Bruce A. Dixon at Black Agenda Report, a progressive "journal of African American political thought and action," has graded the first 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency on 18 general issues...
1. Health Care Reform (9 points)
2. Creating New Jobs and Preserving Old Ones (5 points)
3. Fully Funding and Preserving Public Education (6 points)
4. War & Peace (9 points)
5. Transportation (5 points)
6. Caribbean and Latin America (4 points)
7. Obama's Africa Policy; Our Brotherman and the Motherland (5 points)
8. Wall Street Bailout (6 points)
9. Debt and Foreclosure Crises (6 points)
10. Investigating Bush-era Crimes (5 points)
11. Criminalizing Immigration, Militarizing the Border (5 points)
12. Broadband For Everyone and a Just and Fair Media (5 points)
13. Environment (5 points)
14. Agricultural Policy, and Policy Toward Black Farmers (5 points)
15. Mass imprisonment (5 points)
16. Employee Free Choice Act (5 points)
17. Urban Policy (5 points)
18. Privatization of Government Agencies and Services (5 points)
Out of 100 possible points, 55 was considered passing.
Obama scored 22.5
This is so far down in the failing scores that the most appropriate letter-grade is probably...
With all the "100 Day" talk of late, I thought it would be both refreshing and constructive to consider the Black Agenda Report Card on Obama's First 100 Days. This is from Bruce A. Dixon, who is also an occasional commentator on Open Left.
The Report Card evaluates 18 categories, items, with points assigned as follows:
1. Health Care Reform (9 points)
2. Creating New Jobs and Preserving Old Ones (5 points)
3. Fully Funding and Preserving Public Education (6 points)
4. War & Peace (9 points)
5. Transportation (5 points)
6. Caribbean and Latin America (4 points)
7. Obama's Africa Policy; Our Brotherman and the Motherland (5 points)
8. Wall Street Bailout (6 points)
9. Debt and Foreclosure Crises (6 points)
10. Investigating Bush-era Crimes (5 points)
11. Criminalizing Immigration, Militarizing the Border (5 points)
12. Broadband For Everyone and a Just and Fair Media (5 points)
13. Environment (5 points)
14. Agricultural Policy, and Policy Toward Black Farmers (5 points)
15. Mass imprisonment (5 points)
16. Employee Free Choice Act (5 points)
17. Urban Policy (5 points)
18. Privatization of Government Agencies and Services (5 points)
Brief excerpts of each item, with scores assigned and some comments by me on the flip. This is, of course, no substitute for reading the full original. Hopefully it will whet some appetites.
Black Colleges Profiled as Suspected Havens for "Extremists"
[Summary] Don't let the apolitical facades fool you. Virginia's four Black colleges are hotbeds of "militancy and rebellion" and magnets for "a wide variety of terror or extremist groups." So says a government-funded outfit called the Virginia Fusion Center, which also cautions against the national security dangers inherent in diversity. "While the vast majority of these individuals are law-abiding, this ethnic diversity also affords terrorist operatives the opportunity to assimilate easily into society, without arousing suspicion." Safe, secure communities are uniformly white and English-speaking.
There aren't many other places you will hear about this bogus homeland security report--in rather sharp contrast to the accurate report released just over two weeks ago--"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" (pdf)--which discussed very real potential threats posed by rightwing extremists, including white supremacists, getting whipped up back into their 1990s/Clinton Era anti-government frenzy. that was when Iraq War vet Timothy McVeigh spearheaded the terrorist bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, the most devastating single act of terrorism inside the US in decades, right up until 9/11.
That earlier report was savagely attacked by movement conservatives for supposedly "profiling conservatives" as terrorists (Michelle Malkin, Washington Times: "the Obama Homeland Security report is an overarching indictment of conservatives.}) even though the word "conservative" did not appear in the report. They also attacked it for supposedly citing returning veterans as potential terrorists (like Timothy McVeigh, no?), (Malkin: "the report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over 'disgruntled military veterans'") when the report actually said--directly under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans" "DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."
In short, the DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report was attacked with a typical onslaught of rightwing lies and distortions--and the Clinton Obama Administration ended up apologizing for what they had not actually done.
Here, on the other hand, the same Homeland Security apparatus (though not the federal department directly) has produced a truly baseless report that does rely on group stereotyping, in sharp defiance of the actual entities being discussed, and there's barely a blip on anyone's radar, at least so far. It couldn't be because the targets here are black, could it? No, of course not. Just not possible in today's "post-racial" America.
Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, has yet another of his scathing commentaries this week. It's called "The Crime of Walking While Black". But oddly, this one falls short of the mark. Why? Because when all is said and done, Ford reverts to using the term "racial profiling" when the evidence Ford presents--and even his own words--show that something much more sinister is going on than merely racial profiling. Take a look at what he said, and see for yourself:
Half a million times last year, New York City police stopped and frisked individuals on the street. Eighty percent of the time, those individuals were Black or Latino - groups that make up just over half the city's population. Whites comprise 44 percent of New Yorkers, but made up only ten percent of the people stopped and frisked by police. The Center for Constitutional Rights says that's hard evidence of racial profiling and stopping people without reasonable grounds for suspicion, violations of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The data on stop-and-frisks was compiled by the NYPD, itself, but it took ten years to force the cops to make the numbers public - proving, in a real sense, that lots of cops would prefer to be in the "secret police."
Over a period of three-and-a-half years New York City police made 1.6 million stops on the streets - many of which involved stopping the same people in the same neighborhoods over and over again, even after finding they were engaged in nothing illegal. In fact, one of the most disturbing patterns of police behavior was the "remarkably low rates of stops-and-frisks" that resulted in arrests or the seizure of weapons or other contraband. In other words, in most of the cases cops were bothering Black and Latino pedestrians who were just going about their business.
Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations.
But this is not what Ford is describing. Stopping the same person over and over again is not investigation. It's harassment on its very face, which almost inevitably becomes intimidation. Looked at collectively, what Ford is describing--quite accurately, I must hasten to add--is racial harassment, racial intimidation, and racial aggression. To continue to call it "racial profiling" in light of the evidence Ford is pointing to greatly minimizes and sanitizes what is actually going on. In fact, the CCR report Ford refers to resulted from a lawsuit alleging a pervasive pattern of suspicionless stops.
What would you say of a politician running for Congress who failed denounce something like this attacking her opponent:
Typical Republican, right? Well, almost. Typical Harold Ford protege, actually. A corporate lawyer after his own heart.
The minister who put it out--who lives well outside the district--works with a group that's in league with the Traditional Values Coalition. And Emily's List is supporting her, more on the basis of her ovaries than her anything else--given her non-existent pro-choice credentials.
In 2006, local blogger David Holt reported: "When asked about abortion, she said the she doesn't support abortion but that the government should stay out of it."
That's an Emily's List candidate nowadays???
In sharp contrast, her incumbent opponent, Rep. Steven Cohen ranks in the TOP 25 according to Progressive Punch.
The attacks are motivated by Cohen's race, his religion, and the fact that he supports hate crime protections for lesbians and gays. His enemies clearly have no place in the Democratic Party. But Emily's List is in bed with them! And Black Agenda Report--in the person of no-nonsense Executive Editor Glen Ford--is all over this, as you'll see on the flip.
