Typical AWM View

What a racist twit! He and guywhite should get together, for they are both racist twits.

Let's Talk Honestly: Black men & the police

Media Matters - Dick Morris: Election hinges on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system"

Media Matters - Dick Morris: Election hinges on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system": "During the May 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the potential for a presidential election between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, Dick Morris stated: 'And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright's views?' Morris later claimed, 'Now [Obama] has to be not Reverend Wright. He has to go to the Iwo Jima memorial [Unites States Marine Corps War Memorial] and talk about Americans' sacrifice.'"

Clinton: Playing the race card? - First Read - msnbc.com

Clinton: Playing the race card? - First Read - msnbc.com: "The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats."

Ed Koch: Obama Is A Sure Loser, Clinton Should Fight On - Politics on The Huffington Post

Ed Koch: Obama Is A Sure Loser, Clinton Should Fight On - Politics on The Huffington Post: "As Democrats coalesce around Sen. Barack Obama, one of Hillary Clinton's must outspoken supporters is not mincing words: the party is walking needlessly and unaware into a general election buzzsaw.

'I believe Obama probably will win [the Democratic nomination], although in politics you never ever can count anybody out,' said former New York Mayor Ed Koch. 'I think Hillary is doing a magnificent job and is a great candidate and if anybody can pull it out, she can. But my honest opinion is, it probably won't happen. And that he will be the candidate and that he will lose.'"

Mildred Loving, R.I.P.

Richard and Mildred Loving, a very loving couple
R.I.P.

Mildred Loving dies at 68.

This article is from The Independent concerning the legacy of Richard and Mildred Loving:

Mildred Loving: Civil rights pioneer
At 2am on 11 July 1958, Mildred Loving and her husband were woken up by the local Virginia sheriff and two deputies who, acting on a tip-off, had broken into their bedroom, shining flashlights into their faces. "Who is this woman you're sleeping with?" the sheriff brusquely asked. That Mildred was Richard Loving's wife made no difference. The couple were arrested. For she was black and he was white, at a time when two dozen states across America banned such unions under anti-miscegenation laws, in Virginia's case dating back to the 17th century.
Mildred Loving was a soft-spoken, gentle woman who never intended to be an activist. She simply wanted to live a normal married life in the Virginia countryside just north of the state capital, Richmond, where she and Richard had known each other as children, and where they had grown up.
But circumstances dictated otherwise. Her battle to secure a normal life led ultimately to a US Supreme Court decision of 1967, ending the bar on mixed marriages in Virginia and elsewhere. In essence, her case removed the last brick of the legal edifice of slavery and segregation, after the groundbreaking civil rights legislation earlier in the decade.
"I think marrying who you want is a right no man should have anything to do with, it's a God-given right," she declared shortly after her historic victory.
That, however, had not been the opinion back in 1958 of Leon Bazile, the local Circuit Court judge, as he sentenced the couple to a one-year jail term, to be suspended if they left the state for the next 25 years, and never returned together.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," Judge Bazile declared. "And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The Lovings pleaded guilty, paid $72 in court costs and moved back north to Washington DC where they had been married a few months before – he a construction worker of 23, she an 18-year-old girl already pregnant with the first of their three children.
But they missed their family and old friends in the country too much. Taking heart from the burgeoning civil rights movement, Mildred wrote in 1963 to the then Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, protesting her plight. The Justice Department put her in touch with the American Civil Liberties Union, which accepted the case. After a three-year journey through lower appeal courts, Loving vs Virginia arrived at the highest jurisdiction in the land.
The ruling of the nine-member Supreme Court was unanimous, and the final opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had written the Court's Brown vs Board of Education judgment in 1954 that ended segregation in US schools, and set in motion the civil rights era. Marriage, said Warren, "is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." To deny it "on so unsupportable a basis as racial classification" was to deprive every American citizen of freedom.
But the Lovings did not enjoy their new freedom for very long. They moved back to Virginia but in 1975, just eight years later, Richard died in a car accident.
Rupert Cornwell
Mildred Delores Jeter: born 22 July 1939; married 1958 Richard Loving (died 1975; two sons, one daughter); died Central Point, Virginia 2 May 2008.

___________________________________________________

Loving Decision: 40 Years of Legal Interracial Unions
Listen Now [12 min 42 sec] add to playlist


Enlarge
Richard and Mildred Loving gave their name to the landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-miscegenation laws in more than a dozen states. Bettmann/Corbis




Follow a timeline of the Lovings' legal battle
Lindsay Mangum, NPR



The Movies and 'Loving'
June 15, 2007'Dinner' and a Show: Race, Romance in Pop Culture




Enlarge
Grey Villet
Richard Loving poses with his son, Donald, in 1965. Time Life Pictures/Getty Images




Enlarge
Melissa Gray, NPR
Bernard Cohen and Michele Norris examine a scrapbook of newspaper clippings about the case. Cohen, now retired, was one of two lawyers who argued the Loving case before the Supreme Court.
Listen: Attorney Bernard Cohen Argues the Lovings' Case Before the Supreme Court
add




Enlarge
Melissa Gray. NPR
The Lovings made front-page news around the country and were featured in magazines such as Newsweek and Life.




Enlarge
Courtesy of Anna Blazer
Bryan Walker, Anna Blazer and their two children, Brianna and Brandon, live just miles from the Caroline County courthouse. They have endured sneers, taunts and even violence from strangers.


All Things Considered, June 11, 2007 · This week marks the 40th anniversary of a seminal moment in the civil rights movement: the legalization of interracial marriage. But the couple at the heart of the landmark Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia never intended to be in the spotlight.
On June 12, 1967, the nation's highest court voted unanimously to overturn the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving, a young interracial couple from rural Caroline County, Va.
That decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws — written to prevent the mixing of the races — that were on the books at the time in more than a dozen states, including Virginia.
'They Just Were in Love'
Richard Loving was white; his wife, Mildred, was black. In 1958, they went to Washington, D.C. — where interracial marriage was legal — to get married. But when they returned home, they were arrested, jailed and banished from the state for 25 years for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act.
To avoid jail, the Lovings agreed to leave Virginia and relocate to Washington.
For five years, the Lovings lived in Washington, where Richard worked as a bricklayer. The couple had three children. Yet they longed to return home to their family and friends in Caroline County.
That's when the couple contacted Bernard Cohen, a young attorney who was volunteering at the ACLU. They requested that Cohen ask the Caroline County judge to reconsider his decision.
"They were very simple people, who were not interested in winning any civil rights principle," Cohen, now retired, tells Michele Norris.
"They just were in love with one another and wanted the right to live together as husband and wife in Virginia, without any interference from officialdom. When I told Richard that this case was, in all likelihood, going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, he became wide-eyed and his jaw dropped," Cohen recalls.
Road to the High Court
Cohen and another lawyer challenged the Lovings' conviction, but the original judge in the case upheld his decision. Judge Leon Bazile wrote: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
As Cohen predicted, the case moved all the way up to the Supreme Court, where the young ACLU attorney made a vivid and personal argument:
"The Lovings have the right to go to sleep at night knowing that if should they not wake in the morning, their children would have the right to inherit from them. They have the right to be secure in knowing that, if they go to sleep and do not wake in the morning, that one of them, a survivor of them, has the right to Social Security benefits. All of these are denied to them, and they will not be denied to them if the whole anti-miscegenistic scheme of Virginia... [is] found unconstitutional."
After the ruling — now known as the "Loving Decision" — the family, which had already quietly moved back to Virginia, finally returned home to Caroline County.
But their time together was cut short: Richard Loving died in a car crash in 1975. Mildred Loving, who never remarried, still lives in Caroline County in the house that Richard built. She politely refuses to give interviews.
Interracial Couples Today
Since that ruling 40 years ago, interracial marriage has become more common, but remains relatively rare. Sociologists estimate that 7 percent of the nation's 59 million marriages are mixed-race couplings.
And even now, interracial marriage remains a source of quiet debate over questions of identity, assimilation and acceptance.
Take Anna Blazer and Bryan Walker, for instance. The white woman and her black husband, with their two young children, live just miles from the Caroline County courthouse. Donald Loving, a grandson of Richard and Mildred Loving, introduced the couple when they were teenagers.
Blazer, now 23, says her family was initially wary of her then-boyfriend because of his race.
"My mom was a little weird with it, because he used to wear this really long — they call it bling-bling — he used to wear a bling-bling cross around his neck and baggy pants. And I don't know, she just kind of looked at him kind of funny when she first met him," Blazer remembers.
But over the years her mother has warmed to Walker, 21.
Blazer says that although many things have changed since the days of anti-miscegenation laws, life is still difficult for them in Caroline County. The couple endures sneers, sideways glances and more from strangers.
"Just a couple of months ago... Bryan got beat up in the Wal-Mart parking lot because he was with me and my sister, and these white men came up to him and they were yelling. The guy ripped off his shirt. He had racial slurs all over him...and they just started going at it," Blazer says.
"I think my life would be a whole lot easier if I was with a white man. And Bryan feels the same way, but he loves me. He really does. And we are meant to be together," Blazer says.

Related NPR Stories
June 12, 2007'Loving' Turns 40
May 15, 2007White Mothers, Black Sons
April 26, 2007Multiracial Identity in America Today
April 15, 2007White Youngsters Gather to Talk About Race
Jan. 30, 2007A Return Home Leads to New Questions on Race
Jan. 25, 2007Race, Still Our Most Divisive Force
Jan. 24, 2007A Racial Convergence, via Religion

Newsvine - Clinton paying black people to hold her signs in Texas

Newsvine - Clinton paying black people to hold her signs in Texas: "The Clinton campaign paid a group of people, all African-American, to hold her campaign signs on a Dallas street corner."

Wampum: If you weren't white, you were black...

Wampum: If you weren't white, you were black...: "In modern 'post-racial' America, it is often overlooked that earlier racist laws were not aimed only at African Americans. Anti-miscegeny laws covered marriage between all races, a fact which the NYTimes did not overlook in their obituary of Mildred Loving, whose landmark case, Loving v. Virginia, overturned the laws against racial intermarriage in 17 states in 1967:"

Media Matters - Russert noted media's lack of scrutiny of McCain over Hagee, other issues, but not Russert's own McCain "grace period" on Hagee

Media Matters - Russert noted media's lack of scrutiny of McCain over Hagee, other issues, but not Russert's own McCain "grace period" on Hagee: "Summary: Discussing a column by Frank Rich about media coverage of controversial comments made by televangelist John Hagee, who has endorsed Sen. John McCain, and those made by Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said on Imus in the Morning: 'I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned ... scrutinized about that.' But Russert ignored his own role in the lack of scrutiny, not mentioning Hagee once on Meet the Press since his endorsement. Russert also said 'You know, if there was video of Hagee, it makes all the difference in the world.' But there is audio of Hagee stating that Hurricane Katrina was 'the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans' for its 'level of sin' and audio of his defending those comments."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Limbaugh comes out for Obama « - Blogs from CNN.com

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Limbaugh comes out for Obama « - Blogs from CNN.com: "(CNN) – He has publicly urged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday it's Barack Obama who he really wants to be the party's nominee.

'I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees,' Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. 'I now urge the Democrat supereldegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama.'"

African Americans & strokes

Strokes are the third leading cause of death among African Americans. The American Stroke Association has released a downloadable kit to help African Americans recognize the signs of a stroke and to help prevent one.

This media kit focuses on African Americans, heart disease and stroke.

The kit includes
Facts about African Americans, Heart Disease and StrokeGoals for a Longer, Stronger Life;

Overweight and Obesity:

What Can You Do Heart-Healthy Cooking Tips Heart Disease and Stroke Warning Signs Free Programs for a Healthy Life

Download or read the kit here http://www.letstalkhonestly.com/blacknewsblackviews.html

Lawrence Otis Graham on IRs and College Admissions

Here's an excerpt of the review from Lawrence Otis Graham's Member of the Club:

Most of Member of the Club is just as eager to examine black culture, and often upper-class black culture in particular (though his last investigative piece, "Harlem on My Mind", has him renting an apartment in the scuzzy part of Harlem for a month, a courageous attempt to experience the other side). In particular, the second essay, "I Never Dated a White Girl", is as spectacular in its thoughtful, panoramic but memoir-centered way as "Invisible Man" is in its investigative one. Whites don't come off well here either, mind you: he quotes a 1992 Gallup survey in which only 10% of whites, _by their own admission_, would approve of one of their family members marrying outside their own race. (Slight correction from above, btw: my friend Adam has a black father, although you'd never guess from looking at Adam) While the excuses Graham has heard include the bit of bluster that I was guessing -- "We want to protect them from the pain of _other_ people's racism" -- it turns out that white people have also been willing to tell Graham of their fears that "black-white mixed genes could compromise the development of what would otherwise be an intelligent white child". But "...White Girl" is also about why the majority of blacks disapprove of interracial dating and marriages. The disapproval shows up more than just in polls: he starts the chapter with a cryptic party conversation that starts with a woman asking "What do Clarence Thomas, Montel Williams, Diana Ross, Shelby Steele, Marian Wright Edelman, and Shair Belafonte all have in common?", and continues with increasing discouragement with the other party guests tossing in more names ("Don't forget Berry Gordy, Barry Bonds, and our so-called godfather of soul, James Brown") until a confused white guest figures out the game and confronts them: black figures married to whites. He objects, of course, to the game and its air of criticism. Statistically, it's 90% likely that the white man and his equally annoyed white girlfriend wouldn't let anyone in their family date a black -- but that doesn't make the objection go away. Graham's long answer to why blacks feel that way (he comes up with six reasons), and his account of his own decision to never date whites, is not self-righteous; it acknowledges the hypocrisy, takes its roots seriously, and is ultimately a serious, convincing work that knows its irony. Quicker takes: another chapter of Member of the Club examines the condition of black leadership. Yes, I think Graham transparently wants to be a black leader himself, and would be more graceful to admit it, but he's still right to be insulted when (to pick a random example) Esquire commissioned twenty articles for its 60th anniversary issue: nineteen prestigious white writers like William F. Buckley, Jimmy Breslin, and Norman Mailer, and one semi-literate black dropout: Ice-T. Graham quotes enough of Ice-T's piece to make it clear that he's not rejecting it purely from snobbery; and his ideas on how to improve black leadership are thoughtful, original, and have nada to do with waiting for white assistance. Also available: a pure memoir piece, often self-damning as grownups can be about their youth, on his attendance at Princeton University, a Confederate holdout in New Jersey. A surprisingly entertaining satire of suburban blacks (of which, of course, he is one). A field guide to the species "Head N*gger in Charge" (the one or two blacks a company will hire to prove that they're okay with black people). Short takes on the continued existence of the black lunch table -- which, when he was in high school, he blamed on the blacks (as did I) -- and on being a black man with a nose job, which would have a hard time getting my sympathy even if the nose he chose for himself wasn't so appalling. And there's one wise piece of surprising optimism: "Moving from Black Rage to Bias Neutralizing". One reason why whites should care about race, even if racism seems only to benefit us, is the then-timely creation of the "black rage" legal defense, supported by 60% of blacks in another Gallup poll: in December 1993, Colin Ferguson, a black NYC commuter, killed six white and wounded nineteen in a spree, then was defended (by William Kunstler no less) on the grounds that constant discrimination had rendered him temporarily insane and not-guilty. Obviously, to me and to Graham and i hope to you, the creation of excuses for random killing is not good. Graham's piece, though hard to summarize, tries to explain and challenge the mindset that leads to this sort of black rage. It also tells, uniquely in the book, some of what Graham does for a living: we see him consulting a well-meaning accounting firm that, though 99% white, honestly believes it is looking for qualified minorites and not finding them. Examining their recruitment patterns, he finds out (1) that they are recruiting almost entirely from the same colleges their founders and leaders went to, a very white population, and (2) that while black applicants had poorer 4-year college GPA's, that deficit was entirely the result of their first three semesters, catching up from putrid underfunded segregated public high schools. (Note, by implication, that blacks have an overall disadvantage getting into college, since their deficits disappear so quickly) By considering a wider range of colleges, and considering GPA only after the first three semesters, the firm magically created a wide minority talent pool. Ta-da! Graham idealistically tries to re-design affirmative action's justification for us: not a penalty for past white sins, which he says is unfortunately how blacks tend to think of it too, but as a permanent system designed only to compensate, as closely as possible, for the advantages (familial, financial, restaurantal etc) that no nonwhite race fully has. He's often quite specific. He's probably tilting at windmills, too; I'm sure I am. This book will not be required reading, except for a scattered college class here and there. But anyone who does read it, I hope, can be a slightly better and kinder citizen. That should be worth plenty.