In Memory of Mildred Loving

Mildred Loving and her husband, Richard, shown in 1965, challenged Virginia's ban on interracial marriages.

AP

Mildred Loving passed away with little notice last Friday. You may not know her name, but Mrs. Loving was a civil rights activist. Like many who played a role in the civil rights movement — Emmett Till, Rosa Parks — Mrs. Loving wasn't looking to change the world by her actions. All she was looking to do was be married to her husband, Richard. Richard was white, and Mildred was black and when they were married in 1958, interracial marriage — "miscegenation" is the pejorative — was against the law in their home state of Virginia, as well as 16 other states.

Interracial marriage was once a concept so odious that in 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia tried to introduce an amendment to the Constitution banning such unions. To his colleagues in Congress he lectured, according to the Chicago Daily Tribune:

"It is contrary and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is contrary and averse to the very principles of a pure Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. ... No more voracious parasite ever sucked at the heart of pure society and moral status than the one which welcomes or recognizes everywhere the sacred ties of wedlock between Africa and America."

Aren't you glad we're living in a time when politicians don't use relationships between consenting adults as wedge issues?

I digress.

The Lovings spent time in jail for the high crime of being married to each other, were forced to move from Virginia...

Then, in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Lovings' ACLU-supported challenge to the Virginia law banning interracial marriages.

Forty years later, there's something like 4.3 million mixed-marriage couples in the United States. Never mind the number of people legally allowed to love as they please, Mildred Loving never thought she personally had done anything special. "It was God's work," she told the Associated Press in an interview last year.

Though their only desire was to be together, it was not meant to be for the Lovings. Richard was killed in a 1975 car accident.

Well, they're together again now.

It's a pity that unlike Mildred, Richard Loving could not live to see the son of a relationship once considered contrary to "every sentiment of pure American spirit" one step removed from the highest office in the land.

2:37 PM ET | 05- 9-2008 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Rev. Wright in Charge

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks at the National Press Club on Monday in Washington, D.C.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Barack Obama's former spiritual guide (and current irritant) Jeremiah Wright took a lap around the media. I figured Wright would calmly have his say, and with the story mostly old news, he would come and go and hardly register.

Not quite the case.

Wright took the opportunity to preach on the media's treatment — read that as "attack" — of the tradition of the black church. There was that, there was his unequivocal support for Louis Farrakhan, his continued assertion that AIDS was set upon blacks by the U.S. government, his description of American foreign policy before Sept. 11 as "terrorism on other people"...

You really gotta wonder why. When Wright could've just kept cool, stayed clear of the press, why come up for air in such a big way? And why right when Obama is still in the middle of a political dogfight?

Maybe that's a holdover aspect of another black tradition: the HNIC.

For the uninitiated, HNIC is an acronym for Head Negro In Charge. But HNIC is — or was — a much sought-after job in the black community. And it speaks volumes that such a position, at least in a historical sense, ever existed. There is, after all, no single spokesperson for the aggregate of white thought.

But blacks?

We needed a HNIC to give us voice when the Constitution that guarantees freedoms didn't guarantee us jack. We needed folks who were the embodiment of the fearless free African: Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois.

Problem was, as people of color advanced, there were more and more who wanted the job of HNIC. And that's when armed philosophical conflict erupted — every potential black potentate pitching his solution for the travails of colored America. Booker T. Washington had little patience for DuBois' ideas for black uplift and vice versa. And neither could stand the self-reliant path cut by Marcus Garvey.

Even today we see lesser figures — your Al Sharptons and your Jesse Jacksons — trying to grab up that HNIC scepter.

So, then there's Obama, who's gotten a lot of support in his political lifetime from the very influential Wright. Except that at the first sign of trouble, Obama tosses Wright from his campaign and very publicly distances himself from his pastor.

So now, when the heat's on, here comes Wright claiming that the More Perfect Union speech was just Obama saying "what he has to say as a politician," and that should Obama be elected, Wright would be "coming after you [Obama], because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."

Is that the most subtle message you've ever heard to people of color that Obama's just a shill for The Man? Could Wright be trying to hand Obama just a touch of payback for slighting him — showing Obama just who's the boss and who's the upstart?

Maybe I'm reading a whole lot more into Wright's second coming than is there. And I hope I am. Well beyond his loopier comments, there's a good deal Wright has to say that's worth listening to. And it would be a shame if Obama, a candidate who's done everything he can to transcend race, is taken out by some old-school HNIC maneuvering.

2:19 PM ET | 04-29-2008 | permalink | comments (22) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

The Undeniable Virtue of Rev. Wright's Pro-Blackness (And the Problem with Pro-Whiteness)

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, left, with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in 2005.

Trinity United Church of Christ /AP

Bill Moyers is broadcasting a sitdown with Barack Obama's "controversial" pastor, Jeremiah Wright, this Friday evening. By Saturday, expect every utterance Wright makes to be as picked over as an episode of Lost at the San Diego Comic-Con.

Now, I'm not going to even try to defend everything that Wright has to say. At least not the four or five loopy sound bites — out of how many thousands of sermons he's given — that have made him quite the YouTube sensation. But there is a particular aspect of the Wright mischaracterization I take exception to: the idea that his pro-black teachings make him some kind of radical separatist. Interviewing Wright in March of last year, for example, Fox's Sean Hannity had this to say about statements appearing on the Web site for Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ:

"It says, 'Commitment to God.' By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system. Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?"

My answer to the question: yeah, probably. But that's 'cause there's a difference between being pro-black and pro-white, and the difference is a bad one.

Adherence to pro-black values isn't code for "kill whitey." It's merely how blacks have managed to stay alive and viable in America all these many years since we were first graciously given a ride across the middle passage to get dropped off in Virginia.

"A commitment to the black community" is what got us collectively through slavery, through an abandoned Reconstruction and the ensuing era of Jim Crow. As I'm sure some will recall, because of a pesky little thing called segregation, there was nothing for the black community to rely on but the black community.

Ironically, the community values and focus on the family that Wright preaches are exactly the kind of "don't bother us, do it yourself"-isms conservatives are always hectoring people of color to observe. How convenient for the pundits that they can both wish us off the perceived teat, then get riled by those who encourage us to be self-reliant.

To the contrary of pro-blackness, it's pro-whiteness that has unfortunately produced some awful-to-horrible results: white sheets and nooses and burning crosses and Citizens Councils and redlining and guys nicknamed Brownie doing a "heck of a job."

That's not to say there's anything wrong with being comfortable in white skin. If that's what God gave you, sure, be happy with it. However, the whole concept of having to be pro-white is redundant. It's not as if, in the normal course of events, white folks as a race really need that much encouragement. Do teachers really have to explain to white kids that in a more fair America they could perhaps grow up to be president?

So, yeah, based on its suspect history, if one were to preach the doctrine of pro-whiteness, there could be due cause for concern.

Pro-blackness, on the other hand — analogous to the Protestant work ethic — is one of the most positive American values we have.

1:15 PM ET | 04-25-2008 | permalink | comments (21) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Could Ayers Blow Up in Obama's Face?

In this 1982 file photo, Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, walks with his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and their 4-year-old son, Zayd Dohrn, outside Federal Court in New York.

David Handschuh/AP

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright nontroversy? Not a problem.

"Bitter," clingy blue-collar types, flag lapel pins? He can navigate those annoyances with ease.

But come November, the Bill Ayers issue rushing up in Barack Obama's rearview mirror could be a real political problem.

A former member of the Weather Underground organization — a radical group responsible for a string of bombings in the early '70s — Ayers was a privileged kid turned domestic terrorist. Reformed and respectable, Ayers is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an informal adviser to Chicago's mayor and a past contributor to an Obama campaign. In Wednesday's debate, Hillary Clinton gave a preview of what to expect from conservatives come the general election should Obama take the nomination: accusations that Obama is cozy with radical liberals. There's not much the Clinton machine can do with the accusation, seeing as President Bill Clinton commuted the prison sentences of a couple of Weather Underground members.

Conservatives will try to do considerably worse, and they'll have a lot to work with.

Back in the day, Ayers was a radicalized liberal in the worst way. Not merely because he and his comrades turned to indiscriminate violence, but because of the reason they turned. Chiefly, their paternalistic belief that blacks could not secure civil rights without their helping, explosive hand to guide them. "Black people have been fighting almost alone for years," read the first communique of the Weather Underground. "We've known that our job is to lead white kids into armed revolution."

Armed revolution.

Going metaphorically arm-in-arm with Dr. King — as innumerable liberal-minded folks of all persuasions did — was not enough for the Weather Underground. They had to blow stuff up. And they did it without regard for the fact that they were essentially spitting on the memory of a man who was committed to nonviolence. Yes, they were partially radicalized by the killing of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton at the hands of the Chicago police. But many vented their very righteous anger without lighting fuses. But many, also, didn't fancy themselves modern John Browns leading otherwise helpless blacks to freedom.

The Weather Underground claimed to want to avoid human suffering. But you can't express yourself with explosives without somebody getting hurt. And the people who got hurt were three of its members, blown up in an accident so tragic it's actually empty of irony.

But I'm sure at the time the Weather Underground figured they were doing something noble.

And I'm sure Ted Kaczynski figured he was doing the same.

The issue, though, isn't what Ayers thought then; it's what he thinks now.

Read Ayers' memoir, Fugitive Days, which was published — in actual horrific irony — on Sept. 10, 2001. Though I have to admit it's pretty well written, it's filled with more paternalism ("A squad of cops in Cleveland had dragged Black men from a motel and shot them down in cold blood, and now we would, I thought, even the score.") and romanticism of what were ultimately terrorist acts. Ayers was also quoted in 2001 saying that he has no regrets for his past actions, but rather he feels that "we didn't do enough." Take a gander at his Web site and see if you find contrition or self-aggrandizement.

What someone did 40 years ago — within reason — should not damn that person forever. But that's assuming offending individuals pay their debt to society and repent. Ayers has done neither.

I genuinely hope Obama's got as much distance as humanly possible between himself and Ayers, and that Ayers is just, as Obama said in the debate, "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

4:15 PM ET | 04-18-2008 | permalink | comments (19) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

The Airlines' Big Meltdown Is Our Gain

Exhausted from traveling, Johnny Sigmon waits in line after his American Airlines flight to Las Vegas was canceled on Wednesday at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

Rick Gershon/Getty Images

It's one of those weeks when you should be happy to be you. 'Cause you could be this guy. Or you could be one of the thousands of displaced refugees formally known as American Airlines passengers (or passengers of a few other airlines, including Delta and Alaska).

As a (too) frequent flier of American Airlines myself — way to go three-for-three trips losing my bags! — my heart goes out to all the stranded travelers. Though I'm sure the airline's automated phone systems and overworked, underpaid employees are doing everything they can to make it seem as though they can actually do something for you.

By the way, AA CEO Gerard Arpey says he takes "full responsibility" for failing to meet FAA inspection standards, which caused the cancellations. So I'm sure any minute now he's going to break off a piece of his reported 2006 compensation of $10,201,059 to help pay for the mess. Any minute.

But while you wait...

If you travel with any regularity, you know that aside from the cancellations mess, this is a crappy time all around for the airline industry.

ATA, Aloha Airlines and Skybus stopped flying within days of each other. With oil topping $110 a barrel and fuel the single biggest expense of airlines, a few more may be crushed shortly. Add to the mix the safety issues with American, Southwest and other airlines. And add to that the Airline Quality Rating survey conducted by the Aviation Institute at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and Wichita State University, which found that customer complaints over issues like lost bags and delays are up 60 percent year to year.

It pretty much seems like air travel as we know it is done.

Thank God.

It's not that I believe this meltdown is the horrid end of getting from here to there by plane. I think what's happening now is more like a self-cleaning oven, in that you're not really sure what's going on inside the thing, but you know when you open the door in the morning, all that crap that was there before is gonna be gone.

And when the crap is gone — "crap" being airlines that can't compete — I think there will be fewer carriers carrying fewer people.

Fewer flights would mean less fuel used, less pollution, less congestion in the air and less noise and traffic around airports. With an antiquated system that carried 769.4 million domestic and international passengers in 2007, fewer flights also could mean better service, more accurate departure and arrival times and, hey, know what? Your bags might even get there when you do.

What would we lose? Convenience. There might not be the flight you want leaving right ... NOW! But even that might just be a "paper" loss. If the airlines can reduce the number of delays and the number of people bumped from overbooked flights, then you might actually get to where you're going when you're supposed to be there.

So, luck to you stranded American passengers. And know that next week Tuesday when you eventually get where you're going, the beginnings of a better air transport system might actually be waiting for you.

5:48 PM ET | 04-11-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

France's Best Olympic Moment

Former French tennis player Arnaud Di Pasquale reacts as he carries the extinguished Beijing Olympics torch in Paris on his way to place it in a bus for safety amid pro-Tibet protests.

Patrick Kovarik/AFP/Getty Images

I don't really have anything against the French except that, as an American, I've been bred to despise them with the same zeal as soccer and Renny Harlin films. But I've got to hand it to the French for having the guts to do what should have been done long ago: extinguish the Olympic torch.

During Monday's Olympic torch relay through the streets of Paris, angry Parisians (as opposed to the other kind) protesting human rights violations in Tibet forced Olympic officials to douse the torch and eventually load it on a bus for the reminder of the route.

Good job, France.

Though, note for future protests: pelting the wheelchair-bound torchbearer with bottles and fruits kinda runs counter to the whole "human rights" thing.

But beyond that, I say along with the torch, it's time for the Olympic concept to go on a permanent vacation. If the Olympic Games ever served a true altruistic purpose, they have long since outlived it. Yeah, the pursuit of athletic excellence, sportsmanship and international goodwill is plenty noble. But the modern Olympics are at best a vehicle for agitprop; at worst, a scandal magnet. It's the exception, not the rule, that individual competitors or whole nations don't use the games for political purposes. Sometimes it's for good — Tommie Smith and John Carlos' raised fists at the 1968 Mexico City games; protesting South Africa at the height of apartheid at the '76 Montreal games. Sometimes for absolute evil — Berlin.

The boycotts led by the USA and the USSR at Moscow and Los Angeles, respectively, fall somewhere in between.

There was Munich, and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.

There have been scandals both high and low. The 2002 Winter Olympics bid scandal. Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan. Which is high, which is low are dealer's choice.

Worst of all, for all their pageantry and flag-waving, the Olympics have become nothing more than a big, fat corporate cow that's carved up among official sponsors and supporting partners before being trotted ad nauseam across the NBC multiverse of television outlets (GE as a corporation, which owns NBC Universal, is looking to rake in at least $600 million in Olympics-related deals).

Enough.

Enough with the boycotts and protests and pro athletes moonlighting as amateurs. Enough with the official airline and automobile and (fill in the blank) of the U.S. team. Enough with the Ben Johnsons and the Marion Joneses and dual gold medals for pairs figure skating.

For once, let's follow the lead of the good, rude people of France and douse the light that failed forever.

4:39 PM ET | 04- 8-2008 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Don't Call 'Em Comics

Hear the Story: Three Writers Feel the Lure of Comics

Courtesy DC Comics

 

An image of The Question by artists Denys Cowan and Bill Sienkiewicz from an upcoming collected edition of the series.

Courtesy DC Comics

There are still some people out there who believe comic books are nothing more than, well, comic books. But the true cognoscenti know graphic novels are — at their best — an amazing blend of art literature and the theater of the mind.

When people talk about the Platinum Age of the new comic book era, they look back fondly on a period from the mid-1980s to the early '90s. It was in that time frame when the likes of Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns and Marvels were bestowed upon us. The temptation for those who are new to the genre is to go find themselves a trade paperback or back issues — or these days, an Absolute Edition — of those series and get themselves acclimated.

I say, if you really want to discover comics at their best, go find copies of the 1987-1990 DC Comics series of The Question. It's the ongoing saga of Victor Sage, a crusading reporter in Hub City who moonlights as The Question — a sort of Batman-lite who wears a mask that obliterates all the features of his face.

What makes the series so great is not the super-heroics — The Question has no powers — but the stark grayness of the storytelling. Heroes weren't always heroic, nor were bad guys always bad. And doing good did not always result in good things happening. It wasn't always as uplifting as a Superman story, and in many ways it built on the Marvel paradigm. However, writer Dennis O'Neil's stories of moral ambiguity matched with Denys Cowan's fluid visual style made for a complex series that was, at that point, very much new to the DC universe. At 36 issues, you ought to be able to get the whole series from your local comic book shop. Considering the quality of the work, it's worth checking out.

6:50 AM ET | 03-25-2008 | permalink | comments (13) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

David Paterson's Got It Going On!

New York Gov. David Paterson discusses his marital infidelities at a news conference on Tuesday as his wife Michelle Paterson looks on.

AP Photo/Mike Groll

While the rest of America had its knickers in a knot over Barack Obama and the nontroversy of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, can I just say I was focused on my other favorite black politician of the moment: New York Gov. David Paterson.

What do I like about the guy? First day on the job, he admits to having an affair. Second day on the job, he admits to having a number of affairs. Not that I approve of sleeping with other women. Per se. But people are always carping about politicians not being honest and here is Paterson, paint still drying on his office door, throwing out a little TMI.

And let's not forget that Paterson is legally blind. I only bring that up because Sheri Shepherd -- the "blonde" black girl on ABC's "The View" -- joked (I think she was joking) that Paterson "can't see to cheat." Know what? I'm sick of people underestimating the otherly abled! Truth is they can screw around just as well as people with two good eyes!

And check this out: He got girls without paying for them. Take that Eliot Spitzer!

And before you start a thread about what a sexist I am, can I tell you what a breath of fresh air New York's new first lady Michelle Paige Paterson is? Her philosophy on her husband's philandering? "You have to let people live their life." You tell 'em, sister! Of course, I'm sure it helps her Zenness that while her man was out sowing his oats, Michelle was right out there sowing some as well -- Michelle having admitting to an affair herself. Hey, at least no more wronged-wife-with-a-tattooed-on smile standing next to her husband at a press conference.

I could go on and on with admiration for Paterson -- the fact that he had his tryst on the cheap at a Manhattan Days Inn, the rumor he had a "close relationship" with Olympic gold medalist Diane Dixon ...

Of course, none of this really has much to do with David Paterson the politician, but that's kinda the point. Maybe Paterson'll be a great governor. Maybe not. But out of the gate we know this: Opposite the moral perfectionist Spitzer made himself out to be, Paterson admits to being no better or worse than the rest of us. And how refreshing is that?

2:18 PM ET | 03-19-2008 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Rep. Steve King: We All Look Alike to Him

U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) testifies during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 20, 2007 in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The punchline to some old, racist joke roughly goes: "they all look alike to me." The set up to the joke was rewritten the other day by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). On a radio station in Iowa, King claimed that were Barack Obama elected president, al-Qaida would be "dancing in the streets" in greater numbers than on Sept. 11, 2001. King bases his assertion on three things, the first being that Obama favors a withdrawal from Iraq. While that point might be at least worthy of debate, King's next two points remove logic from the discourse. What will bring on the outbreak of public jubilation among OBL's minion's are Obama's middle name — Hussein; a name nobody had a problem with when we were funneling the guy guns and money during the Iran/Iraq war — and Obama's Kenyan heritage.

What King is basically saying is; anyone who's got a "funny" name and African lineage is a kissing cousin of the ilk who took down the Twin Towers.

We all look alike to him.

Of course the Christian, biracial, Harvard-educated Obama is as far from being a terrorist as George Clooney is from being lonely on Friday nights. And in his rush to link Obama with "those people," King ignores a fact that al-Qaida makes over and over again: their ideological hatred cuts across racial and religious divides. They care nothing about where someone's ancestors are from or who they worship. All they care about is chalking up a steady body count.

I would remind Congressman King of the August 7th, 1998, bombings by al-Qaida of U.S. embassies in both Tanzania and Kenya. There was no dancing in the streets on that day. Just Tanzanians and Kenyans pulling victims from the rubble. Estimates are that more than 200 people were killed and 4,000 injured. I imagine many of them had "funny" names. I would say what would get the survivors of those and other al-Qaida massacres dancing, rather than Obama's election, would be Bin Laden's head on a pike or platter or stuffed in a bowling bag for lack of other display options.

The fact is that al-Qaida doesn't really care who's in the White House come next year. They will do as they do no matter if it's a woman, a man of color or an old white guy. Much as with the victims of their violence, they don't really discriminate that way. You could say that to the terrorists, we're all alike.

Is that something Steve King and Osama Bin Laden have in common?

5:28 PM ET | 03-10-2008 | permalink | comments (46) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

The Nader This Time

What do you do when those pesky peaceniks come around to your house long after dark, ringing the doorbell, wanting you to sign a petition to save the spotted salamander or something? If you're anything like me, you dial up your private security company, grab a bowl of cheddar cheese popcorn and wait for the fun that only independent contractors with badges can deliver.

Ralph Nader on NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 24, 2008.

Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press

I kinda felt that way — the desire to call private security to escort away a late-arriving interloping do-gooder — when Ralph Nader declared he was going to run for president once again. Ralph — 0.38 percent of the popular vote in '04 — Nader.

Even Mike Huckabee must be like: Dude, you don't have a chance.

Be it as a write-in, a Green Party candidate or an independent, there's something very "hit the panic button" about the cocktail of Ralph Nader seeking the "Highest Office in the Land." I can feel my internal early warning system going off, cautioning that we're about to get hit with a tsunami of self-indulgence. How else to describe his candidacy?

Yeah, in his lifetime Nader has done good work. But he's also done little to get involved in the political process except to hit the scene once every four years and try to take the top prize. There are other offices, other positions, other ways to engage and guide the system. Nader's shown zero desire to do anything but show up to the big dance and try to score the hottest chick.

This would be, by the way, his fourth or fifth try for the White House, depending on how you score a run. But with four or five runs and no wins, it's pretty much like the Buffalo Bills' Super Bowl record. It therefore makes for interesting conversation when trading stories at the Baccarat table, but is otherwise unimpressive.

Nader, who turns 74 this week — even John McCain must be like: dude, you're too old — has devolved into trivia. A throwback to the Pat Paulsen sideshow candidate era. Not to be confused with the Ron Paul sideshow candidate era. The only thing new Nader's added to the process this quadrennial is the miraculous ability to unite the ire of Senators Obama and Clinton. Obama saying of Nader: "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive." Clinton weighing in by saying: "I remember when he ran before. It didn't turn out very well for anybody — especially our country."

Hey, Mr. Nader. You got the two of them together. Chalk that up as your moment, and then go away. In case you need any assistance, I got my finger on speed dial.

2:16 PM ET | 02-25-2008 | permalink | comments (200) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)