November 27, 2016

To Be Equal 

Looking for Ways to Make Democracy More Democratic
By Marc Morial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - "Can we forget for whom we are forming a government?  Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?" --  James Wilson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787

When the United States of America was born, emphasis was far greater on “States” than “United.”  Citizens of the newly-formed nation identified first and foremost as “Pennsylvanians” or “Georgians,” for example, and as “Americans” only as a distant second. Our method for selecting a chief executive originally was devised to serve interests of each state, rather than each citizen.

The idea that all citizens of the nation should have an equal say in electing the highest office in the land was far from the minds of the framers of the Constitution in 1787. The Constitution did not specify who could vote; that was left to the states and most granted suffrage only to white male adult property owners.  Delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered election of the President by Congress, election by state governors, election by state legislatures and direct election by voters.

Direct election was considered, though not seriously, and twice rejected.  It can be argued that the framers of the Constitution were far more concerned about electing a qualified President than a popular one. The Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters came up with the Electoral College as a compromise.

Today’s Electoral College would be as baffling and unforeseen to the Framers of the Constitution as Twitter or the Mars Exploration Rover.

Over the next two centuries, the United States grew to cherish democracy as an American ideal. As the right to vote was expanded and the principle of “one person one vote” overtook the nation, the justification for the Electoral College diminished.  Five times the winner of the popular vote has been denied the Presidency because of the Electoral College – twice in the last 16 years.

Today, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.  Minnesota has 22,000 more people than Colorado and one more electoral vote, while Wisconsin has 33,000 more people than Minnesota and the same number of electoral votes.  According to a study conducted during the 2012 Presidential election, the candidates conducted two-thirds of their public events in September and October in just three states - Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.  At the same time, the candidates failed to hold a single public event in 40 states.  Overall, campaign events and advertising took place in only 12 states.

As a nation that cherishes the “one person one vote” ideal, we should find these facts offensive.

Abolishing the Electoral College would require the consent of the legislatures of the very states that benefit from this imbalance in power. In the current political climate, chances are almost nil.

However, the Constitution does not specify how each state must apportion its electoral votes. If states agreed to award their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, the anti-democratic influence of the Electoral College would be eliminated.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  It has been enacted into law in 10 states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes.  It will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes.

Public opinion surveys consistently find solid majorities in favor of eliminating the Electoral College. Even our current President-Elect, the most recent beneficiary of its anti-democratic effect, has called it “a disaster for a democracy.”

While the road to actual elimination appears long and fraught, eliminating its anti-democratic influence appears to be within our grasp.

Nov. 27, 2016

An Uncommon Approach
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

(TriceEdney WireService) - Jane Elliott is not commonly known in American households.  She holds no fame among the elites, nor does she command any known political clout. She is small in stature.  She doesn’t boast of great wealth. Seeing her one would probably think of her as being non-threatening -- even grandmotherly.

Her appearance, however, belies her nature.  She’s fiercely committed to an anti-racist philosophy and equality and justice for all.  She’s a pioneer in the field of diversity training. She’s taken her message across the US and Europe.  Contrary to her appearance and size, she strikes fear in the hearts of racist whites and doggedly breeches their walls of emotional superiority and white privilege. No, she’s not a person of color.

She's the little white woman you may have seen asking an audience of whites if they’d be willing to receive the same treatment as African Americans.  After a totally negative response, she admonishes them for their understanding of the discriminatory treatment and willingness to accept it for others while rejecting it for themselves.  For nearly 50 years, Elliott has challenged racist behavior and injustice in America.

(Watch at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yrg7vV4a5o)

An important consideration of her question to her audience was that it uncovered an unwillingness to condemn white racism as the root cause of other, seemingly non-related, behavior.  It confirmed the willingness of many to accept and endorse white racism as an integral part of "the American way of life."

Previously I have said that selections for Trump’s inner-circle and nominations for his cabinet provide us with clear indication of how he plans to govern.  Like Ms.Elliott's question, Trump's selections indicate his unwillingness to acknowledge the destructive impact of racism upon American society.  The inclusion of Steve Bannon, Reince Prebus, Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Sessions among choices to fill important positions gives all of us reason for concern.

The selection of Prebus as Whitehouse Chief of Staff and Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor portend imminent disaster, especially for those committed to human rights. As Republican Party Chairman, Prebus ignored and gave silent approval to Trump's racism, sexism, religious intolerance and general bad behavior.  Bannon's position as executive chairman of Breitbart News and champion of alt-right politics bring his objectivity regarding issues of societal tolerance into question.  Prebus and Bannon have been metaphorically compared respectively, to the angel on the right and devil on the left shoulder of Trump.

Giuliani has distinguished himself as one of Trump's most aggressive campaign "hatchet men."  Mainstream media reporters characterized many of his statements as maniacal.  Post-election, we’ve learned that Giuliani was as deeply engaged on the paid-public speaking circuit as Secretary Clinton, who he accused of malfeasance.  In classic hypocrisy, his earnings were as obscene as he accused hers of being.

The dirty-little secret of Jeff Sessions is that his professional history is littered with accusations of racism.  As Assistant US Attorney for Southern Alabama, Sessions’ office refused to prosecute two Klan members for the death of Michael Donald, a Black male.  In 1985, he chose to prosecute three Black community organizers for voter fraud.  He condemned the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American" and "Communist Inspired."  He’s accused of using "boy" when addressing a Black attorney.  He failed to receive confirmation as a Federal judge because of his history. I‘ve seen nothing that would suggest his views have changed.  Is this who we’re to believe will responsibly enforce the laws in the interest of ALL citizens?

Like Ms.Elliott's audience, Trump is turning a deaf-ear to complaints about the fitness of his selectees to fill positions that impact ALL of us. Like Elliott’s audience, it appears that Trump is willing to ignore the imperatives of a discrimination-free society.  He’s given us no reason to believe otherwise.

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

Nov. 27, 2016

Kanye West is Melting Down - What Can We Learn?
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Kanye West is melting down.  He didn’t perform to expectations at two concert dates, declaring, at one, that he would have voted for Donald Trump for President, and generating boos for his statement.  In a subsequent concert he performed just a couple of songs, and abruptly ended a performance that should have lasted at least an hour.  A couple of days later, he was hospitalized in a “psychiatric hold”.  Some say he is simply exhausted, sleep-deprived and stressed.  Some say it is more.  His mother, Dr. Donda West, died in November 2007.  Nine years later, is he especially vulnerable to outbursts and erratic behavior on that anniversary?  In any case, even as many of us have admired Kanye West as a boldly audacious entertainer, we are also concerned about his very public meltdown and its implications.

African American people don’t pay enough attention to the challenges that mental health issues face.  We are more likely than whites to experience mental health challenges, but far less likely than whites to seek help.  We minimize mental health challenges, laughing and calling those who are challenged crazy and cray-cray (I confess, I do this from time to time).  We don’t respond to their very public cry for help.  Yes, Kanye West was crying for help.  His inappropriate public behavior could have been interpreted as an ask for someone to take him, hold him, comfort him, hear him.  Instead, he had a challenging concert schedule, a schedule that would have brought him millions of dollars.  Cancelling the schedule may have saved his health but it has cost him millions of dollars.  Imagine the pressure he must have felt – can I go on and save the day?  Must I step aside and take a hit?

Most African Americans who face mental health challenges face some of the same concerns Kanye West must have.  If you share your mental anguish, you are cray-cray, the object of jokes and ridicule.  If you hide it, you are eaten alive by an anguish that forces you to say “fine”, or “OK”, when people ask you how you are doing.  Just like we tell people to take an annual physical, to feel their breasts for lumps, to get the prostate check, we need to encourage folks who are a bit erratic to check in with their doctors about their mental health.

We don’t do that and, indeed, many health plans limit access to mental health professionals.  But the mental health status of African Americans too often collides with the law enforcement system when “erratic” behavior on the part of some African Americans is seen as simply criminal.  People who are mentally ill and need help are too often incarcerated or killed because some police forces lack the tools to manage a mental health crisis that is likely growing.

Consider the case of Anthony Hill, a naked and unarmed Atlanta Air Force veteran who was acting erratically in his apartment complex in early March.  Someone called 911 because a naked man was knocking on doors and “acting deranged”.  When DeKalb police Robert Olsen encountered Hill, he asked him to stop, and when he did not, he was shot twice.  Mr. Hill didn’t have a weapon, and anybody who is hanging out naked is clearly mentally impaired.  Meanwhile Officer Olsen had a Taser, but he chose to use his gun, but he chose to use his gun against a naked, weaponless man.

Olsen was charged with murder and indicted and, in October, was ordered to stand trial.  The trial may begin late their year or early next year.  Meanwhile, it is significant to note that Anthony Hill was believed to be bipolar, and suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.  He served our country in Afghanistan, and tried unsuccessfully to get an appointment, and some help, from the VA hospital in Atlanta.  Might the outcome of his erratic episode have been different if mental health professionals, not a trigger-happy officer, were deployed to intervene?

Should mental illness be a death sentence?  It was for Anthony Hill, and for many others who don’t get the help they need.  Even as the incoming President attempts to reverse some aspects of the Affordable Care Act, conscious health advocates must insist that mental health coverage is as important as physical health coverage.  It is disgraceful that a veteran should be shot because his mental illness got the better of him.  It is disgusting that dozens of others who are unarmed and mentally ill are shot because people untrained to manage mental illness are sent to communities, gun ready, and oblivious to alternatives.

Julianne Malveaux is an author and economist. Her latest book “Are We Better Off? Race, Obama and Public Policy” is available via www.amazon.com for booking, wholesale inquiries or for more info visitwww.juliannemalveaux.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Trump's Cabinet Nominations are Calculated Insult
By Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.