NPR : Roundtable: Young and Black in AmericaRoundtable: Young and Black in America
Listen to this story...
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 20, 2005 · Thursday's topic: What it's like to be young and black in America. Guests: Nat Irvin III aka "Tre", executive producer at Wonderland Productions, a hip-hop music label; Ira Porter, correspondent at The Philadelphia Inquirer; and Kevin Powell, author of Who's Gonna Take the Weight: Manhood, Race, and Power in America.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
About.com's Race Relations Guide Discusses Out of Wedlock Births and the African American Community - Printer Friendly
About.com's Race Relations Guide Discusses Out of Wedlock Births and the African American Community Out-of-Wedlock Births and the African-American Community
From Susan Pizarro-Eckert,Your Guide to Race Relations.
Marriage and Parenting in the Black Community
Eugene Cane (an African American writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) tackles the tough social question regarding single parenting in the African-American community. An issue, which he believes has an impact on everything from crime to education to poverty.
"Why are there so many out-of-wedlock births in the African-American community?" He asks, and presents statistics indicating that nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock - surely an incredible figure.
Interviews with 162 low-income white, African-American and Hispanic women in Philadelphia are summarized and synthesized by sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas in a book "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," published by the University of California Press.
"Contrary to popular opinion," write Edin and Kefalas, "most 'baby mamas' don't become single mothers because they no longer believe in marriage. The reason is instead attributed to the lack of qualified candidates for establishing a family.
June Perry, Executive Director of New Concept Self Development, a non-profit social service agency offering programs for low-income families, agrees that "Many black women don't have a large pool of candidates for marriage due to social realities." Reasons for the limited pool include lack of employment, incarceration rates, and the general reluctance of black women to marry outside their race are highlighted.
Even Bill Cosby (much to the embarassment and ire of some members of the black community) has confronted the black community and caused controversy, chastising young black men for "beating up your women because you can't find a job," blasting poor parenting in the ghettoes, heaping scorn on Ebonics, and lambasting aimless blacks for squandering the hard-won gains of the civil rights movement.
As for a solution...well, the book suggests that it may be a bit more complicated than asking black women to change their minds and seek to tie the knot.
From Susan Pizarro-Eckert,Your Guide to Race Relations.
Marriage and Parenting in the Black Community
Eugene Cane (an African American writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) tackles the tough social question regarding single parenting in the African-American community. An issue, which he believes has an impact on everything from crime to education to poverty.
"Why are there so many out-of-wedlock births in the African-American community?" He asks, and presents statistics indicating that nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock - surely an incredible figure.
Interviews with 162 low-income white, African-American and Hispanic women in Philadelphia are summarized and synthesized by sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas in a book "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," published by the University of California Press.
"Contrary to popular opinion," write Edin and Kefalas, "most 'baby mamas' don't become single mothers because they no longer believe in marriage. The reason is instead attributed to the lack of qualified candidates for establishing a family.
June Perry, Executive Director of New Concept Self Development, a non-profit social service agency offering programs for low-income families, agrees that "Many black women don't have a large pool of candidates for marriage due to social realities." Reasons for the limited pool include lack of employment, incarceration rates, and the general reluctance of black women to marry outside their race are highlighted.
Even Bill Cosby (much to the embarassment and ire of some members of the black community) has confronted the black community and caused controversy, chastising young black men for "beating up your women because you can't find a job," blasting poor parenting in the ghettoes, heaping scorn on Ebonics, and lambasting aimless blacks for squandering the hard-won gains of the civil rights movement.
As for a solution...well, the book suggests that it may be a bit more complicated than asking black women to change their minds and seek to tie the knot.
Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions - New York Times
Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions - New York TimesOctober 20, 2005
Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, sent Ms. Miers a letter faulting what they called incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.
Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.
The letter asked Ms. Miers to respond within a week. Mr. Specter said he had scheduled hearings on her confirmation to begin Nov. 7, overruling Democratic objections that they did not have enough information to evaluate her because of her scant record on constitutional issues before joining the White House. Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they would not set any deadline for the conclusion of the hearings.
"If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed," Mr. Leahy said.
Veteran senators and aides said they could not recall another occasion when the committee had sent back a nominee's answers to a questionnaire because they were incomplete. Former Senator Daniel R. Coats of Indiana, the administration's appointed guide for Ms. Miers on Capitol Hill, defended her answers in the Senate questionnaire as a work in progress.
"From the very first, Harriet Miers told Senator Specter that she had years of files to go through and that there would likely have to be a follow-up on some of the questions," Mr. Coats said. "She's more than willing to diligently provide the information as soon as possible. As you know, it's mountains of information."
Mr. Specter, however, has said that Ms. Miers told him last week that she would complete the questionnaire by last Friday.
The do-over of the questionnaire is the latest in a series of problems for Ms. Miers's nomination. Conservative intellectuals have said she is unqualified and have called for her withdrawal. Social conservatives have withheld their support because she lacks a clear record. And this week liberal groups set off alarms over her past opposition to abortion rights.
Ms. Miers sent the senators her own letter acknowledging a separate omission. She wrote that after submitting her answers on Tuesday, "I became aware that, as a result of administrative oversight, my Texas Bar license was suspended from Sept. 1 to Sept. 26, 1989, due to late payment of my bar dues."
Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said the late payment was the result of an error by Ms. Miers's law firm, which paid its partners dues.
Some of the new questions may be politically challenging for Ms. Miers and the White House. One inquiry in the original questionnaire pointedly asked her about reports that in conference calls with conservative supporters the administration and its allies had offered private assurances about her views on abortion and other matters.
The first part of the question asked if she had made any statement to anyone about how she might rule from the bench, and a second part requested information about "all communications by the Bush administration or individuals acting on behalf of the administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule."
Ms. Miers's one-word answer to both was "No."
The senators repeated the inquiry in their new letter. "This would include any and all communications, including those about which there have been recent press reports, in which friends and supporters of yours, among others, were said to have been asked by the White House to assure certain individuals about your views," they wrote. "If you do not have firsthand knowledge of these communications, please endeavor to determine what sorts of communications, if any, took place."
In a news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Specter said, "It's been a chaotic process, very candidly, as to what has happened because of all of the conference calls and all of the discussions which are alleged in the back room."
Mr. Leahy vowed not to allow "quiet promises over conference calls" in the debate on her nomination.
In their letter, Senators Specter and Leahy asked for a more detailed explanation of the constitutional issues Ms. Miers handled as a senior aide or lawyer in the White House. Another question sought related documents that she had helped prepare there. If most of her experience with constitutional law "was gained during your years in the White House," the senators wrote, "it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience."
The requests could step up a potential clash with the White House, which has sought to withhold such details to protect the confidentiality of its deliberations.
The letter also faulted Ms. Miers, who was President Bush's personal lawyer before entering the White House, for answering a question about potential conflicts of interest on the bench by merely citing ethics laws.
"We are aware of statutes and codes that generally govern these matters," the senators wrote, "but recusal decisions of Supreme Court justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review."
"Please be more specific," the senators wrote, referring to how she might handle recusals in "cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns."
Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the inquiry, said they had in mind cases arising from antiterrorism legislation or the torture of prisoners of war, among others.
The letter also shined a new light on Ms. Miers's disclosure on Tuesday that while she was in the White House, the District of Columbia Bar suspended her law license briefly for nonpayment of dues.
The senators requested documentation, correspondence and "canceled checks" that might "help us understand the facts and circumstances of your suspension."
The letter repeated a request to list "all litigated matters in which you were involved" and the senators said aides had identified many other cases not in her original reply.
Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting for this article.
Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, sent Ms. Miers a letter faulting what they called incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.
Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.
The letter asked Ms. Miers to respond within a week. Mr. Specter said he had scheduled hearings on her confirmation to begin Nov. 7, overruling Democratic objections that they did not have enough information to evaluate her because of her scant record on constitutional issues before joining the White House. Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy said they would not set any deadline for the conclusion of the hearings.
"If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed," Mr. Leahy said.
Veteran senators and aides said they could not recall another occasion when the committee had sent back a nominee's answers to a questionnaire because they were incomplete. Former Senator Daniel R. Coats of Indiana, the administration's appointed guide for Ms. Miers on Capitol Hill, defended her answers in the Senate questionnaire as a work in progress.
"From the very first, Harriet Miers told Senator Specter that she had years of files to go through and that there would likely have to be a follow-up on some of the questions," Mr. Coats said. "She's more than willing to diligently provide the information as soon as possible. As you know, it's mountains of information."
Mr. Specter, however, has said that Ms. Miers told him last week that she would complete the questionnaire by last Friday.
The do-over of the questionnaire is the latest in a series of problems for Ms. Miers's nomination. Conservative intellectuals have said she is unqualified and have called for her withdrawal. Social conservatives have withheld their support because she lacks a clear record. And this week liberal groups set off alarms over her past opposition to abortion rights.
Ms. Miers sent the senators her own letter acknowledging a separate omission. She wrote that after submitting her answers on Tuesday, "I became aware that, as a result of administrative oversight, my Texas Bar license was suspended from Sept. 1 to Sept. 26, 1989, due to late payment of my bar dues."
Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said the late payment was the result of an error by Ms. Miers's law firm, which paid its partners dues.
Some of the new questions may be politically challenging for Ms. Miers and the White House. One inquiry in the original questionnaire pointedly asked her about reports that in conference calls with conservative supporters the administration and its allies had offered private assurances about her views on abortion and other matters.
The first part of the question asked if she had made any statement to anyone about how she might rule from the bench, and a second part requested information about "all communications by the Bush administration or individuals acting on behalf of the administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule."
Ms. Miers's one-word answer to both was "No."
The senators repeated the inquiry in their new letter. "This would include any and all communications, including those about which there have been recent press reports, in which friends and supporters of yours, among others, were said to have been asked by the White House to assure certain individuals about your views," they wrote. "If you do not have firsthand knowledge of these communications, please endeavor to determine what sorts of communications, if any, took place."
In a news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Specter said, "It's been a chaotic process, very candidly, as to what has happened because of all of the conference calls and all of the discussions which are alleged in the back room."
Mr. Leahy vowed not to allow "quiet promises over conference calls" in the debate on her nomination.
In their letter, Senators Specter and Leahy asked for a more detailed explanation of the constitutional issues Ms. Miers handled as a senior aide or lawyer in the White House. Another question sought related documents that she had helped prepare there. If most of her experience with constitutional law "was gained during your years in the White House," the senators wrote, "it is important that we know more about the specifics of that experience."
The requests could step up a potential clash with the White House, which has sought to withhold such details to protect the confidentiality of its deliberations.
The letter also faulted Ms. Miers, who was President Bush's personal lawyer before entering the White House, for answering a question about potential conflicts of interest on the bench by merely citing ethics laws.
"We are aware of statutes and codes that generally govern these matters," the senators wrote, "but recusal decisions of Supreme Court justices are more complicated because they are not subject to further review."
"Please be more specific," the senators wrote, referring to how she might handle recusals in "cases arising out of matters on which you worked at the White House, or as a lawyer for President Bush in his personal capacity, or in service to his various campaigns."
Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the inquiry, said they had in mind cases arising from antiterrorism legislation or the torture of prisoners of war, among others.
The letter also shined a new light on Ms. Miers's disclosure on Tuesday that while she was in the White House, the District of Columbia Bar suspended her law license briefly for nonpayment of dues.
The senators requested documentation, correspondence and "canceled checks" that might "help us understand the facts and circumstances of your suspension."
The letter repeated a request to list "all litigated matters in which you were involved" and the senators said aides had identified many other cases not in her original reply.
Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting for this article.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
CBS 46 Atlanta - County hot over ACLU prayer lawsuit
CBS 46 Atlanta - County hot over ACLU prayer lawsuitMarietta
County hot over ACLU prayer lawsuit
Oct 19, 2005, 11:55 AM
MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) -- Cobb County officials are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed in August by the Georgia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union charging the county with making "overly Christian" prayers before meetings.
Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens and Cobb Planning Commission Chairman Bob Homan were both named as defendants in the ACLU's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. Seven Cobb County residents were also plaintiffs in the suit.
The ACLU claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, "in the name of Jesus our savior," and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.
The ACLU is not challenging the commission's right to pray before meetings.
In its response to the lawsuit, county officials denied that the prayers alienate certain citizens, said the prayers were not "an unconstitutional endorsement of religion" and did not "trivialize religion."
Prayer continues at county meetings while the lawsuit is pending.
County hot over ACLU prayer lawsuit
Oct 19, 2005, 11:55 AM
MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) -- Cobb County officials are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed in August by the Georgia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union charging the county with making "overly Christian" prayers before meetings.
Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens and Cobb Planning Commission Chairman Bob Homan were both named as defendants in the ACLU's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. Seven Cobb County residents were also plaintiffs in the suit.
The ACLU claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, "in the name of Jesus our savior," and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.
The ACLU is not challenging the commission's right to pray before meetings.
In its response to the lawsuit, county officials denied that the prayers alienate certain citizens, said the prayers were not "an unconstitutional endorsement of religion" and did not "trivialize religion."
Prayer continues at county meetings while the lawsuit is pending.
Miers Hits Another Snag as Senators Fault Her Questionnaire - New York Times
Miers Hits Another Snag as Senators Fault Her Questionnaire - New York TimesOctober 19, 2005
Miers Hits Another Snag as Senators Fault Her Questionnaire
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The contentious nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court hit another snag this afternoon when both the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee said her responses to senators' questions had thus far been unsatisfactory.
The committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said Ms. Miers should redo a questionnaire prepared by a bipartisan Senate panel because her initial responses had been insufficient on "many, many of the items."
The ranking Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, agreed that Ms. Miers's effort on the questionnaire had been "inadequate," adding that some of his Senate colleagues had found her responses "ranged from incomplete to insulting."
But both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy rejected any suggestion that the Miers nomination was doomed.
"Give this nominee a chance to be heard," said Mr. Specter, who announced that her confirmation hearings would begin before his committee on Nov. 7, as expected.
Mr. Leahy said he had asked Democratic colleagues to "keep your powder dry, wait till we've had the hearing, and then make up your mind."
But this afternoon's announcement by Senators Specter and Leahy, who by all appearances have an excellent working and personal relationship and praised each other today, is bound to be unsettling for President Bush, who has repeatedly pronounced Ms. Miers, his White House counsel, an outstanding lawyer and a person who deserves to be on the Supreme Court.
Ms. Miers's questionnaire responses were made public on Tuesday. They created a considerable stir, largely because she disclosed that in 1989, while running for the Dallas City Council, she expressed support for a constitutional ban on abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
The concerns expressed today by Senators Specter and Leahy were more general. For instance, Mr. Specter said Ms. Miers had offered only "a skimpy little group" of cases she had worked on.
Mr. Leahy added: "We don't have enough in this questionnaire, the answers so far, to go forward. That's why we have to have more."
Ms. Miers has never been a judge. In the absence of a judicial "paper trail," some senators have asked the White House to provide more information and documents related to her work there - requests that President Bush has so far resisted on grounds of executive privilege.
Mr. Specter was asked how Mr. Miers's initial responses to questions could have been so sparse, given the White House's comments that she has been actively involved in previous judicial nominations.
"I really can't explain it," replied Mr. Specter, who said earlier that perhaps Ms. Miers needed "a crash course in constitutional law."
The Judiciary Committee has 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. One Democrat, Charles E. Schumer of New York, said on Tuesday that he was disappointed with Ms. Miers's responses.
Mr. Leahy said today that the questionnaire sent to Ms. Miers was a bipartisan work. "I don't know of anybody who would tell you in that committee that they were satisfied with the responses," he said.
In those responses, Ms. Miers emphasized that courts should not make "social policy," emphasizing the limits of judicial power and placing less emphasis on respect for precedents.
"Parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom of their preferred course," she wrote in an echo of conservative arguments against decisions like the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling recognizing abortion rights.
That answer might ease some of the worries on the political right, where much of the criticism of her nomination has emanated, but the lackluster reception for her questionnaire responses over all will probably not quell concerns among either Republicans or Democrats over her qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land.
Miers Hits Another Snag as Senators Fault Her Questionnaire
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The contentious nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court hit another snag this afternoon when both the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee said her responses to senators' questions had thus far been unsatisfactory.
The committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said Ms. Miers should redo a questionnaire prepared by a bipartisan Senate panel because her initial responses had been insufficient on "many, many of the items."
The ranking Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, agreed that Ms. Miers's effort on the questionnaire had been "inadequate," adding that some of his Senate colleagues had found her responses "ranged from incomplete to insulting."
But both Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy rejected any suggestion that the Miers nomination was doomed.
"Give this nominee a chance to be heard," said Mr. Specter, who announced that her confirmation hearings would begin before his committee on Nov. 7, as expected.
Mr. Leahy said he had asked Democratic colleagues to "keep your powder dry, wait till we've had the hearing, and then make up your mind."
But this afternoon's announcement by Senators Specter and Leahy, who by all appearances have an excellent working and personal relationship and praised each other today, is bound to be unsettling for President Bush, who has repeatedly pronounced Ms. Miers, his White House counsel, an outstanding lawyer and a person who deserves to be on the Supreme Court.
Ms. Miers's questionnaire responses were made public on Tuesday. They created a considerable stir, largely because she disclosed that in 1989, while running for the Dallas City Council, she expressed support for a constitutional ban on abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
The concerns expressed today by Senators Specter and Leahy were more general. For instance, Mr. Specter said Ms. Miers had offered only "a skimpy little group" of cases she had worked on.
Mr. Leahy added: "We don't have enough in this questionnaire, the answers so far, to go forward. That's why we have to have more."
Ms. Miers has never been a judge. In the absence of a judicial "paper trail," some senators have asked the White House to provide more information and documents related to her work there - requests that President Bush has so far resisted on grounds of executive privilege.
Mr. Specter was asked how Mr. Miers's initial responses to questions could have been so sparse, given the White House's comments that she has been actively involved in previous judicial nominations.
"I really can't explain it," replied Mr. Specter, who said earlier that perhaps Ms. Miers needed "a crash course in constitutional law."
The Judiciary Committee has 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. One Democrat, Charles E. Schumer of New York, said on Tuesday that he was disappointed with Ms. Miers's responses.
Mr. Leahy said today that the questionnaire sent to Ms. Miers was a bipartisan work. "I don't know of anybody who would tell you in that committee that they were satisfied with the responses," he said.
In those responses, Ms. Miers emphasized that courts should not make "social policy," emphasizing the limits of judicial power and placing less emphasis on respect for precedents.
"Parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom of their preferred course," she wrote in an echo of conservative arguments against decisions like the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling recognizing abortion rights.
That answer might ease some of the worries on the political right, where much of the criticism of her nomination has emanated, but the lackluster reception for her questionnaire responses over all will probably not quell concerns among either Republicans or Democrats over her qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land.
Leading by (Bad) Example - New York Times
Leading by (Bad) Example - New York TimesOctober 19, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Leading by (Bad) Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Iraq News Agency) - A delegation of Iraqi judges and journalists abruptly left the U.S. today, cutting short its visit to study the workings of American democracy. A delegation spokesman said the Iraqis were "bewildered" by some of the behavior of the Bush administration and felt it was best to limit their exposure to the U.S. system at this time, when Iraq is taking its first baby steps toward democracy.
The lead Iraqi delegate, Muhammad Mithaqi, a noted secular Sunni judge who had recently survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals, said that he was stunned when he heard President Bush telling Republicans that one reason they should support Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court was because of "her religion." She is described as a devout evangelical Christian.
Mithaqi said that after two years of being lectured to by U.S. diplomats in Baghdad about the need to separate "mosque from state" in the new Iraq, he was also floored to read that the former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, now a law school dean, said on the radio show of the conservative James Dobson that Miers deserved support because she was "a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country."
"Now let me get this straight," Judge Mithaqi said. "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court justice because she is an evangelical Christian.
"How would you feel if you picked up your newspapers next week and read that the president of Iraq justified the appointment of an Iraqi Supreme Court justice by telling Iraqis: 'Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise. Pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosque.' Is that the Iraq you sent your sons to build and to die for? I don't think so. We can't have our people exposed to such talk."
A fellow delegation member, Abdul Wahab al-Unfi, a Shiite lawyer who walks with a limp today as a result of torture in a Saddam prison, said he did not want to spend another day in Washington after listening to the Bush team defend its right to use torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfi said he was heartened by the fact that the Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban U.S. torture of military prisoners. But he said he was depressed by reports that the White House might veto the bill because of that amendment, which would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of P.O.W.'s.
"I survived eight years of torture under Saddam," Unfi said. "Virtually every extended family in Iraq has someone who was tortured or killed in a Baathist prison. Yet, already, more than 100 prisoners of war have died in U.S. custody. How is that possible from the greatest democracy in the world? There must be no place for torture in the future Iraq. We are going home now because I don't want our delegation corrupted by all this American right-to-torture talk."
Finally, the delegation member Sahaf al-Sahafi, editor of one of Iraq's new newspapers, said he wanted to go home after watching a televised videoconference last Thursday between soldiers in Iraq and President Bush. The soldiers, 10 Americans and an Iraqi, were coached by a Pentagon aide on how to respond to Mr. Bush.
"I had nightmares watching this," Sahafi said. "It was right from the Saddam playbook. I was particularly upset to hear the Iraqi sergeant major, Akeel Shakir Nasser, tell Mr. Bush: 'Thank you very much for everything. I like you.' It was exactly the kind of staged encounter that Saddam used to have with his troops."
Sahafi said he was also floored to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, declare that a Bush administration contract that paid Armstrong Williams, a supposedly independent commentator, to promote Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy constituted illegal propaganda - an attempt by the government to buy good press.
"Saddam bought and paid journalists all over the Arab world," Sahafi said. "It makes me sick to see even a drop of that in America."
By coincidence, the Iraqi delegates departed Washington just as the Bush aide Karen Hughes returned from the Middle East. Her trip was aimed at improving America's image among Muslims by giving them a more accurate view of America and President Bush. She said, "The more they know about us, the more they will like us."
(Yes, all of this is a fake news story. I just wish that it weren't so true.)
Op-Ed Columnist
Leading by (Bad) Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Iraq News Agency) - A delegation of Iraqi judges and journalists abruptly left the U.S. today, cutting short its visit to study the workings of American democracy. A delegation spokesman said the Iraqis were "bewildered" by some of the behavior of the Bush administration and felt it was best to limit their exposure to the U.S. system at this time, when Iraq is taking its first baby steps toward democracy.
The lead Iraqi delegate, Muhammad Mithaqi, a noted secular Sunni judge who had recently survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals, said that he was stunned when he heard President Bush telling Republicans that one reason they should support Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court was because of "her religion." She is described as a devout evangelical Christian.
Mithaqi said that after two years of being lectured to by U.S. diplomats in Baghdad about the need to separate "mosque from state" in the new Iraq, he was also floored to read that the former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, now a law school dean, said on the radio show of the conservative James Dobson that Miers deserved support because she was "a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country."
"Now let me get this straight," Judge Mithaqi said. "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court justice because she is an evangelical Christian.
"How would you feel if you picked up your newspapers next week and read that the president of Iraq justified the appointment of an Iraqi Supreme Court justice by telling Iraqis: 'Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise. Pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosque.' Is that the Iraq you sent your sons to build and to die for? I don't think so. We can't have our people exposed to such talk."
A fellow delegation member, Abdul Wahab al-Unfi, a Shiite lawyer who walks with a limp today as a result of torture in a Saddam prison, said he did not want to spend another day in Washington after listening to the Bush team defend its right to use torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfi said he was heartened by the fact that the Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban U.S. torture of military prisoners. But he said he was depressed by reports that the White House might veto the bill because of that amendment, which would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of P.O.W.'s.
"I survived eight years of torture under Saddam," Unfi said. "Virtually every extended family in Iraq has someone who was tortured or killed in a Baathist prison. Yet, already, more than 100 prisoners of war have died in U.S. custody. How is that possible from the greatest democracy in the world? There must be no place for torture in the future Iraq. We are going home now because I don't want our delegation corrupted by all this American right-to-torture talk."
Finally, the delegation member Sahaf al-Sahafi, editor of one of Iraq's new newspapers, said he wanted to go home after watching a televised videoconference last Thursday between soldiers in Iraq and President Bush. The soldiers, 10 Americans and an Iraqi, were coached by a Pentagon aide on how to respond to Mr. Bush.
"I had nightmares watching this," Sahafi said. "It was right from the Saddam playbook. I was particularly upset to hear the Iraqi sergeant major, Akeel Shakir Nasser, tell Mr. Bush: 'Thank you very much for everything. I like you.' It was exactly the kind of staged encounter that Saddam used to have with his troops."
Sahafi said he was also floored to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, declare that a Bush administration contract that paid Armstrong Williams, a supposedly independent commentator, to promote Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy constituted illegal propaganda - an attempt by the government to buy good press.
"Saddam bought and paid journalists all over the Arab world," Sahafi said. "It makes me sick to see even a drop of that in America."
By coincidence, the Iraqi delegates departed Washington just as the Bush aide Karen Hughes returned from the Middle East. Her trip was aimed at improving America's image among Muslims by giving them a more accurate view of America and President Bush. She said, "The more they know about us, the more they will like us."
(Yes, all of this is a fake news story. I just wish that it weren't so true.)
Abolishing the Poll Tax Again - New York Times
Abolishing the Poll Tax Again - New York TimesOctober 19, 2005
Editorial
Abolishing the Poll Tax Again
Critics of Georgia's new voter-identification law, which forces many citizens to pay $20 or more for the documentation necessary to vote, have called it a modern-day poll tax, intended to keep blacks and poor people from voting. A federal judge supported these claims yesterday and blocked the law from taking effect. Instead of continuing to defend the statute in court, Georgia should remove this throwback to the days of Jim Crow from its lawbooks.
Georgia Republicans, who get few votes from African-American voters, pushed a bill through the Legislature this year imposing the nation's toughest voter-identification requirements. When it was passed, most of the state's black legislators walked out of the Capitol. Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr., urged the governor to veto it. Under the new law, voters with driver's licenses were not inconvenienced. But it put up huge obstacles for voters without licenses, who are disproportionately poor and black. Most of them would have to get official state picture-identification cards and pay processing fees of $20 or more. Incredibly - beyond the cost imposed on such voters - there was not a single office in Atlanta where the identification cards were for sale.
Republicans claimed the law was intended to prevent fraud, but that was just a pretext. According to Georgia's secretary of state, Cathy Cox, in recent years there have been no documented cases of fraud through voter impersonation. There have been complaints about the misuse of absentee ballots, Ms. Cox says, but the new law actually loosened the antifraud protections that apply to them. Clearly, Georgia Republicans supported the law because they believed that making it harder for blacks and poor people to vote would help their electoral chances.
The League of Women Voters of Georgia, the N.A.A.C.P. and other civil rights and voting rights groups sued. In a lengthy and hard-hitting opinion, Judge Harold Murphy of Federal District Court enjoined the state from enforcing the law. He relied in part on the 24th Amendment, which banned the old racist requirement that citizens pay poll taxes before being allowed to vote in federal elections.
At least one Georgia state senator is vowing to appeal, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. That would send an ugly message about the state of American democracy. In the civil rights era, Southern states had to be told again and again by federal courts not to try to stop their black citizens from voting. It is shameful that in 2005, Georgia needs to be told again.
Editorial
Abolishing the Poll Tax Again
Critics of Georgia's new voter-identification law, which forces many citizens to pay $20 or more for the documentation necessary to vote, have called it a modern-day poll tax, intended to keep blacks and poor people from voting. A federal judge supported these claims yesterday and blocked the law from taking effect. Instead of continuing to defend the statute in court, Georgia should remove this throwback to the days of Jim Crow from its lawbooks.
Georgia Republicans, who get few votes from African-American voters, pushed a bill through the Legislature this year imposing the nation's toughest voter-identification requirements. When it was passed, most of the state's black legislators walked out of the Capitol. Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr., urged the governor to veto it. Under the new law, voters with driver's licenses were not inconvenienced. But it put up huge obstacles for voters without licenses, who are disproportionately poor and black. Most of them would have to get official state picture-identification cards and pay processing fees of $20 or more. Incredibly - beyond the cost imposed on such voters - there was not a single office in Atlanta where the identification cards were for sale.
Republicans claimed the law was intended to prevent fraud, but that was just a pretext. According to Georgia's secretary of state, Cathy Cox, in recent years there have been no documented cases of fraud through voter impersonation. There have been complaints about the misuse of absentee ballots, Ms. Cox says, but the new law actually loosened the antifraud protections that apply to them. Clearly, Georgia Republicans supported the law because they believed that making it harder for blacks and poor people to vote would help their electoral chances.
The League of Women Voters of Georgia, the N.A.A.C.P. and other civil rights and voting rights groups sued. In a lengthy and hard-hitting opinion, Judge Harold Murphy of Federal District Court enjoined the state from enforcing the law. He relied in part on the 24th Amendment, which banned the old racist requirement that citizens pay poll taxes before being allowed to vote in federal elections.
At least one Georgia state senator is vowing to appeal, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. That would send an ugly message about the state of American democracy. In the civil rights era, Southern states had to be told again and again by federal courts not to try to stop their black citizens from voting. It is shameful that in 2005, Georgia needs to be told again.
Analysis of the Miers Nomination
Throughout history in American civilization, the judicial system has played a major role in making laws in response to a perceived evil. This system also settles controversial disputes between litigants with opposing viewpoints. The highest level of America’s judicial system is the United States Supreme Court. This court consists of a panel of nine judges who are equipped to analyze and make rulings on the most intricate cases, most of which involve federal laws. Their rulings often set precedent and affect the lives of American citizens across the country. For a court of this magnitude, it is imperative that it be ruled by nine of the most qualified and experienced judges in America.
The nomination of Harriet Miers calls into question whether or not the President is making decisions in the best interest of the country. It appears that President Bush is simply seeking to promote his friends from Texas. Miers has no previous experience serving on the bench. Even the simplest of jobs require individuals to have some sort of background in that particular field. This is necessary in order to demonstrate the type of work that person is capable of performing. It is understandable why a person with her credentials could be appointed to a judgeship. However, it is seemingly inexplicable for a person with her level of experience and expertise to be appointed to the highest judgeship in the nation.
By no means does her lack of experience mean that she will not make strong Supreme Court justice. However, little is known about her judicial philosophies, and this is simply a position in America’s judicial system that is too important to merely roll the dice and take a chance on an unknown and unproven candidate. CBS News’ Face the Nation reports that James Dobson has received “private assurances” from Karl Rove, which indicate that she would serve well on this court. Yet, Dobson claims that he cannot reveal the specific details of this information. This information needs to be brought forth and dispersed to the general public. Once again, it would not be wise to appoint someone with so many unanswered questions.
This is not to say that she should never become a Supreme Court justice, but the timing for this nomination is inappropriate. Due the level of complexity involved in deciding cases, which come before the United States Supreme Court, Miers first needs to go through the process of serving as a judge on a lower level, which may serve as the foundation for her to work her way up through the judicial branch of the United States government.
By Ryan W. Hirsch
Communication Law Student
The nomination of Harriet Miers calls into question whether or not the President is making decisions in the best interest of the country. It appears that President Bush is simply seeking to promote his friends from Texas. Miers has no previous experience serving on the bench. Even the simplest of jobs require individuals to have some sort of background in that particular field. This is necessary in order to demonstrate the type of work that person is capable of performing. It is understandable why a person with her credentials could be appointed to a judgeship. However, it is seemingly inexplicable for a person with her level of experience and expertise to be appointed to the highest judgeship in the nation.
By no means does her lack of experience mean that she will not make strong Supreme Court justice. However, little is known about her judicial philosophies, and this is simply a position in America’s judicial system that is too important to merely roll the dice and take a chance on an unknown and unproven candidate. CBS News’ Face the Nation reports that James Dobson has received “private assurances” from Karl Rove, which indicate that she would serve well on this court. Yet, Dobson claims that he cannot reveal the specific details of this information. This information needs to be brought forth and dispersed to the general public. Once again, it would not be wise to appoint someone with so many unanswered questions.
This is not to say that she should never become a Supreme Court justice, but the timing for this nomination is inappropriate. Due the level of complexity involved in deciding cases, which come before the United States Supreme Court, Miers first needs to go through the process of serving as a judge on a lower level, which may serve as the foundation for her to work her way up through the judicial branch of the United States government.
By Ryan W. Hirsch
Communication Law Student
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Muck and Miers: In Bush We Trust
During recess at elementary schools across the country, when it comes time for dodgeball captains to pick their teams, they always choose their best friends first. President Bush has taken his definition of “friendship” to a whole other, supreme, level. In his recent nomination of his good friend Harriet Miers as a United States Supreme Court, Bush encouraged the American public to do one thing, trust him. After all, this is the same president who continues to fight an endless war in Iraq Gulf Coast
There are many reasons why Republicans and Democrats question Miers ability to serve her country as a Supreme Court justice. Her first strike is that she has no track record on key federal discussions, including abortion and the definition of marriage. The inability of congressmen and congresswomen to, for lack of better terms, “feel her out,” has created an indecisive group on Capitol Hill. Supreme Court justices were put in place to interpret the law, not create new ones. However, they can decide to vote against key court decisions like Roe v. Wade, preventing a woman’s right to choose. While Miers hasn’t directly voted on this issue, her actions suggest that she sways towards pro-life activists. Before she is approved, Miers religious, moral, ethical and political views will be questioned to determine exactly where she stands. However, if approved, her beliefs will mean nothing, for the American public will only remember one person, in whom they trust.
By Atira Kei Henderson
Communications Law Student
There are many reasons why Republicans and Democrats question Miers ability to serve her country as a Supreme Court justice. Her first strike is that she has no track record on key federal discussions, including abortion and the definition of marriage. The inability of congressmen and congresswomen to, for lack of better terms, “feel her out,” has created an indecisive group on Capitol Hill. Supreme Court justices were put in place to interpret the law, not create new ones. However, they can decide to vote against key court decisions like Roe v. Wade, preventing a woman’s right to choose. While Miers hasn’t directly voted on this issue, her actions suggest that she sways towards pro-life activists. Before she is approved, Miers religious, moral, ethical and political views will be questioned to determine exactly where she stands. However, if approved, her beliefs will mean nothing, for the American public will only remember one person, in whom they trust.
By Atira Kei Henderson
Communications Law Student
Monday, October 17, 2005
CBS News: Face the Nation Supreme Court Nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Myers
The recent nomination of Harriet Myers for a Supreme Court Seat has not liberals and moderates ruffled, but the conservatives scratching their chins about the candidate choice. Many oppose or question Bush’s choice because it has no apparent reasoning or justification. Conservatives try to uphold the Supreme Court by enforcing the laws, courts, and Constitution. To nominate a candidate that had never sat on any bench is seemingly unorthodox. According to Senator Sam Brownback, when selecting a judicial nominee many look at the person’s judicial philosophy to determine if they support or oppose the nomination, however, Myers philosophy doesn’t exist. Although she is given a great deal of credit for overcoming tremendous obstacles and heading a major law firm in Texas, without a track record of case decisions to go by, it is hard for the American people to back this nomination, including the conservatives themselves, who usually support President Bush.
Senator Charles Schumer adds to the debate that another aspect that may not be adding to Myers credibility as a prospective judge is the fact that James Dobson has told colleagues that private discussions have led him to believe that, if confirmed, Myers will rule the right way. From that, several concerns arise. One is, what is the “right way” that we should be expecting from a Supreme Court judge? Is this the ‘right way’ deemed so by the Constitution or the ‘right way’ deemed so by the conservatives and the supporters of Bush. An additional concern is that Dobson claims that he cannot discuss the detail of these “private assurances,” including what was said and who said it. These comments no further assure the American People than the non-existent judicial philosophy of Myers herself. All in all, it adds up to a very unconvincing case for Myers and not taking away from her status as an accomplished attorney, it definitely doesn’t add to her potential as a Supreme Court Judge.
By Tiffany N. Benson
Communications Law Student
Senator Charles Schumer adds to the debate that another aspect that may not be adding to Myers credibility as a prospective judge is the fact that James Dobson has told colleagues that private discussions have led him to believe that, if confirmed, Myers will rule the right way. From that, several concerns arise. One is, what is the “right way” that we should be expecting from a Supreme Court judge? Is this the ‘right way’ deemed so by the Constitution or the ‘right way’ deemed so by the conservatives and the supporters of Bush. An additional concern is that Dobson claims that he cannot discuss the detail of these “private assurances,” including what was said and who said it. These comments no further assure the American People than the non-existent judicial philosophy of Myers herself. All in all, it adds up to a very unconvincing case for Myers and not taking away from her status as an accomplished attorney, it definitely doesn’t add to her potential as a Supreme Court Judge.
By Tiffany N. Benson
Communications Law Student
NPR : After the Millions More March, What's Next?
NPR : After the Millions More March, What's Next?After the Millions More March, What's Next?
Listen to this story...
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 17, 2005 · The Millions More Movement march is over -- now what? Ed Gordon explores the rally's impact with Newsweek magazine contributing editor Ellis Cose and Roland Martin, executive editor of The Chicago Defender.
Listen to this story...
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 17, 2005 · The Millions More Movement march is over -- now what? Ed Gordon explores the rally's impact with Newsweek magazine contributing editor Ellis Cose and Roland Martin, executive editor of The Chicago Defender.
NPR : Reflections on the Millions More Movement March
NPR : Reflections on the Millions More Movement MarchRace
Reflections on the Millions More Movement March
Listen to this story...
by Roy Hurst
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 17, 2005 · Thousands showed up this past weekend in Washington, D.C., for a rally organized by a coalition of religious groups to mark the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March, an unprecedented gathering of mostly African-American men. Saturday's march was billed as a more "inclusive" event -- but like the mass rally of 1995, it was not without controversy.
Reflections on the Millions More Movement March
Listen to this story...
by Roy Hurst
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 17, 2005 · Thousands showed up this past weekend in Washington, D.C., for a rally organized by a coalition of religious groups to mark the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March, an unprecedented gathering of mostly African-American men. Saturday's march was billed as a more "inclusive" event -- but like the mass rally of 1995, it was not without controversy.
New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Stanley Crouch: A leader only by default
New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Stanley Crouch: A leader only by defaultA leader only by default
Louis Farrakhan proved again Saturday in Washington that there is nothing particularly original or insightful about him. He is a highly refined demagogue who has learned much since the Million Man March 10 years ago, when he bored perhaps 2 million in attendance and millions more who nodded off as though they had taken heroin as he gave a profound lesson in how to bungle a recruitment opportunity. Even knuckleheads were disappointed by Farrakhan's ludicrous reading of the numerlogical meanings hidden on dollar bills.
This time he was in command of something closer to logic. Farrakhan spoke to the gathering at the National Mall for a shorter time, and devoted the bulk of his speech to a cleaned-up version of what Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam, had always called for as a solution to the race problem. Beyond teaching followers that the white man was a devil invented 6,000 years ago by a mad black scientist, Muhammad wanted a separate group of states in which black people would grow their own food and build their own cities, schools and businesses. We could perhaps call it a high-class reservation for "so-called Negroes," a term popularized by the Nation of Islam.
Since Muhammad's death, Farrakhan has taken on the mantle of the leader destined to awaken the sleeping giant of black consciousness. Along the way, he has come off as an anti-Semite, maintained the basic racism taught to him by Muhammad and has threatened reporters with death.
Farrakhan has been able to gain acceptance among people who should know better but who don't feel that knowing better has done them any good when it comes to facing the plight of the black underclass. Such people are joined by all of those struggling at the bottom who feel that little has been achieved through conventional politics or Christianity or the civil rights establishment. Then we have the erroneously labeled "authentic" knuckleheads and lightweights of the "hip-hop generation," who have embraced a man they see as uncompromising in "speaking truth to power." The question of whether Farrakhan has sold out is easily raised by his alliance with rappers, the vast majority of whom create material that is diametrically opposed to the Nation of Islam's morality. But many suspect that entrepreneur Russell Simmons, the "godfather of hip hop," is a strong financial supporter of the Nation of Islam. Perhaps that explains why Simmons can support and promote cultural monstrosities such as 50 Cent and be sure he will hear nothing derisive from Farrakhan.
I did not find Saturday's gathering depressing, however much I deplored all of the old rhetorical soup warmed over by poseurs or naifs. At some point, people will begin to notice those who are managing to educate kids despite the worst circumstances and who are bringing order to their neighborhoods by successfully discouraging gang activity, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. They are out there and they will be noticed sooner or later.
Then the black middle class and those at the bottom will find something other than a demagogue to listen to, if only for what amount to gigantic rhetorical picnics where the assembled are served hot air instead of potato salad.
Originally published on October 17, 2005
Saturday, October 15, 2005
CBS TV, Face The Nation PodCast Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers
This is an audio only Podcast of the Sunday CBS Television Show "Face The Nation".which was broadcast on 10/9/2004.
The broadcast contains an in depth discussion of the issue. It is the second story after the discussion of the Pakistan earthquake.
(CBS) Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-Kansas); Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-NY); Jan Crawford Greenburg of The Chicago Tribune; and David Brooks of the New York Times joined Face The Nation.
They discussed in detail the Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers. Listen to this program. It will help with the one page class assignment which is due this week....Professor Armwood.
Listen to the PodCast here.
Read the transcript of the show here in PDF format:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is NBC Television's "Meet The Press" PodCast for Sunday 10/9/6.
Listen to the "Meet The Press" PodCast here.
Here is another discussion of the nomination... Professor Armwood
The broadcast contains an in depth discussion of the issue. It is the second story after the discussion of the Pakistan earthquake.
(CBS) Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-Kansas); Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-NY); Jan Crawford Greenburg of The Chicago Tribune; and David Brooks of the New York Times joined Face The Nation.
They discussed in detail the Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers. Listen to this program. It will help with the one page class assignment which is due this week....Professor Armwood.
Listen to the PodCast here.
Read the transcript of the show here in PDF format:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is NBC Television's "Meet The Press" PodCast for Sunday 10/9/6.
MEET THE PRESS
Listen to the "Meet The Press" PodCast here.
Here is another discussion of the nomination... Professor Armwood
Friday, October 14, 2005
NPR : Roundtable: African-American Wealth
NPR : Roundtable: African-American Wealth
Listen to this story...
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 13, 2005 · Farai Chideya continues a special series of roundtable discussions dedicated to issues of class. Thursday's conversation is focused on African-American wealth. Guests: Eddie Brown, president of Brown Capital Management, Inc.; Mary Spio, scientist, inventor and publisher of One 2 One Living magazine; and Farrah Gray, author of Reallionaire: Nine Steps to Becoming Rich from the Inside Out.
Listen to this story...
News & Notes with Ed Gordon, October 13, 2005 · Farai Chideya continues a special series of roundtable discussions dedicated to issues of class. Thursday's conversation is focused on African-American wealth. Guests: Eddie Brown, president of Brown Capital Management, Inc.; Mary Spio, scientist, inventor and publisher of One 2 One Living magazine; and Farrah Gray, author of Reallionaire: Nine Steps to Becoming Rich from the Inside Out.
NPR : Alabama Desegregation Pioneer Dies
NPR : Alabama Desegregation Pioneer Dies
Listen to this story...
by Michele Norris
Vivian Malone Jones was one of the first two African Americans to enroll at the University of Alabama in 1963. And in 1965, she became the first African American to graduate from the school. University of Alabama
All Things Considered, October 13, 2005 · Vivian Malone Jones, the first African-American student to graduate from the University of Alabama, has died at age 63. Malone was one of the students Gov. George Wallace tried to block from entering the university in 1963.
E. Culpepper Clark, author of The Schoolhouse Door, a book about the last stand for segregation in Alabama, discusses Jones' life and legacy. Clark is also dean of communications and information sciences at the University of Alabama.
Listen to this story...
by Michele Norris
Vivian Malone Jones was one of the first two African Americans to enroll at the University of Alabama in 1963. And in 1965, she became the first African American to graduate from the school. University of Alabama
All Things Considered, October 13, 2005 · Vivian Malone Jones, the first African-American student to graduate from the University of Alabama, has died at age 63. Malone was one of the students Gov. George Wallace tried to block from entering the university in 1963.
E. Culpepper Clark, author of The Schoolhouse Door, a book about the last stand for segregation in Alabama, discusses Jones' life and legacy. Clark is also dean of communications and information sciences at the University of Alabama.
Japan Today - News - Bomb, not Katrina, broke dikes: Farrakhan - Japan's Leading International News Network
Japan Today - News - Bomb, not Katrina, broke dikes: Farrakhan - Japan's Leading International News NetworkBomb, not Katrina, broke dikes: Farrakhan
Send to a friendPrint
Friday, October 14, 2005 at 07:50 JST
WASHINGTON — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on Thursday claimed that explosives, not Hurricane Katrina, broke New Orleans' dikes and flooded poor African American neighborhoods.
"A member of the Army Corps of Engineers saw burn marks on the concrete," Farrakhan told reporters, describing an email he had received.
Send to a friendPrint
Friday, October 14, 2005 at 07:50 JST
WASHINGTON — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on Thursday claimed that explosives, not Hurricane Katrina, broke New Orleans' dikes and flooded poor African American neighborhoods.
"A member of the Army Corps of Engineers saw burn marks on the concrete," Farrakhan told reporters, describing an email he had received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)