From Celebration to Mobilization
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 8-15, 2009
One year ago, the Americans joined the world community in celebrating the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. After years of preference to the greedy over policies for the needy we all embraced a new Administration, committed to pitching a wider tent under which all Americans could fit.
The highest policy priority of President Obama’s Administration has been health care reform. Throughout the summer of 2008 Congressional Committees in the United States Senate and House of Representatives worked on crafting legislative bills that could be enacted into law. As legislators worked, so did the leaders of the Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
This week, the United States House of Representatives voted to pass a health care reform bill, notwithstanding an amendment to restrict the provision of abortions in health policies.
Prior to the vote, the 51 Member Organizations of the Black Leadership Forum moved from celebration to mobilization.
Led by the National Urban League, National NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, National Conference of Black Mayors, National Council of Negro Women, National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, National Action Network, and the National Dental Association, the Black Leadership Forum moved from reactive to proactive.
A “civil rights war room” was established in Washington, DC to mobilize chapters and affiliates of the Black Leadership Forum to contact their Congressional members and demand progressive health care reform. One key element needed in the final legislation is an option to private health care providers—a government-run public option.
A strong public option is critical in countervailing the negative impact of private health insurers’ ability to make health care un-accessible and un-affordable. Currently, the health care industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. In other words, health providers can set fees “willy-nilly”, without violating laws. In many states, there are one or two health providers from which the public can choose. Such is not a choice at all. I submit that health care bullies violate moral laws by profiting on the backs of working people.
Health care in the United States of America should be a right and not a privilege. Congressman John Lewis, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives said it best: “We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to lead this nation into a new era, where health care is a right and not a privilege.”
Accordingly, the war room provided talking points and a toll-free telephone number connecting callers to their respective members of Congress. Member Organizations designated people to staff the war room for 10 critical days prior to the vote in the House of Representatives. In the best tradition of unity, Member Organizations left their individual “logos at the door” and worked in tandem to push for a strong public option in the legislation.
In the end, we proved that, contrary to naysayers; national Black organizations can (and do) work together to produce policies for the public good. Moreover, the Black Leadership Forum sent a message to our adversaries that we are proactive as leaders on legislation for the people.
In the words of the music-recording artist known as the O’Jays: “…got to give the people, give the people what they want.” The American people (over 65% according to CNN) want and need health care reform. In particular, the nation needs healthcare that is accessible and affordable. Now!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
DNA Testing: Today's Get-Out-Of Jail Card
DNA Testing: Today’s Get-Out-of-Jail Card
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 11-19, 2009
This week, United States Attorney General Eric Holder directed the United States Department of Justice to review a Bush Administration policy virtually excluding DNA testing from defendants in federal cases. In addition, the U.S. Attorney General favors the expanded use of DNA testing is federal courts.
In 2004, the Innocence Protection Act of 2004 was enacted by the United States Congress to ensure greater protections under law for the wrongfully convicted. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Act nearly in tact; however, the U.S. Senate conjured up a catch—waivers to DNA tests that could provide exonerating evidence by defendants in consideration for lesser sentences.
In response to the Innocence Protection Act, the Bush Administration via U.S. Attorneys’ offices required some defendants to waive their right to DNA, despite such a right provided for by the Act. Although waivers were only filed in cases where guilty pleas were entered, the plausibility of coerced confessions of guilt or cases where defendants pled guilty to charges in exchange for lesser prison sentences were not considered. The process was politicized.
The most diabolical aspect of the policy was that defendants who filed DNA waivers were barred from ever asking for DNA tests, notwithstanding the existence of exculpatory evidence in such tests. In other words, a defendant was forced to waive science for a softer sentence, even in cases where their innocence existed. Seriously?
The use of DNA evidence became widely used around 2003 and has had a dramatic affect on exonerating innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes. For example, following the conviction last year of high-ranking police officers in Chicago of coercing confessions through torturing the accused several people have been released from prison as DNA evidence was admitted and exonerated them from the crimes they were forced to admit.
However, the full effect of DNA testing in federal courts is yet to be witnessed. So far, 243 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA evidence (25% of which gave false confessions, and 16 of that number pled guilty). Seventeen wrongly convicted people have been exonerated. All 243 who have been exonerated have been in state cases. In fact, 97% of federal convictions arise from guilty pleas, thereby eliminating the use of DNA tests.
Most federal court districts have enacted legislation allowing inmates to request DNA testing, and the majority of cases permit petitions, post guilty pleas. Some high-volume federal districts such as the District of Columbia, Manhattan, New York, and Alexandria, Virginia commonly use waivers. Twenty-four U.S. Attorneys do not use waivers at all.
However, help is on the way.
The DNA process will soon expand to include biological data. Currently, DNA data does not reveal whether the DNA sample originated in semen, blood, or other tissue. The improvements in science are way overdue for the wrongly convicted—disproportionately African Americans and Latinos.
In 2009, the inmate population in the United States is over 2 million, with nearly 75% ethnically Black or Brown.
In the board game Monopoly a “Get-Out-of-Jail Card” is won on the chance the player rolls the dice and lands on the appropriate box of the board. The reality for defendants of being wrongfully convicted due to poverty, poor legal representation, or overly ambitious prosecutors should not depend on a “roll of the dice” or is it appropriate that so many are jailed for so little evidence. The playing field for the falsely accused and convicted should be leveled so that scientific evidence is available in order to ensure the nation’s promise of liberty and justice for all.
Today, science in the form of DNA testing provides a genetic “Get-Out-of-Jail Card” or better still: a “Not-Go-to-Jail Card.” I love the proper use of science for just public policy!
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 11-19, 2009
This week, United States Attorney General Eric Holder directed the United States Department of Justice to review a Bush Administration policy virtually excluding DNA testing from defendants in federal cases. In addition, the U.S. Attorney General favors the expanded use of DNA testing is federal courts.
In 2004, the Innocence Protection Act of 2004 was enacted by the United States Congress to ensure greater protections under law for the wrongfully convicted. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Act nearly in tact; however, the U.S. Senate conjured up a catch—waivers to DNA tests that could provide exonerating evidence by defendants in consideration for lesser sentences.
In response to the Innocence Protection Act, the Bush Administration via U.S. Attorneys’ offices required some defendants to waive their right to DNA, despite such a right provided for by the Act. Although waivers were only filed in cases where guilty pleas were entered, the plausibility of coerced confessions of guilt or cases where defendants pled guilty to charges in exchange for lesser prison sentences were not considered. The process was politicized.
The most diabolical aspect of the policy was that defendants who filed DNA waivers were barred from ever asking for DNA tests, notwithstanding the existence of exculpatory evidence in such tests. In other words, a defendant was forced to waive science for a softer sentence, even in cases where their innocence existed. Seriously?
The use of DNA evidence became widely used around 2003 and has had a dramatic affect on exonerating innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes. For example, following the conviction last year of high-ranking police officers in Chicago of coercing confessions through torturing the accused several people have been released from prison as DNA evidence was admitted and exonerated them from the crimes they were forced to admit.
However, the full effect of DNA testing in federal courts is yet to be witnessed. So far, 243 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA evidence (25% of which gave false confessions, and 16 of that number pled guilty). Seventeen wrongly convicted people have been exonerated. All 243 who have been exonerated have been in state cases. In fact, 97% of federal convictions arise from guilty pleas, thereby eliminating the use of DNA tests.
Most federal court districts have enacted legislation allowing inmates to request DNA testing, and the majority of cases permit petitions, post guilty pleas. Some high-volume federal districts such as the District of Columbia, Manhattan, New York, and Alexandria, Virginia commonly use waivers. Twenty-four U.S. Attorneys do not use waivers at all.
However, help is on the way.
The DNA process will soon expand to include biological data. Currently, DNA data does not reveal whether the DNA sample originated in semen, blood, or other tissue. The improvements in science are way overdue for the wrongly convicted—disproportionately African Americans and Latinos.
In 2009, the inmate population in the United States is over 2 million, with nearly 75% ethnically Black or Brown.
In the board game Monopoly a “Get-Out-of-Jail Card” is won on the chance the player rolls the dice and lands on the appropriate box of the board. The reality for defendants of being wrongfully convicted due to poverty, poor legal representation, or overly ambitious prosecutors should not depend on a “roll of the dice” or is it appropriate that so many are jailed for so little evidence. The playing field for the falsely accused and convicted should be leveled so that scientific evidence is available in order to ensure the nation’s promise of liberty and justice for all.
Today, science in the form of DNA testing provides a genetic “Get-Out-of-Jail Card” or better still: a “Not-Go-to-Jail Card.” I love the proper use of science for just public policy!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Partial to Public or Private?
Below is my column entitled "Partial to Public or Private?"
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 27-October 3, 2009
Today’s debate over legislative issues such as health care, education, and energy boil down to whether public interests or private interests will benefit.
I am partial to public.
The word public is an adjective pertaining to, or affecting the people of a community, state, or nation. Many believe the Latin phrase res publica is the origin of the word republic (i.e. Democratic Republic), under which the United States of America is governed.
Historically, Roman authors used the word to describe the period of time (epoch) between the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Empire. Later, the Greeks translated the term into politeia (the organization process of a city-state).
Of course, the word public is found in the name of the political party known as Republican. In 1854, when the Republican Party was established the legislative agenda was centered on the public good. For example, Abraham Lincoln campaigned for the Presidency on, in part, an anti-slavery political platform. By 1960, following the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling, the people and priorities of Republican Party moved to private interest.
Rather than comply with the law of the land to racially desegregate schools, many southerners established private educational academies in churches to maintain all-White classrooms. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia closed entire school districts rather than have Black and White students learn together.
When President Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 he ushered in the concept of private health insurance through his relationship with Edward Kaiser who founded Kaiser Permanente. The idea was for private health insurance companies to profit by denying—not providing—health insurance to the public.
Since then, privatized health insurance provider have bazillions of dollars on the broken backs of pubic. Recent research provided by Amy Goodman on the Pacifica Radio Network show “Democracy Now” reveals that California health insurance companies’ denial rate for health insurance claims ranges between 25% and 39%. Each denial of the policyholders represents more profit for the private company.
Therefore, when President Obama stated his preference for the “public option” in health insurance the Re-public-ans held public rallies to preserve private profits. Does such make any sense?
Some argued that the President’s plan was the beginning of socialized medicine in a capitalist economy. Actually, my studies of capitalism bear out that two of the primary tenets of capitalism are choice and competition. Duh? If the
the public has the option to choose health providers which include a government-run health insurance, it seems to me to be consistent with free market capitalism.
Like Michael Moore, I believe capitalism is inherently un-Godly and un-American. Greed should not trump need.
Predictably, I believe in public access, public broadcasting, public domain, public Internet, public safety, public education, public interest, and most of all, public good.
Politics can be defined as who gets what, and how much. American policy should benefit the masses. Power to the people!
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 27-October 3, 2009
Today’s debate over legislative issues such as health care, education, and energy boil down to whether public interests or private interests will benefit.
I am partial to public.
The word public is an adjective pertaining to, or affecting the people of a community, state, or nation. Many believe the Latin phrase res publica is the origin of the word republic (i.e. Democratic Republic), under which the United States of America is governed.
Historically, Roman authors used the word to describe the period of time (epoch) between the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Empire. Later, the Greeks translated the term into politeia (the organization process of a city-state).
Of course, the word public is found in the name of the political party known as Republican. In 1854, when the Republican Party was established the legislative agenda was centered on the public good. For example, Abraham Lincoln campaigned for the Presidency on, in part, an anti-slavery political platform. By 1960, following the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling, the people and priorities of Republican Party moved to private interest.
Rather than comply with the law of the land to racially desegregate schools, many southerners established private educational academies in churches to maintain all-White classrooms. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia closed entire school districts rather than have Black and White students learn together.
When President Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 he ushered in the concept of private health insurance through his relationship with Edward Kaiser who founded Kaiser Permanente. The idea was for private health insurance companies to profit by denying—not providing—health insurance to the public.
Since then, privatized health insurance provider have bazillions of dollars on the broken backs of pubic. Recent research provided by Amy Goodman on the Pacifica Radio Network show “Democracy Now” reveals that California health insurance companies’ denial rate for health insurance claims ranges between 25% and 39%. Each denial of the policyholders represents more profit for the private company.
Therefore, when President Obama stated his preference for the “public option” in health insurance the Re-public-ans held public rallies to preserve private profits. Does such make any sense?
Some argued that the President’s plan was the beginning of socialized medicine in a capitalist economy. Actually, my studies of capitalism bear out that two of the primary tenets of capitalism are choice and competition. Duh? If the
the public has the option to choose health providers which include a government-run health insurance, it seems to me to be consistent with free market capitalism.
Like Michael Moore, I believe capitalism is inherently un-Godly and un-American. Greed should not trump need.
Predictably, I believe in public access, public broadcasting, public domain, public Internet, public safety, public education, public interest, and most of all, public good.
Politics can be defined as who gets what, and how much. American policy should benefit the masses. Power to the people!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Race:On Civil Discourse and Decorum
By Gary L Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
I read with breathtaking bafflement an editorial by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post (dated Sunday, September 20, 2009) entitled “Playing the Racial Deck.” In sum, Ms. Parker asserts that while Congressman Joe Wilson’s exclamation, “you lie” to President Obama was a “rude display”; the comment was not necessarily racist. With all due respect, is she serious?
In short, I agree with Reverend Al Sharpton when he said: “One cannot play the ‘race card’ if every card in the American deck is racial.”
A review of world history reminds us that civilization is barbarianism all grown up. From the earliest civilizations of humans on the Continent of Africa to more recent nations, all have respected differing opinions by codification of social mores and rules of decorum.
With centuries of civility behind us, the un-civility of Representative Joe Wilson is averse to the American way of amicability, and not a good look for our nation as the “civil police” of the planet. As a relative “baby” of the world family, the United States of America at 230-something years old has established, for the most part, civil codes of behavior. Of course, I am aware of the rape, pillage, and plunder of Native Americans, the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, the American Civil War, and the racial Apartheid system that followed are uncivilized behavior at its worst.
Yet, America has always at least sought honor—albeit by hypocrisy—through civil discourse. For example, the American transference of leadership without bloodshed is commendable. The discouragement of personal attacks in writing with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is a good thing. Thus, the American agreement to disagree with temperance is our nation’s contribution to world civilization. Not to do so is inherently un-American.
As a former field director, and activist for progressive public policy, I understand that policy protest is healthy for our democratic republic. However, there are rules. Congressman Wilson traveled way across the line.
That is why the argument of Mr. Wilson’s comments not being race-oriented falls short of believability. In her historical journalistic sojourn, Ms. Parker admits that the Congressman: 1) Is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; 2) Referred to the revelation of Senator Strom Thurman’s African American daughter out of wedlock as a “smear” on the Senator’s legacy; and 3) his opposition to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the South Carolina State Capitol. She also admits South Carolina’s support of the racially disenfranchising policy known as the Southern Strategy that baited southern whites to vote against politicians who supported racially inclusive legislation.
To view such public positions as anything but racist is at least naïve. Perhaps, as a South Carolina resident, Ms. Parker cannot view such anti-Americanism with objectivity. By the way, it is illegal to fly the swastika flag is Germany. So too should be the case relative to the Confederate flag in America.
After all, the Confederate flag symbolized slavery, succession, sedition, and racial segregation. Notwithstanding her point that many southerners view the Confederate flag as a symbol of their ancestors’ valor, I, too, am from a former Confederate state, Virginia (the Capital of the Confederacy).
Truth is, the Confederate flag was not publicly displayed until after the Brown v. Board Supreme Court ruling in 1954. Why? The “symbols of vanquished nations” must be surrendered after losing a war. South Carolina and the south lost the war. After 1954, White southerners, sympathetic to the traitorous Confederacy, used the flag to represent their racial hatred and opposition to racial desegregation of public facilities.
There is a direct historical connection to Congressman Joe Wilson’s racially rude outburst and a sign I saw at one of the Tea Party gatherings. A woman held a sign reading, “We want our country back.” We? She was White, and definitely not Cherokee, Blackfoot, or Apache. The glaring historical reality is that some people in this nation have never—and may never—accept that the United States of America is the embodiment of the Latin phrase, I pluribus Unum (out of many, one).
Congressman Joe Wilson and his Confederate supporters should come across the American bridge and get over it!
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
I read with breathtaking bafflement an editorial by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post (dated Sunday, September 20, 2009) entitled “Playing the Racial Deck.” In sum, Ms. Parker asserts that while Congressman Joe Wilson’s exclamation, “you lie” to President Obama was a “rude display”; the comment was not necessarily racist. With all due respect, is she serious?
In short, I agree with Reverend Al Sharpton when he said: “One cannot play the ‘race card’ if every card in the American deck is racial.”
A review of world history reminds us that civilization is barbarianism all grown up. From the earliest civilizations of humans on the Continent of Africa to more recent nations, all have respected differing opinions by codification of social mores and rules of decorum.
With centuries of civility behind us, the un-civility of Representative Joe Wilson is averse to the American way of amicability, and not a good look for our nation as the “civil police” of the planet. As a relative “baby” of the world family, the United States of America at 230-something years old has established, for the most part, civil codes of behavior. Of course, I am aware of the rape, pillage, and plunder of Native Americans, the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, the American Civil War, and the racial Apartheid system that followed are uncivilized behavior at its worst.
Yet, America has always at least sought honor—albeit by hypocrisy—through civil discourse. For example, the American transference of leadership without bloodshed is commendable. The discouragement of personal attacks in writing with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is a good thing. Thus, the American agreement to disagree with temperance is our nation’s contribution to world civilization. Not to do so is inherently un-American.
As a former field director, and activist for progressive public policy, I understand that policy protest is healthy for our democratic republic. However, there are rules. Congressman Wilson traveled way across the line.
That is why the argument of Mr. Wilson’s comments not being race-oriented falls short of believability. In her historical journalistic sojourn, Ms. Parker admits that the Congressman: 1) Is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; 2) Referred to the revelation of Senator Strom Thurman’s African American daughter out of wedlock as a “smear” on the Senator’s legacy; and 3) his opposition to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the South Carolina State Capitol. She also admits South Carolina’s support of the racially disenfranchising policy known as the Southern Strategy that baited southern whites to vote against politicians who supported racially inclusive legislation.
To view such public positions as anything but racist is at least naïve. Perhaps, as a South Carolina resident, Ms. Parker cannot view such anti-Americanism with objectivity. By the way, it is illegal to fly the swastika flag is Germany. So too should be the case relative to the Confederate flag in America.
After all, the Confederate flag symbolized slavery, succession, sedition, and racial segregation. Notwithstanding her point that many southerners view the Confederate flag as a symbol of their ancestors’ valor, I, too, am from a former Confederate state, Virginia (the Capital of the Confederacy).
Truth is, the Confederate flag was not publicly displayed until after the Brown v. Board Supreme Court ruling in 1954. Why? The “symbols of vanquished nations” must be surrendered after losing a war. South Carolina and the south lost the war. After 1954, White southerners, sympathetic to the traitorous Confederacy, used the flag to represent their racial hatred and opposition to racial desegregation of public facilities.
There is a direct historical connection to Congressman Joe Wilson’s racially rude outburst and a sign I saw at one of the Tea Party gatherings. A woman held a sign reading, “We want our country back.” We? She was White, and definitely not Cherokee, Blackfoot, or Apache. The glaring historical reality is that some people in this nation have never—and may never—accept that the United States of America is the embodiment of the Latin phrase, I pluribus Unum (out of many, one).
Congressman Joe Wilson and his Confederate supporters should come across the American bridge and get over it!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Health Care: Private Profits vs. Policy Prophets
Health Care: Private Profits vs. Policy Prophets
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
We the conscious people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, must, by way of votes of our elected representatives in Congress embrace the need of health care recipients rather than the greed of the health care providers.
America must listen to policy prophets rather than be victimized by the profits of privateers. To do so is not new for Black America.
For Black Americans who are Christian they need look no further than the Biblical book of Jeremiah in which, according to scripture, the Prophet Jeremiah initially carried immense favor amongst the people until his vision for their well being led him to expose views that were not popular. Scripture holds that God’s blessing of the Prophet’s plan was greater than the evil of his adversaries due to the righteousness of his words (not unlike Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech, “Difference Does Not Denote Difference”). In order to move his people forward he chose to speak truth to power.
President Barack Obama must do as the Prophet Jeremiah did relative to his policy priority of insurance reform in health care—be audacious enough to challenge the status quo and throw a policy punch in the fat belly of the insurance industry that rakes in enormous profits by denying health care to needy Americans.
After all, change is spelled with the bended line of a C, Inadequate is spelled with a straight line of an I. In other words: if there is not a single payer/public option in the final health care legislation, the promise of meaningful change in the cost and delivery of health care will be reduced to rhetoric, and thereby inadequate to the ill.
Yet, throughout the continuum of public policy leadership within the Black community men and women have influenced legislation based on the needs of the people and not what was politically expedient.
For example, just after the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909, Dr. W.E.B. Dubois and Ida B. Wells joined forces to push for a federal policy outlawing the lynching of Black people. They won.
During the height of the Civil Rights Movement of African Americans Dr. Martin Luther King and Dr. Dorothy Height partnered to influence the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., and Dr, Marian Edelman teamed up to bring about legislation to increase educational and health opportunities for poor children of color, resulting in the PUSH for Excellence Program and the Children’s Health Insurance Policy (CHIP) in each state.
This week, President Barack Obama (with the assistance of Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett) prophetically clarified the Administration’s plan reform the insurance industry by offering Americans the option of purchasing health insurance from the government (much like the Medicare Program or Veteran’s benefits). Makes sense to me. Without such a public option profits will soar while the people remain sore of no health care.
After watching the movie John Q starring Denzel Washington and Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko a few years ago I was baffled as to how the insurance industry could predicate their enormous profits on the by denying coverage to ordinary people, and do so in the wealthiest nation on earth. The equivalent would be to only offer fire protection to those who could afford fire insurance. Imagine that?
We as a nation must join the world community in providing—not denying—health care to all of our citizens.
And for those who shout down supporters of a single payer/public option, the Prophet Jeremiah symbolizes that one need not be guilty to be vilified.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
We the conscious people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, must, by way of votes of our elected representatives in Congress embrace the need of health care recipients rather than the greed of the health care providers.
America must listen to policy prophets rather than be victimized by the profits of privateers. To do so is not new for Black America.
For Black Americans who are Christian they need look no further than the Biblical book of Jeremiah in which, according to scripture, the Prophet Jeremiah initially carried immense favor amongst the people until his vision for their well being led him to expose views that were not popular. Scripture holds that God’s blessing of the Prophet’s plan was greater than the evil of his adversaries due to the righteousness of his words (not unlike Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech, “Difference Does Not Denote Difference”). In order to move his people forward he chose to speak truth to power.
President Barack Obama must do as the Prophet Jeremiah did relative to his policy priority of insurance reform in health care—be audacious enough to challenge the status quo and throw a policy punch in the fat belly of the insurance industry that rakes in enormous profits by denying health care to needy Americans.
After all, change is spelled with the bended line of a C, Inadequate is spelled with a straight line of an I. In other words: if there is not a single payer/public option in the final health care legislation, the promise of meaningful change in the cost and delivery of health care will be reduced to rhetoric, and thereby inadequate to the ill.
Yet, throughout the continuum of public policy leadership within the Black community men and women have influenced legislation based on the needs of the people and not what was politically expedient.
For example, just after the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909, Dr. W.E.B. Dubois and Ida B. Wells joined forces to push for a federal policy outlawing the lynching of Black people. They won.
During the height of the Civil Rights Movement of African Americans Dr. Martin Luther King and Dr. Dorothy Height partnered to influence the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., and Dr, Marian Edelman teamed up to bring about legislation to increase educational and health opportunities for poor children of color, resulting in the PUSH for Excellence Program and the Children’s Health Insurance Policy (CHIP) in each state.
This week, President Barack Obama (with the assistance of Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett) prophetically clarified the Administration’s plan reform the insurance industry by offering Americans the option of purchasing health insurance from the government (much like the Medicare Program or Veteran’s benefits). Makes sense to me. Without such a public option profits will soar while the people remain sore of no health care.
After watching the movie John Q starring Denzel Washington and Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko a few years ago I was baffled as to how the insurance industry could predicate their enormous profits on the by denying coverage to ordinary people, and do so in the wealthiest nation on earth. The equivalent would be to only offer fire protection to those who could afford fire insurance. Imagine that?
We as a nation must join the world community in providing—not denying—health care to all of our citizens.
And for those who shout down supporters of a single payer/public option, the Prophet Jeremiah symbolizes that one need not be guilty to be vilified.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, August 31, 2009
Back to School; Black to Basics
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 23-30, 2009
This week, many students returned to school for another academic year. They did so after two and a half months of summer vacation. Vacation? People who are employed take vacations from work (but that is another column for another week). Students study. Let’s stay right there, According to most educational indices African American students—especially Black males—underperform their classroom counterparts. Thus, as Black students return to technology-filled schools, educational stakeholders (parents and school administrators) should go Black to basics.
Prior to directing the Black Leadership Forum, Inc., I served as a vice president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition in Chicago, IL. Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., under the PUSH for Excellence (PUSHExcel) Program, developed a 7-point educational plan that speaks to a central element of the educational equation—parental involvement.
The idea was to ask parents to:
1. Take their children to school;
2. Meet their children’s teachers;
3. Exchange home numbers with their children’s teachers;
4. Pick up report cards at the end of grading period;
5. Turn of televisions 2 hours per night;
6. Read to their children at least 1 hour per night; and
7. Take their children to a place of worship once a week
While not to sound sanctimonious and exclaim, “when I was a grade-school student my parents did all seven without encouragement”, my parents did so. Notwithstanding other societal factors facing today’s parents (economy, technology and others) adult involvement outside of school is critical to a student’s learning curve.
Take you child to school – Children remember more of where a parent takes them than what a parent purchases for them.
Meet your child’s teacher – Children’s academic performance tends to dramatically improve when parents meet their teachers
Exchange personal contact information with your child’s teacher – As cell parents share phone and email information and teachers information may be shared without the necessity of physical presence of parents outside of report card pick-up
Pick up report cards each grading period – The presence of parents in retrieving their child’s report card reflects their concern for academic accountability
Limit television viewing by your child – Television in most instances slows scholastic skill set development
Read to your child one hour per night – Reading is still fundamental. A child who reads well tends to excel in most subjects.
Take your child to a place of worship – Many behavioral problems student exemplify suggest the child is never in an environment that requires discipline. Places of worship demand discipline. Discipline and diligence determines a path to a degree.
Some parents react to such plans by rerouting responsibility to school administrators and external factors. No. The lenses through with a child views the world are focused by family. Yes, many poorer children have family members who lack educational skills, but that is no excuse for finding people or institutions that are equipped to assist.
Within the Black Leadership Forum, for example, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, National Council of Negro Women, 100 Black Men of America, and National Pan Hellenic Association (Black fraternities and sororities) have excellent programs designed to assist all students, regardless of socio-educational make-up of a particular family.
As for public policy, this nation cannot codify concern by parents. However, we can pass a Constitutional Amendment for an individual right to an equal and high quality education for ALL students (Black, White, Red, Yellow, and Brown), raise teacher pay, reduce classroom sizes, and equalize equipment in all public schools. Passage of such legislation would improve the educational climate, but parents alone must be equal partners.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 23-30, 2009
This week, many students returned to school for another academic year. They did so after two and a half months of summer vacation. Vacation? People who are employed take vacations from work (but that is another column for another week). Students study. Let’s stay right there, According to most educational indices African American students—especially Black males—underperform their classroom counterparts. Thus, as Black students return to technology-filled schools, educational stakeholders (parents and school administrators) should go Black to basics.
Prior to directing the Black Leadership Forum, Inc., I served as a vice president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition in Chicago, IL. Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., under the PUSH for Excellence (PUSHExcel) Program, developed a 7-point educational plan that speaks to a central element of the educational equation—parental involvement.
The idea was to ask parents to:
1. Take their children to school;
2. Meet their children’s teachers;
3. Exchange home numbers with their children’s teachers;
4. Pick up report cards at the end of grading period;
5. Turn of televisions 2 hours per night;
6. Read to their children at least 1 hour per night; and
7. Take their children to a place of worship once a week
While not to sound sanctimonious and exclaim, “when I was a grade-school student my parents did all seven without encouragement”, my parents did so. Notwithstanding other societal factors facing today’s parents (economy, technology and others) adult involvement outside of school is critical to a student’s learning curve.
Take you child to school – Children remember more of where a parent takes them than what a parent purchases for them.
Meet your child’s teacher – Children’s academic performance tends to dramatically improve when parents meet their teachers
Exchange personal contact information with your child’s teacher – As cell parents share phone and email information and teachers information may be shared without the necessity of physical presence of parents outside of report card pick-up
Pick up report cards each grading period – The presence of parents in retrieving their child’s report card reflects their concern for academic accountability
Limit television viewing by your child – Television in most instances slows scholastic skill set development
Read to your child one hour per night – Reading is still fundamental. A child who reads well tends to excel in most subjects.
Take your child to a place of worship – Many behavioral problems student exemplify suggest the child is never in an environment that requires discipline. Places of worship demand discipline. Discipline and diligence determines a path to a degree.
Some parents react to such plans by rerouting responsibility to school administrators and external factors. No. The lenses through with a child views the world are focused by family. Yes, many poorer children have family members who lack educational skills, but that is no excuse for finding people or institutions that are equipped to assist.
Within the Black Leadership Forum, for example, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, National Council of Negro Women, 100 Black Men of America, and National Pan Hellenic Association (Black fraternities and sororities) have excellent programs designed to assist all students, regardless of socio-educational make-up of a particular family.
As for public policy, this nation cannot codify concern by parents. However, we can pass a Constitutional Amendment for an individual right to an equal and high quality education for ALL students (Black, White, Red, Yellow, and Brown), raise teacher pay, reduce classroom sizes, and equalize equipment in all public schools. Passage of such legislation would improve the educational climate, but parents alone must be equal partners.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Awareness of African Ancestry
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 9-16, 2009
Many African Americans beginning with this writer have wondered exactly where in Africa our roots can be traced. I had a heritage honor last week to present to my mother’s side of our family DNA results of our origin on the Motherland. Words cannot express my feelings in learning the most probable basis of our family’s lineage.
In 1976, as a thirteen year-old I watched with fascination Alex Haley’s Roots. I remember entire families—of all ethnicities—collectively musing about their family origins. For African Americans, Roots began, in earnest, a nationwide discussion of exactly where on the Continent of Africa we originated. My paternal uncle used “property” records, church records, and Census data to proceed on the avenue of ancestry. However, Roots symbolized the on ramp the genetic highway of heritage.
I began my DNA journey by researching companies offering DNA testing. I found that most of the DNA companies began to test in 2003. I remember viewing television shows on which celebrities were tested and their results aired publicly. Among the several options of DNA companies I selected one that focuses on mitochondrial DNA (tracing DNA of the mother’s side of the family). My rationale was that since European men raped an untold number of African women during the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade the most reliable predictor for African origin would be found in the DNA of African American women.
As a good researcher I also probed in to doubts of companies’ methodology. For example, mitochondrial DNA is widely thought to be reliable for identifying a region of origin and not necessarily a specific people (tribe). However, most scholars find that DNA research combined with genealogical tools such as historical records, archeology, and folklore provides families with the best chance of identifying their ethnic origin.
As the second part of our ancestor recognition at my maternal family reunion in Richmond, Virginia, my cousin and i unsealed the results: our matrilineal (mother’s side) roots are most probably connected to the Balanta people of the nation of Guinea-Bissau, and to the Mende people of the country Sierra Leone. Our patrilineal (father’s side) people of origin are most likely the Bamileke people of Cameroon. A sacred silence permeated the family gathering upon learning one more piece to the puzzle of our people’s past.
Relatives were provided research material that pulled demographic information form African countries genetically connected to our family. However, one of my cousins wanted to know: How are the genetic results read? Not being a scientist I explained that DNA is read in sequences. Because most humans have similar sequences (i.e. TGTACG an TCTACA) the DNA symbol that is different is considered a mutation. DNA mutation place in the sequence is then matched with a mutation in the same place of the DNA sequence found in African countries, and among specific regions and ethnic groups. Whew, that is as simple as I can make it!
Therefore, I recommend that ALL African American families purchase a test from some DNA company and dig deeper into their roots in African countries. As my cousin stated, “I was always wanted to know how to answer the ‘ancestor’ question without merely saying my people were ‘from Africa’. Now I can not only answer with a Continent but a country and a community.”
Awareness of African Ancestry is awesome!
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 9-16, 2009
Many African Americans beginning with this writer have wondered exactly where in Africa our roots can be traced. I had a heritage honor last week to present to my mother’s side of our family DNA results of our origin on the Motherland. Words cannot express my feelings in learning the most probable basis of our family’s lineage.
In 1976, as a thirteen year-old I watched with fascination Alex Haley’s Roots. I remember entire families—of all ethnicities—collectively musing about their family origins. For African Americans, Roots began, in earnest, a nationwide discussion of exactly where on the Continent of Africa we originated. My paternal uncle used “property” records, church records, and Census data to proceed on the avenue of ancestry. However, Roots symbolized the on ramp the genetic highway of heritage.
I began my DNA journey by researching companies offering DNA testing. I found that most of the DNA companies began to test in 2003. I remember viewing television shows on which celebrities were tested and their results aired publicly. Among the several options of DNA companies I selected one that focuses on mitochondrial DNA (tracing DNA of the mother’s side of the family). My rationale was that since European men raped an untold number of African women during the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade the most reliable predictor for African origin would be found in the DNA of African American women.
As a good researcher I also probed in to doubts of companies’ methodology. For example, mitochondrial DNA is widely thought to be reliable for identifying a region of origin and not necessarily a specific people (tribe). However, most scholars find that DNA research combined with genealogical tools such as historical records, archeology, and folklore provides families with the best chance of identifying their ethnic origin.
As the second part of our ancestor recognition at my maternal family reunion in Richmond, Virginia, my cousin and i unsealed the results: our matrilineal (mother’s side) roots are most probably connected to the Balanta people of the nation of Guinea-Bissau, and to the Mende people of the country Sierra Leone. Our patrilineal (father’s side) people of origin are most likely the Bamileke people of Cameroon. A sacred silence permeated the family gathering upon learning one more piece to the puzzle of our people’s past.
Relatives were provided research material that pulled demographic information form African countries genetically connected to our family. However, one of my cousins wanted to know: How are the genetic results read? Not being a scientist I explained that DNA is read in sequences. Because most humans have similar sequences (i.e. TGTACG an TCTACA) the DNA symbol that is different is considered a mutation. DNA mutation place in the sequence is then matched with a mutation in the same place of the DNA sequence found in African countries, and among specific regions and ethnic groups. Whew, that is as simple as I can make it!
Therefore, I recommend that ALL African American families purchase a test from some DNA company and dig deeper into their roots in African countries. As my cousin stated, “I was always wanted to know how to answer the ‘ancestor’ question without merely saying my people were ‘from Africa’. Now I can not only answer with a Continent but a country and a community.”
Awareness of African Ancestry is awesome!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
