Click the image below to read about the Black Money scam. It will amaze you.
Click the image below to read about the Black Money scam. It will amaze you.
Heather Ferreira works in the slums of Mumbai, India, where she has watched thousands of women live under a "curse."
The women she meets in the squalid streets where "Slumdog Millionaire" was filmed are often treated with contempt, she says. They're considered ugly if their skin and hair are too dark. They are deemed "cursed" if they only have daughters. Many would-be mothers even abort their children if they learn they're female.
Yet lately she says Indian women are getting another message from the emergence of another woman thousands of miles away. This woman has dark skin and hair. She walks next to her husband in public, not behind. And she has two daughters. But no one calls her cursed. They call her Michelle Obama, the first lady.
"She could be a new face for India," says Ferreira, program officer for an HIV-prevention program run by World Vision, an international humanitarian group. "She shows women that it's OK to have dark skin and to not have a son. She's quite real to us."
Syracuse, NY – Dr. Boyce Watkins of Syracuse University has recently joined America Online as a financial writer and expert commentator. He will be the resident Financial Expert for AOL Black Voices, the premier Black news website in America, with over 100,000 readers per day. Dr. Watkins has been on the faculty at Syracuse University for 8 years and has worked with many major media outlets, including CNN, BET, ESPN and CBS Sports. He is also the author of “Financial Lovemaking 101: Merging Assets with Your Partner in Ways that Feel Good”.
In his role with AOL Black Voices, Dr. Watkins will provide analysis on the economy, employment issues, celebrity finances, and money management. He will use his unique style of informative, compelling, yet down to earth financial analysis to promote financial literacy within the Black community. The site will syndicate his popular financial series' "Financial Lovemaking", co-hosted with S. Tia Brown (formerly a Senior Editor with "In Touch Weekly" Magazine) and "Get Your Paper Straight", a radio segment hosted with George Kilpatrick of Power 106.5 and WSYR radio.
‘Full scholarship’ can leave college athletes with as much as $30,000 in expenses
With the 2009 NCAA men’s basketball tournament heating up, the National College Players Association (NCPA), formerly known as the Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC), released results of another significant study revealing the estimated shortfall between college athletes’ full scholarships and the actual cost of attendance at each Division I university.
The NCPA asserts that, by and large, universities have been deceiving recruits, many of whom are under the age of 18 and from disadvantaged backgrounds, into unknowingly being responsible for paying thousands of dollars while on “full” athletic scholarship.
“The fact is, coaches fill high school recruits’ heads with promises of free rides and full scholarships, when in fact no such things exist. The NCAA designs full scholarships to fall short of the advertised price tag of a school, leaving recruits scrambling to make ends meet,” stated United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard.
Cases of swine flu were confirmed early today in Israel and New Zealand, the first definitive proof that the dangerous new virus has spread to Asia.
The World Health Organization, which yesterday raised its pandemic threat level from 3 to 4, two levels below a full-scale pandemic, will not meet today to consider another increase, a spokesman said at a news conference.
While the agency said people should think carefully before traveling to or from areas known to be affected by the flu virus, spokesman Gregory Hartl said it considers formal travel restrictions and border closures ineffective because people who would be screened could be infected but not yet showing symptoms.
A former Hampton University student armed with three guns followed a pizza delivery man into the student's former dorm early Sunday, shot the delivery man and a dorm monitor, then turned the gun on himself, university officials said. All three survived.
No current students were injured and both victims and the alleged shooter were expected to recover. Officials could offer no motive for the shooting.
Hampton President William R. Harvey, who said he arrived within 15 minutes of the shooting, told a news conference the campus shooting could have been much worse.
"I think we are very, very fortunate. This could have been another — you fill in the blank," Harvey said.
The 18-year-old former student, who is from New York City, apparently parked his car off campus to avoid a vehicle checkpoint at Hampton's main gate, then followed the pizza delivery man on foot and inside a freshman dormitory, Harkness Hall. Once inside, he shot the pizza man and entered the monitor's office and fired three shots at him, then shot himself, Hampton University Police Chief Leroy Crosby said.
Crosby said he didn't know what prompted the shooting.
The monitor, who suffered two gunshot wounds in his arms and a third in the leg, has been released from the hospital, Harvey said.
"He feels, as I do, that he was extremely lucky and blessed," Harvey said of the monitor.
The other two, including the alleged shooter, were in stable condition.
The shooting victims are 62 and 43. The university did not release their names.
Hampton police are leading the investigation and requested that details be withheld at the news conference, Crosby said.
The reporters assembled Thursday morning to hear the results of a new poll measuring public attitudes toward President Obama did their best to ferret out nuggets of bad news. How durable is the president's high job-approval rating (63 percent) and higher-yet personal rating (73 percent)? One bit of bad news and the rainbow disappears? asked one scribe. What about the narrative Republicans are advancing that Obama is a weak president who can be pushed around? Another wondered how much of Obama's "halo effect" could be attributed to the nation's "historic self-congratulations" over the breakthrough his election represented.
The reaction to the news of California high schooler Jeremy Tyler's plan was as predictable as it was tired. The New York Times reported Thursday that Tyler, a 6-foot-11 junior at San Diego High, plans to skip his senior year in high school to play professionally in Europe. In two years, when his high school class is one year past graduation, he'll return to the U.S. and enter the NBA draft.
The tongue-clucking was deafening. You'd think the Book of Revelation had been revised to include skipping a year of high school to play pro basketball right between the sun turning black and the moon turning red. This will kill college basketball, some said. This kid is throwing away his future, others said.
Since no European newspaper sports editor offered me a six-figure salary to skip my senior year of high school, I don't feel qualified to rip Tyler's choice. I've never walked in his high-tops. But I do have a few questions for the folks who consider Tyler's move an abomination.
If he played golf, would you feel differently?
A University of Georgia professor apparently shot and killed his wife and two other people at a community theater group's reunion Saturday, then dropped the couple's two children off at a neighbor's and fled.
An alert on the UGA Web site says professor George Zinkhan is a suspect in an off-campus shooting.
Athens-Clarke County police said they have local, regional and national alerts out for George Zinkhan, 57, an endowed marketing professor at the school's Terry College of Business.
"It appeared he and his wife were having problems," police Capt. Clarence Holeman said.
Holeman identified the dead as Marie Bruce, 47, Zinkhan's wife and a prominent Athens attorney; Tom Tanner, 40; and Ben Teague, 63.
Friends identified Bruce as the president of the board of the Town and Gown Players, the theater group holding a reunion picnic on the theater's deck when the shooting took place. Tanner and Teague were identified as set designers for the theater.
Two other people were wounded by ricocheting bullets, Holeman said, but did not identify them. At least 20 people were in attendance at the event, he said.
Zinkhan was not at the theater event initially, Holeman said, but when he arrived, he got into "a disagreement" with his wife. He left the scene -- police believe to his car, where his children were waiting -- and returned with two handguns.
"It only took a few minutes," Holeman said. Police found eight shell casings, he said.
by Dr. Christopher Metzler, Georgetown University
As we worried about whether Michelle Obama should have touched the Queen, whether Bo (the White House dog) will be as famous as Barney and whether Levi Johnson of Sara Plain fame practiced safe sex all of the time, the Supreme Court of the United States was wading into the racial water with an American public that is now ensconced into "post-racial" cocoon because of the election of Barack Obama.
This week the Roberts court heard the case of Ricci, ET Al. In this case, several white and one Latino firefighter in New Haven Connecticut asked the Court to decide whether the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the United States Constitution by throwing out a promotion test in which the plaintiffs but no blacks scored high enough to be promoted. The rather clinical legal questions are:
As clinical as these legal question are, they have significant real life political ramifications. Although the plaintiffs in this case are firefighters, the decision will affect employment law, affirmative action, diversity and they way in which employers and others seek to remedy the lingering effects of discrimination. The reality is that not everyone believes that discrimination still occurs in America since slavery has been outlawed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been implemented and President Obama occupies the White House. Regardless of the position one takes on these issues, the significance of the Court's decision cannot be underestimated for many reasons, a few of which I have outlined below.
First, the Roberts court has not spoken on race in any significant way and is eager to do so. Of course, it is Justice Kennedy who will ultimately decide this case and both the liberal and conservative blocs of the Court will work to craft a decision which he can sign onto. The difficulty for the liberal wing of the Court is that this case is as much an ideological case as it is a legal one. Good old fashioned liberal ideology will require a decision which reaffirms the need for government to be zealous in forming race-conscious decisions. In order to uphold the city's decision, the liberal wing will have to convince Kennedy that the city's decision to refuse to certify the test results was based on the fact that the test impacted Black fire fighters negatively and worse because it ensured that none of them would be promoted.
Given that so many Americans now believe that the election of President Obama is proof that America is "race blind," this argument will run into political headwinds. The Court's decision will reveal whether it relies on the political or finally acknowledges that American legal decisions because of the ideological shift of the courts are both political and legal and thus not neutral.
Congress prohibits both disparate treatment (treating someone different because of race) and disparate impact (discrimination where an ostensibly neutral practice such as the test, disproportionately impacts a group because of race). The question is, how the Roberts Court views disparate impact since, in theory anyone who fails the test (be they Black, White, Asian or Latino cannot be promoted). The Roberts Court will have to judge both the theory of equality and the reality of inequality in an effort to reach a decision.
Second, one can only hope that the Court will not make a decision in which it instructs employers to avoid thinking about how employment related decisions can and do have racial implications as to do so will simply be as divorced from reality as anyone can be. Moreover, cities and states in the not so distant past denied Blacks the right to vote ostensibly not because they were Black but because they could not pass the "voter exam" or pay the poll tax. Thus, employers cannot craft anti-racist employment policies without first examining whether racial bias is embedded in supposedly neutral tests.
The conservative bloc of the court will argue that the City should not reward the black firefighters for failing the tests. They will posit that race has nothing to do with the test and that the tests are simply designed to promote the "most qualified" firefighters to the next level. To do so will require a through and sifting analysis of whether "most qualified" is a neutral term or whether it has cultural and racial implications. The conservative bloc will argue that qualifications are neutral and that valid tests, such as the one in question here, are an equalizer.
Of course, they would be hard pressed to prove the degree of rationality of the tests and its correlation of it to promotion. This wing then will rely on the rhetorical claim of equality in testing without examining the flaw in the rhetoric and the reality of a still racial America. The argument in sum is that the test cannot be discriminatory because employers no longer discriminate against Blacks. Thus, the firefighters failed the test not because of racial bias but because they are ill prepared to be leaders in the department.
Given the "post racial" hysteria that has enveloped this country, this may in fact be the winning argument. Thus, the Roberts Court may have political cover to issue a decision which elevates the theoretical rhetoric of equality in a substantively unequal America. The question then becomes whether Congress will have the fortitude to resolve the dilemma with the support of the President.
Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is associate dean at Georgetown University and the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a Post-Racial America.
A former US Ku Klux Klan chief arrested here on a speaking tour was freed during the night but will be forced to leave the country later Saturday, Czech police said.
David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Louisiana-founded Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, arrived in Prague on Friday at the invitation of a local far-right group, Narodni Odpor (National Resistance).
Glance at the Daily Business Review's annual yearbook of new partners at South Florida law firms and the dearth of minorities and women is quickly obvious. Only three black lawyers were promoted to partner by area firms who responded to the DBR's survey.
One black woman was promoted to partner at Holland & Knight and another two at Greenberg Traurig.
Undeterred by the economy and the racial and gender barriers, minority and women lawyers press on.
Detra Shaw-Wilder, a black litigation shareholder at Coral Gables-based Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, says she can see progress in the representation of women and minorities in the partnership ranks at South Florida law firms -- but it has been gradual.
When Shaw-Wilder was vice president of what is now the Wilkie D. Ferguson Bar Association in 2001, she observed 18 black partners at large and mid-sized law firms in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. There are now 31.
"From one perspective you can say surely there is progress," she said. "But it is slow going. There's a long ways to go. There's definitely work to be done and more progress to be made. There are firms on this list that were not around in 2001, so perhaps there's more opportunity there. It looks like some firms like Greenberg Traurig are making significant progress."
Fifteen months into a deep recession, college-educated white workers still had a relatively low unemployment rate of 3.8% in March of this year. The same could not be said for African Americans with four-year degrees. The March 2009 unemployment rate for college-educated blacks was 7.2%—almost twice as high as the white rate—and up 4.5 percentage points from March 2007, before the start of the current recession (see chart).
The World Health Organization warned countries around the world Saturday to be on alert for any unusual flu outbreaks after a unique new swine flu virus was implicated in possibly dozens of human deaths in North America.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said the outbreak in Mexico and the United States constituted a "public health emergency of international concern."
The black blogosphere is buzzing with the rumor that two media staples of the African American community are on the verge of disappearing. In February, Black Enterprise magazine announced that Ebony and Jet magazines were "restructuring to avoid layoffs," with the cheerful sub-headline: "Johnson Publishing Co. employees told to reapply for jobs."
Now in late April, people are e-mailing, tweeting and talking about the possible irrevocable demise of the only media brands every black person in America knows. Some are even starting a campaign to save the magazines with a subscription drive.
The White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate signaled on Thursday that they would block for now any effort to establish an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration’s approval of harsh interrogation techniques.
In doing so, they sought to reduce pressure for a full inquiry — from, among others, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi — that has grown more intense since President Obama suggested on Tuesday that he would be open to such an investigation. While the White House has contended that Mr. Obama never actively supported an inquiry, his firmer opposition to the possibility, communicated to Congressional leaders in meetings on Wednesday night and Thursday, represented a shift in emphasis.
A professor who gained national attention when a noose was found on her office door and was later fired for alleged plagiarism has filed a defamation lawsuit against her former school.
A former professor is suing Columbia University's Teachers College for defamation.
Madonna Constantine, formerly of the Teachers College of Columbia University, is seeking $200 million in the lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court.
Constantine contends her scholarly reputation was ruined when the school in February 2008 released the results of what it said was an 18-month investigation into the plagiarism allegations. The school at the time said it found "numerous instances in which she used others' work without attribution in papers she published in academic journals over the past five years."
She was immediately suspended and later fired in June 2008.
"This was a scheme cooked up between the head of the department and former faculty," said Paul J. Giacomo Jr., the lawyer representing Constantine. "We had evidence of her original writing that dates back to the 1990s, but it was altered or dismissed."
A spokeswoman for the Teachers College said, "This case is totally without merit and (the college) intends to defend against it vigorously."
Giacomo said the "baseless" charges of plagiarism, coming on the heels of the October 2007 noose incident, made some members of the media question that incident.
by Dr. Ronald Walters, University of Maryland
I am missing something here. President Barack Obama just went to Europe and Iraq and made speeches saying that he would be deferential to Communist China, that he would meet without conditions with the leadership of Iran and that he wanted to open up a new relationship with the Islamic world. Then he went to the Conference of the Americas in Trinidad and shook the hand of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who has said some devilish things about America and the Bush administration. But the key issue that took the conference over was the American overture to Cuba to talk, in response to Raul Castro’s statement that he would talk with the U. S. and that everything would be on the table. Moreover, the Obama administration has said that it wanted to open up a new chapter in its relationship with the United Nations. To that end, it has appointed an African American Ambassador and put in its application for a seat on the Human Rights Commission. Against this background, the decision of the Obama administration not to go to the United Nations Conference On Racism in Geneva, Switzerland April 20-24 would appear to be a powerful refutation of this relatively liberal approach to the international community it has established.
This was a conference on racism which means that the interests of those who experienced racism around the world and especially in this country was involved in their representation at this forum. Not only are African Americans implicated as victims of racism because of their experiences in this country, they are tax payers and should be able to depend upon representation by their government to deal with this issue in such a forum. Then, of course, there is the obvious point that an African American President and an African American U. N. Ambassador are involved in this decision not to send a representative. No doubt, they would protest that they are following the legacy of the Civil Rights movement in their position and thus, their right to make such a decision but its basis seems to be narrow and counter to the world wide problem of racism.
The administration sent a delegation to Geneva in February to the preliminary meeting and left concerned about the fact that language equating Zionism with racism was carried forth from the Durban Conference of 2001 to this one. On that basis, they decided -- like their counterpart Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell -- not to send an official delegation. In making this decision, Obama has made a political decision to privilege the interests of the Jewish community over that of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. This cannot be perceived as change. This places such groups, who played a decisive role in his election into the category of being expendable. Now I am aware that the Jewish community voted 77% for Barack Obama, support him financially. and they are linked to the politics of the Middle East. I know that, but I am also aware that the entire continent of Africa where Obama’s father was from, experienced racism at the hands of their colonial masters. and still do so today.
Most important, there is the pregnant question in the Black community of whether having run a “race neutral” campaign Obama will now run a “race neutral” administration ignoring the interests of the Black community. In that context, ignoring a high profile conference on racism is a gamble that this is indeed an expendable issue, of intense concern only to a handful of activists in the Black community -- that most Black people won’t even know that such a conference has taken place. Then, Black leaders, so entrenched in the politics of the economic issues, are likely to given him a pass on this.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee has voiced her regret that the Obama administration will not attend the Conference but I have also heard through Professor Michael Fauntroy of George Mason University that the CBC was refused in its effort to get support from Speaker Nancy Pelosi who told them not to go. Otherwise, no ruckus has been made of this, so the Obama people could be right. You get the government you are willing to fight for.
Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Center and Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park. His latest book is: The Price of Racial Reconciliation (The Politics of Race and Ethnicity)
If a man makes less money than his spouse, is that a problem? What if Beyonce had outearned her husband Jay-z?
Click the image to watch!
Stories of race and gender prevailed at this year's Pulitzer Prizes, with "Ruined," Lynn Nottage's harrowing tale of survival set against the backdrop of an African civil war, winning for drama Monday and books about slavery, civil rights and Andrew Jackson also receiving awards.
In a rare victory for the short story, Elizabeth Strout's "Olive Kitteridge," a collection set in New England and linked by the forthright title character, a math teacher and general scold with an understanding heart. It was the first book of short stories to win since 2000 (Jhumpa Lahiri's "Interpreter of Maladies").
Three prize winners centered on racial history, from colonial times to the 20th century.
As President Obama shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he was willing to take the political heat. He said that he was not concerned about the politics of the hand shake and more concerned about extending an open hand to nations hostile to the U.S. The open hand, it seems, is not so open after all. The President announced that, like the Bush Administration, the United States will boycott the world anti-racism conference (Durban II), which opens in Geneva today. According to the President, "I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe. We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for. "Hopefully some concrete steps come out of the conference that we can partner with other countries on to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this wasn't an opportunity to do it."
He is not willing to take the political heat in this case because there is language criticizing Israel and the West in the final document. As the world celebrates the election of the first Black President, the United States boycotts the world conference against racism. Symbolism, it seems has met political reality.
On this issue, it is difficult to reconcile the President's rhetoric with his actions. The President has repeatedly said that his policy is to talk with those with whom he disagrees. He is talking to Chavez, to Ahmadinejad, to Medvedev and Kim but cannot talk to human rights defenders about the best way to address the continuing significance of racism world wide? Surely the message cannot be that the United States does not believe that the right to be free from racism is not a basic human right.
Ostensibly, he refuses to talk because the draft document and the conference will be used as a platform to defame Israel. So, why didn't he walk out of the Summit of the Americas when Chavez presented him with the book, "The Open Veins of Latin America?"
Wasn't it this same President who on his recent trip to Europe decried American arrogance and was savaged for doing so on "foreign soil?" And gladly took the criticism.
Given this, one must ask why he is now unwilling to take the political heat by sending a delegation to the conference to counter the alleged "defamation" that will occur. The 2009 conference presents an opportunity for the United States, Israel and others to move beyond the vile and base debate about Israel and frame the debate in a manner which addresses the continuing scourge of racism worldwide. The reality is that this conference is not about Israel; it is about racism. By boycotting and encouraging other countries to do so, the United States is telling human rights defenders to defend human rights in a way that is clinical, antiseptic, and free of critiques of those you consider human rights violators. Of course, this is both an intellectual and practical oxymoron since equidistant to the defense of human rights; defenders must be free to render criticism without fear of requital. It is what defending human rights are about.
Despite representations to the contrary, the policy on multilateral engagement of the United States is now that despite the existence of a problem we will not seek solutions to human rights abuses where there will be those in attendance who will criticize Israel. If this is the case, then the President has undermined his own argument on American arrogance. No country is above reproach for the way it addresses racism including the United States, Israel, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, and others.
The President's argument is reminiscent of Eleanor Roosevelt's stratagem, when as Chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; she strenuously objected to the United Nations hearing the NAACP's "An Appeal to the World," a document which detailed the scourge of racism in the United States. In fact, she threatened to resign from the NAACP's Board of Directors because she thought the petition would embarrass the United States on the world stage. The President simply cannot have it both ways; he cannot call for engaging the international community when it suits his interest and refuse to engage when it does not. It is he and his administration who have acutely criticized the most recent Bush administration's commitment to multilateral negotiations as being off target. He seeks a seat on the Human Rights Council but then chooses which human rights are worthy of U.S. attention?
"The sad truth is that countries professing to want to avoid a reprise of the contentious 2001 racism conference are now the ones triggering the collapse of a global consensus on the fight against racism," said Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "As these Western governments demanded, the negotiated text for the review conference upholds freedom of expression and avoids singling out Israel. But these governments couldn't take 'yes' for an answer and are boycotting the conference anyway."
Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is associate dean at Georgetown University and the author of The The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a Post-Racial America.
From Dr. Boyce Watkins
To the YourBlackWorld family: Some of you saw my recent critique of the RushCard, the new prepaid debit card issued by Russell Simmons. Some took my article about the RushCard and interview about the Rushcard on BBC World news and The New York Times to imply that I have serious problems with the way Russell Simmons does business. While I do not feel that Russell, nor anyone else, is above being critiqued by the Black community, it should be made clear that I respect much of Simmons’ work, especially what he has done to reduce the severity of the drug laws that incarcerate so many Black men across America.
I must admit that I’ve been disturbed by the recent trend of African American urban role models lending themselves out to companies such as Rent-a-Center to encourage people of color to participate in arguably one-sided financial transactions. But I must be clear when I say that the RushCard is not necessarily a bad deal for those who need it. My greatest challenge to President Obama is to find ways to ensure that all Americans have access to basic services, such as bank accounts, so they are not forced to pay high fees in order to access their own money. I cannot endorse an argument which states that Russell is necessarily a philanthropist (as his ads claim) because his company provides an option that improves upon the horrific options already in place. So, while I agree 100% that the RushCard is better than check cashing venues in the Black community, my greatest concern is that many members of the urban poor are still paying the high cost of poverty in America. It is my hope that Russell sincerely fulfills his role as philanthropist, leader and financial enabler by genuinely working to solve critical liquidity and financial literacy problems in urban America. I have complete faith that he can accomplish whatever he puts his mind to.
So, out of fairness to Russell, I want all of you to see his response to the New York Times piece, which is written below. My goal is not to think for you, it’s to encourage you to think for yourself.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is charging the same fee — $150,000 — per speech as does former President George W. Bush.
So, as Bush emerges again into the public eye — he threw out the first pitch of the season at the Texas Rangers’ home opener — he’s finding that he’s not the biggest star of his own administration.
Information about the speech fees Rice and Bush charge comes from a corporate political adviser who asked the Washington Speakers Bureau about their speaking fees.
Bush spoke last month in Calgary at a private event hosted by tinePublic Inc. He is scheduled to speak before the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan on May 28, his first domestic post-presidency speech.
A congressional ethics panel is investigating Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) after allegations last year that some of his associates had discussed helping then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich with fundraising if Blagojevich agreed to appoint Jackson to the seat vacated by then-Sen. Barack Obama.
(Money Magazine) -- For many people, the most shocking aspect of the financial crisis is that something of this scale could happen at all. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that the rise of globalization - and the growing sophistication of financial markets - offered the promise of perpetually low inflation, cheap money, and fat returns?
But for British historian Niall Ferguson, what's remarkable is that anyone could have thought this at all. In his latest book, "The Ascent of Money," the Harvard history and business professor traces the evolution of the world's financial systems from the earliest known coins in 600 B.C. to the collateralized debt obligations that brought down Wall Street.
The Obama administration will boycott "with regret" a U.N. conference on racism next week over objectionable language in the meeting's final document that could single out Israel for criticism and restrict free speech, the State Department said Saturday.
The decision follows weeks of furious internal debate and will likely please Israel and Jewish groups that lobbied against U.S. participation. But the move upset human rights advocates and some in the African-American community who had hoped that President Obama, the nation's first black president, would send an official delegation.
The administration had wanted to attend the April 20-25 meeting in Geneva, although it warned in late February it would not go unless significant changes were made to the draft text.
In a speech today, the Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke talked about the need to “strike the right balance: to strive for the highest standards of consumer protection without eliminating the beneficial effects of responsible innovation on consumer choice and access to credit.”
Where exactly regulators think that “balance” lies has varied greatly over time. Throughout American history, politicians and their constituents have viewed access to credit as alternatively empowering and exploitative. We can’t seem to decide: Is making credit available to “subprime” borrowers helping them, or taking advantage of their ignorance?
Why Financial Predators Usually Have Black Prey
By Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.DrBoyceMoney.com
I talked to my good friend Ryan Mack, CEO of Optimum Capital Management, the other day. Ryan wrote an interesting piece about The Rushcard, a new prepaid debit card offered in a partnership between Russell Simmons and Unifund, a company that typically makes its money from bad debt collection. I read the piece curiously, as I have been learning how the Rushcard works, why it exists and who might benefit from the service. On the flip side, there is the larger concern that someone might be taking advantage of those who have the least access to capital, largely African Americans in poor communities.
The Rushcard is a prepaid banking card with no credit check that allows consumers to deposit their paychecks onto the card, as well as make purchases and withdrawals as if the card were a regular Visa. Russell (a self-proclaimed “philanthropist”, a title likely used to pre-empt any accusations of fraud or exploitation) also argues that the card helps marginalized Americans to seek out the American dream.
I didn’t know that the American dream was to hold a piece of plastic. Credit cards have created an infinite number of American nightmares as they tend to breed excessive consumption. But one can certainly argue that this card deals with one serious problem in the Black community: a lack of access to capital and banking services. Many people in urban America can’t get bank accounts. Many more have bad credit, can’t get rental cars or find themselves leaning toward check cashing services to liquidate their paychecks. Russell, “the philanthropist” has apparently taken it upon himself to solve this problem.
I can say, as a Finance Professor, that the Rushcard would likely not make money if it were not filling a critical need. The problem, however, is that those who “help” individuals in need may end up abusing their power. One can argue that a pimp is “helping” a young homeless girl by giving her a place to live. A loan shark can say that he is “helping” a family get the money they need by lending the funds at exorbitant interest rates. A man who sells water for $10 a sip is “helping” a man in the desert get what he needs to survive. So, there is a thin line between “helping” someone vs. exploiting a given need or weakness.
I became quite concerned when I saw the long list of complaints from those using the Rushcard. Those who wrote the comments I saw on a blog about the Rushcard seemed to have serious problems with the customer care behind the card. In his article, Ryan does an interesting comparison between the fees of the Rushcard vs. those of a typical Bank card:
Rushcard vs. Typical Bank Card
Activation Fee: Rushcard = $19.95 Typical Bank Card = Free
Convenience Fee: Rushcard = $1.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
ATM Cash Withdrawal: Rushcard = $1.95 Typical Bank Card = Free (At Branch)
ATM Balance Inquiry: Rushcard = $.50 Typical Bank Card = Free
Bill Payment: Rushcard = $1.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
Inactivity: Rushcard = $2.95 Typical Bank Card = Free
Refund of Rushcard/Bank Card via Check: Rushcard = $5.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
So, if these numbers are any indication, it appears that the Rushcard is not a very good investment. Most reviews that I’ve seen recommend against using the card, since it appears that users are paying a premium for the Baby Phat design on the front. What’s more disturbing about the Rushcard is that Russell does not seem to be nearly as determined to fulfill his role as a “philanthropist” when it comes to helping African Americans overcome the underlying cause of the very problems he claims to be fixing. As Ryan explained it, “It’s like telling someone with a cavity that they should chew with the other side of their mouth.” The Rushcard offers few options to help people repair their credit, and I have personally found most of Russell’s financial literacy initiatives to be quite limited in impact.
While we cannot blame Russell Simmons and others for profiting from the lack of financial literacy and access to capital in the Black community, there are things we can do to encourage Russell to do the right thing. First, the Obama administration can and should implement programs to help those with poor credit obtain bank accounts. Every American should have access to a bank account, and services such as direct deposit should not be a luxury. Secondly, the Banking industry should stop passing over profitable investment opportunities in the Black community. Perhaps if Russell had more competition, his fees might go down. Third, there is no greater cure for money problems than good old fashioned financial literacy. Most victims of financial exploitation are not even aware that the exploitation is taking place. Financial literacy should be taught in every public high school in America, since it might actually be the one class that students actually use.
Russell Simmons is not necessarily a philanthropist, but he is not the devil. He is merely a symbol of a larger problem. The problem requires long-term solutions, and a high cost piece of plastic is certainly not one of them.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University. He makes regular appearances in national media, including CNN, BET, ESPN, and CBS. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.
A recent study indicates that of the major ethnic groups impacted by unemployment during the current U.S. recession, Black men have experienced the greatest job losses since the crisis officially began in November 2007.
"What's missing from national media coverage of this recession is plainly a great deal of [honesty] about who's losing their jobs. This is overwhelmingly a blue-collar, retail sales, low-level recession," said Andrew Sum, professor of economics and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Mass., which published the study.
"The Impacts of the 2007-2009 National Recession on Male Employment in the U.S. through January 2009; The Massive Concentration of Job Losses Among Males Especially Black Men and Blue Collar Workers" tracked employment losses in the recession across gender groups of workers overall, and in the four major ethnicities— Asian, Black, Hispanic and White. Thestudy found that:
By Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.DrBoyceMoney.com
I talked to my good friend Ryan Mack, CEO of Optimum Capital Management, the other day. Ryan wrote an interesting piece about The Rushcard, a new prepaid debit card offered in a partnership between Russell Simmons and Unifund, a company that typically makes its money from bad debt collection. I read the piece curiously, as I have been learning how the Rushcard works, why it exists and who might benefit from the service. On the flip side, there is the larger concern that someone might be taking advantage of those who have the least access to capital, largely African Americans in poor communities.
The Rushcard is a prepaid banking card with no credit check that allows consumers to deposit their paychecks onto the card, as well as make purchases and withdrawals as if the card were a regular Visa. Russell (a self-proclaimed “philanthropist”, a title likely used to pre-empt any accusations of fraud or exploitation) also argues that the card helps marginalized Americans to seek out the American dream.
I didn’t know that the American dream was to hold a piece of plastic. Credit cards have created an infinite number of American nightmares as they tend to breed excessive consumption. But one can certainly argue that this card deals with one serious problem in the Black community: a lack of access to capital and banking services. Many people in urban America can’t get bank accounts. Many more have bad credit, can’t get rental cars or find themselves leaning toward check cashing services to liquidate their paychecks. Russell, “the philanthropist” has apparently taken it upon himself to solve this problem.
I can say, as a Finance Professor, that the Rushcard would likely not make money if it were not filling a critical need. The problem, however, is that those who “help” individuals in need may end up abusing their power. One can argue that a pimp is “helping” a young homeless girl by giving her a place to live. A loan shark can say that he is “helping” a family get the money they need by lending the funds at exorbitant interest rates. A man who sells water for $10 a sip is “helping” a man in the desert get what he needs to survive. So, there is a thin line between “helping” someone vs. exploiting a given need or weakness.
I became quite concerned when I saw the long list of complaints from those using the Rushcard. Those who wrote the comments I saw on a blog about the Rushcard seemed to have serious problems with the customer care behind the card. In his article, Ryan does an interesting comparison between the fees of the Rushcard vs. those of a typical Bank card:
Rushcard vs. Typical Bank Card
Activation Fee: Rushcard = $19.95 Typical Bank Card = Free
Convenience Fee: Rushcard = $1.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
ATM Cash Withdrawal: Rushcard = $1.95 Typical Bank Card = Free (At Branch)
ATM Balance Inquiry: Rushcard = $.50 Typical Bank Card = Free
Bill Payment: Rushcard = $1.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
Inactivity: Rushcard = $2.95 Typical Bank Card = Free
Refund of Rushcard/Bank Card via Check: Rushcard = $5.00 Typical Bank Card = Free
So, if these numbers are any indication, it appears that the Rushcard is not a very good investment. Most reviews that I’ve seen recommend against using the card, since it appears that users are paying a premium for the Baby Phat design on the front. What’s more disturbing about the Rushcard is that Russell does not seem to be nearly as determined to fulfill his role as a “philanthropist” when it comes to helping African Americans overcome the underlying cause of the very problems he claims to be fixing. As Ryan explained it, “It’s like telling someone with a cavity that they should chew with the other side of their mouth.” The Rushcard offers few options to help people repair their credit, and I have personally found most of Russell’s financial literacy initiatives to be quite limited in impact.
While we cannot blame Russell Simmons and others for profiting from the lack of financial literacy and access to capital in the Black community, there are things we can do to encourage Russell to do the right thing. First, the Obama administration can and should implement programs to help those with poor credit obtain bank accounts. Every American should have access to a bank account, and services such as direct deposit should not be a luxury. Secondly, the Banking industry should stop passing over profitable investment opportunities in the Black community. Perhaps if Russell had more competition, his fees might go down. Third, there is no greater cure for money problems than good old fashioned financial literacy. Most victims of financial exploitation are not even aware that the exploitation is taking place. Financial literacy should be taught in every public high school in America, since it might actually be the one class that students actually use.
Russell Simmons is not necessarily a philanthropist, but he is not the devil. He is merely a symbol of a larger problem. The problem requires long-term solutions, and a high cost piece of plastic is certainly not one of them.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University. He makes regular appearances in national media, including CNN, BET, ESPN, and CBS. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.
By Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell
Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell
I applaud your recent creation of the White House Council on Women and Girls to help ensure we are treated equally in public policies, by employers and in every other aspect of American society. I must also urge, however, that you place a similar emphasis on men and boys, particularly young men of color, who face some of the steepest hurdles in American society.
The reasons cited in forming the new council are just -- throughout our nation's history women have often been treated as second-class citizens when it comes to earning a livelihood, climbing the corporate ladder and even exercising the delayed right to vote. Let us not forget that the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted in 1923--and has yet to be ratified.
To be sure, the new council will focus attention on continuing the progress that has been made through the decades as women have crashed through the glass ceiling.
But I would argue that young men of color face even more daunting circumstances. Young men of color face challenges ranging from a justice system that disproportionately incarcerates them to media and entertainment industries quick to portray them as worthless, violent and criminal. Even before the recession, our young men of color faced a bleak job market where discrimination, globalization and structural change made it difficult for them to find good jobs and succeed in life. With the nation's economy in a tailspin, the unemployment of young men of color has been spiraling out of control.
Consider this sampling of data:
* High school graduation rates for males of color--African Americans (42.8 percent), Native American/Alaska Natives (47 percent) and Hispanics (48 percent)--are far lower than for whites (70.8 percent).
* Minority youths are disproportionately in the juvenile justice system: African Americans (1,004 per 100,000), American Indians (632 per 100,000) and Latinos (485 per 100,000) compared with whites (212 per 100,000).
* More than 29 percent of African-American boys who are 15-years-old today are likely to go to prison at some point in their lives, compared with 4.4 percent of white boys the same age.
* The mortality rate from homicide for African-American boys ages 15-17 is 34.4 per 100,000, compared with 2.4 per 100,000 for non-Hispanic white boys.
Let's face the reality. It can be a gritty and dangerous world on the streets of urban America, on the impoverished Native American reservations and in the camps of migrant workers. In many cases, government and much of our society turn their back to these conditions and ignore their existence--rather than seek to allocate resources and develop policies to redress the conditions that threaten the survival of young men of color.
An array of public policies enforced by the schools, police and courts has helped put young men of color at such a disadvantage. These policies range from mandatory-minimum sentences to zero tolerance of behavioral offenses in schools to minimum wages that do not afford a young adult an opportunity to support himself, let alone a family. These public policies have often been popular with the public, but collectively have built many of the barriers to young men of color leading productive lives.
Moreover, the media and entertainment industries have also contributed greatly to raising these hurdles.
Clearly, a disproportionate number of young men of color have dropped out of school, been arrested and been left jobless. Still, there are countless others who go to college, succeed in their jobs, are good fathers and make outstanding accomplishments in their lives. Unfortunately, however, very little information is shared about their achievements or successes. Rarely are young men of color projected or viewed as positive role models.
While there has been a growing angst over the misdeeds of some, there has been little attention paid to what public policies or social determinants have contributed to the plight of young men of color.
Certainly, some of the responsibility lies with the child or teenager who made wrong decisions, as well as with family members who failed to help youngsters overcome critical obstacles and to guide them to a more productive course. But we cannot underestimate the powerful negative impact of the stereotypical portrayals, the glorification of criminal and violent behavior in movies and television, and the lack of good news stories about young men of color on the airwaves.
Mr. President, what you can do is create a council that looks into how public policies can be amended and how portrayals of this demographic can be changed. As others have stated, the women and girls that you want to help prosper need male counterparts to build strong families.
You can take a huge step by creating a council that helps men, particularly young men of color, be successful in American society. Right now, they often face insurmountable challenges.
Men need your help, too.
Sincerely,
Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell
Director of Community Voices of Morehouse School of Medicine
(Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell is director of Morehouse School of Medicine's Community Voices, a non-profit working to improve health services, and health-care access, for all Americans. To arrange a print or broadcast interview with Dr. Treadwell, please contact Alicia Ingram, 404-493-1724, ingramalicia@bellsouth.net.)
This study examined whether socioeconomic indicators including wealth, parents' education, parents' occupation, and parents' income predicted the academic outcomes of African Americans and European Americans differently. Using a sample of 1,302 African American and 6,362 European American public high school students drawn from the first- and second-year follow-up of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, the study found that socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for significant variance in the academic achievement of African American students, and that wealth explained variance for students of both ethnicities beyond what was explained by SES alone. Wealth accounts for greater variance in outcomes of African American students than of European American students.
In her presidential address before the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in April 2006, Gloria Ladson-Billings called attention to the relationship between wealth and what she called an "achievement debt" accruing to African Americans over centuries in the United States. Her thesis, supported by a growing body of research (Conley, 1999; Orr, 2003; Shapiro, 2004) and testimony among African American scholars and elders, was that differences in educational outcomes between African American and European American students related to the historical denial of resources-social, intellectual, and financial capital-as a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow policies, and more subtle institutional racism.
Frank Rich, The New York Times
"I am pronouncing the depression over!" declared CNBC's irrepressible Jim Cramer on April 2. The next day the unemployment rate, already at the highest level in 25 years, jumped yet again, but Cramer wasn't thinking about the 663,000 jobs that disappeared in March. He was thinking about the market. Mad money. Fast money. Big money. The Dow, after all, has rallied in the weeks since Timothy Geithner announced his bank bailout 2.0. Par-tay! On Wednesday, Cramer rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange, in celebration of the 1,000th broadcast of his nightly stock-tip jamboree.
Given Cramer's track record on those tips, there's no reason to believe he's right this time. But for the sake of argument, let's say he is. (And let's hope he is.) The question then arises: What, if anything, have we learned from this decade's man-made economic disaster? It wasn't just trillions of dollars of wealth that went poof in the bubble. Certain American values also crumbled and vanished. Making quick killings by reckless gambling in the markets - rather than by investing long-term in new products, innovations, technologies or services that might grow and benefit America and the world - became the holy grail in the upper echelons of finance.
Per the New York Post, "Tens of thousands of protesters -- some dressed in colonial wigs with tea bags hanging from their eyeglasses -- staged boisterous protests modeled after the Boston Tea Party all around the country yesterday, rallying against financial bailouts and the Obama administration's tax and spending plans."
“The hundreds of grassroots events staged around the nation to protest America's tax burden showcased successful efforts by conservatives to mobilize thousands of participants via Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets. Liberals once dominated that realm,” the Washington Times adds.
The New York Times: “It was hard to determine from the moderate turnout just how effective the parties would be. In Philadelphia, a rally in Center City drew about 200 rain-soaked participants… In Pensacola, Fla., about 500 protesters lined a busy street, some waving ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flags and carrying signs reading ‘Got Pork?’ and ‘D.C.: District of Corruption.’ In Austin, Tex., Gov. Rick Perry energized a crowd of about 1,000 by accusing the Obama administration of restricting states’ rights and vaguely suggesting that Texas might want to secede from the union.”
The AP has more on what Perry said. “Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that. ‘There's a lot of different scenarios,’ Perry said. ‘We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.’”
For the first time since the war on drugs became a national law enforcement obsession in the mid-1980s, the number of African-Americans in state prisons for drug offenses has declined, a criminal justice reform organization said.
The number of whites in state prison for drugs rose 42.6 percent since 1999, while blacks dropped 21.6 percent.
A study released Tuesday by the Sentencing Project found a 21.6 percent drop in the number of blacks incarcerated for drug offenses, a decline of 31,000 people, from 1999 to 2005.
The corresponding number of whites in state prisons for drug offenses rose 42.6 percent, or by more than 21,000 people, while the number of Hispanics was virtually unchanged, according to "The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs."
The study, authored by Executive Director Marc Mauer, found that the differences between black and white imprisonments for drug crimes are partly because of how police target suspects and court sentencing guidelines, which vary by state.
Also, there has been a decrease in the use of crack cocaine in predominantly minority urban neighborhoods and an increase in methamphetamine abuse in many primarily white rural areas, Mauer said Wednesday.
Dr Boyce Watkins answers this question for BBC World News. Click the image to listen!