Sara Jackson in KTVU.com Story on UC Tuition Hike Impact on Diversity
With more drastic tuition hikes on the horizon, some students of color fear their communities will be hardest hit. KTVU.com story by Lindsey Freeland includes interview with Equal Justice Society staff attorney Sara Jackson.
Take Action: National Geographic Show Fosters Hatred and Violence Towards Immigrants
Formerly neutral world news organization National Geographic, with corporate cosponsor CSX, launched a new cable television show entitled “Border Wars”, detailing daily border agent battles with drug smugglers, human traffickers, and undocumented immigrants.
The promotions for this new show, as well as the show itself, have managed to recklessly imply that the U.S. and Mexico are at war, that the U.S.-Mexico border is a terrorism hot spot, that undocumented immigrants are the terrorists attempting to infiltrate this country, and that U.S. border agents are our soldiers ensuring national security and justice.
These implications are false and dangerous.
What “Border Wars” will not show you are fleeing immigrants being shot, immigrant children being separated from their families, and immigrants being forced to return to lives that include poverty, violence, and despair. That is the reality of the U.S.- Mexico border.
The astounding insensitivity of “Border Wars” is compounded by the show’s website which allows browsers to simulate being a border agent “on the line”, promoting violence toward immigrants and vigilante justice.
This show fosters prejudice, hatred, and violence toward all immigrants, regardless of legal status, that lead to hate crimes like the deaths of Luis Ramirez in Pennsylvania and Raul and Brisenia Flores in Arizona. “Border Wars” should not be allowed to influence its 2.9 million viewers in this manner.
If you would like to contact National Geographic about “Border Wars” to express your disappointment and outrage, you may do so here:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
Or post on the show forum.
Latinos Missing from NY Times Recollection of 2009 Passings
Our friend and ally Tom Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, has brought to our attention the issue addressed in the article that follows. After seeing the new Star Trek movie, he pointed out that there are apparently no Latinos in the future. There were no Latino characters on the starship Enterprise. The following article makes that point again.
“Dead Latinos” by José R. Sánchez (January 2, 2010)
When does one dead Hollywood actor trump another? When does one fierce dead organizer against social injustices trump another? In fact, when does a dead chimp responsible for a hideous attack catapult himself above the life of a dead Mexican anthropologist with over 150 books and articles filled with archaeological and cultural studies about Mayan civilization? For The New York Times the answer seems to be whenever the second option is a Latino.
Travis the chimp was one of the few fortunate deceased to get star billing in the New York Times 2009 annual issue devoted to the passing of important people. Travis, you may remember, was the Connecticut chimpanzee, raised by a woman in Stamford, who was killed after he mauled the face off of his caretaker’s friend. This annual Times compilation included twenty-three essays on this year’s deceased. Like in past years, not one single Latino made it onto this lamentable list of the departed, famous and not-so-famous.
Many Latinos died this year, arguably many of them having led interesting and notable lives. But they apparently were not interesting enough for The New York Times. This newspaper highlighted the death of Karl Malden but not Ricardo Montalbán. The latter was the debonair path-breaking Mexican movie and television star, best known for his roles in the Star Trek series and movie and his commercials for promoting the “soft, Corinthian leather” in Chrysler Motors car seats.
The Times also wrote about the death of Crystal Lee Sutton, a fierce labor organizer in the South. But it ignored the death of Esther Chavez, a Mexican accountant who was one of the first to discover a pattern of murders in the 1990s against Mexican women working in U.S.-owned factories in border cities. Chavez helped to draw public attention and government prosecution against men who kidnapped young Mexican women off the streets, and raped and killed them with impunity. Her advocacy led the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to rule that Mexico had violated the human rights of women.
The Times also wrote about Robert Rines, an MIT scientist who spent most of his life pursuing evidence to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. It ignored Dennis deLeon, a former New York City human rights commissioner, who created the premiere Latino advocacy group against AIDS. A Mexican American, deLeon created the Latino Commission on AIDS in 1994 and made it into a very effective tool against the spread of AIDS in the Latino community.
Why should we care that the Times ignored so many of Latinos in death? Some say this slight is one more example of the invisibility Latinos experience in life in the U.S. Death, apparently, does not redeem the living. Some Latinos, like Montalbán and deLeon, did get obituaries in the Times’ daily paper at the time of their death.
These annual compilations are done for many, often valid, editorial reasons. Some of the people the Times chose to celebrate led unusual lives, enough to have books or movies done about them. The Times also specifically selected each author to write these obit articles. Some were Times writers while others came from outside the paper. Who they chose to write about sprung from their individual “passions, quirks and curiosities” as writers and editors. The Times, in that sense, did not attempt to provide a comprehensive listing. All of this, however, simply underscores an even more troubling reality for Latinos. It’s one thing to be invisible, to not be seen; it is quite another to be in plain sight and yet not spark much interest or curiosity from others.
Public recognition of the dead provides a rough indication of the difference that person made in life, how much they were able to change the way others thought, behaved, or felt. Rines, the scientist who spent a large part of his life chasing the Loch Ness monster never found her, at least not conclusively. He inspired others by his quixotic efforts, however. He pushed the limits of how much we know and how much faith is warranted in the myth of her existence.
Omitting Latinos from this kind of recognition carries a message — that Latino lives do not really matter and did not have an impact. Is this a legitimate conclusion? The Times also omitted any recognition of Canadians, Jamaicans, Muslims and many others. But they did include two African Americans, Naomi Sims the model, and Reverend Ike, the irrepressible minister who built a church based on greed and hope. They also included a Trinidadian, the chili restaurant owner Ben Ali. Are these choices the product of simple editorial decisions, the play of curiosity, or pure whimsy? Are these news sources simply responding to audiences who have little interest in Latinos?
Latinos, obviously, did make a difference in this world before they passed on. We don’t need the Times to tell us so. But do we need the Times to tell others? How much do other Americans know about Latinos, the “fastest growing minority group” in the country? The Times treatment of Latino deaths is symptomatic of a wider neglect of Latinos in the media. Most mainstream newspapers and magazines also systematically ignored Latino accomplishments in their end-of-year appraisals.
The Chicago Tribune’s list of notable deaths in 2009 contained two Latinos out of 104. This included Mercedes Sosa, the Grammy Award winning Argentinean singer, and Alex Arguello, the Nicaraguan boxer. If we wanted to be generous, we could give them a third in Gidget, the Taco Bell dog featured in their commercials. The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, listed about 120 notable deaths, only 3 of which were Latinos. This included Arguello, Montalbán and Ismael Valenzuela, the Mexican horse jockey. One last example is the Baltimore Sun. It listed only Montalbán, Rafael Antonio Caldera, the two-time Venezuelan president, as well as the baseball manager Preston Gomez, among the 134 notable deaths in 2009.
The wide reach of this neglect is probably driven by the current media structure. Most newspapers in the U.S. are part of a handful of media monopolies that share the same sources of information or rely on syndicated sources like the Associated Press. In this vein, the AP listed only Montalbán among the 91 notable deaths it chose to feature in 2009. Five or six media conglomerates control the majority of newspapers in the United States. Editorial decisions, thus, tend to accumulate and spread with this kind of centralization. Most of the end-of-year reviews of the deceased were simply replicated by each newspaper in the chain. Recent research confirms this disturbing reality.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Hispanic Center reported recently that in one six-month sample period only “2.9% of the news content studied contained substantial references to Hispanics.” Most of that coverage was focused on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the media attention focused on Latinos only in the context of discussing issues like immigration and the recession. Clearly, a population that is now almost 16 percent of the population deserves more widespread and direct media attention focused on Latino lives and accomplishments.
The complaint here is not just about recognition and publicity. It is, to a great extent, also about power. Nothing happens simply because any one group or person has taken action. The world does not function so linearly. The success of health care reform or the results of the 2008 elections have many contributors. A group that is either not seen or that draws little interest will find its contributions minimized or dismissed. But this is about power in an even more important way.
I believe that any success at influencing or changing how others think, behave or feel depends directly on our ability to offer something that others value. Those who attribute power to objects like money or weapons can’t easily explain why these things sometimes fail to deliver power. The rich don’t always get what they want and, historically, much poorer-equipped opponents have often defeated the largest and best-equipped armies. Vietnam for the U.S. and Afghanistan for the U.S.S.R. are the best examples of the latter. The “War against Terrorism” may, eventually, prove to be another.
Power is a transaction, an exchange between parties in which each side has input. This is true no matter the situation. A mugger can get me to turn over my valuables only because my health and life mean so much more to me than my watch and money. The key here is that the threat of assault gets victims to move only because I, like the vast majority of us, fear getting hurt or killed. When that is not the case, when I am reckless or suicidal, for instance, the mugger’s threat often falls flat. The mugger’s attempt to extract valuables from me then gets stalled, jeopardized, and, possibly, defeated. I may get killed but the mugger will have failed to influence my behavior.
I cannot teach my students or change the way they think unless they want knowledge or grades or something else from me. I cannot influence how an elected official decides policy issues unless I can provide the votes, money or information they need. The ability to influence becomes extremely difficult, however, if the others around me do not see me or have no interest in me when they do. The exclusion of Latinos from the list of notable deaths reflects a community whose life remains lived apart from the main cultural, economic, and political currents of this society.
Latinos lag behind other groups in voting rates, average age, high school graduation, college attendance, employment rates, corporate and professional employment, income, housing conditions, two parent families, and residential integration. These conditions not only produce deprivations and obstacles to individual mobility. They also produce a community that still lives, despite all the progress, largely apart from the rest of society. This life apart results in very limited opportunities for Latinos to develop power with and influence other sectors U.S. society.
The neglect of Latinos in death is, thus, a reflection not just of how much Latinos are neglected in life but also of how few opportunities they have for power while alive. The Times is, thus, justified to omit any Latinos from its annual “How They Lived” magazine compilation. After all, it would be hypocritical to pay attention in death to a group that they and society have mostly ignored, overlooked, dismissed, and brushed off in life.
José Ramon Sánchez is Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of Urban Studies at Long Island University – Brooklyn; he is also Chair of the Board of the National Institute for Latino Policy, Inc. He is the author of “Boricua Power: A Political History of Puerto Ricans in the U.S.” (2007) and co-author of “The Iraq Papers” (2010). He can be reached at jose.sanchez@liu.edu.
Public Interest and Civil Rights Groups Speak Out Against Unfounded Attacks on Mark Lloyd
The Equal Justice Society today joined more than 50 civil rights, public interest and grassroots organizations sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission and congressional leaders supporting Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, and the agency’s longstanding mission to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media.
In recent weeks, Mr. Lloyd has been unfairly attacked on cable TV and radio talk shows with false and misleading information about his role and responsibilities at the FCC. A respected scholar and public servant, Lloyd was hired by the agency to expand media opportunities for women, people of color, small businesses, and those living in rural areas.
The full text of the letter and a list of signatories is below:
September 16, 2009
To: FCC Commissioners and Congressional Leaders
We, the undersigned, ask you to speak out against the falsehoods and misinformation that are threatening to derail important work by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission on media and technology policies that would benefit all Americans.
In recent weeks, Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, has come under attack by prominent cable TV and radio hosts, and even by some members of Congress, who have made false and misleading claims about his work at the agency.
Mr. Lloyd is a respected historian, an experienced civil rights leader, and a dedicated public servant. He was hired by the FCC to “collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace.” His important work should not be hindered by lies and innuendo.
As the leading media policymakers in Washington, we ask you to speak out against these unfounded attacks, stand publicly behind Mr. Lloyd, and make clear your commitment to carrying out the core mandate of the FCC — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media.
Let us be clear as to what “localism” actually means. Broadcasters get hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies in exchange for a basic commitment to serve the public interest. Broadcasters are expected to be responsive to their local communities. Localism has been a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as long as there has been broadcast regulation. It has nothing to do with censorship or interference with local programming decisions. Localism is simply about public service, not about any political viewpoint. Local public service programming and political talk radio, whether liberal or conservative, are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, as the Supreme Court has recognized, “Safeguarding the public’s right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is … an integral component of the FCC’s mission.” Diversity of media ownership is a crucial issue, and the agency must address the fact that women and people of color are vastly underrepresented among media owners using the public airwaves.
But diversity is also about closing the digital divide: People of color, the poor, and rural Americans are far less likely to have high-speed Internet access at home or share in the benefits of broadband. Diversity is about creating opportunities and broadening participation; it should go without saying, but it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.
The third tenet of the FCC’s mission is competition. Those using their media megaphones to slander and distort the views of Mr. Lloyd and others may not want competition. But the FCC’s job, in its own words, is “to strengthen the diverse and robust marketplace of ideas that is essential to our democracy.” The overriding goal must be more speech, not less — more radio stations, more cable channels and more Web sites.
At the core of President Obama’s media and technology agenda is a commitment to “diversity in the ownership of broadcast media” and a pledge to “promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints.” Now is the time to further that agenda, not to retreat from it.
We ask you, as leaders on these key media issues, to draw a line in the sand now, speak out against the unfounded attacks, and redouble your efforts to enact a policy agenda that will strengthen our economy, our society and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Josh Silver
Free Press
Wade Henderson
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Winnie Stachelberg
Center for American Progress
James Rucker
ColorOfChange.org
Stephanie Jones
National Urban League Policy Institute
Brent Wilkes
League of United Latin American Citizens
Larry Cohen
Communications Workers of America
Alex Nogales
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Bernie Lunzer
The Newspaper Guild
Communications Workers of America
Kimberly Marcus
Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s Public Policy Institute
Malkia Cyril
Center for Media Justice
Andrew Schwartzman
Media Access Project
John Kosinski
Writers Guild of America West
Sandy Close
New America Media
Amalia Deloney
Media Action Grassroots Network
Angelo Falcon
National Institute for Latino Policy
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Gigi Sohn
Public Knowledge
Rinku Sen
Applied Research Center
John Clark
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
Communications Workers of America
Graciela Sanchez
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Mimi Pickering
Appalshop
Steven Renderos
Main Street Project
Hal Ponder
American Federation of Musicians
Tracy Rosenberg
Media Alliance
Terry O’Neill
National Organization for Women
Roger Hickey
Campaign for America’s Future
Andrea Quijada
New Mexico Media Literacy Project
Jonathan Lawson
Reclaim the Media
DeAnne Cuellar
Texas Media Empowerment Project
Chris Rabb
Afro-Netizen
Loris Ann Taylor
Lisa Fager Bediako
Industry Ears
O. Ricardo Pimentel
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Todd Wolfson
Media Mobilizing Project
Erica Williams
Campus Progress
Gary Flowers
Black Leadership Forum
Eva Paterson
Equal Justice Society
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr
Hip Hop Caucus
Cheryl Contee
Jack and Jill Politics
Dr. E. Faye Williams
National Congress of Black Women
Emily Sheketoff
American Library Association
Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters Action Network
Kathryn Galan
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Roberto Lovato
Presente
Joshua Breitbart
People’s Production House
Karen Bond
National Black Coalition for Media Justice
Tracy Van Slyke
Media Consortium
Shireen Mitchell
Digital Sisters, Inc
Media and Technology Task Force
National Council of Women’s Organizations
Ariel Dougherty
Media Equity Collaborative
Minority, Women-Owned Small Businesses Seek Role in Caltrans Contracting Suit
Small business owners filed a motion today asking to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to dismantle Caltrans’ Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE). The group of business owners asking to intervene oppose the lawsuit and support the DBE program, which aims to give minority and women-owned businesses equal opportunity to compete for federal contracts.
“Small businesses owned by women and minorities are a vital part of our state’s economy and deserve a level playing field,” said Ingrid Merriwether, CEO of Merriwether & Williams, a small insurance services firm and a member of the Coalition for Economic Equity. “No matter how hard we work, without a fair public contracting system, small business owners will be at a tremendous disadvantage – as will the thousands of Californians we employ and the communities in which we work.”
The suit, Associated General Contractors of America v. California Department of Transportation, is pending in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, Equal Justice Society (EJS) and the law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP filed the motion on behalf of the Coalition for Economic Equity (CEE) and the San Diego Chapter of the NAACP.
“Caltrans’ federally approved contract procedures give small businesses a fair shot at competing for contracts, including for transportation projects slated to receive millions in ’stimulus funds,’” said Oren Sellstrom, Associate Director of Litigation at LCCR. “California must continue to make a focused and concerted effort to ensure that every business in the state has equal access to these public contracts, and that no group will be disproportionately excluded.”
“This lawsuit against Caltrans is a blatant attempt to dismantle equal opportunity in public contracting and goes against core constitutional values,” said Alan Schlosser, Legal Director at the ACLU of Northern California. “Caltrans’ framework to ensure fair participation is consistent with equal protection principles, and is in fact mandated by constitutional requirements.”
Caltrans’ Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has established a framework for ensuring fair participation in federally funded public works projects in California, but has faced challenges. In 2006, Caltrans suspended the program’s race- and gender-conscious elements after a federal appeals court ruled that states had to document the existence of discrimination in the awarding of contracts. As a result, the number of women- and minority owned businesses awarded Caltrans projects plummeted — from nearly 11 percent in 2005 to just 2.2 percent in 2009.
In 2007, an extensive disparity study commissioned by Caltrans documented discrimination against small businesses owned by women and minorities in federally funded contracts. Caltrans then sought approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to reinstate the suspended elements as a necessary remedy to such discrimination. DOT granted its approval in August 2008, noting that Caltrans had a duty under federal law to reverse the steep decline in participation.
In June 2009, Caltrans’ procedures were challenged in the pending lawsuit filed by the Associated General Contractors of San Diego.
Glenn Beck’s Attack On Van Jones: Fantasies & Falsehoods
UPDATE: Also cross-posted on HuffPo!
After smearing White House special advisor Van Jones for days on his show, Glenn Beck said on August 27, 2009: “I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts — they just attack me personally.”
Well, the White House is wise to stay above the fray but someone has to set the record straight. And as the person who first hired Van Jones, initially as a legal intern and later as a legal fellow, I am in a unique position to know the truth.
And the truth is: Beck is fabricating his facts.
For instance: several times on his show, Beck has said or implied that Van went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots.
NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. And just to be clear: Van was not even in Los Angeles during those tumultuous days.
I know because he was working for me – in San Francisco – when the four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. I was the Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area when Van was an intern.
The verdicts came down on April 29, 1992. I remember Van (who was then a legal intern working with me from Yale Law School) coming into my office in San Francisco. Many of us, including Van, sat there together, listening to the news and weeping. We were all in a state of shock. That night, TV showed the tragic images of LA burning.
The next day, when an initially peaceful march in downtown San Francisco devolved into chaos, Van left the area in tears. He was not involved in any destructive activity. He even penned an essay despairing of the violence and the state of the country.
So how can Beck make such unsubstantiated claims?
THE TRUE STORY (FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE)
This is what really happened. On May 8, 1992, the week AFTER the Rodney King disturbances, I sent a staff attorney and Van out to be legal monitors at a peaceful march in San Francisco. The local police, perhaps understandably nervous, stopped the march and arrested hundreds of people – including all the legal monitors.
The matter was quickly sorted out; Van and my staff attorney were released within a few hours. All charges against them were dropped. Van was part of a successful class action lawsuit later; the City of San Francisco ultimately compensated him financially for his unjust arrest (a rare outcome).
So the unwarranted arrest at a peaceful march – for which the charges were dropped and for which Van was financially compensated – is the sole basis for the smear that he is some kind of dangerous criminal.
Van has spoken often about that difficult period 17 years ago – and its impact on him, as a young law student. But to imply that he was somehow a rioter who went to prison is absurd. Beck also bizarrely claims that Van was arrested in the Seattle WTO protests. That is just a flat-out falsehood.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Arrests and convictions are all a matter of public record. Beck is at best relying on internet rumors or even inventing claims to boost his ratings.
Beck is no more accurate with present facts than he is with past ones.
NOT A MYSTERIOUS “CZAR”
Beck has said repeatedly that Van is some kind of a mysterious “czar,” accountable to no one but the President. A simple internet search shows that this claim is false. A March 10, 2009, press release announced that Van was hired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – to work on her staff as a “special advisor.”
In other words, Van is within the normal White House chain of command, reporting to an office confirmed by the United States Senate, just like most White House staffers. Media outlets sometimes use the “czar” shorthand. But the facts show that Van has no mysterious role or extra-constitutional powers.
Beck has implied on two occasions that Van Jones and other Obama appointees were not vetted by the FBI. False. I was interviewed in my own office by an FBI agent, dutifully vetting Van. Yet another fabrication on the part of Mr. Beck.
Beck also claims that Van has somehow gained control over $500 million in Green Jobs Act funding and can hand out millions of dollars at his whim. Again, that is patently ridiculous.
NO AUTHORITY TO HAND OUT BILLION$
The law is clear that the Department of Labor has authority over the program, with normal rules governing the funds. Anybody who thinks that a lone government official can pass out money, arbitrarily and without oversight, knows nothing about our legal system. A blizzard of lawsuits would stop any such scheme in its tracks, if one were ever put in place.
Perhaps more importantly: final authority at the Department of Labor lies with the Secretary of Labor. Anyone who thinks that a Senate-confirmed, Cabinet-level Secretary would cede control of a $500 million program to some mid-level White House staffer knows nothing about our political system. It is ridiculous.
PROMOTING BUSINESS-BASED SOLUTIONS
But I have to take on the worst one: Beck repeatedly and mistakenly asserts that Van is presently a communist.
Once again, this charge is easily refuted – most obviously by the pro-business, market-based ideas Van has promoted for years, including in his best-selling book, The Green Collar Economy. Van’s book is a veritable song of praise to capitalism, especially the socially responsible and eco-friendly kind.
Yes, for a while, Van and his student-aged friends ran around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons. But that was years ago. Way back then, I counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways.
In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions.
Fortunately for all of us, it looks like he has found some. Over the past several years, Van has emerged as the perhaps the nation’s chief proponent of using business-based solutions to create jobs and clean up the environment. In his book and his speeches, he highlights the key role of entrepreneurship in solving our nation’s problems.
THE ‘GREEN’ JACK KEMP?
Van believes in government clearing the way for private-sector innovation. In a YouTube clip, he said recently that progressives and conservatives should work together to find common ground and create a clean energy economy.
Van said: “We are not promoting welfare. We are promoting work. … We are not expanding entitlements. We are expanding enterprise and investment. … We are not trying to redistribute existing wealth. We are trying to reinvent an existing sector, so that we can create NEW wealth – by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship. This should be common ground.”
He has been preaching that gospel, in various forms, for years and years. Van Jones is the nation’s “Green” Jack Kemp – using business-based solutions to attack poverty.
I found it interesting that Bill O’Reilly in his interview repeatedly asked Glenn Beck whether Van Jones’ youthful views had changed over time. Beck never answers those inquiries and instead keeps insisting that Van has championed these ideas recently. Again, that is simply not true.
QUOTES TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Upon investigation, it turns out that Beck is quoting (out of context) an article that in fact makes the OPPOSITE point.
The 2005 profile that Beck is flogging actually makes it crystal clear – even in the headline – that Jones has “renounced” his earlier views, matured and moved on. Van’s transformation is the entire point of the piece, and it is impossible that Beck does not know this.
Fortunately, O’Reilly seemed to sense the truth. I remember seeing O’Reilly interview Van Jones some time ago and was struck by how much respect O’Reilly showed for Jones. Perhaps O’Reilly’s knowing queries were prompted by that encounter.
When Van worked for me, he did exhibit that “know it all” quality that so many of us – myself included – have when we are young. Over the years, I have enjoyed watching him grow and blossom into a loving father and husband – and a creative, effective leader.
VAN JONES: A TRUE PATRIOT
Mr. Beck’s unfounded attacks are misleading and false. All of us who know Van are so very proud of him and the work he is doing to improve the lives of ALL Americans. He has touched and improved thousands of lives in the course of his career. Now he is in a position to help millions.
He will do well because Van is a true patriot, who loves his country. He has dedicated his life to trying to make it better – especially trying to uplift the poor, the left-out and the left-behind.
In his book, Van draws a distinction between “cheap patriotism” and “deep patriotism.” I highly recommend that chapter to Mr. Beck.
I do hope Van is keeping his head up, walking tall and continuing to fight for green businesses and green jobs. Our country needs more of them – and more people like Van.
Editorial cartoon on Judge Sotomayor has subtext of lynching, stereotypes Latinos
The Oklahoman newspaper printed on Tuesday a racist, sexist and outright offensive “editorial” cartoon.
It depicts Judge Sotomayor strung up by a rope, likening itself to lynching images or a piñata, with President Barack Obama wearing a sombrero, holding a stick and asking a crowd of elephants (Republicans) “Now, who wants to be first?”
The cartoon is captioned “Fiesta time at the confirmation hearing.” See the cartoon here on our ConfirmSotomayor.org blog.
