Vision Circle

CBC Foundation, Katrina, Giving Money

I heard about the CBC raising money for the victims of Katrina.

Lately I've been hearing that the CBC has yet to give out any of the funds. For example, read this

According to Marc Morano it would appear at the time bodies (the allegations being black bodies) were floating in the waters of Hurricane Katrina, the Congressional Black Caucus was floating tax-free charitable donation dollars. (See: "Bush-Bashing Black Charity Sits on Katrina Cash," CNS News, Marc Morano, Dec. 22, 2005).

Morano's investigation found the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation not only has not distributed any of the estimated $400,000 it raised for the black victims of hurricane Katrina, but as Patty Rice, spokesman for the CBCF told Morano, "The distribution of the money would not begin until January or February at the earliest." My guess is that unless shamed into doing so, they will not have dispersed one dollar toward the stated urgent need this time next year, but I digress.

This is quite a haul for CBCF, and if one were inclined to question the integrity of a group that proudly comport itself as what could be construed as available to the highest bidder, it could also be seen as quite a con game – one that should be looked into.

I was ready to slam them.

But I went to the CBCF website and read this:

On December 9, 2005, CBCF issued a $290,000 grant to the New Orleans-based Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment (COFFEE). COFFEE is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance. They also offer construction and rehabilitation assistance and loss mitigation counseling among other vital services such as, insurance claim filing assistance and foreclosure abatement assistance for those who have been unable to meet their mortgage payments. For more information on COFFEE, visit their website at www.coffee-neworleans.org.

Help me out here? Are people talking out of their behind or did they give up the money is response to critics?

Well, read this

Bush-Bashing Black Charity Sits on Katrina Cash
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 22, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which slammed the Bush administration for its allegedly slow and racially insensitive response to Hurricane Katrina, has yet to spend any of the estimated $400,000 that it raised for the victims of the Aug. 29 storm.

"We are collecting all the way up through the very end of the year and then our board has set aside a committee who is going to administer the funds," Patty Rice, spokeswoman for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday. The Foundation is an offshoot of the Congressional Black Caucus and was founded in 1976.

...

Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a group that monitors charitable giving, was quick to criticize the CBCF.

"It sounds like the CBCF has been stressing the immediacy of the [victims'] needs when they raised the money and yet for some reason when it comes time to dishing it out they can't seem to get organized," Boehm told Cybercast News Service.

:

The author wrote an article near Dec. 22 saying the funds haven't been given. Funds were given on the 9th.

Interesting.

Blacks Number One Problem: Racism?

Going around the 'net, or reading opinion pieces, or listening to talk shows, I often read/hear people say something like, "Despite what Blacks think, racism is NOT the number one problem facing Black America.

OK, for me that's a no brainer; it isn't Black America's number one problem. What I want to know is, what percentage of Blacks believe it IS Blacks number one problem?

I suspect that most Blacks will say that it's not, and if that's the case, it's another issue of critics of the Black community setting up a straw man for them to defeat.

Does anyone want to help me find such a poll of Black folk?

Political Quickies

From http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051124-111815-8121r.htm:

The current Republican mayor, Rick Baker who was re-elected two weeks ago with 90 percent of the black vote, gave immediate attention to development and worked closely with black businessmen, Mr. Rouson said.

So, who keeps saying Blacks won't vote for Republicans?

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112501301_2.html:

The two have disagreed on a recent decision by the Maryland Higher Education Commission to allow Towson University to offer a graduate business program. Morgan State's president has argued that Towson would duplicate what his Baltimore school offers. The historically black university relies on the MBA program and similar offerings to draw white students to the campus.

Ehrlich has said he "respects" the decision and is not opposed to having two MBA programs but wants to study ways to enhance Morgan State's offerings.

Steele credits the governor with recognizing Morgan State's needs, but the lieutenant governor said he was "very disappointed" about the decision to bring an MBA program to Towson.

"Forget the Party Labels"

This one has been swirling around in my mind for a bit. It's not formulated completely, but I just want to put it out there.

Michael Steele is getting support from the national Republican party because he is a Black Republican. He's getting help from Karl Rove, the president, and national conservative talk shows.

Michael Steele is the man.

Michael Steele is running his U.S. Senate for Maryland race, not as a Republican, but as an individual. His campaign is saying, forget the party labels and look at the man and the issues.

Now, he could be said that he is doing that so that Blacks "forget" he is a Republican and vote for him. But that is not the case.

Indeed, his campaign is looking at the Maryland demographics, 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans, and see that in a state wide race, there is no other way to run.

His campaign, which has started, has already putting out that he should be considered independent of his party and the president.

Black Intra-Racial Politics: Name Calling

I've written about the alleged name calling against Michael Steele.

I've written about my distaste for the name calling, but questioned the article because of what was directly quoted vs. what was paraphrased.

This is now national news and I'm wondering why:

• When Black Democrat politicians and commentators in Baltimore called Mfume a sellout because Mfume backed Martin O'Malley and refused to get involved in the case of the Baltimore City Public Schools hiding the fact of lead in the drinking water, it wasn't national news.
  
• When Black Democrat politicians and commentators called the Black members of the Baltimore City Council sellouts and Uncle Toms because they were a rubber stamp for Martin O'Malley, it wasn't national news.
  
• When Black Democrat politicians and commentators called Black people on the Baltimore City Public School board sellouts and Uncle Toms because they are useless, it wasn't national news.
  

Actually, I do know why and I have to ask why Michael Steele, someone who, from what I know, I think I like, politically, needs to be protected from normal Black politics?

Black Politics, Continued

Yesterday, I wrote about the dust up of an article that appeared in The Washington Times.

First, again, I want to make this clear: I don't like that sort of name calling. It serves no purpose, to me, instead of highlighting that the people doing it have nothing else to go after. Or, they may, but they are too damned lazy to try.

On the media:

When a reporter writes:

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

I wonder why, in this case, the reporter directly quotes the person being interviewed, but uses his own words about what she said in another. When Lisa Gladden called into a hostile talk show and said that the direct quote was accurate but the first attribution was not accurate, why should she NOT be taken at her word?

The direct quote isn't exactly making her look good, is it?

For the self proclaimed conservatives, if a "liberal" newspaper had quoted a Republican in such a way, and that Republican said the attribution was inaccurate, wouldn't you be rushing to defend and "attack" or "question" the source?

This morning, on WOLB, a Black talk radio station in Baltimore opened up the telephone lines to this topic. Most of the callers self-identified themselves as Black and Democrats, rushed to support Michael Steele. Additionally, some local Black politicians and citizens then ran down the list of accomplishments, from a Black point of view, of the Erlich and Steele administration.

In July, I highlighted a few of the accomplishments.

I read the online edition of The Washington Times. I've read their coverage and how they cover things and feel correct in saying they are conservative and Republican backers.

[Updated]

6:22 PM EST, Verna Jones is now on WEAA, The Danny Glover Show, discussing the original article. She is now saying the reporter took her out of context and added words to what she said:

State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the GOP has not promoted the interests of the black community.

Verna Jones is saying that she never said Black Republicans. She was saying Republicans in general.

So, let me go to the liberal Baltimore Sun.

The article concludes that the lawmakers believe that some recent attacks against Steele are justified, such as a doctored picture on a liberal blog that showed Steele in minstrel makeup. But the politicians said that their quotes were taken out of context and that they do not support racially tinged criticism. The reporter who wrote the article and the managing editor of the Times did not return telephone calls.

Foul

Check out this article.

I'll take a bit from the article. I'll take it as is. Please note what was written, and when things are quoted.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

There is a problem with this. I just heard her on a talk show and she said she didn't say what is in the first paragraph. She did say what is in the second paragraph, thus the direct quote is accurate.

She gave her opinion, and that opinion can be questioned.

The talk show host was livid about this article, and based on what he was saying, I got mad as well, until I went to the article itself. Then I realized he was taking things out of context and getting things flat out wrong.

For example, he said that Mfume supported the idea of going after Steele for being a Republican. Well, Mfume is never directly quoted. Only Mfume's spokesman is quoted.

In fact, this is what Mfume's spokesman said:

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

...

"The facts are the facts. Ehrlich went to that country club, and Steele said it didn't bother him," Mr. Trippi said. "I think that says something ... and should be part of this debate."

This article is a race baiting hachet job.

And I'll say it again: When Black Dems attack Black Dems as sellouts, is it news like this?

Update

From the article:

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Lisa Gladden called into a radio program. She said the quote of the 2nd paragraph is accurate. She said she did not say the what was in the first paragraph. Note there are no direct quotes in that paragraph.

Update 2 Mfume called in and denounced it.

Rough and Tumble Black Politics

"Black politics" can be dirty, just like "regular" politics. From memory, these are some of the things that have happened, in no particular order:

• In Baltimore, Black Democrats for city council seats have tried to "out Black" their rivals by saying they would fight for the interests of "Black folk" in their district and that their rivals were beholden to "Johns Hopkins" or other outside interests.
• Again in Baltimore, some Black talk show hosts have called Black Democrat politicians names like "buck dancing negroes", "sellouts", "coons", etc.
• In N.J., Corey Booker's run for mayor saw his opponent use the "not really Black" charge against him.
• In D.C., the mayoral race often has politicians and "local leaders" saying that this person cares about people "east of the river" or saying that that person only cares about the ward Georgetown is in. "East of the river" is the mostly Black and poor area of D.C.

Those examples are given to show the "Black flavah" of "our" politics. Frankly, I don't like it because when I see it used, sometimes (many times?) it's used to hide and ignore some of the real issues involved in the race. In the case of Corey Booker, it was used when polls showed Cory Booker was leading in the race.

Now, the question of the day: how often do those antics reach the level of national attention of the incident with Michael Steele and the doctored picture?

Does this mean I condone it? Uhhhh.... "Hell to da naw!!!!".

But I'm increasingly starting to wonder why "Black conservatives" or "Black Republicans" are getting special treatment or protection and/or asking for special treatment or protection from "normal" Black politics?

I'm serious.

Is it OK for Black Democrats to call other Black Democrats sellout but Black Republicans/Black conservatives are so fragile that they must be protected from it?

Hat tip: The Black Informant

Harriet Miers

I thought Harriet Miers would get confirmed, despite the pressure from conservative interest groups. I thought that way until I read that she seemed to support affirmative action. I knew she wouldn't get it then. (Colbert I. King wrote the same thing in this article, but he goes on to defend "activist judges". It's worth a read).

What this episode shows is how the president was forced to deal with his party's base. He had to buckle to the pressure which shows the strength of the base.

Now, compare that to Bill Clinton when his base said that the cocaine/crack sentencing disparity law should be allowed sunset. Instead, he made it permanent.

Black Democrats who are active in party politics should take note and do a real self assessment of political support.

I think I'm going to send letters to some Maryland Black Democrat politicians to needle them.

Whither Norman Kelly?

I just discovered this essay by Norman Kelly eviscerating Michael Eric Dyson's dubious critique of Bill Cosby.

Bill Cosby’s outburst could been seen as one of frustration, a collective one: forty years later America and black people still have the poor to deal with. Dyson spends a lot of time criticizing Cosby for what’s been a cottage industry for years: the foibles of the black underclass. But Dyson doesn’t really add anything to the debate; he merely constructs his book around the “text” of Cosby’s speech and adds a series of rejoinders that says more about him than Cosby. What the book tells us about Dyson is that he, like most pseudo-intellectuals of the black cultural criticism school, is a superficial thinker. He actually believes he’s doing important work: responding to a public figure whose major role is still one of being a comedian.

Crunch!
Relying as I do on the Blogosphere for debates and other intellectual table scraps from academia, I am surprised to have just discovered this. I know Spence was going to read Kelly, but I haven't heard any updates recently. What's up with Mr. Kelly?