Troy

Well I'm glad you still have faith in the democratic process. I definitely out "cynic" you on this one. Since I live in NYC my vote will not matter. We will elect the democrat, not that will will matter much. So excuse me if I can't generate much excitement over another eight years of Clintons in the whitehouse. It might as well be Claire and Frank Underwood (from the Netflix show of House of Cards).

I agree, I think Trump will pull many votes from the center and left. I also believe that many Bernie supporters will fail to show up if he is not the nominee. While I understand why white folks might support a Trump. For the life of me, I do not understand why Black folks LOVE Hillary (and Bill so much). I would think that Bernie would have much more support from Black folks than the media is saying that he has. Anecdotally, to a person, everyone I know personally, who is Black, supports Bernie, at least the ones who has expressed a preference. Honestly, I think the media is biased against Bernie. But that could be my own bias I'm glad he stayed in the race. This is almost as exciting as March Madness.

Yes Del I saw that you posted this over a year ago I was just asking which character was which.

46th Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬: Alice Walker, "the first legally married inter-racial couple in Mississippi" married March 17 1967

@Pioneer1 exactly. This is one reason I stopped reading the New York Times. They have this bad habit of "reporting" on social problems as if they are only Black problems. You would never think white people have problems with poverty, murder, obesity, crime, teen pregnancy, drugs, education, or marriage, because they usually show Black people in these situations. Further you would have a reason to believe Black people are capable of anything important, because they virtually never report on anything positive that Black people do. For all practical purposes they don't even review books written by Black people. For all of these reasons, we have to support independent Black Press, so find a newspaper, and pay for a subscription.

No Cynique I do not think news outlets should stop editorializing. The problem is that news sources don't appear to care about the difference between journalism and editorial, and are failing to distinguish between the two. They are also failing to distinguish between advertising, editorial and even still journalism. Time will tell what will happen in the election. Polls and pundits were fantastically wrong about Trump's chances before the primaries started, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility for them to get it completely wrong again.

@CDBurns, he does and Trump's influence grows. NPR had some Black minister on the radio today backing Trump.If the GOP were smart they'd suck it up and back their boy, cause they don't stand a chance against the Democrats without him. Now I don't think for a split second that the Republicans give a crap about what Trump will, or will not do for the American people. It seems this is about control, and apparently they can not control Trump. Despite some suggesting this, I never ever thought Obama was at risk of being assassinated. If Trump becomes president I think he is at much more risk than Obama ever was... Here is the thing @Cynique, you do not need more than 1/2 the country to agree with Trump, shoot it will be a miracle if more than 1/2 the country even votes. Trump simply needs more electors. Men have lost the presidency despite have more popular votes. Gore had 1/2 a million more people vote for him than Bush did, and Gore still lost. Again Cynique, you point out another problem with journalism today--or rather the poor excuse for what we call journalism. There is simply no distinction between advocacy and reporting the news. The notion that one news source is liberal and another is conservative is simply outrageous and does a gross disservice to the public. If news organization are brazen enough to make statements like the one that kicked off this discussion, we are really in deep do-do.

@Cynique the point of the cliche is that good or bad publicity is better than no publicity at all, for someone seeking the attention of the public. Besides, getting busted for raping a child is stretching the point way too far. I'm not suggesting people engage in vile illegal activity, or cheat at a sport, or attention (though they will get it). If we regin this in back to my point concerning book reviews specifically, or publicity in general, an unfavorable review in the NY Times is better the no review at all.

45th Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬: Freedom's Journal, the first African-American newspaper published in the United States, debuted on this day in 1827

Bill's career had already wound down, but like Michael Jackson or R Kelly, if Bill decided to go on a tour today and talk about his experiences, people would come out in droves, Bill would make tons of money and the media would be climbing over each other to cover it. You know this. Without this controversy, fewer people would be interested in Bill.

Del don't think anything major happened. but the last few years have been a blur. Also I saw that you wrote this a year ago, I was assuming that I got the names you came up with matched ot the correct candidate.

ABSOLUTELY! Anyone producing a book with a brain in their head knows that a book review from a respected source drives sales. My dream would be to become one of those universally respected sources like NY Times, Kirkus, etc. There is indeed an opportunity because all those "respected sources" don't actually review books written Black Black people (the numbers are so small as to be insignificant). Any author worth their salt, would happily risk getting an unfavorable review from the NY Times, rather than be ignored. I have published many unfavorable reviews over the years. Again, there is no such thing as bad publicity. AALBC.com in this sapce has a great deal of potential, we collectively just need to embrace it, the majority culture will if we do.

Cynique you are arguing that the media is a reflection of American sentiments; I'd argue that couldn't be farther from the truth. Sure, it sounds reasonable to say that people would not watch something on TV, if it were not already something that people wanted to watch, but TV executives know people are easily manipulated to do things they would not otherwise to--including things that are not good for us. I'm sure you can think of many examples of this from everyday life, so I won't bore you with examples. Cynique the media does not speak with a single voice. I consume media from all sides, left, right and center. If I listen to say Armstrong Williams and then tune into Joe Madison, it is hard to believe that these two brothers are talking about the same subject given their completely different perspectives. Some people are surprised that Chris Christie and Ben Carson have now endorsed Donald Trump, but that is because they listen only to left wing media... If you ask people what they want they are likely to say they want the truth, but the reality is people just want to hear things that reinforce their beliefs. The media is more than happy to give you that and then some--truth be damned. Don't underestimate the strength of celebrity. If Donald Trump was not on that reality TV show he would have been just another businessman with little appeal and even less coverage. Donald can generate much ratings than a Bernie Saunders, so he gets more free coverage. This again is the problem with the media. Donald can pass up a debate and STILL get more coverage that the guys who showed up! Finally, we all know there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Donald has mastered this.

44th Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬: Ben Okri, Award Winning Nigerian Poet and Novelist Born on This Date

“...[Trump] may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS...” This is outrageous admission from a news organization, and clearly articulates the problem with what we euphemistically describe as journalism today. The behavior of CBS and their peers is THE reason Donald has a great chance of actually becoming the president of the united states. Ok we know the POTUS is a figurehead largely responsible for doing the bidding of the ultra rich, but to actually elect of of these guys is alarming. But hey in a culture fed on reality TV and celebrity, what do you expect? The most outrageous and the most popular wins.

Hey Del, your predictions is interesting and more than a year old. I assume Lily = Donald Mark = Bernie Harry = Hillary And the Republicans are looking for someone to replace Donald at the convention so that may be your forth candidate who will almost certainly lose. Who do you predict will win? I think the best possible shot the Republicans have is Donald. Any alternative they try to shove down the voters throats will lose against any Democratic nominee. Bernie is the Democrats best shot. If he gets the Democratic nomination he will with the White house I think he has the best chance of beating Donald. Don v Bern, Bernie Wins Don v Hill, Don Wins Alt Rep Candidate v any Democrat, the Democrat Wins Mostly likely outcome, my prediction, Hillary barely beats Bern for the Democrat not, Trump survive Republican resistance at convention and win the Presidential Reality TV show.

Several years ago AALBC.com, following the lead of industry leaders like Kirkus, began offering fee based book reviews. This service was also added in reaction to the on going problem is receiving FAR more requests for book reviews than we could afford to pay writers to write. The fee based book review guarantees a review written by a professional book reviewer in 6 weeks or less. We continue to write and publish free (free to the author) book reviews, so the problem of receiving more requests than we can handle persists You may have noticed a recent increase in the number of authors posting information about their books on the website with some explicitly expressing an interest in a book review. This is the result in a recent procedure change, as it relates to requesting an AALBC.com book review (free). Previously AALBC.com accepted book review requests via email, but takes a significant portion of time to review and reply to these requests. As a result, I only replied to those authors whose books we chose to review. Given that the vast majority of these book would not be reviewed, this policy made sense in terms of efficiency. However the author's effort was wasted if their book was not reviewed. Recently I decided to instruct authors to post book review requests on our literature forum. This offers the author several significant benefits: The book will be seen by readers who visit the forum, which is free promotion and an opportunity to directly engage with readers. I use this forum to look for eNewsletter and website content, so there are, potentially, additional opportunities for book promotion beyond the book review. The book's information will become a permanent part of the website with is good for SEO. AALBC.com will only consider books posted on the forum for review. The likelihood a book being reviewed goes up dramatically, because the pool of books considered for reviews gets smaller, as many authors will continue to send emails (oblivious to, or ignoring the policy). This is win-win. I'm looking forward to discovering more books as a result of this policy and continuing to improve this platform for allowing authors to share information about their work.

Hi Nathan, thanks for sharing information about your book here. I took the liberty of posting the cover as well. ______________

43rd Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬: Activist Fannie Lou Hamer passed 39 years ago today. I missed a few days, but I was out of town--fortunate enough to be invited to participate in the Kingston Book Festival (more on that later). I really wanted to personally make a Black History Month post every day of the year, but it is just impractical. I really admire Fannie Lou Hamer.

Brilliant.

No of course they would not have referred to themselves in a language that was not yet invented, but there is no evidence that they referenced to themselves using the same constructs white racists use today. The word Negro comes from the Spanish, but they derived it from the Greek necro meaning dead. None of which has anything to do with African people. Worth reading:The Name Negro, It's Origin and Evil Use

Pioneer I have to side with Sara on this one both women pictured are obese; and I don't need calipers to make that distinction. There is one major difference between the two women; one is obviously pictured in a pleasing way with liberal use of photoshop, while the other is not. Sara the word Black (or Negro) was first used by Europeans. Think about it, why would people on the continent of Africa refer to themselves that way? If the government got out of the business of trying to put people into meaningless racial buckets I do not think racism would go away the next day, but as the government and the culture stopped focusing on it, maybe in a few generations it might. We do know continuing to fixate on race has not gotten rid of racism. But we will simply have to disagree on that point. Sara here is something else to consider, all humans on the planet are of African Descent. Sure we may be of more recent decent, but ultimately all humans come from Africa.

The only reason we're in here is we care about the culture says Troy Johnson. @aalbc #BusinessofBooks #KBF2016

Sure knowing there are pockets of unemployment can use useful in understanding causes. The are pockets of unemployment all over the country. In some places, like the industrial mid-west, it is due to outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas. Again I don't believe putting racing into the mix is necessary to deal with the problem. Again "Africa" is not a racial group, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Ethnicities are not racial group either. You are mixing apples with oranges and it is making what you are trying to say unclear to me. Again, the purpose of the site is to celebrate our culture (obviously), if someone of Irish descent wants to get down, I welcome them. I'm not clear why you are so dead set upon embracing a construct created by racists to denigrate us as "our" heritage. Our African ancestors did not refer to themselves as "Black" why should we? Why do you @Sara?

Sure a higher percentage of Black people are unemployed than white folks, I'm just saying let's deal with the problem of unemployment and leave race out of it. It obviously has not helped so far, and there is no indication that it will. I'm not sure why dropping "African" from the sites name matters, "African" and race have nothing to do with each other. That is like saying American means "white." Sure, class is a manmade construct too, but the U.S. does not attempt to categorize people by class on the census. Why should we continue to shoehorn 340 million people into a bunch of meaningless categories. I was not attempting to the describe the "causes" of obesity either. I was proposing a correlation between class and obesity, one which is independent of race.