Tavis Smiley . Young Voices | PBS

One Family, Different Races

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

There's been so much written on this topic, and there are tons of articles out there that address the issue. Yet it's a question that's been raised off and on for a number of years now, and is coming around again.

Should individuals looking to adopt children outside of their race undergo additional training as part of the adoption process?

There are varying thoughts on an issue like this. Some see race as a factor that should be considered in an adoption process, while others see no reason to even bring it up.

Legislatively, measures have been enacted to try and reduce the barriers to adoption and the possibility of discrimination in adoption, but those legislative measures may have had unforeseen effects.

Potential parents may not be fully aware of the various cultural challenges and dispositions that a child from a different race may face when being adopted by parents of a different race. Thus, they may incur the difficulty of trying to navigate very deep and murky waters alone.

For those reasons, I don't agree with the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1996. Racial differences alone should never bar anyone from the opportunity to adopt. Understanding those challenges however should at least be considered and understood.

So, in my opinion, some type of formal guide should be in place to give parents the tools that may well help them in preparing to become the sole provider of that child.

I'm sure there are a number of opinions on this and would love to hear yours.

Who Is the Best Eight-Year-Old Guitar Player in the World?

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

Last week, the story of Tallan "T-Man" Latz seemed to be everywhere. Such things happen when the AP picks up on such perfect bite-sized feel-good news stories, often about kids (or sometimes animals) doing crazy things, more often than not with some YouTube video that makes the rounds at the office.

Latz, the eight-year-old native of Elkhorn, WI, we learned, is something of a guitar prodigy. He's been playing since he was five, and has quickly amassed the skills of a much older guitarist, wowing crowds at bars and festivals across his home state and beyond. Latz has two bands, T-Man's Blues Project and Tallan "The T-Man" Latz and the Young Guns (humility never an attractive quality in a rockstar, of course), and has so far shared the stage with Les Paul and Jackson Browne.

The AP story concerned Latz being banned from playing in bars due to Wisconsin's child labor laws (apparently, a jealous regular-aged bluesman blew the whistle on him to the child welfare authorities.) He seems to be bouncing back, though, and most agree that this is merely more fuel for his blues fire.

But Latz is not the only eight-year-old guitar prodigy out there. A quick Internet search reveals at least two more pint-sized Santanas who are currently likewise making older people feel bad about themselves. Lucciano "Lucchy" Pizzichini was born in Argentina but now lives in Miami. He's been playing since the age of two and claims to have played more than 250 live shows in the two years since his sixth birthday. Here's a nice video of him playing an outdoor show (note the awesome bowl-cut and lack of shirt. He obviously knows cool.)

Additionally, there's Yuto Miyazawa of Japan, who appears to be more into rock than Latz, and more into wearing a shirt than Pizzichini. Check him out here on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.

While it may seem silly to ask who is the best of these three musical genii, one can't help but wonder who would win in a face-to-face play-off. The Wisconsin bluesman? The Japanese metalhead? The Argentinian virtuoso? We may never know. Unless they form the world's first-ever eight-year-old supergroup. Here's hoping they do.

Olympic Gold

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

The U.S. has experienced a very successful run thus far in the Summer Olympics competition.

U. S. Olympic swimmers like Michael Phelps have taken the world by storm, shattering previous world records while simultaneously creating new ones.

It would seem that by most accounts the U.S. has gone up against some of the best athletes in the world and proven victorious.

Despite the allure and excitement of these U.S. victories, there's one topic that seems to keep resurfacing. The concern is over the use of technology-based features in the athletic gear worn by the Olympic athletes during competition.

The question is whether or not the U.S. is unfairly benefitting from the use of these technology-based features in the testing, training and competition of the Olympic Games.

One article, however, discusses that some of the technology can actually be found in many of the sports equipment and products already used in the marketplace today.

Olympic officials have stated that the tech-based suits are in fact legal, but are certainly keeping a watchful eye on the issue as this debate continues.

So here's my question: Should we use the best technology available to us in the U.S. when competing on the world stage? Or, should we scale back our tech savvy abilities in an effort to level the proverbial playing field worldwide?

Remembering Bernie Mac

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

As we all were, I was shocked and saddened to learn of the passing of Bernie Mac. The veteran comedian and actor was only 50, and while he had already achieved an incredible amount in his lifetime, it is tragic to consider that he will no longer be around to inspire us, entertain us and make us laugh.

I had the privilege to meet Mr. Mac once, briefly, on the set of The Bernie Mac Show in Los Angeles. Even in that short meeting, I was impressed by his huge presence, his humility and his openness. He seemed like a really good guy. This impression was only reinforced by his appearance on Tavis' program last year.

It's hard not to get a bit choked up reading the transcript again now. He was truly a self-made man, and his story is an inspiration to anyone short on resources and long on motivation. Like Sidney Poitier, who Mac names as a personal hero, Bernie Mac took lemons and made lemonade, distinguishing himself through talent, hard work, and unfaltering commitment to achieving his dreams. His obituary in the New York Times describes a life of struggle and hardship, from which Mac emerged wealthy, successful, admired and famous.

Perhaps the best way to close this post is with a word from the man himself. Back in June 2007 on The Tavis Smiley Show, Mac told a story he was fond of about his decision to become a comedian. It says much about who he was, and gives us only more cause for sadness in the wake of his tragic death.

Bernie Mac, you will be missed.

Mad about Mad Men

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

Ever since that storied final episode of The Sopranos, TV watching hasn't been the same for me. In the last year, I've floundered around, trying to find a show that could fill the void left by the departure of Tony, Paulie Walnuts, Junior, et al. I got caught up on a lot of Heroes, discovered Dexter, and kept up with the alternately frustrating and sublime fourth season of Lost, but none of those really did it for me in the same way. None of those had the visceral, dark, realness of David Chase's epochal series. None of the characters were quite as complex or compelling; none of the stories were bleakly funny enough.

I watched a lot of David Attenborough, too. The Life of Birds, Life in the Undergrowth, The Blue Planet, Planet Earth; and while those series are incredible and mind-blowing in their own ways, I still longed for something I could sink my teeth into, so to speak.

Then came Mad Men. For some reason I had completely missed the first season. Maybe it's because I live in Canada, or maybe I'm just not reading the right blogs, but until a few weeks ago I was totally ignorant of the quiet smoldering charisma of Don Draper, the beguiling charm of Peggy Olsen, the sleazy loveability of Roger Sterling. After watching a few episodes of Mad Men on DVD I was smitten, captivated, hooked. I devoured the rest of the season in short order, swept away by a riptide of Lucky Strike smoke and rye whiskey.

Tonight's guest is Jon Hamm, who plays the mysterious Draper on the show. He's been getting a lot of press recently, now that season two is underway, and with good reason. His performance is easily on par with any of those on The Sopranos. As the family man with the murky past, we get the sense that if we don't know who Don Draper really is, that's because nobody does, least of all himself. It is the kind of character that makes you come back, week after week, looking for just a little bit more insight into what makes him tick. Suffice to say, Sunday nights just got fun again.

Paging Dr. Thompson

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:26:13 PST

The world needs Hunter S. Thompson more now than ever.

That was the prominent message beneath Alex Gibney's poignant Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. The documentary, which is playing at select cinemas nationwide, delves into the life, legend and legacy of one of the greatest American writers of the last century. Gibney is the director of last year's Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side. Thompson is, well, Thompson.

The Dr. Thompson we mostly know is his raving, drug-addled alter-ego, Raoul Duke, made infamous most recently by Johnny Depp in Terry Gilliam's 1998 adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That was the Thompson who made a name for himself as a brilliant iconoclast in his essays on culture, politics and the American Dream. In works like Hell's Angels, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Hunter S. Thompson set himself apart from most of the other writers of his time through his electric, fearless prose, in which he was usually a character. The man was crazy, granted. But his madness, such as it was, was his gift.

There's another Thompson, though, one who knew the Constitution backwards and forwards, who loved America passionately, who believed strongly in the founding fathers' promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. This is the Thompson who comes through most prominently in Gibney's film. One who watched America slide from the idealism of the early sixties to the drug-fueled decadence of the 1970s, to the turbulent excesses of the 1980s, to the present day's wars on drugs, terror, truth, etc.

The man documented in the movie was crushed by the sight of people bludgeoned on the streets in Chicago in 1968, by the loss of George McGovern to Richard Nixon in 1972, by the war in Vietnam, and the destruction wrought by Nixon's America in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The film would have us believe he never fully recovered from these events, which, coupled with his rock star-like fame, left him unable to write as he once did. Covering Jimmy Carter's run for president, Thompson had to sign more autographs than Carter did.

Thompson's story is both inspiring and sad. An inspiration to anyone with a passion for journalism, anyone who believes in the potential of America to be the place Martin Luther King dreamed it could be, and believes in the power of the written word to drive that change. Sad for the loss of one of our country's most brilliant writers, by suicide, before his time. To many, Thompson's death was symbolic of his life: willful, dramatic, decisive and crazy. An indelible statement. An old man cashing it in while he still had the will and means to do so, going out on top. To others, though, it isn't quite so simple.

Thompson's first wife, Sondi Wright, expresses it best towards the end of the film. His suicide, she says, was an act of cowardice. In her eyes, Thompson was far from the top of his game. He had given up long ago, hadn't written anything in years to match the fierce immediacy of the works that made him famous. As the country sank into a quagmire of war, debt and decadent depravity, Thompson finally turned his back, leaving behind an America that was more in need of his voice, his passion and his perspective than ever before.

Thompson's legacy remains to inspire new generations of writers, but one can't help wish he had hung around a few years longer, to shed some light on these dark days, and help us regain some of the idealism that has been lost.

Harlem's Growing Pains

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

I've had a question on my mind for a few days now that I'd like to ask. It's based upon an article I recently read. Here it goes: Can you afford to live in a $900,000 apartment when you make less than 25,000 a year? No? I didn't think so either, and apparently neither do the residents of New York living in Harlem.

The city known for its historic Apollo Theatre, rich culture, and legendary soul food has been going through some significant changes over the past years. Whether or not that change is a positive one today is the subject of debate.

I've been in New York for a few weeks now, and I've been taking in all of the sights and sounds the city has to offer. I took in a Broadway show, saw the Brooklyn Bridge, and ate a New York hot dog or two.

Despite the great time I had taking in all of the sights and sounds here in New York, there was one issue that I kept reading or hearing about during my visit—Harlem.

Harlem is seeing a new economic revitalization that some see as spectacular. Businesses are coming into the community and look to be growing. With community growth and expansion, one can typically expect to see more residents move in. The caveat that some of the communities' historically black residents see however isn't the neighbors themselves, but the fact that these new neighbors, who happen to be white, may possibly price these residents out of their homes.

This stirs up a lot of questions and concerns where race and prosperity are concerned, especially at a time when, economically speaking, people's pocketbooks are fragile.

This subject of discussion is not one that's unique to Harlem. Other communities across the nation are left to wrestle with this same issue. City lawmakers, community residents, activists, and land owners all come together with certain perspectives or concerns that makes the issue all the more challenging to solve.

One of the main questions that keep popping up for me is what's going to happen to the residents who've lived in the community for years? Where will they go to live? Should economic prosperity for land be gained at the expense of others, or should rules be incorporated to make sure that residents have safeguards in place to protect them from being priced out of their homes?

No matter which side of the issue you choose to stand on, here's how I look at the current situation facing Harlem and other historical communities of color facing this concern.

Number one: I believe our neighborhoods should have diversity in them if we're truly going to learn how to live with one another.

Two: I think that it's a shame that a situation once existed where poverty was the rule of the day, and that it wasn't self inflicted, but brought upon by the conditions out of the control of the community and its residents.

With that being said I also think that Harlem's ability to maintain a sense of community and identity is also compelling. It's a testament to the will, courage, and strength of the communities who worked together and persevered to ensure their survival despite the setbacks and circumstances of the day.

Lastly: I think these historic neighborhoods must also keep in mind that sustaining neighborhoods in the sense of residents is one thing, but sustaining a neighborhood that's not embracing things like self respect, respect for others' economic conditions , tolerance, patience, and the like, in my opinion, is not one that needs to be kept.

What are your thoughts on Harlem?

Inside Yearning for Zion

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

The cover story of today's New York Times Magazine is an article about the much maligned Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, whose infamous leader, Warren Jeffs, is currently serving 10 years-to-life for his alleged role in arranging the marriage of a 16-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin. The story itself is short, a compliment the accompanying photo essays of life inside the F.L.D.S.

According to the Times, two weeks ago, photographer Stephanie Sinclair was granted rare access to the sect, and permission to photograph them engaging in day-to-day tasks on their ranch near San Antonio, Texas. Sinclair is a top-notch photojournalist who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and her pictures are striking.

The polygamous Mormon sect has been the subject of a lot of bad press in recent years, and it seems fairly clear that the Times' photographer was allowed inside to show just how benign and normal things are for them. As an exercise in PR, this seems to work. Their homes are spotless and neat; the children all look happy and healthy. Here are the men checking their cell phones, and boys listening to iPods as they operate heavy machinery. Here are the kids jumping on trampolines and taking naps. Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Americans exercising their constitutional rights to practice whatever kooky religion they choose.

But despite the pictures' insistence that no one is being abused inside the F.L.D.S., they left me feeling not much better about the lives of the children born into the sect. Yes, the kids are jumping on a trampoline, but they're also wearing long, heavy prairie dresses and thick stockings. Yes, the boy is listening to an iPod, but he's also dressed like a dustbowl-era Okie. And no matter how superficially normal their activities may be, there's really no getting around that incredible bouffant hairstyle that all the women have. It's really remarkable. Perhaps the only question this essay answers is how they achieve that: lots and lots of hairspray. Apart from that, however, we are left with just as many questions about the rights and freedoms of members that got the F.L.D.S. in trouble in the first place.

Sinclair's photos give a glimpse into the lives of some of the most misunderstood Americans, albeit a brief and manicured one. They leave us with an impression of these people that may be better than the one we had before, but it doesn't, however, mitigate the strangeness.

Fonzy Zuckerkorn

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

For people of a certain age, tonight's guest, Henry Winkler, will be forever known as Arthur Fonzarelli, a.k.a The Fonz. He inspired a generation of leather-wearing, hair-slicking, motorcycle-riding ne'er-do-wells, while providing a great many laughs along the way.

For others, however, those who were still but a glimmer in the eye of their parents when Happy Days was at its finest, Winkler will forever be remembered for a different role on a different show. That role is Barry Zuckerkorn, and the show is Fox's masterful Arrested Development. As the embattled Bluth family's lawyer, week after week, the bumbling Zuckerkorn botched countless hearings, shamelessly overcharged his clients, and once tried to microwave a Ding-Dong with the foil still on it. For those who haven't seen the show (and really, by now there's no excuse) trying to describe the hilarity of these moments will do no justice to Arrested Development or Winkler's pitch-perfect performance. It is something that simply must be seen.

In Tavis' discussion with Winkler, which aired originally in May, neither has a chance to mention Arrested Development, so busy are they discussing Winkler's newest project, the film A Plumm Summer. Winkler describes it as a traditional family film, “a throwback…There's not one special effect in this movie except for the explosion of the heart.” Watch it with the kids, then throw in a disc of Arrested Development and prepare to laugh like it's 1979.

An Unlikely Energy Advocate

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

Anyone out there ever hear of a guy by the name of T. Boone Pickens? If not, don't be surprised, because most people probably haven't. He made a fortune in energy being an oil man and has reaped the benefits of it over the years. That description alone doesn't sound like much at first, but as I watched the news the other day, I got a chance to see something pretty interesting. And for a person that most may have never heard of, he's starting to sound like a pretty interesting guy.

Pickens, like many other oil executives within the energy sector, has raked in huge profits over the past few years. Most executives will tell you that they are taking profits from their earnings and reinvesting it into new forms of energy. If you ask most people if they believe that or not however, you might hear a different story.

Pickens is also a supporter of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Now, that alone is not mind-blowing news, but at least now you know a little bit more about the guy. Now that you're a little bit more acquainted with him, I'd like to pose a question to you: Given the record-making profits the oil industry has seen over the past few years, who would you think the least likely person to go before Congress would be to tell lawmakers to stop putting money into oil as a sustainable energy source would be? No it's not Al Gore, but in fact Mr. T. Boone Pickens.

Mr. Pickens testified before Congress recently to tell members of the House that we must begin to seek new energy, because the oil demands for the U.S. are, effectively, too high.

He's not just talking to Congress either; he's putting his money where his mouth is on the issue of energy.

Pickens says he's investing billions of dollars in wind power and is confident that wind energy is the way to go. He's going one step further by airing spots across the country to take his message directly to Americans. Today alone, I saw his ads on the national evening news and MSNBC.

For Mr. Pickens, this isn't about politics. Although news reports state that, in the past presidential election, he spent at least $1million in the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry, Pickens is not looking to politicize this issue of wind energy.

So now, along with your knowledge of who T. Boone Pickens is, you definitely know this: Apparently Mr. Pickens is serious.

Is Mr. Pickens' move for a cleaner, greener technology in the U.S. a sign of real change, or the story of a man looking to capitalize on a situation?

What are your thoughts?

Obama, "The New Yorker" and the Politics of Fear

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

Of course there's a chance you haven't seen this week's New Yorker cover, but being the PBS-watching, public radio-listening, blog-reading sort you are, that chance is a slim one. The cover, which hit newsstands Monday, has been the topic of much commentary this week. It shows Barack Obama in the oval office wearing a turban and burning the American flag as Osama bin Laden looks on approvingly from a portrait on the wall. Michelle Obama is there too, decked out in Black Panther regalia, giving him a fist bump for good measure. Yikes.

It's satire, of course (this is the New Yorker, after all) but that does not mean the joke has gone over well. Obama's campaign condemned the cartoon immediately expressing concern that “most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

Tasteless? Maybe. Offensive? Perhaps. Their greatest concern, though, is those who inspired the cartoon by spreading ridiculous rumors of Obama as an Al Qaeda-loving Muslim plant, seeking to subvert all the values we Americans hold so dear. They're the ones after all that won't read the article inside, won't see that the illustration is titled “The Politics of Fear,” won't care that the cartoon is actually making fun of them. For those conservative fear-mongers, it's just more fuel on the fire.

But there's a bright side, too. In this morning's Globe and Mail, Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change, explained why this might not be a bad thing after all. Obama, she says, can and should use this cartoon to further unite his country against those most unpatriotic of Americans who utilize the politics of fear.

Freddie, Fannie and Indy

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

People need a place to live. It's as simple as that. These days however, it's hard not to think about the mortgage meltdowns and crises affecting some of our nation's largest lenders, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and IndyMac. All three have been the major centerpieces of discussion around the country in our news, in the business sector, and interestingly enough, at our dinner tables.

The crisis continues to make waves and hit homeowners nationwide, as the financial sector also suffers. With family members and individuals investing in these companies that are publicly traded, the companies continue to hurt everyday investor's pocketbooks with damaging effects. If these companies were to become insolvent, we would see a financial crisis manifest so large, that a generation of children years from now might be hearing about what almost became the second Great Depression of the U.S.

Families at this point are doing everything they can to keep their jobs, keep food on the table, pay the mortgage and, above all else, keep their sanity.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke seems to have been working around the clock lately to ease Americans' economic concerns. Another individual in the middle of reconciling consumer confidence in the American economy is U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The two are on a nonstop mission to reassure Americans that the economy may be experiencing some difficulties, but still remains strong.

Looking back on the days of Enron and WorldCom, I hoped that we would have seen a higher level of performance and scrutiny from those in charge of overseeing the business dealings of major American institutions. I think that there needs to be a return to that level of oversight, else we risk the chance of irrevocably damaging our economy yet again.

It seems to me that after a long day, you want to go to a place that gives you a sense of refuge; a place of peace and quiet. People need a place to invite friends and, at the very least, a place to lay their head at night. Homes provide Americans with that opportunity. Now, with economic conditions being what they are, that certain piece of mind is no longer available to most of them.

Are federal regulators to blame for this lack of oversight, or were malicious and shady mortgage lenders to blame? Are we on the tail end of this economic roller coaster, or are we just beginning to see this early tidal wave strike?

What are your thoughts?

Talking Down to Black People?

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

Here's the thing. By now we all know how vicious Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments were. We won't even discuss the fact that his word choice didn't sound like it came from a reverend. Because if we focus on the crudest part of Rev. Jackson's horrible and vulgar remarks about Sen. Barack Obama we might miss Rev. Jackson's actual issue with the Democratic presidential nominee.

So, as hard as it will be, let's momentarily ignore the ugly, nasty, awful part of Rev. Jackson's comments on “Fox & Friends” and take a moment to examine Rev. Jackson's statement that Sen. Obama has been “talking down to Black people.”

Could he have been referring to—among other things—Sen. Obama's Father's Day rebuke of absent African American fathers? Because if that's what Rev. Jackson was talking about, he's not alone in his feelings (although he is alone in the, er, um, way that he handled it, but, again, we won't discuss).

Now I know that June was ages ago in the presidential campaign world, where one month equals three years. But, if you recall, when Sen. Obama spoke at Chicago's Apostolic Church of God, he had harsh words for African American fathers and that just didn't sit well with some people.

Non-resident father does not equal deadbeat dad

Political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson and author Dr. Michael Eric Dyson are among the critics who argued against Sen. Obama's assertion that half of African American children not residing with their dads means African American fathers “have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.”

Not only did Hutchinson and Dyson argue that Sen. Obama had gone too far in his attempt to appeal to white voters, but they said that the Illinois senator was dead wrong.

Hutchinson and Dyson cited a 2007 study conducted by Boston College social psychologist Rebekah Levine Coley, which they said proved “that black fathers not living at home are more likely to keep in contact with their children than fathers of any other ethnic or racial group.”

So, who's right?

I talked to Coley and she said it's more complicated than either side is saying. Then she added that:

1. Her 2007 study looked at low-income adolescents who live primarily in single mother households. She found that when non-resident fathers are involved with their children, the children are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior, like drug and alcohol use, violence and truancy.

2. The significant finding for African American non-resident fathers is that they are more likely to increase involvement with their child if the child is engaged in delinquent behavior.

3. Coley added that there is research that finds that “African American men are less likely to live with their kids. But when they don't live with their kids, some studies show that they're more likely to stay actively involved with them.”

4. But—contrary to what Hutchinson and Dyson wrote—that's not what Coley's study was about.

“Stepping up to the plate”

Maybe we're back where we started. Maybe everyone is wrong. Maybe everyone is right. It's probably all of the above.

Sen. Obama's assertion that African American men are not in the home is backed by data. And when critics argue that non-resident African American fathers are involved in their children's lives, their assertions are backed by research as well.

But Coley left me with this parting interpretation of the data from her study. “It suggests that African American men are really sort of stepping up to the plate and attempting to intervene when their children are beginning to get engaged in delinquent activities.”

Yes. “Stepping up to the plate.” And although it's just one study, it's worth mentioning, because even that bit of information provides a more complete view of non-resident African American fathers.

Sen. Obama says he's not backing down from his tough language, but if he had mentioned active African American fathers in his Father's Day speech, Rev. Jackson might have whispered something else into that Fox News microphone. Or not.

Who's So Vain?

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

If there's one question Carly Simon's probably tired of answering, it's the one about exactly who she's singing to in “You're So Vain.” Tavis tactfully skated around this one when he interviewed Ms. Simon back in May, and with good reason. She's done plenty since then that's worth talking about: operas, Disney songs, and most notably her new album, "This Kind of Love."

But I was a little curious, and I know you were, too.

Here's the skinny:

The song came out in 1972 and quickly rose to the top of the pop charts, hitting the #1 spot for several weeks. Naturally, since it's such a catchy song, and since Simon was such a hot artist at the time (it was just a year since she'd won the Grammy for Best New Artist) there was much curiosity about who exactly could possibly be that vain. Add to that the fact that she'd recently married James Taylor, and had previously been friendly with both Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty (heady days those must have been, indeed), it was a perfect storm of tabloid-ready semi-scandal.

Simon's been tight-lipped about it ever since, but every few years she's dropped a clue as to who the famous subject might be. The history of this conversation can be found both on Simon's Wikipedia entry and on her Web site. Here are some highlights:

Rolling Stone, 1973
RS: Some people think "You're So Vain" is about James [Taylor].
Carly: No, it's definitely not about James

Washington Post, 1973
WP: Who was ‘You're So Vain about? Mick Jagger?
Carly: No.
WP: Warren Beatty?
Carly: It certainly sounds like it was about Warren Beatty. He certainly thought it was about him - he called me and said thanks for the song….
WP: You had gone with him?
Carly: Hasn't everybody?

Phil Donahue show, 1990
Audience member: Was You're So Vain about Warren Beatty?
Carly: I've never, ever told who You're So Vain is about. But I will tell you since you're so very pretty in that pink sweater....it's about the young Oprah Winfrey.

Charlie Rose, 2000
CR: Warren Beatty?
Carly: Well.....not at all.
CR: Not at all?
Carly: Well, maybe a little bit.
CR: Was it one man? Was it Warren or was it a composite for you?
Carly: Most songs are a composite....most songs are.
CR: Was this one?
Carly: I don't know.

Then, in 2003, an NBC executive named Dick Ebersol bid $50,000 in a charity auction to learn the secret. After a private performance in his home, during which Ebersol and friends dined on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sipped vodka on the rocks, Simon is said to have whispered the coveted name into his ear. Was it Jagger? Was it Beatty? Someone else, perhaps? Bound by a confidentiality agreement, Ebersol never said a word.

Earlier this year, Ellen Degeneres tried her best to get the answer, again, to no avail.

Thirty years on, people are still as frenzied as ever when it comes to the apricot-scarved, horse race-winning man who walked into the party like he was walking on a yacht. Simon may someday reveal the man's identity, but I'm thinking probably not. Not anytime soon, anyway.

Rough Times for Starbucks

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

I've been hearing about this for some time, and thought I'd take a moment out to talk about it.

For years, I've seen the stores on virtually every other street corner and expansion overseas, I thought that they could never die. Then I read reports of the mighty Goliath of coffee getting a shake up.

If you haven't heard it by now, Starbucks is closing some of its stores. That may not sound like much, but when your used to having a national chain of roughly 7,000 plus stores, and see company stock going down tons of points per hour, it's time to take a sober look at the escalating concerns of coffee kings that addicted so many.

The company known for being in the people business serving coffee is being hit by yet another reminder of how tight single household and family budgets have become in the past few years. When Starbucks initially talked of expanding store locations back in 2006 no one could've imagined economic conditions the U.S. would face. Now with the economy beginning to slow, Starbucks has announced the closing of 600 stores with 12,000 jobs said to be lost.

For some people, Starbucks was the way to start a morning off right. For others, Starbucks was a great place to work, with great benefits.

But in a world of having to figure out whether to buy $4 gasoline or a low fat caramel macchiato, coffee typically takes a back seat.

The Regrettable Second Coming of James Frey

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

Remember James Frey? Of course you do. The author of A Million Little Pieces, the famously fictional addiction memoir, whose credibility was destroyed, who was shamed in front of millions by Oprah. "Emotional truth," it turned out, was not enough.

People demanded their money back. Some even sued. As Frey admits, it was a very bad year.

The upside of the whole thing, though, was that he made a lot of money. A whole lot. His book stayed on bestseller lists through the scandal and beyond, making him a household name, albeit one associated with duplicity and shame.

Frey's a survivor, though (that part of the memoir, it turns out, was not made up), and he's managed to parlay his fame/notoriety into another book deal. His new novel, Bright Shiny Morning, is not about him, but rather, about several fictional denizens of Los Angeles. From the noble bum who lives in a bathroom on Venice Beach, to the two teenagers in love from the Tom Petty song (or was it a Steve Miller song?) attracted to the bright lights of the big city, to the Hollywood power couple with terrible (but fairly predictable) secrets, Frey intersperses their stories with anecdotes about the City of Angels, as he attempts to lay the metropolis bare before our eyes.

Bright Shiny Morning has echoes of the first two books in both its style and content. Its long, austere sentences are short on punctuation. Its characters are familiar and not terribly complicated, their actions predictable to anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie or read a drugstore paperback (as one reviewer pointed out its only Mexican American character is a maid.) It doesn't, however, break any new ground, or do much to justify its 500-plus pages.

In her glowing review of the book in The New York Times, erstwhile Frey-decrier Janet Maslin notes of the book's tired characters and situations, "Not so original, so what? So what if the book always made poor people humble, decent, better than rich spoiled profligate ones?" So what? So this: the reason we read books is to learn things we didn't know, see things we've never seen before, or things we have seen before in a way we've never seen them.

The Times ran another review, written by novelist Walter Kirn, who, with more than a trace of jealous bitchiness, does Frey no such favors. He compares Frey's factoids to Wikipedia entries, his descriptions of people and settings to pages from Zagat's. "[Frey's] point is not new, nor is this manner of making it, but the least one can ask of a writer who can't resist is that he maintain some sense of timing and showmanship — that he keep his act snappy since it can't be fresh."

There were more reviews, some good, most bad (David Ulin's in the LA Times starts out, "Bright Shiny Morning is a terrible book. One of the worst I've ever read.") and lots of press. The book is selling, not as well as the last ones, but it's doing alright.

Way back when, Frey tried to sell his memoirs as fiction, and when he was rebuffed, rewrote them as fact. This explains the all-too-perfect harlequin quality of some of the scenes and the story. There were times reading it when I thought to myself, this is just a bit much, isn't it? But I went along with it, carried by the run-on sentences, enjoying the narrative, wanting to believe. I think that was pretty common. As fiction, though, it sucked. And I think that was as much the problem as anything.

Bye-Bye, Big Charity

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

With all of this presidential election business, you may not have been following the latest New Orleans post-Katrina news.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently backed a $1.2 billion teaching hospital in downtown New Orleans that would treat 70 percent of the region's uninsured patients—if all goes well—by 2012.

The 424-bed facility would provide medical care to residents who used to get treatment at Charity Hospital, a.k.a. Big Charity, which has been closed since Hurricane Katrina rocked the area in 2005.

All sounds swell, right? The storm beat up Big Charity. A new hospital will replace it and serve the uninsured patients who used to go to Big Charity. Well, all sounded swell until I heard what Naomi Klein told Tavis the other day (Click here for the full conversation).

The award-winning journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism said this: “Charity Hospital, the largest public hospital that treated people without health insurance is still closed. It could be open. There's now only 220 beds in the entire city to treat people without health insurance. There were 550 before the storm.”

It could be open? What did she mean, “it could be open?”

Hello, big fight

The answer to that question is not simple.

In this corner we have the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, which operated Charity Hospital and had been pushing for a replacement hospital even before Hurricane Katrina. With backing from the state, the LSU system argues that Big Charity was in big trouble long before Hurricane Katrina came along and whacked it over the head, and a new hospital will better serve the community.

In the other corner we have a group of advocates, including The Foundation for Historical Louisiana, who argue that “after the water receded, the medical community, the military and a number of volunteers pumped out the flooded basement, cleaned up the debris, and restored electrical power to make the building usable again, but the doors to the hospital were permanently locked when the building was deemed unsafe and unusable by the Louisiana State University (LSU) Medical System.” In other words, it could be open.

The Foundation has hired an architectural firm to conduct a first-of-its-kind assessment of Big Charity's structural integrity and the possibility of restoring the medical facility. That study will be complete around August 21st.

But Gov. Jindal's recent support makes rebuilding Big Charity unlikely, so what are the uninsured patients doing until 2012?

Apparently they are crowding into private hospitals, filling up volunteer clinics and suing the LSU Health Sciences Center.

So, what's the big idea?

Enters David Hood, Senior Healthcare Policy Analyst at the non-profit, non-partisan Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, who told me that both arguments could be right, but all parties need to get on with it.

“So whether we reopen the old hospital, build a new hospital,” Hood said, “I think that it only begins to scratch the surface as far as providing the kind of access to care that low-income people need.”

Hood, who is a former cabinet secretary for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, called medical care issues with Big Charity and the Charity Hospital System an “ongoing saga in Louisiana.”

He threw some long-term solutions at me that challenge the charity model itself: Provide coverage for the uninsured; provide reimbursements for local community hospitals to treat the uninsured; and—my favorite—offer BETTER QUALITY medical care to the uninsured, you know, since Louisiana has been named “least healthy state” in the nation for 15 of the last 17 years.

Whether Big Charity reopens or not, I'm thinking after 17 years of far below-average healthcare performance and quality, the uninsured in New Orleans need a solution before 2012.

Business as Usual for Zimbabwe

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:26:13 PST

Almost a year ago today, I blogged about Zimbabwe, the African Union, and the monumental failure of African leaders to publicly recognize the enormous catastrophe that the aging oligarch has wrought on his country. How sad to see that, if anything, things have only gotten worse.

The focus of last year's post was a prediction by the departing U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe that total economic collapse was but a few months away. Zimbabweans needed only to hold on, Christopher W. Dell said, help was on the way. Unfortunately, but maybe not surprisingly (because how many predictions of total catastrophic collapse actually prove accurate?), he was wrong. Zimbabwe may have continued to decline on all fronts, but as far as Mugabe's corrupt regime goes, it's business as usual.

As my fellow Young Voices bloggers Rose and Sean have both pointed out recently, things in Zimbabwe are not good. The results of the recent runoff election see Mugabe still in power, dissenters and opponents beaten, imprisoned and murdered. Meanwhile, at the recent African Union summit in Sharm El Sheik, he was given a hero's welcome by other African leaders, most notably by regional powerhouses South Africa and Egypt.

Politics are politics, and sometimes they don't have much to do with the realities of what is going on, but this week's events are almost too much to bear. As condemnation from Western nations continues to be heaped on African leaders for their tacit approval of Mugabe's regime, very little seems likely to change. And this year, no one's calling for economic collapse, either. Maybe next July things will be better. Or maybe they'll be worse. More likely than not, though, they'll be pretty much the same.

A Congress That Works

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

The president recently signed into law a bill that gives Americans the actual help they need.

Talks about expanding the GI bill have been going on for some time and even became the subject of debate between respective Democratic and Republican presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain.

The provisions in the bill will allow among other things, monies necessary to provide relief from floods occurring earlier this year, full scholarship dollars for veterans and troops serving in the military at least three years, and monies to extend military operations in the Middle East.

Partisan politics aside, it finally seems as though Republicans and Democrats came together to do something good for the country. It takes me back to the day following September 11 when the members of Congress came together and sung “God Bless America”.

Our troops have sacrificed their lives, their family, tears and blood for our liberties. They should absolutely have this provision. It's the least we as Americans can do to thank them for their courageous service.

Blackwater Rising

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

Monday's guest, journalist Jeremy Scahill, is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which, as the title suggests, is a scathing exposé of the infamous security contractor.

Scahill asserts that the North Carolina-based company, which has been deployed around the world, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also on the Gulf Coast of the U.S. following hurricane Katrina and in the oil-rich Caspian region of Azerbaijan, is a considerable threat to the democratic process. He lists example after example of shady business practices, including recruiting soldiers from countries with terrible human rights records and refusing to release reports of its State Department-funded activities to Congress. He calls Blackwater a “shadow army.”

Since the release of his book in 2007, Scahill has gone on record many times about the threat he considers the company to pose, both in its lack of accountability and its subversion of political process. “What you have is a revolving door,” Scahill said in a video on The Nation's Web site. “Blackwater and other companies benefit the Bush administration, and in turn the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress have shielded these military contractors from any effective oversight, any effective accountability, any effective legal system. Their operations are shrouded in secrecy and people in Congress find it almost impossible to get information about Blackwater.”

Operating in a war zone without accountability is a dangerous proposition, and one that could have serious effects on the U.S. forces there. Through the aggressive, Wild West tactics that Blackwater's agents have become noted for, they continue to obstruct the reconciliation process in Iraq. Meanwhile, American soldiers making a fraction of what these private contractors earn, are becoming demoralized, and many of them are “going Blackwater” themselves. Already stretched thin in Iraq, this is something our military cannot abide.

If the idea of a thousands-strong private military available to the highest bidder isn't scary enough, consider the profile of Blackwater's founder, Erik Prince. The billionaire and former Navy Seal is an outspoken right-wing zealot, with strong ties to the Republican Party. He worked for the administration of George H.W. Bush, but complained that they weren't conservative enough for him. Prince also donated $80,000 to support George W. Bush's 2000 campaign for president.

The reasons why Blackwater has become so successful (according to Scahill, they have recently built headquarters at several new locations across the country) are pretty clear. The Bush cadre's enthusiasm for outsourcing federal services to for-profit corporations, coupled with Prince's longstanding ties to the religious right and the Republican Party made his outfit a perfect choice to carry out missions in Iraq that the demoralized and under-equipped U.S. military couldn't.

Hiring profit-motivated companies to fight wars makes as much sense as hiring profit-motivated companies to run prisons or high schools or hospitals. In theory, the market would force contractors to do the best job possible to keep their contracts, competition keeping standards high. But we all know it rarely works out that way, and Blackwater's continually unwholesome conduct stands as testament to that.

A few no-bid contracts and a few billion tax dollars later, here we are. Blackwater is currently under investigation by a Washington federal grand jury for the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians, as well as gun smuggling charges. They remain the largest security contractor in Iraq, and continue to defy congressional efforts to examine their operations.

POWERLESS TO STOP

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

By now, many of you know about the troubling crisis in Zimbabwe. I've written a couple of posts on it and have kept abreast of the situation for a while.

In short, Robert Mugabe the president of Zimbabwe continues to be a tyrant to the country. After years of oppressive leadership, elections were held this year for president. When the elections were held, a runoff had to take place, but the ruling Mugabe party kept oppressing its citizens and injecting fear tactics to influence the election in their favor.

Mugabe's opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, fearing for his supporter's lives, decided he would forfeit his chances of bringing reform and order back to this country by stepping out of the race.

One example of the tactics used by the Mugabe regime has been to actually kick out non government organizations from the country. Theses are groups of organizations who feed the hungry, give vaccines to children, and help in the day-to-day lives of men and women living in Zimbabwe. The regime is brutal and violent, and killings have already taken place to secure a dictatorship in the country.

The Queen of England recently stripped him of his knighthood and Nelson Mandela recently came out and spoke ill of him publicly about his leadership.

U. S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has spoken out against the atrocities occurring in Zimbabwe and is working with the UN to find a solution, but so far no traction towards a viable solution seems to have been found.

In situations like this, it's hard not to feel powerless. It will take strong political will and a host of people truly dedicated to solving this crisis to make something happen. My greatest concern at the moment is that we don't seem to have enough will and dedication to solve it.

Are there any suggestions out there to help solve this crisis?

Obama and Ethanol

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

When my fellow blogger Rose pointed out recently that Barack Obama is an ardent supporter of biofuels, it came as something of a surprise. Then I read a story in The New York Times on Obama's ties to the ethanol industry, suggesting that his support for the alternative energy source was based more on lobbyists' dollars than on environmental prudence. So much for change, I thought.

Taking a closer look at Obama's campaign platform, however, I decided the candidate's yen for ethanol maybe wasn't as bad as our conservative friends would have us believe. Obama supports cellulosic ethanol, which turns the woody stalks of plants like sugarcane and switchgrass into burnable ethanol fuel. This is significantly more efficient that ethanol made by corn (which isn't efficient at all, most agree) and given that the ingredients can grow in just about any kind of soil, with minimal fertilization, its effect on rising food prices would be negligible. I was breathing a little easier now, with the knowledge that Obama wasn't planning to deprive the world's starving children of staple crops, but I was still concerned.

Obama's ties to the ethanol industry, particularly in corn belt states like Iowa and Illinois, are troubling. While biofuels might have a place in weaning us gas-guzzling Americans off Saudi crude, they are far from a solution to our energy problems, and corn-based biofuel, which uses as much energy to create as it provides, is an environmental nightmare. Like his opponent John McCain, Obama supports clean coal power and alternate sources like wind, solar and biomass, but the fact that they happen to be at the bottom of his list seems significant.

In the coming months it will become crucial to take Obama to task for his ties to industry, and hold him to his promises of changing the way policy is made in Washington. Supporting alternative fuels is one thing, but backing corn-based ethanol and the people who seek government subsidies for it is another entirely.

Obama Under Fire

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's wife Michelle seems to be under attack for comments she made some time ago about her pride in this country with respect to her husband as a nominee. Her comments, coupled with voter's relative newness to Obama, have left lingering questions in the minds of potential voters about who she is.

Magazine covers of the couple together along with guest appearances of Obama on The View have been used to introduce her to an audience that may not be too familiar with the Chicago native.

The true question on my mind is whether or not the scrutiny Michelle Obama's comments received is unwarranted, or should people continue to probe and find out more about this potential first lady of the United States?

My thought on the matter: I'm all for purposeful scrutiny through meaningful analysis. It is a mark of sound propriety and good judgment. However, when you begin to assess someone based upon a theory, any attempt to prove a point rings hollow and demeans one's arguments. So don't attack someone simply for political gain. It's bad politics.

What are your thoughts?

One Last Note

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

After a year and a half of blogging on Young Voices, it's time for me to toss in the towel. Starting in just a few days, I'll begin a new career working on the formulation and implementation of the federal budget, something we can all agree needs all the help it can get!

It's an exciting time in Washington, D.C. With the crisp November air just around the corner, I will have the unique opportunities both to finish the work of the Bush administration and to help put in motion the plan of our next Commander-in-Chief, Republican or Democrat.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to be part of such a smart, talented and witty team of writers on this blog. Even more so, I have enjoyed engaging you, the public, on topics as far reaching as immigration reform and global warming. I have appreciated your comments and participation and will never forget your candor.

From this one young voice to many voices, both old and young, I hope you stay engaged in world events and politics, because, as the great President Ronald Reagan once put it, "We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.”

Farewell!

Thank You Mr. Mayor

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

During an election cycle that has already been venomous, a time when our country is at war, gas prices are soaring, and families are struggling to get by, the last thing we need right now in a presidential election are lies. Michael Bloomberg seeks to end just that.

The New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke to an audience of Jewish voters on Friday, making sure people understood who Barack Obama is and is not.

Mr. Bloomberg strongly believes that there have been strong efforts of a whisper campaign that's intended to cast doubt in the minds of potential voters that Obama, who is a Christian, is in fact a Muslim.

Seen as a noble effort by some, others speculate as to whether Independent Bloomberg is looking to make a bid for himself as a potential running mate for either Democratic or Republican presidential nominee.

Whenever asked about the matter, Mayor Bloomberg has said he is not; but political pundits everywhere are keeping their eyes peeled to see what happens next.

Future aspirations aside for Mr. Bloomberg, I think that it's important that in this election season with so much at stake that we not get caught up in smear tactics and bold-faced lies.

Ethaholics Anonymous

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

That's it, I'm taking public transportation!

The average cost of gasoline in the United States has hit an all time high—$4.08 a gallon. Our leaders turned to the production of ethanol to deal with the rising cost of fuel. As a result, the world has experienced extreme rises in food prices for everyone, and starvation for those in the third world and developing nations.

The good news is that at least one of our presidential candidates has acknowledged the problems caused by the Energy Bills of 2005 and 2007. More importantly, he is coming up with new solutions.

John McCain believes that we need to put an end to government-mandated ethanol production, and would rather look to clean coal, solar, wind and nuclear power for American energy. He has pledged $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technologies and, if elected, plans to erect 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. McCain claims that our current gas crisis is largely due to the laws and regulations dealing with the oils futures markets, which he pledges to reform.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a proud supporter of the production of ethanol, the same ethanol that is proving problematic for all the reasons stated above. If elected, his plan is to expand ethanol production, both corn-based and cellulosic, using federal funds. In fact, he wants to mandate biofuel use with a renewable fuel standards plan, calling for 36 billion gallons of ethanol fuel to be included in the fuel supply by 2022. Since one bushel of corn only makes about 2.8 gallons of fuel, that's a lot of food, and a lot of hungry children.

For being a campaign about change, this sounds like nothing more but the same old, same old. As the worldwide food shortage continues, we just can't afford to "stay the course" with ethanol.

Another Crisis?

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

Hello, “Young Voices” readers. I'm joining the site as a guest blogger, so let me introduce myself. I'm a journalist with an eye/ear/heart for African American issues who likes to pester important and/or busy people about current political and social affairs. I look forward to getting your thoughts on my first post. So sit up straight and check it out.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, had a conversation with Tavis last week about his new book A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America. In their discussion, Sen. Webb and Tavis tackled some crucial social issues including the G.I. bill that Sen. Webb co-authored and the fact that America is on its way to creating a permanent underclass. (Check out the conversation here.)

But what really knocked my socks off was the discussion of what Sen. Webb called the U.S. “incarceration culture.” Sen. Webb, who held a hearing last year on America's rising incarceration rate, called the increase “a real national crisis.”

To which I thought: Crisis?! We're already dealing with a health care crisis, a mortgage crisis, an energy crisis and a global food crisis. Now we have an incarceration crisis?

It turns out that “more than one in every 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison” (with African Americans and Hispanics faring the worst).

Numbers released this month show that 2.3 million people are in prison or jail in the United States—an all-time high. Add to that the people who are on probation or parole and the number jumps to 7 million in the criminal justice system, costing Americans $45 billion.

In fact, the land of the free and the home of the brave leads the world in locking folks up. Even China, which has four times the U.S. national population, incarcerates fewer people (1.5 million inmates). Russia rounds out the top three with 890,000 people behind bars.

Some people argue, "It is what it is." As Scott Thorpe of the California District Attorneys Association told the Washington Post, if people commit a crime and create “a danger to the public, you can't look at it as wrong.”

I hear you. But I'm just saying! One in every 100 adults sounds like a lot of people. Which made me wonder: What's up with America?

Apparently, some people at The Sentencing Project and the Justice Policy Institute have been wondering the same thing.

Sentencing Project Executive Director Marc Mauer told me the problem is that the United States “has come to view the criminal justice system as a primary response to a set of complicated social and economic problems” without addressing the fundamental problems of racism and concentrated poverty.

And Justice Policy Institute Research Associate Amanda Petteruti said that America's “knee-jerk reaction” to crime is “a very short-term, shortsighted reaction” that leaves no room for long-term solutions.

Mauer used phrases like “politically motivated.” Petteruti said words like “huge travesty.”

And get this. They both said that mass incarceration does not improve public safety.

They offered these solutions: reconsider incarceration policies for nonviolent crimes stemming from drug abuse, mental illness, lack of education and jobs; rethink our one-size-fits-all sentencing policies; reevaluate the war on drugs; come up with a long-term plan that invests more in education, employment, housing and substance abuse treatment.

The alternative is grim, according to Mauer. He said, “If current trends continue, 1 of every 3 Black males born today can expect to do time in prison in his lifetime.”

That sounds like a crisis to me.

Veteran Journalist Dies

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

You could hear the words every week, “If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press.” For this week of June 15, 2008 however, it wouldn't quite be the familiar face and friend saying it from the other end of the TV camera.

Friday marked a sad day for many in the news community. Veteran journalist, beloved husband, devoted father, author, and TV friend Tim Russert passed away at the age of 58.

Mr. Russert was the moderator of NBC's Meet the Press, the longest running television show in America. He collapsed while at work on Friday, and was later pronounced dead that afternoon. He worked the same way he pursued life, with vigor and great love. He was a trusted friend, mentor and source of encouragement to many. In his most recent work, he covered one of the most interesting political seasons of our nation, interviewing every candidate for the United States presidency of 2008.

He leaves behind scores of adoring viewers, loving colleagues and fellow journalists, heartbroken family members, and a profession he truly loved with all of his heart. NBC colleagues and fellow journalists truly loved him.

I was and still am a huge admirer of Tim Russert. His work personified excellence, and he was truly a gifted man at his craft. He was one of the men I most wanted to meet in this business, and I know the profession is better off for him having served in it.

Tim Russert will be surely missed and not easily forgotten.

How Sidney Poitier Changed America

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

This week's guest, Mr. Sidney Poitier, is a man who has made enormous contributions to the advancement of African Americans in his long and distinguished career. When talking about actors, especially black actors, it's hard to name anyone who has even come close to the number of groundbreaking films Poitier has made. Always dignified, always eloquent, always impeccable in manners, bearing and speech, his characters were some of the first to show black people in film as more than servants or savages or thugs.

In movies like In the Heat of the Night and A Raisin in the Sun, he is no less than electric on screen in his portrayal of young black Americans fighting against the tremendous forces of racism and conservatism that sought to keep African Americans oppressed. In his 1967 role as Dr. John Wade Prentice in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, he encapsulates what he represented to a generation of Americans, and still does: hope—for change, for enlightenment, for a better world for his children. The film gives us cause to consider exactly how far we've come in the last forty years, from a time where the idea of a mixed-race child becoming president was almost preposterous, to now, when there's a very good chance that's who our next president will be.

This scene from the film, in which Poitier and Spencer Tracy discuss the young doctor's plans, is dated, if only by the frankness with which issues of race are discussed. But it is a proud reminder of just what Poitier, and those he inspired, have accomplished.

The Race for VP

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:26:13 PST

The primaries are finally over, but the race has only just begun. Clinton may have thrown in the towel for the presidential contest on Saturday, but it does not appear that she is any less focused on securing a place in the White House. But after such a contentious primary contest, how could Obama chose the woman who questioned his judgment over and over again? And even if he did extend the offer, would Clinton actually accept it?

Opinions on an Obama/Clinton ticket are across the board. New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel told the Wall Street Journal that he believed that Clinton would serve as an excellent running mate, "...I think it is an absolutely unbeatable ticket," he said, "and I think it would be terrific for the country."

Not everyone shares such enthusiasm for this supposed "dream ticket." Ordinary people writing to their local papers seem to ardently disagree with the match. One person wrote in the The Arizona Republic that "...picking Clinton as Barack Obama's vice president would be the worst thing he could do. It would represent a betrayal of his entire campaign... The Clintons represent all the old back-room politics and cigar-smoke-filled rooms to make deals. She is the antithesis of change..."

In Allentown, PA, another ordinary voter wrote in his local paper that "[e]ven though both belong to the same party and share similar views on many topics, they have been opponents and have verbally attacked each other on many occasions." He explained, "A president must appoint a vice president whom he fully trusts...Considering this, Sen. Clinton should not be considered for the vice president position."

It seems like the political establishment desires an Obama/Clinton ticket more than people who have the power to elect them. What do you think? Would Clinton make a good VP for Obama?