ame the poorest nations in the world, and you get a very long list. Now, according to research done by Brookings, we can add the poor from the United States to that list.
The United Nations lists poverty as “when a family’s income fails to meet a federally established threshold that differs across countries.” In the United States, this is $16 per person per day. In addition, extreme poverty is defined as $1.25 per day per person, with just plain poverty as $2 per day per person.
And, according to numerous research, the United States has people living in poverty at the level found among the poorest nations in the world. The Brookings research found that the US has between 2% and 5%, or roughly 6.6 and 16.5 million Americans. So much for the claim that the poor in the US have it well-off compared to other nations. They can appear to be better off thanks to the widespread waste culture combined with scavenging.
Simply put, because we waste more goods, there are better goods to scavenge. Everything from cars to appliances can be scavenged for little effort and turned in to something useful again. This gives the false impression that our poor are doing better than those in other countries. They are not, they just have better material to pick over. And it is now so popular in the US that it has been given its own name, “Freeganism.”
The one good note about the Brookings findings is that for most people, their time at the bottom rung is temporary, with most growing from the sub-$2 per day per person point to the more established poverty rate within a year. But it becomes a revolving door, with our rates staying stable, and up to 16 million fellow Americans consisting of wages which would be considered unthinkable in nations like North Korea and Vietnam. It is only through the safety net, as threadworn as it is, that the United States simply does not have the bottom fall out from under its economy.
Our nation is reaching a dire point if we have more people in poverty than we do in the top 1%. It indicates a slow motion implosion. And this is the result of decades of Republican anti-poor rhetoric. From “Welfare Queens” to “Thugs,” an entire political party in this country has made it their goal to demonize the poor, while ensuring the growing ranks for those who are in poverty. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them.
The issues of systemic poverty were ignored when it was the minority communities trapped within it. From African American ghettos to Native American reservations, the problems of minority poverty were all but ignored by the majority in this country. But now, we have hit the point where it is effecting the majority, and awareness of it is starting to creep in.
How much more before the people face the reality that we are now a third world nation? And then, what will we do about it?
"Race doesn’t matter!" , "Isn’t science just science?! why bring race into it!!", "It is not about the colour of skin!" meanwhile in the real world:
Black researchers and other minorities face nearly insurmountable barriers against career success, according to new research.
A February 2014 article in the Journal of Career Development details the work experiences of minority researchers in the social sciences.
Rebecca R. Kameny of the 3-C Institute for Social Development in North Carolina, directed the study, which collected data from people of color who attended a workshop on the topic of career barriers.
An astounding 72 percent of participants reported encountering workplace barriers due to their race or ethnicity.
Racism: A Sad History
Bias against minority researchers is not a new subject. In 2011, Donna K. Ginthner and her associates published a study about the NIH and grants to minority researchers. (The NIH, or National Institute of Health, is a government agency that serves as one of the prime supporters of scientific research.)
The Ginther study examined the rates at which grants were given to 83,000 researchers. Unfortunately, they found that the funding agency is biased against African Americans who submitted grant applications. According to the study, blacks are 13% less likely than equally-qualified white candidates to receive funding that is initiated by an NIH investigator.
The study’s writers explained that the researchers’ race is not always written on the application, but the applications’ reviewers could infer race from the applicants’ names and places of study. Without receiving federal funding, a researcher is less likely to receive a teaching position, less likely to be given tenure, and has more difficulty procuring funding to produce research and publish in scholarly journals. Ultimately, the repercussions of grant refusal are reflected in the face of academia.
When the study was published, the director of the NIH noted that the data is troubling and the situation is unacceptable. The NIH launched a $500 million, 10-year program to support young minorities in science. It is also considering changing its review process to review grant proposals anonymously to prevent this issue in the future.
Bias Against Blacks: Misinterpreted Data?
A 2013 study published in the Journal of Informetrics, however, contradicts the premise of bias against black researchers. The study, led by Jiansheng Yang of Virginia Tech, paints a different picture, concluding that the NIH review process contains no inherent racial bias.
Yang and his associates reviewed the work of 40 black faculty members and 80 white faculty members at U.S. medical schools. They assessed the scientists’ productivity, based on the number of publications they wrote, their role on each paper, and the prominence of the journals in which they published. Overall, Wang’s team found that the black faculty members were less productive than their white colleagues.
The researchers then reviewed the work of 11 of those black researchers and 11 of those white researchers who had received NIH funding. When they compared blacks and whites who had the same level of productivity, they found that people of both races received the same level of NIH funding. Wang concluded that funding is determined by level of success, and not by race.
Not Apples to Apples
Ginther, who found ample evidence of the NIH’s racial bias, argued in Science that Wang did not study the same aspects of the process that she did, so he cannot refute her claim. She noted that Wang’s study examined only a small number of researchers, and also looked only at how much funding they received, instead of whether they had a chance of receiving funding in the first place.
Ginther also noted that the black scientists’ lower level of productivity pointed to their difficulty in receiving positive mentoring, which is a further function of bias.
Discrimination is Not Dead
It seems that a majority of African Americans would agree with Ginther’s point about bias. A 2013 Pew Research study about discrimination in America found that a full 88% of blacks reported that there is discrimination against blacks. 46 % believe that there is a lot of discrimination, and the rest report feeling some discrimination.
Interestingly, white Americans agree that blacks are discriminated against, but to a lesser degree. Only 16% of whites feel that there is a lot of discrimination, but 41% sense some discrimination.
Regardless of percentages and perceptions, race-based barriers to success have no place in academia or the workplace.
This is just insane. This needs to stop and we should all be doing whatever we can to stop it.
That’s Amnesty International USA’s Thenjiwe Tameika McHarris, in a statement on the release of Glenn Ford yesterday after nearly 30 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
Apart from the obvious problem of innocence highlighted by this case, the death penalty more generally is racist, arbitrary, unfair, immoral, and a violation of human rights. It is bad public policy and ought to be abolished in the states that have, to this point, stubbornly maintained it on the misguided belief that vengeance and justice are the same thing.
COINTELPRO: The FBI’s War on Black America
WASHINGTON - Among the Department of Justice’s highest priorities are protecting voting rights and combating voter fraud. The Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces specific federal laws that help to ensure all qualified voters have an opportunity to cast their ballots and have them counted, while the Department’s Criminal Division oversees the nationwide enforcement of federal laws that criminalize voter fraud and other assaults on the integrity of the federal election process.
The Department’s Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative:
In 2002, the Department of Justice established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead the Department’s efforts to protect voting rights and to deter and prosecute election fraud. The ongoing initiative is supervised by the Assistant Attorneys General of the Civil Rights and Criminal Divisions, and has two overarching goals: to ensure voting access to all who qualify, and to protect the integrity of the election process and the value of every vote.
The initiative requires that each of the Department’s U.S. Attorneys’ Offices coordinate with state law enforcement and election officials before the federal general elections regarding the handling of election-related matters in their respective districts. In addition, the initiative provides annual training for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices serving as District Election Officers (DEOs) in their respective districts. DEOs are election experts in the federal laws addressing election crimes and voting rights.
Civil Rights Division:
The Civil Rights Division enforces the civil provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA); the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter or NVRA); and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Among other things, these civil statutes prohibit discrimination in voting on the basis of race or membership in a language minority as well as intimidation, coercion or threats against persons for exercising their right to vote. The Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section also enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation based on race, color, national origin or religion. On Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008, the Civil Rights Division will implement a comprehensive program to help ensure ballot access that will include the following:
· The Civil Rights Division will send more than 800 federal personnel, including Department employees, as election monitors and observers at polling places in 23 states across the nation.
· In identifying locations where federal monitors may be needed, the Civil Rights Division has already sought out the views of many organizations, including non-governmental organizations as well as state and local officials.
· The Civil Rights Division has been engaged in a major outreach effort to non-governmental organizations and election officials to inform jurisdictions of their obligations under the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Division will continue to enforce the law that requires jurisdictions meeting certain criteria to provide bilingual access to elections.
· Civil Rights Division attorneys in both the Voting and Criminal Sections in Washington, D.C., will be ready to receive complaints and concerns of voter intimidation or coercion, or complaints of potential violations relating to any of the statutes the Civil Rights Division enforces. Attorneys in the division will take appropriate action and will consult and coordinate with local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and with other entities within the Department of Justice concerning these complaints on and after Election Day.
· Civil Rights Division staff will be available at special toll-free numbers to receive complaints related to free and fair ballot access (1-800-253-3931), (TTY line 1-888-305-3228), including allegations of voter intimidation or coercion targeted at voters because of their race, color, national origin or religion. In addition, individuals can also report complaints, problems or concerns related to voting via the Internet. Forms may be submitted through a link on the Department’s Web page: http://www.usdoj.gov/ .
Criminal Division and the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices:
The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are responsible for enforcing the federal criminal laws that prohibit various forms of election fraud, such as vote buying, multiple voting, voting by ineligible individuals, submission of fraudulent ballots or registrations, destruction of ballots or registrations, voter intimidation, alteration of votes and malfeasance by election officials. On Nov. 4, 2008, these offices will work together and with the FBI to ensure that complaints from the public involving possible voter fraud are handled appropriately and expeditiously. Specifically:
· Senior federal prosecutors within the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., will be on duty while polls are open to receive complaints and take appropriate action, and to provide consultation and coordination with the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI regarding the handling of election crime allegations.
· Federal prosecutors serving as DEOs will be available in each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to receive and handle complaints from the public involving possible election fraud.
· FBI officials will be available at FBI headquarters in Washington to receive complaints and to coordinate their handling with FBI field offices and the Criminal Division.
· FBI special agents serving as Election Crime Coordinators in the FBI’s 56 field offices will be available to receive complaints from the public and to handle these matters in consultation with FBI headquarters.
· Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412.)
The Department remains committed to vigorous enforcement of the federal laws passed by Congress that protect the right to vote, the worth of votes honestly cast, and the integrity of this country’s elections.
This is from 2008 - but is the most recent I could find.
Andrew Cohen has been doing a formidable job of covering what is otherwise a substantially under-covered theme in this election year: the efforts to disenfranchise large numbers of voters, especially in swing states.
Here are four sample installments in recent months: last week, earlier this month, in late August, and another just before that. Plus, this interview with voting-rights pioneer Rep. John Lewis.