Before everyone turns on Michael Vick, lets remember he’s innocent until proven guilty
Michael Vick
by Deborah Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com
You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut, paranoid or mad-at-the-world to insist that Black Americans run an inordinately high risk of being unfairly accused, prosecuted, tried and convicted. A slew of reports, both government and private, have documented the "special" treatment that Blacks--especially Black men--get from the so-called justice system.
A particularly famous study of nearly a decade ago exposed the scandal: If a young Black guy and a young White guy were each caught with drugs, and both were first offenders, the Black guy was more likely to be arrested, while the White offender was sent to rehab. If they were both arrested, bail was either denied or exceedingly high for the Black offender, while the White offender was released on his own recognizance or on a very low bond. If they were both to be prosecuted, the Black offender drew a more serious charge than the White offender. If they were both sentenced, the Black offender got prison time, while the White offender got probation. And if they were both sent to prison, the Black offender got more time and in an adult prison, while the White offender got less time and was placed among other youths.
And that’s not to mention the high rate of false accusation or wrongful prosecution and conviction for Black men, which is the real--and only--reason we cheered for O.J.
Last week, the feds brought a felony indictment for a dog fighting conspiracy against Michael Vick, the dynamic quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, and the lynch team has already become a mob. They want Vick’s head.
It may be that Michael Vick is guilty. He will need a dream team to give him a fighting chance in court. Fortunately, he can afford good, experienced, hard-driving attorneys and not have to depend on a court-appointed lawyer with too many clients and too few resources to give Vick the kind of defense he’s going to need to avoid the steep fines and up to six years in prison a conviction would bring.
But, it seems we owe him the benefit of the doubt that, if the heinous activities occurred on his property as alleged, he was unaware of it--though, he surely should have known--or that, if he knew, his crime was to let it go on.
We owe him that fair doubt because it is the only protection any of us has against frontier justice and kangaroo courts, and we must defend it at every turn.
Besides, we need to believe that Michael Vick was nothing worse than irresponsible, stupid or naïve--another privileged man taken advantage of by low-lifes and ingrates who have never outgrown their idiocy.
We need to believe that because we need to believe that fame, money and opportunity can take you out of the game and allow you to relax and enjoy a good, legal high-life, free of notices posted to the door, persistent phone calls from collectors, police sirens or boys with glocks turned sideways.
At this point, it doesn’t look good for Michael Vick. And what a shame it would be if the dastardly charges turn out to be true because Vick not only could have been a contender, he was one--a phenomenon who could do it all. He could throw like the blazes, had uncommon strength and could run as fast as any wide receiver, running back or cornerback on the field. No wonder some folks are eager to take him down. Hatin’ is not just a street game.
If all that talent, privilege and potential go to waste in a trough of ignominy, conviction and prison time, it will be an awful day for pro football, for Michael Vick and for the people who believe that you get to give up desperate measures when desperate times end. Otherwise, what’s the hustle all about?
It will also be a sad day for the benefit of the doubt, for it would be foiled again.
But, until it is, may we hold onto it for dear life. We owe it to what the principle has done for us. We owe it to Michael Vick. We owe it to what we know about justice gone awry.
|
Do you know (or care) who your lawmaker is?
by Mikel Kwaku Osei Holt
If I had a dollar for every person who has asked me to identify his or her political representative, I could probably afford to fill up my gas tank for the rest of the decade. Or, if gas climbs to the $3.50 mark again, at least until Reverend Al Sharpton needs a new perm.
Black newspapers have historically taken on the role as a resource and informational service for our ‘constituents.’ Whether it’s to investigate a complaint of discrimination, or to point folks in the right direction, we’ve served as an information service for more folks than 211 and 411 combined.
Some folks think we’re an unofficial arm of government or a branch of the civil rights movement and thus are responsible for helping the ‘have nots’ navigate their way out of problems, investigating or exposing institutional racism and serving as a liaison between the downtrodden and the Educrats or Bureaucrats.
Yet in a significant number of cases, we’ll end up encouraging a petitioner to contact their respective elected official, who, believe it or not, is actually paid to deal with their concerns, complaints and questions.
I’ve long since accepted the fact that most of our concerned callers are not only ignorant of the responsibilities of various levels of government, but have no idea who represents them (generally, if they knew, they probably wouldn’t be calling us).
It has been said we get the government we deserve, but it can also be surmised that we are the victims of that political dichotomy, a perplexing scenario that is the byproduct of our ignorance and apathy.
Granted, some can attribute our detachment from the political process to factors beyond our control. (That’s not to validate the racist assessment of former Democratic Party leader Chuck Chvala who before being dethroned said Black legislators are nothing more than ‘tokens.’) For the most part, we are outnumbered and outgunned at every level of government, and since we are unwilling to create a mechanism to enhance our representative clout, find ourselves playing a game by someone else’s rules.
That point was clearly illuminated by a discussion on Black radio last week.
For over an hour I listened as three state representatives articulated their frustration over the state assembly version of the state budget. For those who have not kept up with the political chess game, after the legislature’s joint finance committee (which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats) advanced a myopic and controversial version of the governor’s proposed budget (along partisan lines), the Democratically controlled senate introduced its version with the highest tax increase in U.S. history--albeit one with worthy goals such as universal health care.
As expected, the Republican controlled state assembly responded with a proposal that held the line on taxes, but did so by cutting seemingly every program in the state, including shared revenue, which will mean less money for Milwaukee.
The response from assembly Democrats was predictable as it was enlightening: the budget was called everything from draconian to racist. Listeners were encouraged to call or write to sway the process. But call or write who? The Republicans don’t represent the central city, and the Democrats are in the minority.
Someone who called me after the show asked for a list of key Republicans, and concluded the conversation by asserting that she would not vote for them next year if they didn’t amend their "mean spirited" budget.
The reduction in shared revenue, she asserted, would mean County Executive Scott ‘Holloway’ would be forced to cut Milwaukee’s police force, Mayor ‘John’ Barrett would have to close dozens of public schools and School Board President ‘Paul’ Blewitt would be forced to lay off Superintendent Darnell Cole.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a little bit. But it’s not far from the conversation.
I would venture to guess that the average person can’t name their alderman, supervisor or state representative, much less their school board director. Only a small minority knows that the Milwaukee Common Council votes on the school board budget, that most county services are mandated by the state (which under funds essential programs forcing local property tax payers to subsidize the courts, mental health services and the district attorney’s office), or that Milwaukee citizens pay the salary of the head of the police union, who was directing traffic and organizing police officers involved in the Frank Jude lynching seconds after the assault was reported.
That’s not to imply that I’m an expert on politics or our political system. There’s a lot I don’t know, or can’t explain. For example, why do county supervisors carry badges? Is the Common Council condoning criminal behavior by factoring in parking fines in their budget? How effective is the legislature’s joint finance committee if their "compromise" budget is so easily rejected by first the senate and then the assembly? A conference committee, whose make up is generally similar if not identical to joint finance, then rewrites that budget.
Oh yeah, what’s the difference between a fee and a tax?
That said, I would still surmise I’m probably more politically attuned than the average citizen, and if I were to guess, if a political literacy test was a requirement to vote, less than 25% of Americans would be eligible (which means nobody would be around to elect school board members since only 15% of us participate in those elections even though 95% of us complain about the quality of education).
Let’s put my premise to the test. Let’s see how many of the following questions you can correctly answer:
Can you name your alderman, supervisor, school board director, state representative, state senator, congressperson, and senator?
If your garbage weren’t picked up for a month, which politician would you call?
The MATC board, sewerage district and Miller Park stadium board have taxing authority. Who "elects" them to their respective offices?
How many members make up the county board of supervisors? How many aldermen are there?
Who is the president of the Milwaukee School Board?
What is the Electoral College?
Who is the city comptroller, the treasurer, and the city attorney?
County supervisors are officially part-time representatives, and most hold other jobs. Yet a proposal was recently introduced to give them raises.
Are supervisors overworked? (Which would explain why I have never heard of a constituent who has been able to reach one by phone on their first attempt.)
What are the basic philosophical differences between liberals, moderates and conservatives?
Can you be a conservative Democrat?
Are all Democrats ‘liberals’?
Do you have to be a paid member of a political party to run under its banner? Sheriff David Clarke did so last year, what were the ramifications?
The two major parties run state government. Are members obligated to follow their party platform; even if is in contrast to the Black agenda?
Have you ever read either of the major party’s platforms?
What percentage of the American electorate are paid members of a political party?
Who has more clout: you, as a taxpayer and voter, or special interests who control the political climate, influence politicians and contribute the largest sum to candidates?
Are you a regular voter?
Before you answer that question, I have the election results from the last several contests in front of me. Less than 20% of Black people vote regularly in the school board elections; excluding the last mayoral race, about 35% of Black eligible voters participate in non-presidential races. Based on those abysmal statistics, should anyone be surprised so few of us know who our representatives are? Or, despite the community wide outcry for political accountability, why finding a Black person at a political hearing is about as rare as finding a Black person at a meeting of the Southside Organizing Committee.
Which is an appropriate segway for the final question: Have you ever attended a political meeting, at any level of government, written, called or sent otherwise contacted your alderman, supervisor, legislator, governor, congressman, senator or dog catcher to provide insight or opinion on any subject?
I won’t provide you with a scorecard, you can figure out where you stand and how truly involved or knowledgeable of the system you are. And I’m not trying to denigrate you if you fall in the pathetic, apathetic or ignorant categories. In truth, you have a right not to participate in the political process. You don’t have to vote, and there’s no law that mandates you participate in the process. In fact, apathy is a right, and there are many with legitimate reasons for turning their backs on the system. In fact, some say apathy is in itself a vote.
Following that train of thought, I would be remiss not to make mention the flip-side of this political coin.
If I had a quarter for every reader who called to complain about their "elected official," the government bureaucracy, Educrats, Bureaucrats and Negrocrats (brothers and sisters with good paying government jobs who forget where they came from or think taxpayers’ revenue is "their" money), I could afford to take a vacation to one of those Third World countries where people put their lives in jeopardy to participate in the political system we take for granted.
There are, sadly, Black politicians who could benefit from counseling to explore their delusions of grandeur, some who forget who they work for, and others who are as questionable in their personal conduct as Michael Vick is with dogs.
Fortunately they are in the minority.
There are also Black politicians whose careers are tenured on Black apathy. How else can you explain their repeated reelection?
Speaking of reelection, can you list any significant legislation, or pork, your representatives produced in their last term? In truth, tell me one bill or ordinance--any legislator--from senator on down, has successfully engineered during their tenure?
The truth is that most people can’t (I can because I monitor them; it’s my job). So explain why you keep electing them. Is it their good looks? Their public persona? Their impressive literature?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: most Black politicians are elected based on their ability to articulate and blame others for our problems, and not based on solutions they bring to the table.
(Every candidate who has walked through my door for an interview has expressed concern about crime, unemployment and economic development. Rarely do they offer a plausible plan to alter the status quo.)
Which leads me to my final assessment.
The average person apparently has little understanding of what government—politicians--can and cannot do.
How many times have you heard someone say they (politicians or government) has a responsibility to create jobs, employ the unemployed?
Truth is, that’s not in their job descriptions, and they couldn’t even if they wanted to, even the minimum wage, which was introduced by politicians who make over $100,000 and collect benefits in excess of $50,000 annually.
For the record, politicians can’t legislate attitudes (i.e., integration versus desegregation), regulate civil behavior--i.e. stop people from committing crimes--or make people take advantage of the public school system.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee you free health care, a white house with a picket fence, or chicken in every pot.
And in truth, looking for government, or politicians, to solve the myriad of problems facing the Black community is as wasteful as writing a letter to George Bush to end the war in Iraq.
If you’re waiting for your friendly neighborhood politician to solve the problems of poverty, dysfunctional families, teen pregnancy, drugs or the spread of venereal disease or to rescind Starbuck’s decision to raise the price of its already overpriced coffee, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Look in the mirror for he (or she) are the only representative with solutions to those problems.
You can expect them to respond to your calls within a reasonable amount of time, protect your financial interest (not tax us to death), and work full time to improve the general quality of life.
They are entrusted to enact laws to improve public safety, provide for the general welfare, keep our streets clean and regulate our commerce, without limiting opportunities for growth and prosperity.
But they generally need our help in the form of guidance and support.
Thus, it would help if you involved yourself in the process, weeding out incompetent politicians, and most importantly, understood their areas of expertise and influence.
And the best way to insure that the process works effectively is to start by knowing who they are.
Hotep.
|
Clarence Thomas: A Lost Cause--Part I
by George E. Curry--NNPA Columnist
Clarence Thomas is such a lost soul that when adverse, race-sensitive 5-4 Supreme Court rulings are issued, everyone knows that he has already voted with the conservative majority before the votes are officially announced.
Knowing how Thomas is going to vote on a case involving race is as reliable as predicting who is going to be on the next cover of "O" magazine.
Still, Thomas’ opinions are worth reading from time to time if for no other reason than to look at how he seeks to justify the unjustifiable. The court’s recent decisions limiting the use of race in pupil assignments in the Seattle and Louisville school districts lifts yet another curtain on Thomas’ delusional thinking.
If you think that’s a harsh assessment, consider this gem from the court’s lone Black member: "...My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan’s view in Plessy: ‘Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens’...And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown."
Let’s take each comment in reverse order. First, Thurgood Marshall, the first--and some would argue, the only—African American to sit on the court, would turn over in his grave at the suggestion that he and Clarence Thomas were fighting for the same issues.
They are polar opposites. Both Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. pretend to be acting in the best tradition of the Brown decision when they ruled against the two school systems that implemented race-conscious student assignment policies.
Roberts wrote for the majority, "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.
"The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again--even for very different reasons."
Justice John Paul Stevens, referring to segregated schools prior to Brown, wrote in his dissent, "The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only Black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of White children struggling to attend Black schools. In this and other ways, the Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this court’s most important decisions."
Misrepresentation is not limited to the Brown decisions of 1954 and 1955. In falsely claiming to be acting in the tradition of Justice Harlan, Thomas and his compatriots like to cite his purported belief in a "color-blind" constitution. Like many other things, conservatives take the quote out of context.
In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring separate railway cars for Blacks and Whites. In his dissent, this is what Harlan said:
"The White race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.
"But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.
"The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved."
Harlan was seeking to expand constitutional protection, not limit it. The Brown decision overturned Plessy as the court’s majority unanimously adopted what had been Harlan’s minority view.
In his opinion, a shameless Clarence Thomas tried to compare justices who backed the Seattle and Louisville school districts to arch-segregationists who opposed Brown.
"The segregationists in Brown embraced the arguments the Court endorsed in Plessy," he wrote. "Though Brown decisively rejected those arguments, today’s dissent replicates them to a distressing extent....The dissent argues that ‘weight [must be given] to a local school board’s knowledge, expertise, and concerns, and with equal vigor, the segregationists argued deference to local authorities.
"...The dissent argues that today’s decision ‘threatens to substitute for personal calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation’ and claims that today’s decision ‘risks serious harm to the law and for the Nation.’
"The segregationists also relied upon the likely practical consequences of ending the state-imposed system of racial separation...
"And foreshadowing today’s dissent, the segregationists most heavily relied upon judicial precedent." Thomas declared, "What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today."
And what’s wrong today is wrong forever.
(Next week: Thomas’ Strange View of Integration.)
George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of "Emerge" magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. |
Letter
to the Editor
|
First African American news director explains departure of DeMarco Morgan
Lori Waldon
To the Editor:
As the new WISN 12 News Director, I felt compelled to write a letter to your newspaper following Barbara White’s I-Witness column about the departure of WISN 12 anchor DeMarco Morgan.
Barbara asked how WISN 12 could let DeMarco get away. She wrote, "What reason do we have to watch WISN 12 now? Okay TMJ4, Fox6, I-Witness is up for grabs and so are many of my friends. ...Shame on you WISN 12, DeMarco is your loss."
DeMarco’s departure is indeed a loss. During his three years at WISN 12, his contributions to the station have been invaluable.
He’s worked tirelessly to find positive uplifting stories about Milwaukee’s African American community.
He’s built strong sources and contacts to ensure that all voices are heard and not forgotten. He is a wonderful role model and mentor for young people interested in journalism.
He was not only a bright star at our station, but with our parent company, Hearst Argyle.
Because of his valuable attributes, WISN 12 management strongly encouraged DeMarco to renew his contract with us.
But as we learned, DeMarco got a wonderful opportunity to move on to Miami and he accepted another offer.
So with mixed feelings we say goodbye to DeMarco. We are happy to see his success, but sad that he is leaving us.
But I assure you that WISN 12 and Hearst Argyle are committed to diversity. I am also very proud of our current anchors.
African American anchors appear seven days a week at our station.
We are lucky to have anchors Toya Washington, Kai Reed and Portia Young and reporter Mike Anderson. And as the news director of WISN 12 news, I can tell you our entire news team works very hard to bring fair, balanced, and responsible news coverage to the Milwaukee community. We value all of our viewers and work hard to earn their trust.
On a personal note, one of the wonderful things DeMarco did was to introduce me to many people in the Milwaukee community.
I am proud to be Milwaukee’s first African American TV news director--and also the very first in the entire state of Wisconsin. I hope "Milwaukee Community Journal" readers will continue to watch WISN 12 news, and will join me in wishing DeMarco Morgan much success.
Sincerely, Lori Waldon
News Director
WISN 12 News
|
