John Legend's Open Letter to the New York Post

I received this after I wrote my column for the Austin Weekly News which I will post on Thursday.

***************************************

Open Letter to the New York Post

Dear Editor:

I'm trying to understand what possible motivation you may have had for publishing that vile cartoon depicting the shooting of the chimpanzee that went crazy. I guess you thought it would be funny to suggest that whomever was responsible for writing the Economic Recovery legislation must have the intelligence and judgment of a deranged, violent chimpanzee, and should be shot to protect the larger community. Really? Did it occur to you that this suggestion would imply a connection between President Barack Obama and the deranged chimpanzee? Did it occur to you that our President has been receiving death threats since early in his candidacy? Did it occur to you that blacks have historically been compared to various apes as a way of racist insult and mockery? Did you intend to invoke these painful themes when you printed the cartoon?

If that's not what you intended, then it was stupid and willfully ignorant of you not to connect these easily connectable dots. If it is what you intended, then you obviously wanted to be grossly provocative, racist and offensive to the sensibilities of most reasonable Americans. Either way, you should not have printed this cartoon, and the fact that you did is truly reprehensible. I can't imagine what possible justification you have for this. I've read your lame statement in response to the outrage you provoked. Shame on you for dodging the real issue and then using the letter as an opportunity to attack Rev. Sharpton. This is not about Rev. Sharpton. It's about the cartoon being blatantly racist and offensive.

I believe in freedom of speech, and you have every right to print what you want. But freedom of speech still comes with responsibilities and consequences. You are responsible for printing this cartoon, and I hope you experience some real consequences for it. I'm personally boycotting your paper and won't do any interviews with any of your reporters, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the entertainment business to do so as well. I implore your advertisers to seriously reconsider their business relationships with you as well.

You should print an apology in your paper acknowledging that this cartoon was ignorant, offensive and racist and should not have been printed.

I'm well aware of our country's history of racism and violence, but I truly believe we are better than this filth. As we attempt to rise above our difficult past and look toward a better future, we don't need the New York Post to resurrect the images of Jim Crow to deride the new administration and put black folks in our place. Please feel free to criticize and honestly evaluate our new President, but do so without the incendiary images and rhetoric.

Sincerely,
John Legend

Black Ministers Silence on Burris is Blaring

I wondered where our clergy has been. No prayers in the home. No prayers ont he corner. Darn shame I had to go all the way to the International Herald Tribune to find this article.

*************************************************************************

CHICAGO: A group of black ministers who supported U.S. Sen. Roland Burris as he fought to get his job now plan to ask for his resignation following revelations that he tried to raise money for the disgraced governor who appointed him to the Senate seat left vacant by President Barack Obama, one of the ministers told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Many of the city's influential black pastors supported Burris because of his scandal-free reputation — even though he was appointed by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich three weeks after the governor was arrested for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat.

Now some of those pastors will ask Burris to resign, according to the minister, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a meeting with Burris had not yet been scheduled.

Clergy Speaks Interdenominational, an umbrella group that includes hundreds of Chicago's black churches, will meet Friday to discuss its support for Burris, spokeswoman Stephanie Gadlin said. For now, the group still supports him and its leaders are unaware of discussions about asking him to resign, she said.

Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor would not say whether the senator would meet with ministers, and referred to a statement from Burris asking that leaders "stop the rush to judgment."

Burris testified before the Illinois House committee that recommended Blagojevich's impeachment in January that he hadn't had contact with key Blagojevich staffers or offered anything in return for the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

Last weekend, however, Burris released an affidavit saying he had spoken to several Blagojevich advisers, including Robert Blagojevich, the former governor's brother and finance chairman, who Burris said called three times last fall asking for fundraising help. Burris, a former state attorney general, changed his story again this week when he admitted trying, unsuccessfully, to raise money for Blagojevich.

Illinois lawmakers have asked local prosecutors to look into perjury charges, and a preliminary U.S. Senate Ethics Committee inquiry is under way. Burris denies lying under oath and has resisted a growing chorus of calls for his resignation, including from within his own party.

Burris is the only black U.S. senator, as Obama was when he was in the Senate. Blacks were among his biggest defenders as Burris overcame Senate leaders' resistance to admitting a senator appointed by a man charged with trying to sell the office.

Current sentiment in the black community is not unanimous, but the clergy's silence as the maelstrom of criticism swells around Burris "speaks volumes," said another minister, Ira Acree, of the Greater St. John Bible Church.

"I'm a little disturbed, but because of his track record, don't want to rush to judgment," Acree said Thursday. "But neither will I attempt to defend his actions."

Burris' latest revelations are "making the black community just as suspicious of him as anyone else," said the Rev. Leonard Barr of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church.

But Burris deserves a chance to defend himself and should not step down, he said.

"I think he can do the job," Barr said. "He would be a good senator and a conscientious senator."

People who have supported Burris are torn between feelings of anger and betrayal and a desire to keep the only black senator in the country, said Laura S. Washington, a politics professor at DePaul University and columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times.

"They're disappointed, embarrassed and worried that the seat will be in jeopardy," Washington said.

Edward Bogan, a 58-year-old printer from Chicago, said he doesn't buy Burris' explanation for not telling the House impeachment committee about all his contacts with the Blagojevich administration.

"If your memory is that bad, why do we need you in there?" said Bogan, who is black. "... If you're only going to remember the part that benefits you, what good are you?"

But Chicago resident and real estate counselor Danyelle Hall, 37, says plenty of African-Americans still support Burris.

"I think that he would've been more forthcoming if the appropriate questions were asked," by the committee, said Hall. "That didn't happen and that's not his fault."

Time to Hold Roland Burris Accountable

Don't you just love Illinois politics? Just as I was enjoying keeping up with the television appearances of our ex-governor Rod "Superhairstar" Blagojevich, and his dropping of tidbits of information on current lawmakers, when another tiny bit of news made headlines over the weekend.

Anyone paying attention, and I called on all of Chicago to pay attention, had to see the news that our newly appointed junior senator Roland Burris had quietly filed an affidavit to clarify-embellish-explain-illuminate-spell out-shed light on-simplify, you pick the adjective, his testimony before the Illinois General Assembly impeachment panel.

Sen. Burris' response to those that question his expansion of his testimony were told that he didn't get a chance to fully elaborate during the time he was given with the impeachment panel, so like a good citizen he clarified those salient points later.

Now the cynic in me also noted that Burris also became more forthcoming after he found out that the government had taped phone conversations of some of those calls he had with the folks from Blagojevich's camp.

Its amazing how thoughtful and helpful people can become when they learned what they said was recorded by the feds. I am still waiting for the release of all those phone conversations. I have a feeling that they are going to shed more light than the average politician wants us to know about their behavior when out of the public eye.

When I learned of Burris' expanded testimony, I sent out an e-mail to the folks who had been filling my inbox with e-mails urging people to fight for Burris to get the seat. I asked them to comment on my blog on the Burris affidavit.

As I write this column, I've only gotten one response back. I checked my blog and the person responding there was a normal contributor. I find it very concerning that those who put their necks out to support Burris are either choosing to now be quiet or make up excuses for him. Why is that?

What I am curious to know is the level of integrity black people want out of politicians - white or black? Or is it permissible to have two sets of standards, one for those we don't like, where we hold their feet to the fire, and the other for ones we like, where we disregard their wrongdoings?

Should black politicians be given a pass on their less-than-stellar behaviors? If we give them a pass, then do they come to the table lying, knowing you won't get upset with the lies when they are found out?

If we are to look at the current low opinion people have of politics and politicians, what percentage of that view is directly attributable to the selfish willfulness of those in power or those whose every move promotes their legacy rather than what is correct and proper. Will Roland Burris' tombstone have etched "U.S. Senator" on it, but also have everyone who sees it remember it as being a tarnished appointment?

People desire may things in their lives. But the reality is that many of us don't always get what we want. But what price does one pay to get what he or she wants? Was Sen. Burris' willingness to be deceptive worth the end result of his getting the senate seat but now is hounded by the media?

Do you want to see your senator on TV running from the cameras because he doesn't like the questions being asked? Burris stated that he is a public servant. The name "public" in and of itself implies that it is for the people. The word servant means to serve. You can't do either hiding out.

Does Roland Burris' Admission Levelized The Playing Field?

Roland Burris admission that he was in essence asked to pay-to-play puts him in the same category as those who have already been identified on tape as being willing to do the same.

I was listening to WVON and the some of the usual callers called in with the
I'm-gonna-support-the-brother-no-matter-what mentality. Unfortunately, that is the exact reason Roland Burris stepped up to the plate with a less than honest response. He has played the black community better than anyone else.

If Burris remains in the senate, he will be ineffective and a joke. The problem is that the joke won't be funny.

Transscript of Roland Burris' testimoney

BY MARK BROWN Sun-Times Columnist
Sen. Roland Burris says the transcript of his Illinois House impeachment committee testimony proves he is not a lying little sneak.

It doesn't. But judge for yourself. Here's the excerpt Burris says exonerates him:

RELATED STORIESBurris backers not ready for real change Burris backers not ready for real change

Rep. Jim Durkin: "Did you talk to any members of the governor's staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names -- John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor's arrest?"

Burris lawyer Timothy Wright: "Give us a moment." (Wright and Burris confer.)

Burris: "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes."

Durkin: "I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?"

Burris: "I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up -- it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat."

From that exchange, Burris now says, we were to deduce that when he referred to "friends" and said "yes," he was confirming having been in contact with everyone named by Durkin except Greenleaf. He blames Durkin for then taking the questioning in another direction.

OK, that might be enough to save the senator from a perjury charge, even though he had previously submitted an affidavit claiming "there was not any contact" between him and Blagojevich's representatives concerning the Senate seat.

But here's what proves he is a lying little sneak.

While Durkin might not have asked Burris to clarify his reference to "friends," his fellow Republican, Rep. Jill Tracy of Quincy, did return to the subject.

Just watch Burris dance.

Tracy: "You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of '08 or July of '08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?"

Burris: "I don't think I said in July. I said they were friends that I contacted after the election, but I was talking to people, I mean I don't know who you want as my friends that I consider as persons. For example, when I handled a press conference to express my interest in the seat, was the press conference -- I did hold a press conference, and some of my friends were there, for instance."

Tracy was temporarily sidetracked, then came back to the point.

Tracy: "But I think I earlier heard you today testify that in September '08 or perhaps as early as July '08, you had visited with some friends about your desire to seek the seat."

Burris: "No, I think I testified that that's when I began to express an interest in it. As I saw that --"

Tracy: "And I just was wondering who those friends were."

Burris: "One of them was my law partner."

Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the committee chairman: "Is that when you talked about your interest with Lon Monk? I think that --"

Tracy: "Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk?

Burris: "That came up in our conversation when we were talking about, you know, if he has some excess clients in the lobbying business, you know, as we try to see whether or not he had conflicts somewhere with some type of a client because of his previous relationship with government. That's what we were talking about then.

"And it just came up, and in fact I said, 'Now, Lon, I don't know what's going to happen, but I think I'm qualified to be appointed to the Senate seat.' And Lon said, 'Well, Roland, I think you are, too.' And that was the extent of it."

Tracy: "So you don't recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?"

Burris: "No, I can't recall. Because people were coming to me saying, Roland, you should pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this was --"

Tracy: "Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can --"

Surely, here was one last chance for Burris to clear the air and mention his contacts with Harris, Wyma or the governor's brother. But who did he name?

Rich Barber, a friend of his from New Jersey.

Case closed.

Day Laborers Protest For Economic Stimulus -

Is this a case of doing in this country what they refused to do in their home countries?

February 16, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A group of day laborers is calling on President Obama and Mayor Daley to create more employment in the Chicago area.
Workers and members of the Latino Union of Chicago rallied Monday at the intersection of Belmont and Milwaukee. They want to put a face on the unemployment statistics for day laborers, those who work construction, repair city streets, schools and infrastructure.
A local union leader says day laborers are averaging work about once every two months.
"Here, on a daily basis, you can see up to 200 workers, immigrants and Americans, looking for work," said Eric Rodriguez, Latino Union of Chicago director. "We are calling out to President Obama and Mayor Daley to make sure that the stimulus package that they are about to sign can generate work for the hundreds of people that are looking for work on a daily basis in Chicago."

Studies show day laborers in the US are mostly made up of immigrants and Latinos. Sixty-three percent have children to support.

Roland Burris' Newfound Clarification - What is your opinion?

Before Roland Burris was seated, many people filled my email box with emails to support him in becoming senator.

Now that Roland Burris has had a sudden recalling of memory - may have a lot to do with finding out one of his phone calls was recorded by the FBI- he is now admitting or clarifying something he wasn't so clear on in the past. I am curious as to your opinion on his new statement. Does it change anybody's opinion?


From The Sun-Times:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris defiantly defended himself today against allegations he misled a state impeachment panel while under oath by not disclosing multiple contacts with former Gov. Blagojevich’s inner circle or being approached by the ex-governor’s brother for campaign cash before the appointment.


“Throughout my career, I’ve always conducted myself with honest and integrity,” Burris said during an emotional press conference about why he quietly filed paperwork to revise his testimony, which the Chicago Sun-Times was the first to report Saturday.

“I responded to all questions that were asked of me by the impeachment committee in the time allotted. At no time did I ever make any inconsistent statements,” Burris said, blaming the impeachment panel for not asking him the right questions and the media for misconstruing the facts.

Since the initial Sun-Times report, lawmakers have called for Burris’ resignation and for Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Schmidt, a Republican, to open a perjury investigation focusing on Burris’ Jan. 8 testimony before the House Special Investigative Committee.

During that sworn testimony, Burris indicated that former Blagojevich chief of staff and lobbyist Lon Monk was the only member of the ex-governor’s inner circle with whom he had consulted about a possible appointment to the Senate. Prior to that, Burris said he had had no contact with anyone in Blagojevich’s camp about the appointment prior to Dec. 26.


But in the latest account from Burris, submitted in a Feb. 5 letter to the committee’s chairwoman, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), Burris said he had had three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, including a discussion by the governor’s brother and campaign fund chairman to raise money for the ex-governor. Burris also contradicted his earlier accounts by confirming he had discussed his interest in the appointment with former Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris, lobbyist John Wyma, campaign aide Doug Scofield and Blagojevich supporter Ed Smith - in addition to Monk.

House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) and Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs), the ranking Republican on the impeachment panel, called today for Schmidt to investigate Burris for perjury.

But Schmidt told the Sun-Times he has not received a formal request from anyone to launch a Burris probe but did not rule out the possibility of launching an investigation.

“Should information be forwarded to our office, we’ll review it in the ordinary course of business just like we would any other report,” Schmidt said.