April 16, 2017

Blackonomics

Radioactivity
By James Clingman

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “Well done beats well said every time...When it’s all said and done, much is said and little is done.” 

There are many Black folks who can tell us what “we need to do” in the context of economic empowerment and other issues that matter.  They have all the answers, but too often deal with them from a symptomatic perspective rather than a problematic perspective.  Some of us believe that simply talking about a problem, mainly by delineating its symptoms, is actually doing the work necessary for a solution.  Think about it.  We cite criminal justice symptoms and educational symptoms, we talk about the wealth gap and the health gap and the income gap, and we regurgitate statistics that justify our symptomatic approach to the dire situations we face every day.  But merely talking and writing about the symptoms have never solved our problems.  Someone has to execute.

I hear and read a great deal of information as I look for the solution to our problems.  It’s almost to the point of information overload.  You would think that with all of the activists we have within our ranks that some actual activity, beyond mere exercising our powers of speech and penmanship, would take place.  That is especially true on radio talk shows.  Those I call “Radio-Activists” are adept at identifying the symptoms and saying what “we need to do” while seldom, if ever, laying out the problem and offering a solution—a solution on which they are willing to work and help implement.  Mere “Radioactivity,” and I would add “TV Activity,” while they may inform us, if not acted upon is just more information. And just like knowledge, information is not power unless you use it—use it to your own advantage.

So all the pontificators, prognosticators, pundits, and philosophizers who simply offer their assessments of our problems by describing their symptoms, should do a little introspection to see if they are really interested in contributing what they can to solve our problems.  Instead of, or at least in addition to sounding the alarm, they should also offer real solutions and then prepare to contribute some time, talent, and treasure toward solving those problems.

Radio activists are usually busy telling others what must be done, as they continue to sit on the sidelines and critique problems.  They seldom are willing to get into the game by initiating the solutions they espouse; instead, they tell others what to do and how it should be done.  Radioactivity, when it comes to economic and political action, is dangerous and seldom results in any real progress, that is, unless someone other than the Radio-Activist picks up the gauntlet and executes a strategy that evolves into a movement to empower our people.

Don’t be a Radio-Activist.  The next time you have the opportunity to speak on the air—or via any medium—don’t just say what “we need” to do; follow it up by saying what you either are doing about the issue or what you are willing to do about it.  Besides, after making your transition, wouldn’t you rather have folks speak of you in terms of what you did in addition to what you said?  Don’t you want to leave a legacy of putting your words into action?  Don’t you want your children to know you for your work on their behalf rather than what you said we “needed”?

We can see what our ancestors did, many of who never gave a speech or wrote a book; they simply worked to leave something better for those who came after them.  It’s more about the actions than it is about the words anyway.  Frederick Douglass told Harriet Tubman, “I have had the applause of the crowd and the satisfaction that comes of being approved by the multitude, while the most that you have done has been witnessed by the few trembling, scarred, foot-sore bondmen and women, whom you have led out of the house of bondage… The midnight sky and silent stars have been the witness of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism… ‘God bless you,’ has been your only reward.”

Everyone can do something.  You don’t have to be rich; you don’t need to be an intellectual; and you don’t have to be a leader.  You have something more than words to give to our people.  Love, trust, respect, encouragement, a smile, a hug, a couple of dollars to a person in need, the willingness start a project, a movement, or an organization, are all things we can do as individuals.  As a collective we can unify, organize, and work on building something for ourselves, because just talking about it will not get the job done.  People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.

April 16, 2017

(TriceEdneywire.co“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.  Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” – United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
A federal court this week dealt a blow to Texas’ efforts to disenfranchise voters of color.

Texas’ draconian 2011 voter identification law has been struck down for the fifth time. Among the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, are the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who have worked tirelessly to defend voting rights across the nation.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined the law intentionally discriminates against Black and Latino voters.  The determination raises the possibility that Texas voting procedures could be placed under federal supervision, as it was from the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act until the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2013 gutting of the Act with its Shelby v. Holder decision.

The court found that when the Texas legislature considered the bill, the lawmakers were aware that only two people, out of 20 million votes cast in the previous decade, had been convicted of in-person voter fraud. Other, more common forms of voter fraud were not addressed by the bill.  The law was easily the most restrictive in the nation with respect to permitted identification. A Texas state handgun license – which may be legally obtained by some non-U.S. citizens -- is a permissible form of identification under the law, while a federal or state government ID, nor a student ID, are not. 

Monday was the second time Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos had ruled on the law.  At the 2014 trial, experts testified to Texas shameful history of suppressing minority voters, from reconstruction up to the present day Between 1895 and 1944, Texas permitted all-white primary elections. From 1905 to 1970, Texas voters were prohibited from taking people with them to the polls to assist them in reading and interpreting the ballot. Between 1902 and 1966, Texas required a poll tax.

And even though the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put Texas’ voting procedures under federal preclearance, Texas continued discriminatory practices. When to voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971, Waller County – home to historically Black Prairie View A&M University – prohibited students from voting unless they or their families owned property in the county. A court struck down the requirement in 1979, but Waller County continued attempting to enforce the law as recently as 2003. Waller County violated the preclearance requirement during Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for President, improperly rejecting voter registrations and placing limits on the number of new registrations. The witnesses also noted that in every redistricting cycle since 1970, Texas has been found to have violated the Voting Rights Act with racially gerrymandered districts.

“Minorities continue to have to overcome fear and intimidation when they vote,” Judge Ramos wrote in her 2014 decision. “Reverend Johnson testified that there are still Anglos at the polls who demand that minority voters identify themselves, telling them that if they have ever gone to jail, they will go to prison if they vote. Additionally, there are poll watchers who dress in law enforcement-style clothing for an intimidating effect.”

While we join other civil rights groups in celebrating the court’s decision, Texas persistence in continuing its long history of racial discrimination against voters is disheartening. We call on Texas’ leadership to heed the blindingly clear message that voter suppression is unacceptable in 21st Century America, and move forward with a commitment to equality and opportunity.

April 16, 2017

A Reversal of Fortune
By Dr. E. Faye Williams

(TriceEdneyWire.com) — I've been left to wonder which hurts more.  Does it hurt more to have a disappointment occur without expectation or does it hurt more to be able to anticipate a disappointment and see it materialize?  I've come to the realization that when it relates to the U.S. Justice System, a disavowal of patterns and practices that’ve served to protect the integrity of the process and broadly protect the rights of citizenship hurts whether anticipated or not.

My great disappointment in the Justice System came on June 25, 2013, in the Shelby County v. Holder decision.  The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which invalidated the "Pre-clearance" requirements of Section 5. Progressive observers predicted a retrenchment of extra-legal policies that served to suppress the voting rights of non-whites who are likely pro-Democratic voters.   Events since that decision have proven the progressive prediction correct.  The pre-1965 experience of a segment of society rendered powerless because of an inability to vote looms large as a future possibility, as well.

Laws passed in a significant number of states since 2013 have served to restrict voting rights and have, when contested, earned the condemnation of judges who’ve seen through the subterfuge and determined that these laws are no more than vehicles targeting the voting rights of minorities. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell's adamant refusal to perform his constitutionally mandated responsibilities of conducting the confirmation process of Judge Merrick Garland signaled a commitment by Republicans to obliterate the changes to social justice achieved in the past 50 years.

My next disappointment in the Justice System came on February 9, 2017 when Jefferson B. Sessions assumed the office of Attorney General of the U.S.  Although initially giving a broadly-general statement of understanding his job of assuring justice under-the-law to all citizens, his subsequent actions seem more like rationalizations of the White Citizens’ Council.  Sessions’ most recent and egregious act is his refusal to implement already-established consent decrees with police departments that’ve demonstrated disparate enforcement of the law (i.e. Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago). In the face of overwhelming evidence and, in some cases, cooperation of the offending police department, Sessions has chosen to overlook the discriminatory patterns and practices in training and enforcement and excuse them to the isolated actions of individual officers.

Somewhere along the way, Sessions has missed the fact that no individual or institution is above the law.  These isolated actions he’s willing to explain away have immeasurable impact on individuals and our communities that reach far beyond an isolated event.

My most recent and greatest disappointment in the Justice System came on April 10, 2017, with Neil Gorsuch taking the oath as the newest Supreme Court Justice.  The addition of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appears to be little more than the appointment of a Scalia-on-steroids Justice who offers little hope of justice for any except the moneyed and well-aligned.

The Gorsuch confirmation threatens to again send women to back-alleys for abortions.  It threatens to solidify control of corporate interests over the lives of ordinary citizens, including environmental issues, healthcare and workers’ rights.  It threatens elimination of laws which control the effective implementation of civil rights initiatives.  Considering the ages of current Justices, this Gorsuch threat could last 40 years or more and impact society for generations beyond that.

For all who say otherwise, voting has consequences!  Those hood-winked by declarations of a failing society and non-voters who saw no reason to vote have helped shaped this reversal of fortune.  In support of political interests promoted in the last election, the Supreme Court and Department of Justice, once allies and defenders of the rights of vulnerable citizens, have turned their backs on those who’ve depended upon their objective judgments.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is National President of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc.  202/678-6788.  www.nationalcongressbw.org)

April 16, 2016

I Won't Be Silenced by the Solar Industry's Intimidation Tactics
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Being a journalist who covers issues important to the African-American and other marginalized communities, I have taken on powerful forces over the years. I have provided a voice for underrepresented communities and engaged both the private and public sector, but always strove to be accurate and respectful. After all, how can I demand civility and fairness from others if I don’t practice it myself?

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece in a publication that focuses on issues in the African-American community. It was about the rooftop solar business. I expressed concerns that industry bad actors were misleading consumers. I focused on three aspects that worried me: First, that new customers may be unaware that the panels can cost upwards of $15,000 and can generate an additional lien against their home, making it harder to sell. Second, rooftop solar salespeople often tell customers that they will save a lot of money on their utility bill, which is not always true. Third, salespeople engaging in high-pressure tactics often do so in the hope that a customer will sign a contract before they understand all of the complexities of a long-term financial agreement.

In response to my article, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) – which represents the rooftop solar industry in Washington -- wrote a response in the same publication refuting my piece. I didn’t fully agree with SEIA, but I respected their right to voice their opinion. I saw their response and was hopeful that going forward the industry would take more steps to protect minority consumers. I decided to move on and continue writing about the other issues important to me.

However, in the last few weeks, I have become a target of an intimidation campaign led by SEIA. Specifically, a gentleman named Michael Schmidt, a Senior Vice President at Crosscut Strategies, who claims to be an agent of SEIA, has repeatedly called and emailed me and my staff. In one call, he even asked a staff member why I had not responded to him and asked: “what was I afraid of?”

In his correspondence to a woman in my office, Mr. Schmidt states that I wrote: “that solar companies are targeting communities of color”. Mr. Schmidt went on to say that: “The SEIA team finds this abhorrent and they wanted to follow up with her about what she knows, since the column didn’t provide details. SEIA takes this issue and consumer protection generally very seriously.  Would it be possible to arrange a quick call between Dr. Malveaux and SEIA’s general counsel about this?”

I believe that Mr. Schmidt’s suggestion that I speak with SEIA’s general counsel, Tom Kimbis, is an attempt to assert that my comment about “targeting communities of color” could be libelous. If SEIA wanted to provide me with facts to change my mind, why couldn’t Mr. Schmidt provide me with that information, or connect me with SEIA’s communications or policy experts? The suggestion that I speak with SEIA’s in-house attorney was designed to intimidate.

Be assured, I take this threat seriously. I believe I did nothing wrong, but I do not have millions of dollars to defend myself. SEIA represents companies like Tesla that are worth billions of dollars. It wouldn’t be a fair fight.

I want to be clear: I wrote the rooftop solar piece based on recent correspondence sent by three Democrats in the Congress to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The letter was read by Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, a Hispanic, and Reps. Emmanuel Cleaver of Missouri and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, both African Americans.

At the end of the letter sent by those Congressmen, they stated that the high-pressure sales tactics used by bad actors in the rooftop solar industry are often targeted at the least sophisticated consumers. Therefore, the matter is a “particular concern for minority communities in our districts and around the nation.” That is where I got the line in my piece that SEIA seems to be so upset about.

If Abigail Ross Harper, the head of SEIA, or anyone at the association has an issue with what I said in my piece, then they should have reached out to me and asked to speak. I would have agreed and had an open mind. But the fact that they decided to try and use a hired gun to try and intimidate me and my staff only makes me believe that my original piece – that the rooftop solar industry does not respect minorities -- was sadly all too accurate.

Julianne Malveaux is an economist, author, and Founder of Economic Education. Her podcast, “It’s Personal with Dr. J” is available on iTunes. Her latest book “Are We Better Off: Race, Obama and public policy is available via amazon.com