather and other sites)

"Can I sit under the white tree?"

"Let me smoke with you white boys."

What do these two statements have in common?



In law there is a doctrine of criminal law that we all learn in first year, called the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.  The doctrine provides that evidence seized through a violation of constitutional rights is so fundamentally tainted that it cannot be the foundation of a prosecution.  In other words, the fruit may be beautiful and juicy and perfect - yet it is still rotten to the core, because from the root to the branch it is poisoned with evil.

Such is the case with the tree, literally and figuratively, from which six young brothers lives hang in the balance.

And it all started with a high school student's request to sit under the "white tree" in Jena, Louisiana last September.

What is most notable about this story is how utterly disinterested the mainstream media has been, by and large.  Here are some additional links to get you quickly up to speed:

Young Black Males the Target of Small Town Racism

Jim Crow Injustice in Jena, Louisiana

6 Teens Facing 80-100 Years Without Parole

A Troubling Song of the South

In other words, six young black men -- children, really -- are on trial for various degrees of assault/attempted murder on a white boy whose ego may have been wounded but whose physical injuries were comparatively minor, following their finally getting sick and tired of being sick and tired.  The first, Mychael Bell, has already been convicted of deadly assault and faces 22 years in prison.

  By a white judge, trial by an all-white jury filled with all-white witnesses (other than the defendant, of course) brought by a white prosecutor who made clear where he stood from day one when he warned the Black students of Jena who exercised their First Amendment right of protest from the get-go that

I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.

If that's not poisoned fruit, I don't know what is.

To me, the white tree in Jena is the poisoned tree I learned about in law school, literally, even though search and seizure is not the issue.  It may grow majestically still but it is evil from its root to its branch.  And the fruit of that poisoned tree is the legal system's systematic extermination of six young black lives who were merely standing up for their dignity and lost their patience when the grownups failed to do their duty.  The fruit of the poisoned tree is the empowerment of the skinheads in training whose idea of a joke was hanging from the tree one of the most hated, terrorist symbols of this country's history where Black people are concerned after Black children merely did what they had an absolute right to do:  sit under what I bet 95% of the folks down in Jena -- white OR black -- when asked would agree is God's tree. 

But the poisoned fruit that is waiting to be grown is the subliminal reinforcement of a message that, at least in theory, folks keep insisting was stamped out decades ago:  the message that to style yourself as the equal of whites who don't see you that way, such that you complain about your rights, is a potentially-fatal mistake.

This is not the first time that this message has been recently sent, from where I sit.  Indeed, this message never really completely disappeared.  But I think it's fair to say that it has been increasing, and accelerating, as we again enter an era in which folks don't have too much compunction about letting their anti-Black show - publicly. 

For those not persuaded that the tide has turned, and not in a good way, here's a brief recap the last decade of our collective trip down memory lane.  Just in the last decade, we've seen the quiet return of two things that used to be a daily occurrence where Black folks are concerned:

Use of Terrorist Symbols:

The dogs are back.

The "Whites Only" signs are back.

The nooses are back too.  Damned . . .Near . . .Everywhere.

The church burning is back.

The suspicious house arson is too.

I might say we were still OK since no one has yet reported seeing the ghostly sight of the Night Riders again, but then I remember what P.E. cautioned a while ago now:

Now you can't see who is in cahoots

'Cause the KKK is wearing three-piece suits.

Excessive Force Against Black Suspects

Sean Bell? Dead

Amadou Diallo? Dead.

Kathryn Johnston? Dead at 92.

Alberta Spruill?  Scared Dead.

Timmy Thomas and Michael Carpenter? Both Dead (plus 13 others in Cincinatti in the past decade).

Cory Maye? Dead Man Walking.



Didn't we supposedly get past all this back in the day (1960's?) Does anyone even notice, or are we too focused on the gettin' day to day to care?

Well, I have noticed, and it's not in a good way.  We need to do something.  Or else, the answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this diary may become painfully obvious to us all:

Each, having been spoken by someone reaching out across races in good faith, represented the beginning of the end, literally or figuratively, of that Black person's life. 

That's a history we damned sure don't need to repeat.  The hundreds that protested in Jena, Louisiana yesterday are a start.  But we need our collective voices heard, loudly and insistently, that what happened to Mychael Bell will not happen to the other 5.  There are many who are now trying to make it right, including the ACLU and law firms like mine who are stepping up to make plain we WANT to partner pro bono to try and both undo the harm to the young Mr. Bell's life *and* collaborate with local defense lawyers to make sure it is not repeated 5 more times.  No matter how many all white juries they try and come up with down there in Jena.

Money couldn't hurt, either:  the majority of these children either couldn't make bail at all last year, or their families had to go to the bottom of the barrel to find money, and it took a while.  Every little bit helps. 

If you're lacking cash or plane tickets, you still have the power of the pen, so use it.  Tell the story.  Write to politicians up and down the Louisiana food chain -- after all, they are out there now trying to persuade folks to vote for them, in both parties.  Demand that they take care of our kids who have been wronged in this case -- and yes, they are OUR kids, whenever this happens, even when we think they did wrong.  It's now or never, IMO.  And, if you can, mobilize to support these children, as folks are trying to do.

Because if society doesn't take care of Black folks when we are harassed because of our race *and* feels free to punish us severely when we try to take care of the problem ourselves, what options remain but a return to the Good Old Days?  Remember, if there is one thing the case of the Jena 6 should tell us, it is that they don't have to literally hang us from the tree anymore to lynch us just as dead or figuratively dying.