The Great African-American Depression

The “Great African-American Depression” — with nearly one in five African-Americans unemployed and almost half of African-American youth out of work — creates a pivotal opportunity for Republicans to compete for the support of black voters.  Disgruntled independent voters are the obvious swing vote in the 2012 election. But the fulcrum for permanent political realignment is a Republican party willing to compete to win by the end of the decade one-fourth of black votes.

How?  By having a serious program to reduce government impediments to private sector job creation and taking that message directly into America’s inner cities and barrios. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor can be applauded for his efforts to fashion such a program. Now, he should emulate Jack Kemp, my political mentor, who if still alive would be out there making the case directly to blacks that increasing liberty — by reducing the size, scope and burden of government — will produce the greatest opportunity for all Americans but most especially, for blacks and other minorities.

Such an achievement would provide critical mass and legitimacy to the beginning of a new American Revolution dedicated to the principals of individual liberty and economic opportunity for all.  It would also signal the eventual overthrow of the progressive era’s counter-revolution to the founders’ vision of limited government.

Independent voters have plenty of reason to continue their swing toward the Republican Party.  According to the latest jobs report, there were zero net new additions to payrolls in the month of August.  That left 14 million Americans unemployed and the unemployment rate at a dismayingly high 9.1%.  Job growth has been in a downtrend since April, and the Administration now expects a 9% unemployment rate for at least another year.

Since February 2009, the month before the Democratic stimulus became law, the overall economy has lost 1.7 million jobs.  Contrary to promises by Democrats in Congress, the President and his economic advisors, and Keynesian economists of all political persuasions, the unemployment rate jumped to 9.4% in May 2009, and with the exception of February and March of this year, has been 9.0% or higher ever since.

No group has suffered more than individuals within the black community.  Nearly 400,000 fewer blacks are employed today than in February 2009, and their unemployment rate has shot up a gut-wrenching 3.1 percentage points to 16.7%.  By contrast, white unemployment rates are up only one-half a percentage point to 8.0%.

The comparison would look even worse except that black participation rates have fallen to 60.4% from 63.1%.  If participation rates had stayed where they were, black unemployment rate today would stand at 18.8%.

Even worse, black teenage unemployment now stands at an unconscionable 46.5%. That’s right, nearly half of all black teenagers seeking employment do not have a job.

Too often liberals ignore their policy failures by insisting on their good intentions.  But, not even good intentions can excuse the disparate impact the policies championed by the Congressional Black Caucus in particular, and Democrats and liberals in general, have had on the black community.

The anti-discrimination laws that rule the workplace provide a relevant standard for assessing any Administration’s economic policies. Under the law, the consequences of employment practices without regard to motive are what matter.

Using this standard, Republicans should challenge Democrats based on the consequences their policies have had on Americans in general, and on minorities in particular.  No matter its motive, the Obama Administration’s strategy of increasing the size and scope of government in the name of fairness and safety has had a disparate impact on black workers.  The apparent tolerance of high black unemployment as collateral damage on the road to the liberal vision of a “more just society” is itself intolerable.

Runaway spending, targeted tax rebates and temporary tax cuts have failed to increase aggregate demand.  The reason is straightforward, though not intuitive.  Governments do not provide goods and services to willing buyers.  For every dollar they spend, a dollar has to be taken from the private sector in the form of taxes now, or borrowing and higher taxes in the future.

Not all government spending is bad.  For example, the primary functions of government including providing a judicial system, national defense, insuring domestic tranquility, and vital infrastructure are very necessary to the smooth functioning of an economy.   However, increased transfer payments, the squandering of resources through subsidies on money-losing activities, and short-term gimmicks including tax rebates, temporary tax cuts, cash for clunkers and the like create fewer jobs than they destroy.

In addition, Obama-Care, the Dodd-Frank bill’s tens of thousands of pages of new regulations on the financial services industry, and the imposition of new and unexpected costs on employers by the Environmental Protection Agency, The National Labor Relations Board and other government agencies have diverted billions of dollars in resources into compliance with bureaucratic rules and away from generating revenues by providing goods and services to satisfied customers.  Less revenue per employee drives employers to limit hiring and to lay off their least productive employees.  Invoking the gods of fairness, financial security, and “green-ness” cannot change human nature or the laws of economics.

Finally, a monetary policy aimed at keeping interest rates artificially low while driving down the value of the dollar continues to drive capital out of the U.S. economy. Artificially low interest rates may be good for borrowers.  But, they are bad for savers.  The result is a flight out of the dollar as companies invest more of their money outside the U.S., and individual Americans shift their money out of productive assets into funds that invest in gold and foreign currencies.  At the same time, higher inflation reduces the buying power of all existing savings, further depressing economic activity.

For too long, both parties have been comfortable with the contours of racial politics in America. Republicans have been indifferent to the legitimate concerns of minorities and largely ignored black voters.  Democrats have been indifferent to the negative consequences of their policies on minorities and largely taken the black vote for granted.

But now, the disparate impact of Democratic policies on blacks opens the way for the GOP to challenge the status quo and realign American politics around the core issues of individual liberty, economic growth and prosperity. As the past three years demonstrate, no group has more at stake in a thriving, expanding economy than blacks. The question is:  Does the leadership of the Republican Party have the compassion, ambition, wisdom and perseverance to win the support of 25% of black voters.

Why Black Children May Be More Likely to Develop Food Allergies

New research suggests that race and ancestry may play an important role in food allergies.
Dr. Rajesh Kumar, a pediatrician at Northwestern University Medical School, and his team report in the journal Pediatrics that black children are more than twice as likely as white children to have sensitivities to eight foods that commonly cause allergic reactions, and that they are especially vulnerable to peanut allergies.
While other studies have linked African American ethnicity to a higher risk of asthma, Kumar's group was interested in investigating whether race also affects children's risk of allergy to certain foods. Using a multi-ethnic database of 1,104 children who participated in regular health checkups at 6 months, then again at 1, 2, 4 and 6 years old, the scientists measured the youngsters' antibodies to egg white, cow's milk, peanut, soy, shrimp, walnut, wheat and cod.
To determine race, the researchers used two measures — the children's mothers' self-report of race as well as the distribution of 150 genetic markers in the children's blood, which track ancestry. The researchers included the second, more objective measure because self-reports of race can often be inaccurate, especially given the amount of racial mixing that occurs in a country as diverse as the U.S.
"If you look at populations who describe themselves as one race like African American or Hispanic, they may have ancestors from different continental groups," says Kumar. "So the description loses precision if you just use race. Whereas if you look at ancestry, you get a more precise proportion of what ancestors came from one continent compared to another."
The researchers found that children whose mothers reported them as being black were nearly 2.5 times as likely as self-reported white youngsters to be sensitive to any of the eight foods tested, and they were also more likely to be sensitive to more of the foods than white children.
When the researchers looked at the genetic markers for ancestry, they found that for every 10% increment in African ancestry, children were 7% more likely to have antibodies to the allergy-causing foods than white children. And the association was strongest for peanuts; more children with African ancestry showed antibody levels that would correlate to a possible allergic reaction if they were to eat peanuts.
Kumar stresses that his findings do not suggest that black children with more African ancestry are likely to develop food allergies, or even a peanut allergy. His study was only able to find links between levels of antibodies that are likely to generate a reaction.
"This is one way for us to start teasing out why there are increased risks in this population," he says. "What we did was confirm that, one, yes, there is increased risk among black children for food sensitization and, two, we are starting to get at why they are at increased risk."
Although the genetic markers are likely to reflect some inherited factors that affect how the immune system reacts to foods, it's also possible that they encompass environmental factors. For example, the children who self-reported themselves as black showed a stronger likelihood of sensitization to milk and egg allergens, but not to peanuts, while those with more African ancestry showed the opposite trend: they were more likely to be sensitive to peanuts but not to milk and egg.
"Overall, black children seem to be at higher risk of being sensitive to foods, but if you break down that risk, self-identifying as black explains the risk to milk and egg allergens but not to peanut, while ancestry explains some of the risk to peanut allergens," says Kumar. "That may mean that different factors go along with an individual's self-identified race compared to their genetic ancestry."
These factors may include things such as the fact that newborns of African American ancestry tend to have lower vitamin D levels, which has been linked to an increased risk of allergic diseases. Or, that those who identify themselves as being black may adhere to cultural dictates for when babies are introduced to milk, which can affect how newborns' immune systems react to it.
Kumar acknowledges that the findings probably won't translate into any useful guidelines for parents or pediatricians quite yet. But they serve as a good foundation for a better understanding of which factors related to race and ancestry might affect how we react to common allergens like those found in foods. "Once we identify the genes or environmental factors specifically responsible for the differences, then we will be in a better position to pinpoint individuals at risk," he says. "This opens the door to that work."

Find this article at:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/05/why-black-children-might-be-more-likely-to-develop-food-allergies/

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/05/why-black-children-might-be-more-likely-to-develop-food-allergies/print/#ixzz1X89lBV6g

Teacher Deserves Suspension for Calling Kids 'Black People'

http://thestir.cafemom.com

When Glenn Beck tried to say the word "colored"was socially acceptable, the world freaked. And rightly so. So you'd think the fact that a teacher referred to the African-American kids in his second grade classroom as "black people" would be a good thing. Instead it's earned Billy C. Milesa day's suspension, without pay, from his post in a Florida school district. And the administrators are exactly right.

The thing is, Miles is black. And not only did he refer to the children of African-American descent in his classroom as "his" black people, but he singled out the one white child in the classroom, called him "white boy," made jokes about white people, and told him to get his "white tail" over here. Simply put: a teacher used race to divide a classroom. Even using politically correct language doesn't erase his misdeeds.

Even in 2011 -- especially in 2011 -- race remains a tough barrier for Americans to cross. Switch Miles' skin color to white. Have him refer to the one black child in a classroom as "black boy," and there's no question he should be suspended. Because he'd be wrong.

So why is Miles' punishment even in question? Why is he claiming that he wasn't being "racial" even as he referred specifically to skin color?

White people (yes, people like me) bear the yoke of a white privilege that we didn't ask for, but we certainly benefit from. Sure, I was bullied as a kid. But being raised a white kid in a predominantly white rural area, it wasn't for the color of my skin. In that arena, I'll admit my life was certainly easier than that of my childhood best friend. I won't say that because I had a black friend, I "got it." But I can say I saw what she went through. I saw racist white people who judged her for being black in a predominantly white community.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact that white people have traditionally had advantages in America where many black people had to struggle for them does not allow for black people to treat a white child as badly as they or their ancestors were, to make him feel like he's done something wrong simply because he showed up to school as a white kid in a predominantly black area. Not only was Miles wrong to bring up the minority child's skin color in the first place, but in referring to the other children as "his" black people because they shared his skin tone, he created a system of preference. A child was told that he didn't quite measure up simply because his skin didn't match. Even saying "black people," even if he hadn't called the child out as a "white boy," was wrong in this case.

In order to eradicate racism, we have to kill it in all forms. We need to learn to celebrate culture and celebrate our heritage. Society can't be colorblind lest we lose the beauty of what makes us who we are -- skin color and all. Kids should be proud of who they are: black, white, Asian, gay, straight, bi, Christian, Jewish, Muslim.

And yet, we need to balance how we embrace our past with the need to unite. Our kids need to know that they're not "white boy" or "black boy," but kids with the same rights and same opportunities. Our past is part of who we are, but it doesn't define who we will be.

Do you think Miles deserves to be punished?

Va. city bans public Confederate flag displays

Supporters of a Sons of Confederate Veterans rally wave flags in protest at Hopkins Green in Lexington, Va., Sept. 1, 

http://www.cbsnews.com

(AP)  

LEXINGTON, Va. - Officials in the rural Virginia city where Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson are buried voted late Thursday to prohibit the flying of the Confederate flag on city-owned poles.

After a lively 2 1/2-hour public hearing, the Lexington City Council voted 4-1 to allow only U.S., Virginia and city flags to be flown. Personal displays of the Confederate flag are not affected. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose members showed up in force after leading a rally that turned a downtown park into a sea of Confederate flags, vowed to challenge the ordinance in court.

Some speakers during the meeting said the ordinance was an affront to the men who fought in the Civil War in defense of the South. One speaker stayed silent during his allotted three minutes, in memory of the Civil War dead.

But many speakers complained that the flag was an offensive, divisive symbol of the South's history of slavery and shouldn't be endorsed by the city of 7,000 people.

"The Confederate flag is not something we want to see flying from our public property," said city resident Marquita Dunn, who is black. "The flag is offensive to us."

Most residents who spoke, both blacks and whites, opposed the ordinance. But H.K. Edgerton, the former president of the NAACP chapter in Asheville, N.C., said he supported flying the Confederate flag because he wanted to honor black Confederate soldiers. Edgerton, who is black, wore a T-shirt emblazoned with images of those black soldiers.

"What you're going to do in banning the Southern cross is wrong. May God bless Dixie," he said, amid some gasps from the audience.

Before the rally, ordinance opponents rallied in the city park, then marched to the hearing under a parade of Confederate flags.

"I am a firm believer in the freedom to express our individual rights, which include flying the flag that we decide to fly," said Philip Way, a Civil War re-enactor dressed in a Confederate wool uniform despite the summer temperatures. "That's freedom to me."

Mimi Knight, watching from a wrought iron fence as the flags passed, said she thought the city ordinance seemed too restrictive, noting that it also extended to flags from Virginia Military Institute and Washington and Lee University. Both colleges are in the city.

"These are the things that make Lexington what it is," said Knight, who didn't participate in the rally. "The Confederate flag is part of our heritage."

The Sons of Confederate Veterans organized the "Save our Flags" gathering, which offered free hot dogs and blue grass music. Speakers addressed the crowd amid supportive shouts of "Amen." A promotional flyer depicted Lee with a tear rolling down his cheek.

City Manager T. Jon Ellestad noted that the ordinance only affected city property and wasn't specifically aimed at the Confederate flag. "They can carry their flags anywhere they want," he said.

The city received hundreds of complaints in January, the last time Confederate flags were planted in holders on light poles, to mark Lee-Jackson Day, a state holiday. People complained "that displaying the Confederate flag is very hurtful to groups of people," Ellestad said. "In their mind, it stands for the defense of slavery."

Such complaints convinced city leaders that they should have clear guidelines governing the flying of flags and banners on light poles, Ellestad said.

But heritage groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans argued that restrictions on the flying of the Confederate flag in Lexington are especially painful because of the two military leaders' strong ties here.

The NAACP launched an economic boycott of South Carolina in 1999 about the Confederate flag that flew atop the Statehouse dome and in the chambers of the House and Senate. A compromise in 2000 moved the flag to a monument outside the Statehouse. The group's president says the flag is a symbol of slavery and segregation.

Some speakers at Thursday's hearing said they, too, would boycott the city, which banks heavily on its Confederate history to attract tourists.

Jackson taught at VMI before the Civil War, where he became widely known as "Stonewall" after the first Battle of Manassas. He died in 1863 from wounds suffered at Chancellorsville along with pneumonia, and is buried in Lexington, according to the website for the Stonewall Jackson House.

Lee, who led Confederate forces during the Civil War before surrendering at Appomattox in 1865, became president of what is now Washington and Lee, where he is buried.

"By all means they should be honored in their hometown," said Brandon Dorsey, commander of Camp 1296 of the Stonewall Brigade of the Confederate Veterans. "I look at the flag as honoring the veterans."

This is not the first time that Lexington, at the southern end of the Shenandoah Valley, has clashed with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The city tried nearly 20 years ago to ban the display of the Confederate flag during a parade honoring Jackson. The American Civil Liberties Union, which successfully defended the group's bid to carry the flag, is closely watching this dispute from afar.

"City council could live to regret this ordinance, as it imposes unusually restrictive limits on the use of the light poles," said Kent Willis, the ACLU's executive director in Virginia. "Sometime in the future when city officials want to use those light poles to promote a special event they may find themselves handcuffed by their own lawmaking."

Model Sues ‘The Price Is Right’

Former 'Price Is Right' spokesmodel Lanisha Cole (Monty Brinton/CBS)

(Yahoo! Buzz) — The longest-tenured model for "The Price Is Right" has filed a lawsuit claiming she was sexually harassed by two producers for the game show, Michael G. Richards and Adam Sandler (not the actors with the same names).

When model Lanisha Cole left the show in 2010, she was a "fan favorite," whose job was to gracefully reveal actual prices of household items to the viewing audience and contestants. But she alleges that backstage, for about a year, she endured very ugly treatment.

The 20-page civil complaint includes wrongful termination, wrongful sexual harassment, failure to take steps to prevent harassment, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit states that Cole began working for the popular game show back in 2003, and enjoyed her job for years. All that changed in 2009, when Richards took an interest in another model and began to favor her -- and shun Cole. The suit claims that her work on the show was limited using policies "which never before existed."

Cole also details an incident where Sandler entered her dressing room without knocking despite a sign posted to do so, and berated the model for not wearing a microphone -- when she was wearing barely any clothes. Cole's attorney said of the account, "Sandler deliberately humiliated Ms. Cole in front of her peers."

Cole's attorney, Solomon Gresen, said in a statement, "This case is about senior-level men in the entertainment industry exploiting power and control over women by bullying and harassing female talent." He added, "Ms. Cole did nothing to provoke Richards and Sandler. Once the harassment began, she was powerless to stop it."

Cole complained about her harassment only after being called into a meeting regarding alleged harassment of another model. When the Pasadena native filed her suit, she was told she was "holding the show hostage," and she eventually left the show.

Host Drew Carey is not named in the lawsuit or blamed in any way. Cole is seeking a jury trial and monetary compensation to cover her medical and legal expenses and loss of earnings. "The Price Is Right" has been served with multiple sexual harassment lawsuits over the years. The show has not yet commented.

One Survivor's Mission to Empower Women Battling Cancer

In Jackson, Mississippi, Clarissa Hickmon is providing wigs and hope for African American women fighting cancer.

Clarissa Hickmon, of Jackson, Mississippi, is giving strength and encouragement to women fighting cancer in her hometown. She knows firsthand what it feels like to be diagnosed, go through chemotherapy and lose all of your hair.

In 2009 she was going through treatment for breast cancer and struggled to find a decently priced wig suitable for an African American woman.

Eventually, her hairdresser was able to make her a wig, but she couldn’t stop thinking about other women going through the same thing.

Clarissa had been a volunteer for Dress for Success—an organizationthat provides interview suits, confidence boosts and career development to low-income women—and for years had helped women find their confidence to get back on their feet. When she was battling breast cancer, she thought, “What happens when a woman can’t afford a wig and is going through chemotherapy?”

Together with Dress for Success and the local American Cancer Society, Clarissa started the Dress for Success Metro-Jackson PWG Wig Project and has been raising awareness and hosting wig drives ever since.

She told TakePart she started the Wig Project because she felt like her experience could really help someone. She says she hopes to give people “encouragement and strength.”

A local high school in Jackson and Virginia College have also come on board to help. Clarissa explained that while something like a wig can seem so minor, it can, in fact, have a major impact on a woman’s battle with cancer.

Obama faces historic disrespect from political peers

President Barack Obama walks from the podium after speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2011, to urge Congress to pass a federal highway bill. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Barack Obama asked to deliver his economic speech to the joint session of Congress next Wednesday. House Speaker John Boehner, told him no. He'll have to do it on the 8th. Boehner cited a scheduling conflict, but the real "conflict" appears to be the GOP presidential debate scheduled for the same date. The president has been forced to capitulate -- and will now have to compete with the opening night of the NFLseason for viewers.

What may seem like a minor slight underscores the crux of the problem in Washington: A blatant, sustained and unabashed disrespect of the president of the United States of America.

And it is historic.

Never in our nation's history has a president been publicly denied access to the chamber for an address, according to the House historian. This is just the latest in a string of eyebrow-raising and even historic slights.

WATCH 'MORNING JOE' COVERAGE OVER THE SPEECH DATE DEBATE:

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

And for those who want to say it's just partisan politics as usual, or just the kind of thing that goes with being an unpopular president, let's consider a few lowlights:

The "You lie!" shout during the president's speech on health care reform before the joint session of Congress in Sept. 2009

The recent posturing, walk-outs and tantrums thrown over the debt ceiling debate, which eventually led to our country's credit being downgraded.

Newt Gingrich referring to the president as "the food stamp president" and saying that Pres. Obama "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit."

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn -- who supposedly enjoys a warm relationship with the president, saying he doesn't think President Obama wants to destroy the country, but "his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him as an African-American male" who "received tremendous advantage from" welfare programs.

Congressman Mitch McConnell's bold proclamation that he wants to be Senate Majority Leader to make sure that Obama is a one-term president.

Rush Limbaugh saying that he wants to see this president fail. (Note: Limbaugh has modified that statement to say he meant his "policies." But when it was said, it was less than a year into Obama's presidency and he was still cleaning up the mess from the previous president's policies, which Limbaugh had very little to say about during the Bush era).

Former Fox News host Glenn Beck declaring on the air that the president "hates white people" and "the white culture."

Television personality Donald Trump's over-the-top taunting of the president, hyping unprecedented demands to see the president's birth certificate.

The shouts of "We want our country back!" by the Tea Party.

And the frequent habit of not calling the president by his proper honorific: "President Obama", rather than just "Obama" -- by quite a few elected officials, pundits and others.

President Barack Obama walks from the podium after speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2011, to urge Congress to pass a federal highway bill. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

This negative "attention" that this president seems to attract cuts across partisan lines. Even before he took office, Joe Biden referred to him as the first "clean, articulate" African-American candidate. (Which we assume was meant as a compliment).

And let's not forget Bill Clinton, who chalked up Obama's win in South Carolina to being similar to Jesse Jackson's wins there in the 80s and then had the audacity to cry foul, saying the race card was played on him when Obama supporters called him out.

There was also his Senate mentor Joe Lieberman, who blocked the public option in the health care bill. And the near-deafening silence by high-ranking Democrats, including Senate leader Harry Reid, while all of this is going on.

The question among some of us who love this country and want to see it succeed is what is all of this really all about? Because it just seems as if there is a pissing contest going on, but the only ones getting wet are the American people; many of whom are suffering through the worst economy of their lives.

Some may call this obstructionism. But I think there's something else going on here. Now I'm not saying it's racism. But if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

At the very least it's un-American. Because while all of this is going on, Americans are suffering.

This shouldn't be about President Obama. All 535 lawmakers who were sent to Washington to make a difference must ask themselves this question: is opposing everything this president does for the sake of opposition, or worse for a more insidious reason, helping this nation get back on her feet?

If the answer is no, then they need to knock it off. And if they're not going to do it, it's time for the silent majority to do it for them. Enough is enough!