Devastating, Yet Distinguished Decade
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 20-27, 2009
As we approach the end of the first ten years of the 21stcentury it is useful to remember the legal lows and the historic highs of the past decade for the policy interest of Black people in America. My father’s advice to me is still applicable: “ do not to forget your ‘Egypt’". What my father meant was that no matter how high you ascend, do not lose memory of from whence you came. His lesson to me is timely for African Americans today.
In 2000, the presidential election saw the winner lose, and the loser win. Despite Vice President Al Gore receiving more popular votes than the incumbent, George Bush, the United States Supreme Court ruled on December 12, 2000 that there is “no individually protected right to vote in the United States Constitution, and therefore, Florida state officials (Katherine Harris) had full authority to determine the presidential outcome. Katherine Harris just happened to be a campaign worker for George W. Bush and was appointed to the position of Florida Secretary of State by the candidate’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush. More importantly, American states were affirmed by the highest court in the nation for their control of federal elections. The ruling was devastating to electoral politics.
If the stolen election of 2000 was bad enough, the same electoral crime occurred in 2004, only this time with crime tape around the precincts in the state of Ohio. Where the Florida crime was an African American Secretary of State for Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell, cleverly pulled off an historic heist at high noon. Ohio’s offense was utilizing rigged voting machines and limiting voting machines in African American precincts. Both the Florida and Ohio stolen elections should remind Black people that when the “referees” of a contest—whether in politics or on the playing field—wear one of the team colors objectivity is at least compromised, if not lost all together.
A somewhat bright year of the decade occurred in 2006 when the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were renewed by Congress for 25 years and signed into law by the White House. The Rosa Parks, Corretta Scott King, and Fannie Lou Hamer voting rights legislation meant a lot to African Americans due to its history. After all, Black people in the United States received their state right to vote in 1870. However, 95 years passed until the state right to vote was made constitutional by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing all citizens—regardless of color—to exercise their right to vote. The renewal of federal voting rights protections marked a high point for Black people in the Bush Administration, although massive demonstrations by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition and the NAACP were needed to apply the national pressure for the Bush White House.
As Black people were losing lives in unjust and illegal foreign wars; losing jobs and homes in America; and losing faith in America Barack Hussein Obama appeared out of the political fog to become the first African American president of the United States of America. With his election, the tune of James Weldon Johnson’s, Lift Every Voice and Sing; a McFadden and Whitehead’s Ain’t No Stopping Us Now became the harmonic score for historic election. Celebratory pride lifted Black people to where we belonged—the main stream of American politics.
Yet, one year and after a legion of legislative initiatives by the Obama Administration, Black people are beginning to move from celebration to mobilization around the pain of undelivered political promises.
Most recently, apparent failed promise of a public option (or competition for private health insurance policies) in health care reform should remind African Americans that if politicians do no respect our legislative concerns, they should not expect us on their next election day.
While Black people began the year with electoral elation we must move to awareness of accountability of people we elect. Democracy percolates upward; and does not trickle downward.
In 2010, let’s begin to exercise our civic strength at the local, state, nation, and international level.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Congress Should Check Convenience Stores
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 23-29, 2009
As we prepare for Thanksgiving, and to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenience stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should check convenience stores into compliance with reasonable costs and healthy contents.
In linking leadership,
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 23-29, 2009
As we prepare for Thanksgiving, and to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenience stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should check convenience stores into compliance with reasonable costs and healthy contents.
In linking leadership,
Monday, November 16, 2009
Junk Food Stores are Jacked Up
Junk Food Stores are Jacked Up
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 15-22, 2009
“The poor pay more for less, while living under stress, and die early”
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
As we prepare to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenient stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts of acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should jack up convenience stores and junk food peddlers.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 15-22, 2009
“The poor pay more for less, while living under stress, and die early”
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
As we prepare to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenient stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts of acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should jack up convenience stores and junk food peddlers.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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!
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
