Obama Tells Audience Why He Is A Christian

As reported by the New York Times, President Obama continues his series of stops in back yards in various parts of the country in the run up to the mid-term elections. Today, in New Mexico, he was asked by one questioner : "Why are you a Christian?" Here is the CBN News transcript of his answer (the article also includes a video of the Q&A and a transcript of his response in the Q&A to a question about abortion rights):

I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t ... frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me into church. I came to my Christian faith later in life. ... It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life I would want to lead. Being by brother’s keepers ... treating others as they would treat me ... also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings. ... We’re sinful, and we’re flawed, and we make mistakes, and we achieve salvation through the grace of God. ... We can still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. So that’s what I strive to do and pray to do every day. ... I think my public service is a part of that effort to express my Christian faith.

But the one thing I want to emphasize ... as President of the United States, I’m also someone who deeply believes part of the bedrock strength of this country is that it embraces people of many faiths and of no faiths. This is a country that is still predominantly Christian, but we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own, and that’s part of what makes our country what it is.

Posted by Howard Friedman

Lucasfilm To Convert Star Wars Films To 3D; Episode One, 2012

I suppose it was only a matter of time. Lucasfilm Ltd. announced today that the Star Wars saga will be converted into 3D. Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace is expected to be the first 3D release sometime in 2012.

According to Deadline Industrial Light & Magic. will be supervising the conversion, with Visual Effects Supervisor John Knoll saying “it is not something that you can rush if you want to expect good results. For Star Wars we will take our time, applying everything we know both aesthetically and technically to bring audiences a fantastic new Star Wars experience.”

THR say that “each conversion takes at least a year to complete” and George Lucas will be “overseeing the process to make sure each is as perfect as possible.”

If Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace makes enough money they will continue with the Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith conversions, followed by the original trilogy.

Tea Party Time

by digby

What a morning. I had just finished reading Matt Taibbi's report on the Tea party before I read this:

As I've noted here, the impact of the Tea Party on the GOP and the broader political landscape is only beginning to be felt, and now the new NBC/WSJ poll finds that an astonishing 71 percent of Republicans describe themselves as Tea Party supporters.

Taibbi's take on the movement seems right to me except in two important respects. The first is that he completely leaves out the importance of Fox News in the building of this movement. It literally couldn't have happened without it, and the most powerful leaders of the group are creatures of the Murdoch media empire. He does discuss the corporate influence on the group through various other astroturf organizations, and a major thesis of the story is the fact that the Tea Partiers are deluded patsies for the corporate overlords, so that aspect of the story isn't missed. But the insidious Fox agenda is a story unto itself.

The other thing I think he missed was the merging of the Tea Party with the Religious Right. The Glenn Beck MLK day at the Lincoln Memorial was a sort of national invitation. It's necessary since the churches form the main grassroots organizing function for the GOP.

Jim DeMint signaled this a few months back:

David Brody: Are you concerned at all that some of the social conservative issues, abortion and same sex marriage, some of these other issues because they are taking somewhat of a back seat right now at least to the fiscal issues that there are some inherent problems for social conservatives in something like that?

Senator Jim DeMint: No actually just the opposite because I really think a lot of the motivation behind these Tea Party crowds is a spiritual component. I think it's very akin to the Great Awakening before the American Revolution. A lot of our founders believed the American Revolution was won before we ever got into a fight with the British. It was a spiritual renewal.

Senator Jim DeMint: I'm 'praying for you' comes up more than anything else in these crowds so I know there's a spiritual component out there.

Senator Jim DeMint: I think as this thing (the Tea Party movement) continues to roll you're going to see a parallel spiritual revival that goes along with it.

David Brody: Just so I understand, when you say spiritual revival how are you terming that? What do you mean specifically as in "spiritual revival?

Senator Jim DeMint: Well, I think people are seeing this massive government growing and they're realizing that it's the government that's hurting us and I think they're turning back to God in effect is our salvation and government is not our salvation and in fact more and more people see government as the problem and so I think some have been drawn in over the years to a dependency relationship with government and as the Bible says you can't have two masters and I think as people pull back from that they look more to God. It's no coincidence that socialist Europe is post-Christian because the bigger the government gets the smaller God gets and vice-versa. The bigger God gets the smaller people want their government because they're yearning for freedom.

So, within the Tea Party now you have the anti-government (for people they hate) obsessives, the Birchers, the gun fetishists, the neo-confederates and the social conservatives, with spillover between all of them. And the corporate leadership is bankrolling it, knowing that these folks are driven by tribal resentment (Taibbi's description of this is right-on) and are uninterested in their machinations. It's the GOP coalition. If I have any quibble with Taibbi it's the fact that he's so sanguine that these people can do no real mischief once in power. I think the corporate overlords have a tiger by the tail and will find it much harder to control it than they imagine. At the very least they are going to have to throw it a substantial amount of red meat to keep it placated. (I'm guessing it's going to have a lot of taco seasoning on it.)

The big question is, who are the 29% of Republicans who don't approve of the Tea Party? Mike Castle types who just haven't awakened to the radical takeover of their party? And will they keep voting Republican when Jim DeMint officially becomes the spiritual and intellectual leader of the GOP?

Terry McMillan and Ex-Husband Return to The Oprah Winfrey Show

Posted by TheSavvySista

Famed author Terry McMillan made a reappearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show yesterday along with her ex-husband, Jonathan Plummer.  McMillan who recently released Getting to Happy, which is the the follow-up to her bestselling book, Waiting to Exhale, appeared to have forgiven her ex.  Here is a snippet of what was said:

Terry said, "I wish I hadn't been so compelled to sue him and his attorney because the anger lingered and it wore me out."

She added, "I thought the more I hated him the more he'd suffer."

On their relationship now, Jonathan says, "Things are great!" while Terry quickly noted, "He's not my BFF." source

A lot of people also questioned why Terry couldn't see that Plummer was gay and here was her response:

In response to one viewer who wrote, "He wasn't down low, he was high low," McMillan answered why she didn't see the signs that her ex-husband was gay:

"Most people in love don't see a lot of things. He was one from another culture so I just thought there were certain things about his manners and things that he could and couldn't do that had a lot to do with him being from Jamaica. And plus he was young, very young."

Terry also said that he loved her and that, "He brushed my hair, massaged me, all kinds of wonderful things."

Interesting...

QUESTION:

Have you read Terry McMillan's new book, Getting to Happy?  If so, what did you think?  I've read it, but I would love to know your opinion about it.

Obama Now Listening To Nas & Lil Wayne

On the song “I Want To Talk To You”, Nas said he wanted to talk to the muthafuckin’ president. Well, it looks like he’s gotten a step closer. In the new issue of Rolling Stone, President Barack Obama says that he’s added Nas and Weezy to his playlist.

What music have you been listening to lately? What have you discovered, what speaks to you these days?

…Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president's personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I’ve got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert. Malia and Sasha are now getting old enough to where they start hipping me to things. Music is still a great source of joy and occasional solace in the midst of what can be some difficult days.

Bishop Eddie Long Accuser Jamal Parris Speaks Out; Remembers Pastor's Voice, Smell Of His Cologne [Video]

» by Danielle Canada

Jamal Parris Speaks Out Against Bishop Eddie Long.

Jamal Parris, one of the four men that have accused Bishop Eddie Long of sexual coercion, has spoken out for the first time.

Parris, 24, was contacted by FOX 5 I-Team reporter Dale Russell who traveled to Colorado in hopes of speaking with the oldest of Bishop Long's accusers.

Russell caught Parris leaving a local grocery late Sunday night and reports that while Parris was at first reluctant to speak, he eventually told a story of “love, anger, and desire to protect other young men.”
Parris told that Long became a “father-like figure” to him who lavished money, cars, jewelry and trips on his private jet, that eventually b turned him into a “slave“ to a man he loved.

"You finally have a father that you've always wanted for and always dreamed of," Parris said. "He would just walk away from you if you don't give him what he wants. So you end up turning into something you never thought you would be, which is now a slave to a man that you love."

“So, while the media and the rest of the people around the city, around the country look at us like how could grown men let another man touch him, what you have to understand is this man has manipulated us since childhood," Parris explained. "This was our father and we loved him."

He also denies allegations that he and the other three men are trying to blackmail the Bishop for money and calls the claims “ludicrous.”

“We would have to be the craziest kids in the world to want to come out and admit to another man touching on us publicly," said Parris. "To really believe this is about money would be absolutely ludicrous."

He also added one final shocking claim during the interview, detailing nights when he would cry and try to wash off the Bishop's scent after being abused.

“I cannot get the sound of his voice out of my head…I cannot forget the smell of his cologne.  And I cannot forget the way that he made me cry many nights when I drove in his car on the way home, not able to take enough showers to wipe the smell of him off of my body."

Check out the full interview courtesy of FOX 5 below.

Wayne Brady And Mike Tyson Just Smacked A B*tch With Some Bobby Brown

You probably thought there was no way anyone could top the video for Bobby Brown’s Every Little Step. Check out this Funny or Die version by Wayne Brady, Mike Tyson and Bobby Brown.

Every Little Step with Mike Tyson & Wayne Brady from Mike Tyson

Hopefully this starts a trend of former boxers remaking classic videos. Riddick Bowe would make a great Too Big MC (MC Hammer’s sidekick). Oscar de la Hoya would make a great Selena or Paula Abdul. There’s no way Goldie would turn down a chance to remake the video for Rush, Rush with Keanu Reeves.

A constructive approach to China’s currency

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill aimed at addressing China's currency practices. It is scheduled for a vote by the full House sometime this week. In hearings, Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) stated, "the status quo with currency imbalances is unacceptable and unsustainable." He argued that China's "mercantilist policies" distort trade and slow U.S. economic growth and job creation.

Levin had listed a number of potential policy responses. None of the remedies promise quick or significant relief to America's jobs deficit. A number of them risk serious side effects. The committee settled on one which may be more symbolic than potent. The bill seeks to increase the chances for American businesses to win tariff protection by treating China's currency policy as an illicit subsidy. The bill was watered down significantly so it would not run afoul of global trading rules.

The fundamental problem is a disconnect between U.S. policymakers' sense of what global rules of economic conduct ought to say and what they actually say. Two prominent examples of this disconnect can be found in the rules of the World Trade Organization: An agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures establishes the conditions under which a nation can retaliate against a trading partner's export-encouraging practices; Another specific provision -- Article XV -- says that exchange rate manipulation should not be used to frustrate the intent of the trade agreement.

These provisions form the basis of some of the most prominent U.S. plans for action against China. This week's House bill would let U.S. firms seek tariff protection from Chinese goods "subsidized" by an undervalued exchange rate. A WTO case on Article XV would take China to task for the trade distortions resulting from a misaligned exchange rate.

But the WTO does not allow retaliation against any and all subsidies. It sets some strict conditions on which ones are actionable. According to veteran international trade lawyers, there is serious doubt that a distorted currency would meet those conditions. Nor does Article XV offer much clarity about lines that cannot be crossed. In each case, there is an important gap between the rules as they stand and the rules as envisioned by China's U.S. critics.

With such a disconnect, there are three options. The United States government could pretend global rules read more favorably; it could ignore the rules and strike out, perhaps by imposing a broad unilateral tariff; or it could seek to modify the rules through negotiation. The first approach risks the appearance of flouting international agreements and sparking new trade conflicts. The second approach would leave no doubt about U.S. contempt for global accords and would risk destroying the rules-based multilateral trading system.

The remaining option, then, is to seek new agreement on proper international economic behavior. Fortunately, the groundwork for such an agreement is already in place. The Group of 20 leaders, meeting in Pittsburgh last year, endorsed a framework for "Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth." Earlier this month, John Lipsky of the International Monetary Fund said in a speech that, while there had been substantial "buy-in" to the idea of rebalancing, the plans that had been put forward to date fell short of what was needed.

While discussions of the principles undergirding the global economic system should be inclusive, the implementation problems are really the concern of a small number of large countries. This suggests a new solution. A G-20 Implementation Subgroup, consisting of the United States, Japan, China, and Germany, would be well-positioned to craft a more serious program than we have seen to date. Representatives of the European Central Bank and the IMF could also attend, given those institutions' relevant roles.

This should not be a meeting to talk down the dollar, nor to vent criticisms of China. Rather, the Subgroup would have a mandate to discuss the broad range of macroeconomic policies needed to achieve the kind of global rebalancing that meetings of the full G-20 have already endorsed. This would certainly include ways for China to address its unhealthy global surplus, but it would also include discussion of deficit reduction measures to reduce U.S. borrowing. If the subgroup meeting were held in January, it could take into account the recommendations of the U.S. bipartisan deficit reduction commission.

This approach has the virtue of engaging the key players in a multilateral discussion in a group sufficiently small that it might reach agreement on action. The multilateral approach is preferable to unilateral or bilateral pressure both in that the underlying problem is multilateral and in its avoidance of the kind of national rivalries that can emerge in bilateral discussions.

There are obvious potential pitfalls to such an approach. There could be a complete failure to reach agreement, for example. These are deep-seated problems that run up against serious domestic concerns. Or there could be ill-advised attempts at a quick fix, as some have characterized a previous effort at coordinated action, the 1985 Plaza Accord.

But the other options on the palette are unpalatable. There is a broad sense among U.S. policy folk (and some abroad) that bounds of proper international economic behavior have been crossed. The problem is that those bounds are not spelled out anywhere. This mix of ambiguity and discontent seems like a recipe for serious conflict. A meeting with a pre-set mandate to address imbalances would offer the best opportunity to defuse some of those festering tensions.

Posted By Phil Levy

Former NY official might plead guilty, bringing possible NM repercussions

Former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi is set to plead guilty to a crime in that state’s long-running pay-to-play criminal investigation, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
Hevesi’s name might not mean anything to New Mexicans, but his guilty plea could have repercussions here in the state.

New York’s ongoing investigation into Hevesi and how he ran that state’s comptroller’s office, which invests taxpayer money, has focused on how he and others in his office picked funds in which to invest and on several occasions the investigation’s trail led to New Mexico. The New York inquiry appears to have sparked the ongoing federal investigations into how New Mexico‘s investment agencies picked what funds to invest in.

So the question is, if Hevesi pleads guilty, what kind of cooperation, if any, will the former New York comptroller be required to give federal investigators currently looking at New Mexico’s state investment agencies? Maybe he has information. Maybe he doesn’t. Maybe no agreement like that will be struck. Only time will tell.


But if Hevesi does plead guilty as the New York Times is predicting people following the web of investment scandals stretching from New York to New Mexico and California will wonder what will be the next shoe to drop.

The Times notes the New Mexico connections with a small paragraph in its story:

The activities of Mr. Hevesi’s sons have also drawn scrutiny: investigators have questioned why an obscure firm operated by Daniel Hevesi was paid more than $1 million in fees for deals with pension funds in New York City and New Mexico, and whether any legitimate work was done for the payments.

Among the allegations listed in a criminal complaint issued by the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last year were that the founder of New Mexico’s former financial adviser, Aldus Equity, helped Dan Hevesi, the former comptroller’s son, win a lucrative contract in New Mexico for a firm he was representing in return for Aldus’ increased business in New York. At the time, Dan Hevesi was acting as a third-party marketer.

Hevesi received $250,000 in third-party marketing fees related to one New Mexico investment deal through the New Mexico State Investment Council, state records show.

Henry, “Hank” Morris, one of Alan Hevesi’s most trusted aides who was charged with 123 counts in New York’s criminal investigation last year, received at least $150,000 in third-party marketing fees related to New Mexico investment deals, the documents also show.

Aldus’ founder, Saul Meyer, pleaded guilty to securities fraud last year  in the New York criminal probe.
There are other curious New Mexico connections to the New York scandal.

David Loglisci, the former chief investment officer for New York state’s pension fund who worked for Alan Hevesi, pleaded guilty to securities fraud in New York earlier this year. You might remember Loglisci as the executive producer of a film shot in New Mexico titled “Chooch,” which was made by one of his brothers. The Albuquerque Journal’s Tom Cole wrote about this connection more than a year ago.  The movie featured, among other things, a nine-pound dachshund named Kiwi Limone.

Several prominent investors seeking pension fund business in New York put money into the movie-making effort, according to published reports.

It’s unclear how, if at all, Loglisci might have been involved with New Mexico’s investment agencies, however.

By Trip Jennings

Beastie Boys, LL Cool J Among 2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees

By Allen Starbury

This year's class of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees were announced this week, and it includes a very eclectic group of acts ... including two iconic hip-hop acts. Punk-inspired legends, the Beastie Boys, and LL Cool J and among the 15 acts on the 2011 nominees list, as well as rockers Bon Jovi, Alice Cooper, and crooner Neil Diamond, among others. 500 voters decide who gets inducted into the 2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Both LL and the Beasties have received previous nods without making it into the Hall. To be nominated, musicians have to meet the Rock Hall's standard induction requirement of releasing a first single or album at least 25 years prior to the year of nomination. With hip-hop just breaking into mainstream music in the early '80s, the genres presence on the esteemed list is scarce. The few hip-hop acts to be inducted include Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five in 2007, and Run-DMC in 2009 who were presented with the honor by Eminem during the induction ceremony. Inductees will be announced in December with the 26th Annual Induction Ceremony following in March 2011 at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City.

Al Qaeda would attack France, Germany and the UK

September 29, 2010.- The jihadists are planning to kidnap and kill Westerners citizens in similar attacks to those carried out against two hotels in the Indian city of Bombay, the BBC said.

The alleged plot by Al Qaeda, detected by Western intelligence agencies would be on cities of the United Kingdom, Germany and France.

Intelligence agencies to investigate both sides of the Atlantic, one of the most serious terrorist plots in recent years, the BBC said.

The plan is supposedly inspired by Al Qaeda leaders in hidden areas of Pakistan tribal areas and it is believed that it’s going to be based on the use of small teams of well-armed jihadists to act as commands.

The CIA stepped up its missile attacks on Taliban insurgents in Pakistan, precisely to thwart such suspected attacks by Al Qaeda, The Wall Street Journal said.

U.S. officials reported to The New York Times that “only this month twenty Predator missile attacks were carried out, more than double as the usual.”

France was at the highest level of alert in recent days, after security services received reports about Islamic terrorists, who were preparing an imminent attack on this territory.

The alert began after a group led by Al Qaeda in the Maghreb kidnapped five French citizens in the Arlit uranium mines in Niger, two weeks ago.

Avoiding Baby Momma Drama – The Hard Way ~ by DNLee of

“SouthernPlayalisticEvolutionMusic” [Essay]

 Avoiding Baby Momma Drama – the hard way by SouthernPlayalisticEvolutionMusic (DNLee) A few years ago I had a pregnancy scare. The three minutes one waits to see if there are two blue lines or one are long and scary. But before the outcome was known, I knew exactly how I felt about becoming a mother [...]

A few years ago I had a pregnancy scare. The three minutes one waits to see if there are two blue lines or one are long and scary. But before the outcome was known, I knew exactly how I felt about becoming a mother at that point in time, with that particular person. Regardless of the outcome, marriage was never on the table. It was a recreational relationship and he wasn’t much a catch in my opinion. Though, I was a far cry from where I wanted/needed to be, he just didn’t have his stuff together. It was in those moments of possibility that an image of my potential future flashed before me.

Anger and bitterness from futile attempts to get him to “do the right thing”. Resentment and hurt from being tethered to a man who did little to improve himself or help his offspring. Finally, shame. Shame from being interrogated by my teen age/young adult child (who I imagined would be highly intelligent and challenging like me) who would asked the obvious question – “What in the world were you smoking to have been with that fool?”

It was that last image that made it clear to me that it matters with whom and under what circumstances I have babies. It wasn’t that being someone’s baby Momma and not a wife, was problematic for me. No, it was my own selfish inclination to choose the best possible candidate to be my child’s father. I knew I had some great genes and smarts on my end. I didn’t want to flub all of that up with a crappy donor. Not anyone was good enough to be my brilliant children’s father. Moreover, my feminist sense of equity and fairness won’t let me rest easy knowing my children’s father isn’t capable or willing to do his fair share of the child-rearing, protecting, and providing.

Yeah, Old Boy was a Scrub. I knew that, but I saw no need to be tied down to him for the rest of my life. The quotable statistics say as many as 60+% of the black babies born in this nation are born to unmarried mothers. As important as this topic is, I don’t believe marriage is the panacea to this problem. I’m not anti-pre-marital-sex which some No Wedding No Womb bloggers obviously are. Neither am I a big pro-marriage person; but I do I believe in supporting the idea of emotionally and psychology healthy families. And I think that is the heart of this movement: Healthy Secure Adults Prepared for Parenthood.

I decided that I couldn’t bare/share children for/with a man who had – up until the point of conception – failed to demonstrate his capacity to be a good parent. And I was/am willing to take the necessary steps to live by this resolution. In essence, I decided that if necessary, I would exercise Post-copulatory or Cryptic Female Choice.

Like female moths or scorpionflies, I would selectively choose which male(s) will fertilize my eggs and which eggs I carry to full development and care for. And as much as this topic is sweeping the interwebz and the Black Blogosphere, most everyone is telling stories of love and compassionate sacrifice of matrimonial parenthood or the conscious decisions to love a child despite singleness. Who else is discussing the other reality: the right and responsibility to make some very, very hard decisions about unwanted/untimely pregnancies.

As much as No Wedding No Womb advocates for marriage before parenting, I contend it must also include:

educating and empowering young men and women to be sexually responsible; providing them every opportunity to embrace themselves sexually yet simultaneously provide them the tools to avoid pre-marture parenthood; and finally it must embrace and support women who decide not to have babies – after becoming pregnant.

Out-of-Wedlock Births: It’s Not Simply About Marriage & Baby Mamas

By Arielle Loren

Single Black childbearing woman. Unmarried Black woman birthing life. Queer (unwed) Black woman having or raising a child. Spinster Black woman adopting a young soul.

Figuratively, your wombs are on my mind, along with the wombs of the numerous other mothers who do not fit the first-comes-marriage-then-baby-in-the-carriage narrative.

The diverse experiences of Black female motherhood remain a hot topic in Black social commentary. Last week, an online viral campaign entitled “No Wedding No Womb” hit the blogosphere and Twitter community like a 2×4 appearing from the dark. Founded by relationships author and blogger Christelyn Karazin, the “movement” sparked a ton of controversy and, perhaps, some conversations that we, as a community, have become lackadaisical about having.  Good or bad, it is true that approximately 70% of Black children are being born out of wedlock. From the perspective of our parent’s generation, this is astonishing, yet it is a reality and something we ought to be discussing.  Although this online social blitzkrieg called for weddings and/or couple commitment before having children, the questions beneath the shouting and #NWNW Twitter bashing truly were the following:

“How do we create a healthy, cohesive environment where we can raise our young ones?” “How can Black women get the support they need as mothers: financially, emotionally, physically, etcetera?” “How can we as a community deliver a strong message that warns younger Black women that single mothering can be tough, and that waiting for a healthy marriage, or committed relationship, could perhaps serve their futures better?”

When I analyze a social issue, I don’t simply take things from the surface. The title,” No Wedding, No Womb,” is salacious, but the messaging of the 100+ bloggers who participated in the campaign were not speaking in one voice. They were conversing, challenging each other, and trying to promote why this was an important issue for our community to discuss because, in truth, we’re not doing well. Full disclaimer: I participated in the movement by critiquing its heteronormativity and I introduced into the conversation the politics of gay marriage.

I believe that healthy marriages can be one tool by which Black women can see social change. It’s not simply the marriage or commitment factor, though, that can solve our social ills. The problem is that Black women, particularly, face tough economic conditions, disheartening long-term relationship prospects, societal sexism, homophobia, not to mention the “Black card” that has ridden our skin since birth. There are several other oppressions that intersect with the ones above, but the main point is that we have the end of the stick at our feet. While we are not victims and instead claim ourselves as warriors, we are struggling—and healthy life partnerships could make our lives easier. One person cannot fight everything, all the time, everyday. Man, woman, or transgender, we need partners who want to support our life paths. Healthy marriages can be a strong answer to that plight.

Particularly from a heterosexual perspective, Black men do need to be brought into the conversation about our struggles. I don’t want to bash our men, but, truthfully, they’re not pulling the same amount of weight as we are as parents. Many of them are not there for our children: financially, emotionally, and physically. And these are not simply men who had children out of wedlock, this also can apply to divorced and separated fathers who had children within heterosexual marriages. Black women are the strong backbone of this community, married or not. We don’t need to be replaced in that capacity, but we do need more support. Healthy marriages or long-term committed relationships can give that support.

Children do thrive better under stability, and I’d argue that two parents can provide more support than one. This is not about bashing single mothers because actually they’re the larger population of contemporary Black parents. Many do just fine and will continue to raise their children to be successful young men and women. In the same way, I applaud single fathers, who are raising their children alone. I do not want to forget them because I’m sure that they have some valid contributions to this social conversation. Growing up under a single parent absolutely is not a death sentence, even if it may bring a unique set of challenges. There are other family members and community folks who step up to the plate to create the necessary team for raising a child. This support is imperative, not simply for single mothers, but for married/committed parents challenged by other social issues. Marriage and romantic commitment does not solely ensure a child’s success. Let’s be sure to discuss what other support mechanisms our community can bring to the table.

On the same-sex parenting side of things, homosexual couples have proven that they can raise cohesive families without a marriage certificate. Unfortunately, I would argue that a lot of this was not by choice, but circumstance. Yet, they have done it and continue to do it, proving that the marriage certificate is not a necessity for a commitment to each other as parents and to their children.

I do believe that healthy marriages are  powerful tools for building strong, committed relationships enabling parents to feel supported by each other and, thus, provide a stable household for children. I also think that wedding ceremonies are a beautiful celebration, especially if the marriages resulting from them transform into healthy unions. The celebration and subsequent healthy marriage can set a strong example of unity for the children in our community. Therefore, this is something positive and admirable to be promoting.

Ultimately, we’ve got to reshape the state of Black relationships, in addition to other social oppressions, if we’re going to set examples for our kids and provide them with better opportunities. Admittedly, healthy marriages are hard to come by, just like most non-marital relationships are not long lasting. There needs to be a stronger, more realistic conversation about what works to create stable, parental environments. This is not about judgment, and it’s unnecessary to throw darts at women who could be labeled as “baby mamas.” Not every woman is going to have her child inside wedlock, and this is something we need to acknowledge and factor into the conversation.

We may never go back to the days where weddings before kids were the norm. It’s not the end of the world, but it is a social change that needs to be dealt with in terms of how we become unified for our kids. We could try to go back to the old way of doing things—or we can try to come up with another solution. Regardless, we need to figure this out for our children, personal health, and overall community’s strength.

Don’t simply critique, help come up with intersectional solutions for our advancement. I don’t have all of the answers and perhaps you disagree with my analysis. That’s quite okay. I’m just thankful to be a facilitator of conversation and hope you’ll contribute your voice too.

Black Women and Marriage–A Dream Deferred?

Statistics show this, studies show that–blah, blah, blah; we know what it is, we live it everyday. So, why is the great “black women and marriage” debate still a topic for discussion? I guess, because we still aren’t getting married. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the ideology that there are no good black men left–as I glance over my left shoulder to the beautiful black man sitting beside me, I beg to differ; however, dare I say it, national statistics have shown that with higher incarceration rates and fewer black men enrolled in college, compared to black women, the pickings are pretty slim.

With that said, when I read some of these statistics, they are pretty alarming; for instance, within the last two generations, marriage rates for African-Americans have dropped significantly. Between 1970 and 2001, the African-American marriage rate dropped by 34 percent, compared to 17 percent in the general population. African-American women are also the least likely group to get married in the United States. Well damn!! And if we wed an African-American man, we have the highest divorce rate in the United States. Somebody stop the bus so we can talk about this!

Now, I’ve shared many o’ glasses of Reisling with my girls discussing this topic, and I must say we never seem to get to what the issue is. Are we as black women closing ourselves off to the possibilities of finding love outside of our race? Clutch recently did an article on interracial dating that got some mixed reviews and started some pretty heated debates–but for me the answer wasn’t clear. Are black women getting a bad rap? Are we not what’s hot on the street anymore? Let’s talk about it–because I want to know!

BY  Lovergirl

Amtrak Envisions High-Speed Rail For East Coast

PHILADELPHIA –  Washington to Boston in 3 hours? Amtrak wants to make it happen.

On Tuesday, Amtrak unveiled a $117 billion, 30-year vision for a high-speed rail line on the East Coast that would drastically reduce travel times along the congested corridor using trains traveling up to 220 miles (354 kilometers) per hour.

“Amtrak is putting forward a bold vision of a realistic and attainable future that can revolutionize transportation, travel patterns and economic development in the Northeast for generations,” said Amtrak President Joseph Boardman during a news conference at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia.

The proposal, which would require building a new set of tracks from Boston to Washington, D.C., is at the concept stage and there's no funding plan in place, Boardman said.

The project would likely use some combination of public and private investment and hopefully be phased in starting in 2015, he said.

GO HERE to read more.

47 Congressional Dems Break With Obama, Republicans Now Have Enough Votes To Extend Bush Tax Cuts To All

Posted By Pat Dollard.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Forty-seven House Democrats - enough to give Republicans a victory on taxes if the issue came to a vote - are breaking ranks with President Barack Obama by calling on party leaders to continue Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., have sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying they strongly support extending the current tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

“Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends could discourage individuals and businesses from saving and investing,” said the letter, dated Friday and released Tuesday. “We urge you to maintain the current tax rate for both dividend and long-term capital gains taxes.”

Tax cuts enacted in 2003 set the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends at 15 percent. Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and Obama wants to let the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends increase to 20 percent for individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000.
The letter shows that many Democrats, some of them vulnerable in the upcoming elections, are unwilling to follow Obama on taxes.

But if all 47 Democrats who signed the letter side with Republicans, they could prevail in extending the investment tax rates for all taxpayers, including the wealthy. The letter was signed by several vulnerable freshmen and members of the conservative Blue Dog coalition.

The letter highlights divisions among Democrats over their party’s message on taxes just five weeks before congressional elections in which Democrats will be fighting to maintain majorities in both the House and Senate. Some Democrats have decided it is better politically to distance themselves from Obama and Pelosi as they campaign to keep their jobs.

The letter also raises fresh doubts about how Congress will address the expiring tax cuts when lawmakers return to Washington for a lame duck session after the election.

The tax cuts on investments were part of a sweeping package enacted under President George W. Bush that lowered income taxes for families at every income level. All the tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress want to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000. Republicans and a growing number of rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them all - even those for the wealthy - at least temporarily.

Democratic leaders in Congress had been pushing for a vote to extend middle-class tax cuts before lawmakers go home to campaign for the Nov. 2 congressional election. But action on the tax cuts was postponed until after the election when Democrats could not agree on how to proceed.

Some Democrats are wary of supporting Obama’s plan to let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans, fearing they would be accused of supporting a tax hike. Other Democrats believe they have a winning message of fiscal responsibility while making the rich pay more after years of relative prosperity.

“It is imperative that the House of Representatives be given a chance to vote on the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the middle class before we adjourn,” Reps. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., and Mike Capuano, D-Mass, wrote in a letter to House leaders.

With no vote on the tax cuts scheduled before the election, Democrats are left writing letters to their leaders to publicize their positions.

“The speaker has stated clearly that Congress will extend middle-class tax cuts this year,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. “There is no question that Congress will do so.”

Republicans, meanwhile, say it is irresponsible for Democratic leaders to send lawmakers home without addressing the Bush tax cuts.

“I think it’s a dereliction of duty for Speaker Pelosi to adjourn this Congress without addressing the No. 1 question on the minds of Americans and small businesses, and that is, what’s my tax rate going to be?” said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.