BILL MOYERS: Yes, North Carolina now, because of this new far-right government — and these are not your father’s Republicans, they are really right-wing Republicans adhering to the fundamentalism of the right — they went after voting rights. It was one of the first objectives they fulfilled when they took power. And they now have the most restrictive voting rights in the country — a very complicated process of getting IDs that you have to have. They’ve redistricted in a way that packs African Americans into three districts, so that it’s hard to argue "one man, one vote" is happening down there. And the Justice Department has challenged the North Carolina state voting laws. But they are very restrictive, and they’re designed to perpetuate the Republican rule and to make it harder for the elderly, for the young, for minorities to vote.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the things they realized very quickly was that a lot of the voters who were voting early were voting Democrat, so they’re cracking down on the number of days that you can take — the number of days you can vote.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, there — for a while, it looked as if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, but when the early votes were finally counted, the margin went to — victory went to Obama. So, they don’t like that, and they’re doing away with early voting.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why did you focus on North Carolina, of all the states? Is it really so singular, so unique?

BILL MOYERS: Well, it’s very compact, what’s happening down there, and it’s very recent. This has happened to a considerable extent in Wisconsin. These are battleground states, where the right wing and the conservatives and the business and wealthy communities are collaborating to make sure they don’t lose again. North Carolina is an interesting state in and of itself. It’s a blue state, it’s a red state, it’s a purple state. Obama carried it by a whisker in 2008, Romney by a whisker in 2012. It goes back and forth. Jesse Helms, the, to use your term, legendary right-wing senator from North Carolina, was simultaneously in office with a progressive United States senator. It’s a purple state, really, that goes this way. So the Republicans, the right wing, are focusing on it. The Democrats ought to be focusing on it, but they’ve had their problems down there with corruption and scandals that played into Art Pope’s hands.

But there are three reasons for this story. One, it’s very clear what’s happening in North Carolina. Second, it’s a paradigm, a harbinger of what’s happening in other states. And then, most important, it really reveals what dark money is doing to American politics. So much of this money that has flowed into North Carolina comes from untraceable and unaccountable sources. They don’t know in North Carolina who’s funding the redistricting. They don’t know who’s funding these campaigns against their opponents. It’s coming from national sources, from Republican sources in Washington, from very wealthy people around the country. And that is, of course, flying in the face of the fundamental tenet of democracy, which is, we should know who’s buying our government.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, there is a North Carolinian in this, and it is Art Pope himself, also close to the Koch brothers.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, he is a — he’s been called a kingmaker as well as a king, because he has used his money — he’s a smart man, very shrewd, very intelligent, and very ruthless in how he uses his money. And as Jane Mayer, The New Yorker reporter, terrific reporter, as you and I both know, says at the end of the broadcast, this is more than North Carolina; this shows what a wealthy individual can do in any state where he or she is willing to put their money into politics in this way. So it’s a harbinger, as I say, of how our democracy — you know, organized money is the greatest threat to democracy because it unbalances the equilibrium. Democracy is supposed to check the excesses of private power and private greed. And if money disestablishes that equilibrium, we’re in trouble.

And the only answer — as we’ve seen in this film, the only answer to organized money is organized people. And that’s what really at first drew me to North Carolina. I’ve had a history there. I was on the board of Wake Forest University for years. I was in — I have good, close friends there who teach and who write and who work there. And I know something about North Carolina. And when I saw what was happening on these Moral Mondays, I knew nothing about them until the press stories began to come out. These people were gathering, not spontaneously, because Reverend Barber, who is himself a shrewd cat, a cool cat, as they say — I knew what he was doing in organizing these. The first arrest came in the summer, and then the news started — the news media started paying attention. It was obvious that people were becoming alarmed, agitated and organized in response to the buyout of North Carolina. And that remains the most hopeful — whether you’re a progressive conservative — a progressive Republican or a progressive liberal Democrat, you have to know that the only way we’re going to preserve our democracy is to fight this organized money. And that’s what the Moral Monday protesters are doing.

AMY GOODMAN: And they’re trying to plan the largest protest ever yet, and that will be February 8th. But there is a distinction sometimes between the progressives who are out there on the streets, who are getting arrested — more than a thousand got arrested in 2013 — and the Democratic Party of North Carolina.

BILL MOYERS: That’s true. And this, of course, has played into the hands of the right wing. Progressives, of course, are more progressive than partisan. Democrats want Democrats to be re-elected, even if they’re centrists or center-right Democrats. So, there’s resentment in North Carolina among some traditional Democrats to Art — to Reverend Barber. He has now emerged as the progressive leader — not the Democratic leader, because he’s not a partisan in this respect. And so, there’s conflict between progressives and Democrats who are not progressives in North Carolina. This is an old — an old story, as you know.

The right wing solved it by this enormous confomity that they brought to their movement 25 and 30 years ago. The tea party was together enough to take over the Republican Party. Progressives are not together enough to take over, step by step, precinct by precinct, the Democratic Party. And that’s a source of conflict. And, of course, as I say in the documentary and said a moment ago, Democrats had some corruption and some scandals a few years ago when several went to jail. And that’s been a problem. That played right into the right’s hands, and it’s created a further rift between progressives and Democrats.

AMY GOODMAN: Reproductive rights also very much under attack. Fascinating to see Governor McCrory saying — you know, very simple answer when asked if he would be supporting more restrictions against abortion, in one of the debates, and his answer was "None," very clearly stated, but that hasn’t been the case.

BILL MOYERS: He read the tea leaves and saw that when he got into office — he was elected with the help of these conservatives, and of course he has to appease them in order to be re-elected, if he runs again. And one of the first changes in his agenda was to go against what he had said earlier and sign the most restrictive abortion bill, reproductive rights bill — anti-reproductive-rights bill in the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Last year, as you also clip, make an excerpt of in this documentary, The Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi spoke to a North Carolina county precinct Republican chair named Don Yelton about North Carolina passing one of the most restrictive voter suppression bills in the nation.

DON YELTON: The bottom line is the law is not racist.

AASIF MANDVI: Of course the law is not racist, and you are not racist.

DON YELTON: Well, I have been called a bigot before. Let me tell you something. You don’t look like me, but I think I’ve treated you the same as I would anybody else.

AASIF MANDVI: Right.

DON YELTON: Matter of fact, one of my best friends is black.

AASIF MANDVI: So, one of your best friends—

DON YELTON: One of my best friends.

AASIF MANDVI: —is black.

DON YELTON: Yes.

AASIF MANDVI: And there’s more.

DON YELTON: When I was a young man, you didn’t call a black a black; you called him a Negro. I had a picture one time of Obama sitting on a stump as a witch doctor, and I posted that on Facebook. For your information, I was making fun of my white half of Obama, not the black half. And now, you have a black person using the term nigger this, nigger that, and it’s OK for them to do it.

AASIF MANDVI: You know that we can hear you, right?

DON YELTON: Yeah.

AASIFMANDVI: OK, you know that, that you — you know that we can hear you.

DON YELTON: Yeah.

AASIF MANDVI: OK, all right.

Then I found out the real reason for the law.

DON YELTON: The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.

AASIF MANDVI: Wow! An executive GOP committee member just admitted that this law isn’t designed to hurt black people; it’s designed to hurt Democrats.

DON YELTON: If it hurts a bunch of college kids that’s too lazy to get up off their bohunkus and go get a photo ID, so be it.

AASIF MANDVI: Right, right.

DON YELTON: If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it.

AASIF MANDVI: And it just so happens that a lot of those people vote Democrat.

DON YELTON: Gee.

AMY GOODMAN: That was from Comedy Central, The Daily Show. Almost immediately after the interview aired on The Daily Show, Don Yelton was forced to resign his position in the Republican Party. Bill Moyers?

BILL MOYERS: It’s sad that there are so many people in this country who cannot escape the prison of the past, and race is very much at the heart of this — particularly in the old Confederate states, this right-wing resurgence that we’re facing now. There are very few who speak as openly and as blatantly and as honestly as Don Yelton. He’s telling the interviewer, "Yeah, this is why I did what I did." Many do without revealing their motives. And if you track the voting patterns, if you track what’s happening in the country, you see that unspoken racism is still driving a large segment of our politics.

And fortunately, he outed himself and reminded us that the Republican Party in the South is the party that took over after the signing of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, when President Johnson said to me, "I think we’ve just handed the South to the Republicans for my lifetime and yours," because the racists who had been Democrats all those years until this transformation in American politics through the civil rights legislation and the civil rights movement — until this transformation brought them over, the Democrats had been the racist party in the South. I grew up in the South, and I remember all my Democratic friends were essentially racist. So, it’s changed, and Yelton was speaking a truth that dare not be heard. But he did say it, and we know it.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, Bill, we just came from Sundance Film Festival in Park City. Freedom Summer was one of the documentaries, from the remarkable filmmaker Stanley Nelson, and it’s about — this summer coming up is the 50th anniversary of the summer of 1964, when the three civil rights activists, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman and Mickey Schwerner, were killed. Of course, they were named; there were others who we don’t know who died. It was the summer of organizing in Mississippi, and it was the summer of the Freedom Democratic — the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. And you were the press secretary of Lyndon Johnson. What was it like to be there when Fannie Lou Hamer was taking Lyndon Johnson on at the 1964 Atlantic City Democratic convention? He did not want that voice, who wanted to integrate the Mississippi Democratic Party delegation to the convention, to be heard, and so he gave a speech at the same time, so the cameras would switch from her — as they did, reliably, giving voice to power — to President Johnson.

BILL MOYERS: What a dramatic and traumatic moment it was, a riveting moment. By the way, I didn’t become press secretary for two years. I was 30 that summer, and I was actually President Johnson’s domestic policy adviser, working on civil rights, voting rights and politics. And it was a — it was a dramatic moment. It was an unfortunate moment, too, because I wish, in retrospect, that we had embraced Fannie Lou Hamer and realized that’s where the future of the Democratic Party lay.

AMY GOODMAN: Could it kind of be like North Carolina Democrats today?

BILL MOYERS: Yes, exactly, exactly. But here was Johnson’s predicament. He wanted to carry as many Southern states as he could. He was from Texas. He wanted to bring progressive, moderate Democrats along with him in his campaign for ’64. And had he embraced Fannie Lou Hamer, the morally right thing to do, it would have been, he thought, politically costly. So he hammered out this compromise, which was not satisfactory to either side, in order to preserve his political prowess and his political opportunity to carry the South. And we did carry several states in the South in 1964 that I think probably he would have lost if he had not made this compromise. But in retrospect, of course — and not even in retrospect, at the time, the moral embrace would have been the right one to do, and that would have been to bring the Mississippi leadership, the Democratic — the black and civil rights leaders of Mississippi into the Democratic Party.

AMY GOODMAN: He almost resigned then, didn’t he? The pressure so enormous, at least that’s what comes out in Freedom Summer. He was saying — he was wondering if he would throw in the towel then.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, he was torn between winning and doing the right thing. Lyndon Johnson had never been an outstanding proponent of voting — of civil rights when he was a senator from Texas or the majority leader, but his heart was always in the right place, because as a young man he was a New Deal congressman from Texas, and that was trying to embrace a larger constituency.

AMY GOODMAN: He had just signed the Civil Rights Act earlier that summer.

BILL MOYERS: 1964, that’s right. And then suddenly he was faced with this moral-versus-political choice, and it really created a great tension in him. He was torn by what he had done at the same time. And he wasn’t sure that winning re-election was worth the moral price he had paid for it. But he got over that and ran a hearty campaign, and of course received the largest plurality in the country up until then in a presidential race.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Bill, before we end the show, I wanted to ask about what your plans are. This year you turn 80.

BILL MOYERS: Yep.

AMY GOODMAN: You announced in October that Bill Moyers & Company, you’re going to be ending it. You got an avalanche of response. People — the force more powerful than any one person, the people spoke, and they said, "You can’t end this show." Bill Moyers—

BILL MOYERS: Well, enough people spoke to make me think that I was leaving — I was going AWOLin the middle of the battle. And, you know, when you’ve been at it 40-some-odd years — I’ve been a broadcaster for 41 years—you do have somewhat loyal constituents. Many of them are aging out, dying off. I mean, young journalists have no idea of what’s happened in broadcasting over the last 40 years. They’re into the web and so forth. But there were enough loyal fans, constituents around the country. They wrote — 4,000 or 5,000 letters came to us, emails. And I had to face myself shaving in the morning and saying, "Are you abandoning these people?" So we came back for one more year.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, it’s great to see you coming back with documentaries like these. What’s your next?

BILL MOYERS: We’re working on a — we’re looking at Ayn Rand’s influence today. Ayn Rand was — is the libertarian, the famous writer, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, a libertarian who celebrates the virtue of money and says the — has had an enormous influence over American politics and is even popular today. I think Atlas Shrugged sells something like 150-200,000 copies. It’s being taught. Her philosophy is being taught in universities funded by Koch brother organizations and others. And so we’re looking at Rand Paul, for example, who’s a likely candidate for president in — I don’t know. They say not, but there’s some kind of a convergence there, because when he was 17, his father, Ron Paul, gave him a set of Ayn Rand’s novels. So we’re working on that.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we look forward to the commentary. Bill, thanks so much for joining us, legendary broadcaster, host of Moyers & Company. Earlier this month, his program Moyers & Company aired a documentary called State of Conflict: North Carolina, and we’ll link to the full documentary at democracynow.org.

By Tara Nurin

Three state lawmakers from Newark who lived through the city’s infamous July 1967 riots are warning that severe economic pressures combined with a surging underground gun culture may cause New Jersey’s cities to erupt in similar violence as early as this summer.

Speaking at a news conference at the Statehouse yesterday morning, Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex) and two of his Assembly colleagues pointed to record-breaking homicide figures in several of the state’s biggest cities and announced legislation that would create a commission to study solutions to urban violence. Without the type of swift action sure to be recommended by such a commission, they warned, riots won’t be far off.

“People can’t take it anymore,” intoned Rice, a former police detective who holds two criminal justice degrees and serves as vice chair of the Senate’s community and urban affairs committee. “I’m praying it doesn’t happen but believe me we’re back where we were in the ‘60s. We feel it and we’re very fearful.”

Citing statistics compiled in a Star-Ledger crime analysis published on the first of this year, Rice noted that in 2013, Trenton recorded its highest-ever number of homicides. Newark reported the most murders in almost 25 years; Camden reached the second-highest number in its history; and Jersey City recorded 20 murders — up from 13 the year before.

Although FBI statistics show U.S. violent crime dropping less than 1 percent between 2011 and 2012, the most recent year for which numbers are available, Rutgers-Camden criminology professor Louis Tuthill says some cities are spiking because of budget cuts.

“They’ve all seen increases in crime,” he said.

This applies to Camden and Trenton, where police rolls were cut by one-half and one-third, respectively, in 2011. In Newark, the reason is considerably more gruesome.

“We’re seeing more and more incidents with multiple shooters — people firing in excess of 20 rounds,” said Newark police director Samuel DeMaio. “In my 28 years here I’ve never seen a generation of young people who’ll turn and kill people over such a ridiculously small reason.”

With the support of DeMaio, Rice and Essex County Assembly Democrats Ralph Caputo and Cleopatra Tucker insist that a commission needs to be formed to closely examine the roots of youth violence and identify what programs must be funded to curb it. Their commission would comprise 40 volunteer leaders from state and local government, law enforcement, academia, clergy, and community agencies. It would meet for 18 months and submit two interim reports and a final report on its findings.

According to DeMaio, crime prevention should target young people before they get too deep into the criminal justice system for rehabilitation.

“We’re seeing (crime) start younger and younger. Criminal activity now starts at 12 or 13, and you watch it progress to increasingly serious offenses. What the system is doing is turning them back out on the street (until they murder someone),” he said.

Calling on Urban and Minority Representatives

All three legislative cosponsors lay heavy blame on the state’s political, religious, and community leaders for ignoring low-income and minority neighborhoods in desperate need of social services, education, and job training, not to mention more policing. The frequently outspoken Rice, who chairs the state’s black legislative caucus, believes that since the ‘60s, politics has replaced policy in dialogue about crime prevention, and he accuses black politicians and clergy of selling out to people long on promises but short on true interest or answers.

“Back in the old days black elected officials came to the table with black attorneys, black accountants, black clergy. Those were policy meetings,” he said. “We don’t come to the table with labor leaders anymore. Over the years we got away from policy and into politics.”

So cosponsors of the bill, introduced yesterday, call on lawmakers who represent minority, immigrant, and urban districts to support their pleas to put after-school, job-training, and similar programs into the budget, something the Christie Administration, which did not respond to an emailed request for comment, has not done historically.

“If we don’t get out there and tell these young people that yes, there is a better way, we have programs and training, we’re just putting them back in the same situation,” said Tucker.

Yesterday afternoon, Senate Law and Public Safety Committee chair Donald Norcross (D-Camden), signed on as a co-sponsor, saying that “Crime is in epidemic proportions, especially among our youth.” But he cautions that Trenton hasn’t always shown itself eager to studying issues, especially “those that are unpleasant.”

Comparisons to the ‘60s

The lawmakers likened their commission to the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly called the “Kerner Commission” that President Lyndon Johnson empaneled to study race relations and urban life in the late 1960s.

Despite holding it up as an example to follow, Caputo feels that the Kerner Commission failed to bring about long-term improvements to American cities and demands that fellow lawmakers do more to live up to their moral and legal obligations to the citizens they serve.

“We didn’t pay attention when (the problems were) identified,” he lamented. “We have kids in the City of Newark riding around on bicycles with guns on their hips and the leadership is not there. We cut cops in Newark and no one says a damn word. Where’s the leadership?”

In 1967, the Newark riots lasted four days, left 26 people dead and started when 200 residents protested the arrest of an African-American cab driver. At that time, Newark suffered from the nation’s highest rate of substandard housing and the second-highest rates of crime and infant mortality.

Tuthill, who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice until two years ago, thinks that Rice’s prediction of renewed urban riots is a bit extreme. But Rice counters that back in those days, angry urbanites would listen to pleas from African-American political leaders and activists like himself. Now, he says, “This new generation on the streets tells us all the time, ‘We can’t do anything, we can’t get jobs and we don’t expect to live past 21.’ These young Crips and Bloods are gunning people down without an excuse. All we have to do is give them the excuse, and watch what’s going to happen.”

By MARK J. MAGYAR

Sweeney: Secret dismissal of $780M Sandy contractor shows need for governor to use oversight law he signed last March

In the wake of the secret firing of a controversial contractor hired to administer $780 million in Sandy aid, the Christie administration has issued a new request for proposals to a list of preapproved firms to perform additional work as integrity monitors in Sandy programs, Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) reported yesterday.

“Integrity monitors have an established track record of preventing waste, fraud and abuse,” Sweeney said. “Their efforts in protecting taxpayer dollars are why I pushed so hard to ensure this legislation became law. I am glad the administration is taking the necessary steps to ensure these monitors get to New Jersey as quickly as possible."

“As we saw recently with the midnight firing of Hammerman and Gainer, clearly there are issues with how Sandy funding was being maintained,” he said, suggesting that better use of the integrity-monitoring program might have caught the problems sooner. “Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are flowing through our state right now in relief funding. Integrity monitors will ensure that money is not squandered, so let’s get them here as soon as possible.”

Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) were the prime sponsors of the legislation that called for special integrity monitors to audit major Sandy projects and report suspected waste, fraud, and abuse to the New Jersey Attorney General or the independent Office of the State Comptroller. The program was modeled after a similar initiative that New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had used to ensure the integrity of the reconstruction of the World Trade Center site after 9/11.

Christie, who was initially noncommittal, signed the bill last March 27, requiring the Treasury Department to choose a pool of firms as integrity monitors through a competitive bidding process and assign them to all Sandy projects whose prices exceeded $5 million. The integrity monitors were to paid through federal Sandy funds, and the Treasury Department had the option of assigning them to lower-cost projects if they felt additional oversight was necessary.

Sweeney’s office learned of the issuance of the new request for proposals for Sandy integrity monitors on Sunday.

Treasury Department Communications Director William Quinn confirmed early this morning that the Treasury Department recently issued a solicitation “seeking interest from a group of preapproved vendors in providing integrity monitoring services for the Department of Community Affairs on their administration of Sandy recovery funds in excess of $5 million.”

“On January 17, we contacted a pool of 26 firms that were approved last year to provide these services under two previous procurements,” Quinn wrote in response to an email, referring to the Group III Integrity Monitoring/Anti-Fraud list on Treasury’s Sandy Information Page. “Their responses are due back on February 7.”

The Christie administration confirmed last Thursday that the Department of Community Affairs had fired Hammerman and Gainer (HGI) in December — a fact that state Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable neglected to mention in his testimony at a legislative committee hearing focused on the problems with Sandy relief programs earlier this month.

Last May, HGI won a $68 million contract to administer a $780 million program designed to get Sandy victims back in their homes, a contract that was awarded soon after HGI’s law firm, Cape and Scatchard, made a $25,000 contribution to the Republican Governors Association, which contributed $1.7 million to Christie’s reelection campaign. The company’s work was the subject of constant complaints by New Jersey homeowners displaced by Sandy.

“Whenever you try to find out anything out about Sandy programs, you end up groping in the dark,” complained Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. “People have been complaining about HGI for a year now, but nobody knew until a month later that they were gone. Why did it take so long for this administration to find out how bad they were when everybody they dealt with knew they weren’t doing the job? The reason you can’t find out about any of this is because the Christie administration doesn’t want people to know what’s going on.”

Marc Ferzan, executive director of the governor’s office of Recovery and Rebuilding, had not made a public appearance since last April, refusing reporter interviews and skipping four legislative hearings, before finally emerging last week. Ferzan broke his months of silence to do a conference call defending the share of Sandy aid awarded to Hoboken after Mayor Dawn Zimmer charged that Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno passed along a threat from Christie to withhold Sandy aid from her city if she did not approve a development project represented by David Samson, a close political ally of Christie.

by Jessie Daniels

There’s a growing body of evidence that links the experience of racism with poor health and illness. Recent, ground-breaking research further confirms this.

Any type of stress can impact health, but none may be quite as toxic as the tension and anxiety people experience when they fear that they will be discriminated against, reveals a groundbreaking new study led by Margaret Hicken, PhD, a Robert Wood Johnson (RWJF) Health & Society Scholar (2010-2012).

Working with a team that included David R. Williams, PhD, a veteran disparities researcher and head of the RWJF Commission on Building a Healthier America, and RWJF Health & Society Scholars Hedwig Lee, PhD, and Sarah Burgard, PhD, Hicken worked across disciplines to uncover several of the many ways that racism gets under the skin. “This research grew out of conversations with other Robert Wood Johnson Foundation scholars with backgrounds in sociology and epidemiology,” explains Hicken, who focuses on social demography and public health.

“Sociologists have a different way of looking at how people respond to discrimination on a personal level and what it’s like to live in a country where the media portrays your group in a certain way. Even policy-makers in the United States sometimes speak in code because ours is a racialized society,” Hicken says.

Using survey results from the Chicago Adult Community Health Study, a population-representative sample of 3,105 people, the team conducted two studies that measured the possible health effects of remaining hypervigilant about encountering racism when engaging in simple, everyday activities.

Health and the Stress Response

The first study was “‘Every Shut Eye, Ain’t Sleep’: The Role of Racism-Related Vigilance in Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Sleep Difficulty,” published inthe June 2013 issue of Race and Social Problems. The results suggested that Black, but not Hispanic, adults were most likely to maintain high levels of racism-related hypervigilance (also called anticipatory stress), and toss and turn during the night. The Black adults reported 15 percent more hypervigilance-related sleep problems than the White adults.

The second study revealed far more striking differences among racial groups. In the article, “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Hypertension Prevalence: Reconsidering the Role of Chronic Stress,” published online November 18 in the American Journal of Public Health, the team reported large differences in rates of hypervigilance and hypertension between Black and White study participants, and only a small difference among Hispanics.

Not only were the Blacks surveyed more likely to be hypervigilant about experiencing discrimination, that hypervigilance may have contributed to significantly higher levels of hypertension in them. At the lowest levels of hypervigilance, Black and White study participants had similar levels of hypertension. However, at the highest levels of hypervigilance, 55 percent of Black study participants had hypertension while 20 percent of the White study participants had hypertension.

The study findings may contribute greatly to the understanding of differences in health between racial groups, because disparities in hypertension are considered a significant contributor to health disparities in America.

(Download the PDF here.)

The Racism/Hypertension Link

“We think that the chronic activation of the biological stress response system that takes place when a person anticipates a negative event like encountering discrimination is what contributes to the higher rates of hypertension among the Blacks in our study,” Hicken says.

After controlling for variables such as income, gender, age, and socioeconomic status, study respondents’ feelings were measured through questions that included:

In your day-to-day life, how often do you do the following things: (a) try to prepare for possible insults from other people before leaving home; (b) feel that you always have to be very careful about your appearance to get good service or avoid being harassed; and (c) try to avoid certain social situations and places.

The researchers wrote, “the anticipatory nature of vigilance sets it apart from traditional notions of perceived racial discrimination. For decades, a large body of scientific and lay literature has provided evidence of the pervasive consequences of interpersonal and societal discrimination. In qualitative studies, social scientists often report on the way Blacks continually think about the potential for discrimination.”

“Overall, the work shows that in cases where racism-related vigilance is low or absent, Blacks and Whites have similar levels of hypertension. But when people report chronic vigilance, the rates in Blacks rise significantly. They rise a little in Hispanics, but not at all in Whites,” Hicken explains.

“For our next study,” she adds, “we are going to expand the questionnaire to gather better data and explore how or if the impact of hypervigilance can be mitigated.”

Originally posted at Robert Johnson Wood Foundation.

By Tom Johnson

Group petitions BPU for binding mandates, hopes to stop governor, Legislature from diverting clean energy funds

Saying New Jersey is lagging behind many other states in curbing energy use by its businesses and residents, the Sierra Club yesterday said it would ask the state to establish binding mandates to reduce electric and gas consumption by utility customers.

The petition, to be filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, reflects unhappiness with the state’s efforts to promote energy efficiency, a goal critics say has been undermined by repeated diversion of more than $1 billion in ratepayers’ money — some of it destined to reduce energy use — to plug holes in the state budget.

The issue has important implications for New Jersey’s consumers and businesses, which pay some of the highest energy bills in the country. The Christie administration has repeatedly made reducing energy bills a top priority, but clean energy advocates complain its actions do not back up its words, particularly when it comes to investing in energy efficiency.

Not only has the administration and Democratic-controlled Legislature diverted money from clean energy programs, but Gov. Chris Christie also pulled out of a regional initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at the same time siphoning off money that would have gone to energy efficiency project to help balance the state budget.

By most accounts, broad investments in energy efficiency projects are the best way to help lower energy bills for consumers, reduce pollution, and potentially create new well-paying jobs in a green economy.

In recent years, however, New Jersey has fallen behind many other states in promoting energy efficiency, through such initiatives as appliance rebates, home weatherization, and energy management programs for both industry and municipalities.

“New Jersey used to be a national leader on utility-sector energy efficiency programs, but has slipped to the middle of the pack,’’ said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

The petition, which has yet to be filed with the BPU because state offices were closed yesterday in the aftermath of a snowstorm, echoed that point.

“Other states are beating New Jersey to the punch,’’ according to the 16-page petition. “They have set binding targets to boost the energy efficiency investments, thereby securing lower energy bills, job growth, and reduced pollution more profitably than New Jersey can without targets.’’

The mechanism the environmental group urges the BPU to adopt is a so-called Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), similar to what New Jersey has adopted to promote new investment in solar technology. The petition urges the state agency to immediately commence a proceeding to establish binding, long-term fully funded targets to require the state’s gas and electric utilities to reduce energy use among its customers.

Targets would include reducing electricity use by 1.5 percent each year and another 1 percent of natural gas use annually, according to the petition. “It’s a doable target,’’ argued Tom Schuster, New Jersey representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign in a teleconference call with reporters.

In contrast, between 2001 and 2011, energy savings in New Jersey averaged less than 0.5 percent of energy generation, an achievement far bettered by neighboring states, such as New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, according to Nadel.

Greg Reinert, a spokesman for the BPU, said the agency was unable to comment on the petition until it had a chance to review the document.

The petition indicates that New Jersey’s current energy efficiency programs have delivered benefits to its resident, noting 12,800 energy efficiency-related new jobs have been created between 2007-2011, while also significantly reducing pollution from fossil fuels, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, the petition argues even the BPU recognizes that “current funding levels will not serve the full range of competitive savings’’ for New Jersey customers. In recent years, utility energy efficiency programs have dropped from $124 million in reported expenditures in fiscal year 2010 to just $35 million in fiscal year 2014, according to the petition.

“The status quo is untenable,’’ the petition argued. “There is simply too much unrealized cost savings, public health, and environmental benefit that the board is leaving on the table.’’

Homeowners, Legislators Had Bitter Complaints About Firm

By Matt Katz, New Jersey Public Radio

The Christie administration has quietly cut its ties to an embattled company that had New Jersey’s biggest contract for getting Sandy victims back in their homes. Homeowners and legislators had widely criticized the company’s performance, taking some of the gloss off Governor Chris Christie’s signature project: Sandy recovery.

Christie officials — who as recently as two weeks ago gave legislators in Trenton no hint that the contract had been cancelled — wouldn’t say on Thursday why the deal with Hammerman and Gainer, or HGI, was terminated more than two years before completion. Last week, Gov. Christie touted the successes of the Sandy recovery at an event on the Jersey Shore.

HGI won its contract last May shortly after its New Jersey law firm, Capehart Scatchard, made a $25,000 donation to the Republican Governors Association, which is now headed by Christie. The RGA contributed $1.7 million to Christie’s re-election campaign.

The state was to pay HGI $68 million in fees to administer a $780 million Sandy program. But the Christie administration terminated that contract in December, and the termination took effect — unannounced — on Monday. Documents posted on a state website say the company was to be paid $10.5 million as an "unpaid balance" — and for work performing during a "transition period" following termination.

Among the various programs implemented after Sandy, HGI’s Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation (RREM) grant program, which provided up to $150,000 per home for reconstruction, was widely panned. Homeowners complained of long wait-lists, lack of transparency, stonewalling, and lost paperwork. Much of this criticism surfaced during legislative hearings over the last several months.

HGI was also criticized for how it implemented a home reconstruction program in Louisiana after Katrina, according to the Wall Street Journal. Company officials have said they were improving operations.

At a hearing in Trenton earlier this month, Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable III was asked about the performance of HGI in New Jersey. But his answers did not indicate that the company was no longer operating in the state.

On Thursday, Lisa M. Ryan, a spokeswoman for Constable, said: "We’ve recently concluded our relationship with HGI as New Jersey transitions to the next phase of disaster recovery." Ryan did not answer a question about what company, if any, is now running HGI’s programs for Sandy victims. Nor did she say why the contract was terminated.

Likewise, Cherie A. Pinac, the chief of operating officer of HGI, would not disclose the reasons for the termination of the contract, but said it was by mutual agreement. "Under the terms of the contract, I’m not authorized to make a statement," Pinac said in a phone interview from her office in Louisiana.

Christie made an announcement about a new after-school program at an elementary school in Camden on Thursday afternoon, but he did not take questions from reporters.

The termination of the state’s biggest Sandy contract comes as two major scandals loom over Christie’s political career: the charge that Christie officials threatened to cut Sandy relief funds to the town of Hoboken unless its mayor supported a redevelopment deal — a charge the administration adamantly denies; and investigations into Christie’s aides ordering George Washington Bridge lane closures to exact political revenge — something the governor says he knew nothing about.

By Linn Washington Jr.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s Bridgegate defense of being misled by staff members resembles a defense advanced in 1999 by another once top Republican NJ official to distance himself from a his role in a contentious 1990s-era scandal that roiled the Garden State: racial profiling by NJ state troopers that targeted minorities for illegal enforcement.

Christie’s defense distancing himself from Bridgegate pivots on his contention that some of his top personal staff and top political appointees kept him totally in the dark about intrigues behind the gridlock that disrupted the small town of Fort Lee last September. “Unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge,” Christie declared.

In 1999 Peter G. Verniero defended his failures as NJ’s Attorney General to forthrightly address racial profiling by troopers with the claim that he was deceived about profiling. Verniero played an ‘I-was-misled’ card.

Verniero declared that top state trooper officials – under his direct command – deceived him just like Chris Christie’s current claim that members of his executive staff deceived him.

NJ Governor Christie Todd Whitman, a Republican, elevated Verniero into the AG slot and then onto the NJ Supreme Court after he served as Whitman’s Chief of Staff.

Current NJ Gov. Chris Christie’s now ex-Deputy Chief of Staff – Bridget Kelly – is purportedly one of those at the center of the Bridgegate controversy. Christie’s bid to elevate his current Chief of Staff to NJ’s Attorney General is now on hold due to Bridgegate.

Peter Verniero claimed he downplayed allegations and evidence of biased enforcement because he accepted assertions from trusted underlings that widespread complaints about profiling were meritless. Verniero claimed he discovered those assertions were deceptive … curiously only after an April 1998 turnpike shooting of three young minority men that triggered another national outrage about trooper profiling.

Verniero claimed he didn’t consider profiling a big deal despite years of extensive news coverage about abuses by NJ troopers, repeated reports documenting profiling and a pivotal state court ruling against profiling that Verniero appealed as AG.

Gov. Christie claimed he downplayed the Fort Lee imbroglio because he accepted assertions from trusted underlings that charges of improprieties about George Washington Bridge lane closures were meritless. Christie claimed he discovered those assertions were deceptive … curiously only after the early January public release of damning emails including an exchange between top Christie staff member Kelly and David Wildstein, a ranking political appointee at the bridge authority.

Christie claimed he didn’t consider the lane closure controversy a big deal despite elected officials sending him complaints that detailed suspected irregularities, his presumed awareness of extensive local NJ news coverage about irregularities surrounding the closure controversy and legislative inquiries last fall into those closures that prompted the resignation of Wildstein, a childhood friend of Christie.

When Verniero offered his ‘I was misled’ defense during testimony before NJ state legislative committees, many legislators found Verniero’s testimony misleading and unconvincing citing discrepancies between Verniero’s verbal testimony and written documentation he provided legislators.

Although Verniero avoided impeachment removal from the NJ Supreme Court for that misleading legislative testimony and ensuing taint resulted in him serving only a few rocky years on NJ’s highest court.

The ethical cloud over Verniero for misleading NJ legislators and failing to address racial profiling did not define that well-connected Republican operative as damaged-goods in Christie’s eyes. Christie has employed Verniero repeatedly in recent years to help dissipate controversies erupting over Christie’s administrative actions/inactions, some that have included a racial-stain similar to that racial profiling controversy.

In early 2013 Christie appointed Verniero to co-chair a task force directed to examine violence related issues in NJ. Critics accused Christie of playing politics with gun violence during his reelection year, a critique Christie denied. The all-male composition of that task force reeked of Christie’s ‘Ole Boy Network’ preferences.

Two years before that 2013 appointment Christie retained Verniero (and Verniero’s hi-end law firm) to defend against a court challenge to Christie’s cutbacks in public school funding. Christie’s injection of Verniero into that school funding battle exposed both the often overlooked staunch conservative streak of Christie – who is projected as a political moderate – and an earlier role Verniero played in advancing Christie’s ideological agenda.

Christie has waged classic conservative campaigns to cut public school funding (and bash teachers’ unions) along with efforts to decrease racially integrated housing.

One Christie campaign slashed funding for family planning clinics due to his objection to provision of reproductive services. Those funding cuts crippled the ability of clinics to provide basic medical care/health screenings for low-and-moderate income families. Another Christie campaign involved repeated efforts to shut down the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing – an organization whose work includes increasing housing options for minorities.

Late last fall, when Bridgegate was percolating, a lawsuit forced the Christie Administration to release documents on relief aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy. Those Christie Administration documents showed that aid requests from black and Latino homeowners were rejected at rates far higher than whites. Those documents also detailed other suspect practices around relief aid.

Christie, with his characteristic bluster, acidly dismissed that evidence of apparent discriminatory distribution of Sandy relief aid as mere “statistical anomalies.” Christie denied making relief awards based on considerations of “race or ethnicity.”

Further, Christie denigrated the Latino, liberal and black organizations behind that lawsuit as “hack” groups simply looking for attention. One of those ‘hack’ groups was NJ’s NAACP branch, the oldest civil rights organization in New Jersey. The NAACP has consistently criticized Christie for the limited diversity on his personal staff and in his top political appointments.

Parallel to state and federal investigations into Bridgegate is a federal probe examining Christie’s use of $25-million in Sandy relief aid for a Jersey Shore tourism marketing campaign in 2013. That ad campaign was altered to feature Christie and his family. Those federally funded marketing ads ran at the same time Christie was running for reelection as a compassionate, effective administrator. Christie’s office stonewalled media requests last fall during his reelection drive for information on that marketing campaign.

One of the first statewide controversies that soiled Christie was his sacking of the only black member of the NJ Supreme Court. Christie refused to reappoint that respected jurist, the first such refusal in modern New Jersey history.

Christie sought influence over NJ’s historically non-partisan supreme court reportedly due to his dislike of two of that court’s decades-old rulings: one that ordered increased state funding for public schools, particularly schools in poor (predominately minority) areas and another ruling to end segregated housing. Those twin rulings occurred before that black justice joined the NJ Supreme Court.

One prominent reaction to Christie’s sacking of that black justice was the mass resignation of the independent body that screened NJ judicial nominees. Christie repopulated that body with all Republicans (and all whites) placing Peter Verniero as that body’s new chair.

While Bridgegate centers on allegations that those lane closures were political retaliation against Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor for failing to endorse Christie’s reelection, some are speculating that a root of Bridgegate lies with retaliation against Fort Lee area Democratic state legislative members for their failures to support Christie’s partisan plans for NJ’s judiciary.

NJ state and federal investigations will determine what Gov. Chris Christie knew about Bridgegate and when he knew it. What’s known at this point is the ‘Who’ of Chris Christie: a bellicose bully.

Linn Washington Jr. is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent Project Censored Award-winning online alternative newspaper. His work, and that of colleagues JOHN GRANT, DAVE LINDORFF, LORI SPENCER and CHARLES M. YOUNG, can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net