EthnicMajority

(FoxNews) Radio and TV host Glenn Beck said Sunday he doesn’t want to retract his controversial charge last year that President Obama is racist, but does want to amend it since reading more about “liberation theology.”

“I have a big fat mouth sometimes and I say things, and that’s not the way people should behave,” Beck said, adding that he regrets saying a year ago that Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people” because it’s not accurate.

“I didn’t understand, really, his theology,” Beck a Fox News host, told “Fox News Sunday.” “I think that it is much more of a theological question that he is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor and victim.”

Beck described liberation theology, which teaches that salvation for the individual is dependent on salvation for the collective through economic and social justice, as the message that was preached by Obama’s ex-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Full story…

(Daily Press) Former U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday that a lack of diversity in the Obama administration might have led to her hasty dismissal after a doctored video of one of her speeches made her a target of conservative bloggers.

Sherrod said no African-Americans were involved in the direct discussions prior to her being forced to drive to the side of a Georgia highway and submit her resignation.

“There was no black person in his inner circle who could even talk about this, to say, ‘hey, you ought to look into this.’”

She said that the lack of the diversity ran from her bosses at U.S.D.A. all the way to the White House and that no person of color was among the dozen people who discussed her fate.

Instead, Sherrod said her dismissal came after a series of phone calls from U.S.D.A. deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development, Cheryl Cook, who eventually told her that the White House wanted her resignation.

Full story…

(WMAZ) President Obama came into office determined to stop the rightward shift of the federal courts – after eight years of appointments by President Bush – and to add more diversity to the bench.

So far he is setting records for the number of women and minorities nominated to lifetime appointments. Nearly half of the 73 candidates he has tapped for the bench have been women. In all, 25% have been African Americans, 10% Hispanics and 11% Asian Americans.

“What’s happening so far with nominations is extraordinary,” says Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, who has tracked the confirmation process since the 1960s. “Seven out of 10 Obama court nominees are non-traditional,” meaning they have not been white men.

Yet as Obama tries to make gains in diversity among judges, he faces a deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate. During his first 18 months in office, his administration has been thwarted by unprecedented delays. The situation, which has received little notice against the backdrop of a pending Supreme Court nomination and the administration’s complex legislative agenda, could undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities.

Full story…

(CNN) Here’s proof that President Obama has indeed ushered in a new era in race relations.

Who would have ever expected some white Americans to demand that an African-American man show more rage?

If you’ve followed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, you’ve heard the complaints that Obama isn’t showing enough emotion.

But scholars say Obama’s critics ignore a lesson from American history: Many white Americans don’t like angry black men.

It’s the lesson Obama absorbed from his upbringing, and from an impromptu remark he delivered last summer. Yet it’s a lesson he may now have to jettison, they say, as public outrage spreads.

Full story…

(Washington Post) Eighteen months after Barack Obama’s presidential win seemed to usher in a new era in racial politics, a different reality has emerged: Black candidates in races around the country are struggling so much that the number of African Americans in major statewide offices is likely to drop from the already paltry three. And the possibility exists that there will be no black governors or senators by next year.

The drubbing Tuesday of Rep. Artur Davis (D), who was running to be the first black governor of Alabama, was the latest in a series of defeats of black politicians in primaries this year for statewide office. And some of the blacks who already hold such posts aren’t staying in them. Of the nation’s two black governors, New York’s David Paterson, plagued by ethics scandals, opted not to run this fall — the same decision made by the only black senator, Roland Burris (D-Ill.).

Full story…

As President Obama prepares to go to Senate Republicans hat in hand next week with passage of an immigration law overhaul on his wish list, some Hispanic lawmakers in his own party are blaming combative White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for the slow pace of progress.

“I don’t think Rahm Emanuel is a positive influence on the immigration debate,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill, told the Chicago Fox affiliate. Gutierrez hails from the same state as Emanuel, a former congressional leader. “I don’t think he sees it as a core value of the Democratic Party, or a necessity that the American people need to be acted upon.”

Full story…

Early public opinion polls seemed to indicate that the public blamed Professor Henry Gates more than Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley for their high-profile incident in Boston. I found this very curious because you would think the general distrust of the police and sympathy for Gates getting arrested in his own home would shift the blame to Crowley. Guess again.

So I asked my barber, who has had his own run-ins with the cops, which side he was taking. To my surprise, he also sided with the police officer. This, in spite of his acknowledgment that Gates committed no crime and the officer not having any justifiable reason to arrest him (which was borne out by the Cambridge Police department immediately dropping all charges against Gates).

Then I realized that, like most polls, the answers depend on how you ask the question. My barber explained that he sided with the police officer because he thought Gates got what was coming to him by challenging the cop, which he thought was utterly idiotic. In other words, his interpretation of the question was “who acted more stupidly” in this incident, and he knew only one of the participants had the power to arrest the other.

So this week CNN published its own poll, specifically asking who acted “stupidly”: Gates, Crowley, and President Obama. In its reporting, the Boston Globe botched its reporting of the survey results, saying that “58 percent of whites surveyed blamed Gates for the confrontation, 59 percent of blacks faulted Crowley”. Not true. If you look at the survey, it shows that 59% of blacks think Crowley acted stupidly and 58% of whites think that Gates acted stupidly. But the “blame” question is clearly different and more complicated to answer than the actual survey “stupidly” question. Even 44% of blacks think Gates acted stupidly.

When the survey goes on to ask who the public “sympathizes with more”, this is where the answers divide along racial lines. Blacks side with Gates 61% to 19% versus whites, who side with Crowley 45% to 29%. The African American answer is no surprise, but I think caucasian answer is illuminating. Even though 58% of whites think Gates acted stupidly and 58% think Crowley did not act stupidly, 29% still sided with Gates and another 26% did not side with Crowley.

I think the “teachable moment” here has less to do with race relations than it does the public’s attitude toward law enforcement. We would all acknowledge that being a police officer is one of the toughest jobs around and that they take more than their fair share of verbal abuse on a daily basis, however like any other profession, they have their share of “bad apples”. I don’t think Crowley is a bad apple, but when a significant percentage of white America sides with an African American for speaking out even though they think it was a stupid idea, that tells me there are more bad apples than the nation’s local police departments care to admit.

Now that we have an African American President, it seems like the politically correct thing to do. Barack Obama’s immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both expressed heartfelt regret for slavery but never moved to issue a formal apology.

So now the U.S. Senate has unanimously voted to issue a formal apology for slavery, and the wheels are in motion for the House to approve it and Obama to sign it. Then all will be forgotten, right? Not by a long shot.

In approving this resolution, the Wall Street Journal quoted Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): “Let us make no mistake: This resolution will not fix lingering injustices. While we are proud of this resolution and believe it is long overdue, the real work lies ahead”. What “real work” is he referring to? Clearly the work does not include any accountability by the government. The apology does not include any admission of guilt or acceptance of liability: “Nothing in this resolution (a) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (b) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States”.

While I am not in favor of reparations, nothing spells insincere quite like an apology filled with CYA disclaimers written by government lawyers.

Ethnicmajority Civil Rights page.

Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court is imminently qualified and her credentials and experience are indisputable. And she is a Latino woman. This is the ultimate “two-fer” for Obama and the Democrats.

The right-wing Republicans were going to protest against any nominee further left than Antonin Scalia anyway, just to show their ever-shrinking base that the party is still alive. In the process, their opposition has irritated scores of women and Latinos. Not a good idea for a party struggling to convince the public that their tent is getting bigger, not smaller.

That’s bad enough, but how do you make the situation even worse? Start by claiming that Sotomayor is racist for her comments a few years ago that her background and experiences made her a better judge. This is basically the same thing every judge says during their confirmation hearing because it is reasonable and logical – except if your experiences include being a Latina and a woman.

It appears that the Republicans are still using the Karl Rove playbook – attack your opponent for your own weaknesses. I await step two from the playbook. Accuse Sotomayor of being: a) a terrorist, b) an illegal immigrant, c) unpatriotic, or d) all of the above.

EthnicMajority Politics page.