Archive for the Science Category

Alfie, 13, not father of baby? Sex Education is Poor?

Posted in Comedy, Controversy, Diet, Education, Folklore, Food & Drink, Health and Beauty, Living, News Media, Politics, Religion, Romance, Science, Sex, TV, Urban Myths with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2009 by Richard James Clark II

Sex Education Is Poor?

Ok two headlines in the last two days about

A mother who finds out her twins have different fathers and a 13 year old-who was actually 12 years old (not much better really) finds out he isn’t a father to a 15 year old girl’s baby .

Now I am not a prude but what is f*cking going on?

Sex education in the UK is at a all-time low

We have every form of contraception in the Western Civilised world but people as young as 12 are pregnant.

In world wide cultures this can occur but it is not advised….but their are countries where they can’t even afford contraception and then this happens in countries which have a decent welfare/monetary system.

Read the latest headline-But I am not being snobby but the people who seem to be making the mistakes are the very poor and this has got to stop…they need to be educated or neuted (this is what you would do to animals!) even if it is advised on television or the welfare system doesn’t support this disgusting behaviour.

As frankly I am getting sick of this CRAP!

READ ON

Little Alfie Patten, reported to have become a parent at the age of 13, did not father a baby, it has been revealed.

In February, The Sun newspaper reported the teenager believed he had made Chantelle Stedman, 15, pregnant when he was aged just 12.

A DNA test has since shown this is not the case and it can now be reported that Tyler Barker, 15, who lives on the same estate as Chantelle in Eastbourne, is in fact the father of baby Maisie, who was born on February 9.

The result can be revealed after East Sussex County Council failed in an attempt to ban reports of the case.

A judgment, made last month by Mrs Justice Eleanor King, said Chantelle had been called a “slut” by four people she did not know. The teenager said “I was crying a lot every day” and feared that the insults would “go on forever”.

1629031842-alfie-13-father-baby

Alfie was “extremely distressed” when he was told he was not the baby’s father in March, the judgment revealed. At the time the story was published, Alfie, who lives with his mother Nicola, 43, in Eastbourne, said he “thought it would be good to have a baby”.

The story renewed calls for better sex education in England, which has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe.

But Now READ on about

A parent who gets banned from a swimming pool Breastfeeding her child-talk about double standards

Breastfeeding ‘broke no food rule’

A mother has been told to stop breastfeeding her baby boy by a swimming pool as it breached a leisure centre’s strict poolside ban on food and drink.

Laura Whotton was left fuming when a member of staff said she could not feed 11-week-old Joshua by the pool at John Carroll Leisure Centre, in Nottingham.

breas6

The 26-year-old, from Carrington, in the city, was feeding her hungry baby there so she could keep an eye on her son Thomas, four.

Nottingham City Council insisted there had been “a misunderstanding” and has promised to apologise to Ms Whotton.

It is also issuing new guidelines to its leisure centre staff.

A council spokeswoman said: “The rules are that there’s definitely no food and drink poolside, but breastfeeding is exempt from that rule. People can breastfeed anywhere.”

Ms Whotton told the Nottingham Evening Post: “When it happened, it made me feel angry.

“It could put people off going swimming and has made me not want to go to the John Carroll Leisure Centre again. But an apology would be fine.”

WHERE IS THE LOGIC

COMMENTS PLEASE-I CAN’T BE ALONE THINKING THIS IS WACK!

Advertisements

Dream Team or Redeem Team?

Posted in Basketball, Education, News Media, Science, Sport with tags , , , , on August 18, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

Well this subject I thought would come up soon

Friends of mine seem to think Kobe Brynat is better then Michael Jordan at his peak, however these people don’t know too much about basketball and clearly never saw Michael Jordan play…

In music terms it is like saying Usher is better then Michael Jackson, 9 out of 10 times you just don’t doubt the legend…

I mean when you watched either of these MJ’s no one competed period…

This is an edited article about the Dream Team 1992 Vs The Redeem Team 2008

Beijing 2008 Olympics, with each successive blowout, each complete manhandling of competition exponentially greater than Magic, Michael and Larry could have fathomed, the question about the current USA men’s basketball team isn’t about redemption, it’s about greatness.

As in, is this the greatest basketball team ever assembled? (In my opinion NO! Not enough great players!)

Could they even take the original Dream Team? (Again same answer)

Immediate reactions of blasphemy aside, the debate is certain to heat up if Team USA continues its blitzkrieg of the Beijing Olympics and wins the gold.

The level of competetion is up considerably compared to 1992 but at the same time there was some players at their peaks, Michael Jordan, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barklay,Clyde Drexler and each one of these is in the top 50 NBA players of all time, only Kobe from the current team has this accolade, also most of these players eventually won championships within their career or were extremely close..

The 2008 team play has been extraordinary, the defense suffocating and even the outside shooting precise. On top of its game, the 2008 team is a tour de force to behold, its 119-82 annihilation of world champion Spain being the finest indication that this, at the very least, is the best Olympic team since 1992. And that includes a rather dominant 1996 U.S. club.

“They wanted to show everyone they are superior, and they did,” shell-shocked Spanish center Pau Gasol said.

So this is the original Dream Team

1992 DREAM TEAM

Charles Barkley F 6-6 250 Phoenix Suns (He had just moved and obviously went on to win the MVP the next year!)
Larry Bird F 6-9 220 Boston Celtics (retired a year later)
Clyde Drexler G 6-7 222 Portland Trail Blazers (Just had played the Bulls in the Final)
Patrick Ewing C 7-0 240 New York Knicks
Earvin Johnson G 6-9 220 Los Angeles Lakers (Retired due to contracting HIV the year before, and wasn’t the player he was)
Michael Jordan G 6-6 198 Chicago Bulls (MVP, and basketball GOD!)
Christian Laettner F 6-11 235 Duke University
Karl Malone F 6-9 256 Utah Jazz
Chris Mullin F 6-7 215 Golden State Warriors
Scottie Pippen G/F 6-7 210 Chicago Bulls (came into his own during the last two years)
David Robinson C 7-1 235 San Antonio Spurs
John Stockton G 6-1 175 Utah Jazz

The new team

2008 REDEEM TEAM

Carmelo Anthony F 6-8 230 Denver Nuggets (lazy but talented)
Carlos Boozer F 6-9 258 Utah Jazz (interesting how Boozer and williams are like Stockton and Malone)
Chris Bosh F 6-10 230 Toronto Raptors
Kobe Bryant G 6-6 220 Los Angeles Lakers (the only player to compete with Michael Jordan apart from Lebron James)
Dwight Howard F-C 6-11 265 Orlando Magic
LeBron James F 6-8 240 Cleveland Cavaliers
Jason Kidd G 6-4 210 Dallas Mavericks (he should have not been in this team and where was Iverson?!?!)
Chris Paul G 6-0 170 New Orleans Hornets
Tayshaun Prince F 6-9 205 Detroit Pistons
Michael Redd G 6-6 215 Milwaukee Bucks
Dwayne Wade G 6-4 212 Miami Heat
Deron Williams G 6-3 205 Utah Jazz

Superior even to the original squad?

Here’s why the argument, first broached by Mike Vaccaro of the New York Post, is at the very least a valid one.

The 1992 team didn’t need to bring its “best” team to Barcelona to roll through the Olympics. USA Basketball selected it in part based on personality, marketing and even lifetime achievement.

But like i said before most players were at their peak, so that is a lame arguement really..

Magic Johnson had been retired for a year. The Larry Bird of ‘92 was long past his prime, six years removed from his final league most valuable player award.

John Stockton was chosen over Isiah Thomas because Michael Jordan didn’t want Thomas around (after his f*Ck of the NY Knicks who could blame him and the dirty Pistons! Dumas should have been in the team though).

Twelfth-man Christian Laettner, the NCAA player of the year, was selected as a nod to the past days of collegians representing the country.

Those four players averaged the fewest points on the team. Not that any of it mattered. The U.S. outscored opponents by an average of 43.8 points per game and became a phenomenon in the process.

In 2008 there is no such luxury, not with the improved play of the rest of the world.

The final players on the current U.S. team are Tayshaun Prince and Michael Redd. Prince is a defensive stopper with his pterodactyl-like wing span (and is one of the most underated palyers in teh NBA). Redd is a dead-on outside shooter (Another underated player).

All 12 of the current American players are either in their prime or about to enter it. This team is younger, quicker and certainly more focused, mostly because it needs to be, due to the level of the competetion.

Comparing results at these games is almost futile. The 1992 team could party the night away in Barcelona, roll out of bed and still win by 40. There have been no reports of such a thing here, where preparation is paramount.

“We realize that we made a sacrifice to come out here, and part of it is our bodies need to sleep,” said Carlos Boozer. “This is what we signed up for. Let’s go do whatever it takes to get it. If it takes leaving the arena at one in the morning to get the gold medal, we’ll [do it to] get the gold medal.”

The thing is, had they needed to be, the 1992 team would’ve been just as focused. Jordan would have assured that.

If anything tilts the balance forever in the original team’s advantage, it is MJ. In the summer of 1992, he was 29 years old and in the middle of winning six NBA championships and five NBA MVPs, numbers that could’ve been higher had he not chosen to play baseball for a season and a half.

He is undeniably not only the greatest player in the history of the game, but arguably its greatest crunch-time player and, along with Bill Russell, the best at simply finding ways to win. If it came down to a final shot, who’s betting against him?

The current team, as talented as it is, would have no logical answer.

Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, considered the three best players and outrageously gifted in their own right, are all a step down from MJ.

However, the idea of Kobe defending Jordan, his idol, would be intriguing.

Conversely, the 1992 team has nothing quite like the physical freak that is the 6-foot-8, 240-pound LeBron. Scottie Pippen on him would be a hellacious matchup, though.

As good as the perimeter talent on the 1992 team was – especially Jordan, Pippen, Clyde Drexler and knock-down shooter Chris Mullin – the current squad is deeper and certainly capable of its own fireworks.

It is inside where the 1992 team would hold a significant advantage and likely determine the game.

The Dream Team’s post combinations were breathtaking – Patrick Ewing and David Robinson at center and Charles Barkley and Karl Malone at power forward, all in their prime. The current group of Dwight Howard, a tender 21 years old, Chris Bosh and Boozer would be overwhelmed and perhaps systematically fouled out (But the strength of Malone and Barkley was a force to see, the 1996 team with Payton and Kemp only compared to Stockton and Malone ). Carmelo Anthony, an uninterested defender, would have to be counted on here to help (and would have failed!).

The only way for the current team to win would be to push the ball, score in transition and find a way to prevent the 1992 club from dumping it down low.

Could they do it?

The most difficult thing to determine is effort level. The 1992 team didn’t need it. This team is focused almost exclusively on it, especially on the defensive end.

“For 40 minutes we (want) to be nonstop movement and chaos,” said Chris Paul. “That’s what we try to do. We wreck havoc. Every time down we’re all over the point guards. Our big men are up, we’re not relaxing.”

In a single elimination game, that may or may not be enough.

“You will see a team of professionals in the Olympics again,” 1992 U.S. coach Chuck Daly said at the time, “but I don’t think you’ll see another team quite like this.”

If anything, you could argue that while the 1992 version may remain the greatest team ever assembled and one that would be favored in a hypothetical matchup, no team has ever played the game at a higher level than the current U.S. team.

‘Don’t Worry Be Happy’: happiness is key to longer life

Posted in Diet, Education, Food & Drink, Health and Beauty, Living, News Media, Politics, Romance, Science with tags , , , on August 14, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

The old saying keep on smiling and don’t let the bastards grind you down, well here is an article I read today I would like to share with you

Keep humming “Don’t Worry Be Happy”. The 1980s New Age-inspired hit got it right. New research shows being happy can add several years to life.

“Happiness does not heal, but happiness protects against falling ill,” says Ruut Veenhoven of Rotterdam’s Erasmus University in a study to be published next month.

After reviewing 30 studies carried out worldwide over periods ranging from one to 60 years, the Dutch professor said the effects of happiness on longevity were “comparable to that of smoking or not”.

That special flair for feeling good, he said, could lengthen life by between 7.5 and 10 years.

The finding brings a vital new piece to a puzzle currently being assembled by researchers worldwide on just what makes us happy — and on the related question of why people blessed with material wealth in developed nations no longer seem satisfied with their lives.

Once the province of poets or philosophers, the notions of happiness and satisfaction have been taken on and dissected, quantified and analysed in the last few years by a growing number of highly serious and respected economists — some of whom dub the new field “hedonics”, or the study of what makes life pleasant, or otherwise.

“The idea that there is a state called happiness, and that we can dependably figure out what it feels like and how to measure it, is extremely subversive,” says Bill McKibben in his 2007 book “Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future”.

“It allows economists to start thinking about life in richer terms, to stop asking ‘What did you buy?’ and to start asking ‘Is your life good?’.”

Growth in material wealth adds little to happiness once buying power hits 10,000 dollars a year per head, according to such research.

But happiness can be bolstered by friendship and human community, as well as larger social factors such as freedom, democracy, effective government institutions and rule of law.

In Veenhoven’s findings, published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, a scientific publication founded in 2000, the strongest effect on longevity was found among a group of US nuns followed through their adult life — perhaps reflecting the feel-good factor from belonging to a close-knit stress-free community with a sense of purpose.

While the lyrics from the Grammy-award 1989 “Be Happy” hit were inspired by popular Indian guru Meher Baba, nowadays, in more than 100 countries, from Bhutan in the Himalayas to the US and Australia, economists are working to put “happiness” indicators (a new kind of quality-of-life index) into the measurement of growth.

Happiness itself, according to the specialists, is generally accepted as “the overall appreciation of one’s life as a whole”, in other words a state of mind best defined by the person questioned.

In his paper, Veenhoven first looked at statistics to see whether good cheer impacted on the sick, but concluded that while happiness had helped some cancer patients suffering from a relapse, in general “happiness does not appear to prolong the deathbed.”

Among healthy populations, on the contrary, happiness appeared to protect against falling ill, thus prolonging life.

Happy people were more inclined to watch their weight, were more perceptive of symptoms of illness, tended to be more moderate with smoking and drinking and generally lived healthier lives.

They were also more active, more open to the world, more self-confident, made better choices and built more social networks.

“For the time being we know that happiness fosters physical health, but not precisely how,” he wrote.

“Chronic unhappiness activates the fight-flight response, which is known to involve harmful effects in the long run such as higher blood pressure and a lower immune response.”

To improve good cheer, he said, there needed to be more research on the impact of residential conditions or on the long-term effects of school on happiness. And studies on job-satisfaction failed to address the question of life-satisfaction at work.

But these findings, he said, opened new vistas for public health.

Governments needed to educate people in the art of “living well”, helping to develop the ability to enjoy life, to make the best choices, to keep developing and to see a meaning in life.

“If we feel unhealthy we go to a medical general practitioner,” he said. “If we feel unhappy there is no such generalist. We have to guess.”

“Professional guidance for a happier life is unavailable as yet. This is a remarkable market failure, given the large number of people who feel they could be happier.”

Some common fertility treatments are no more effective than leaving things to Mother Nature?

Posted in Controversy, Diet, Food & Drink, Health and Beauty, Living, News Media, Politics, Romance, Science with tags , , on August 8, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

Some common fertility treatments are no more effective than leaving things to Mother Nature, research suggested.

A study into the drug clomifene citrate and artificial insemination found that couples using either method did not have significantly higher chances of falling pregnant than those not having treatment.

Experts writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) said current guidelines needed to be reviewed in light of the findings.

One in seven couples in the UK experience infertility, with around a quarter of these having unexplained fertility. Interventions to help these couples have been used for many years in line with fertility guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice).

Unexplained fertility relates to couples who have had investigations which have failed to find abnormalities. These investigations may include semen analysis, checks on fallopian tubes and assessment of ovulation.

For the study, 580 women from four teaching hospitals and one general hospital in Scotland were divided into groups. All the groups were comparable in terms of age, body weight and the men’s sperm quality.

One group of 193 women were given advice on having sex regularly but left to try to conceive naturally. Another 194 women were given clomifene citrate, which is inexpensive and is believed to correct subtle ovulatory dysfunction.

The remaining 193 were given unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), which is thought to enhance the chance of pregnancy by overcoming the cervical barrier. All treatments were followed for six months.

At the very end of the study, there had been a total of 101 live births. There were 32 births among the 193 women trying to conceive naturally (17%), compared with 26 among those on the drug (14%) and 43 among those having insemination (23%).

Although those receiving insemination had a higher rate of pregnancy, the experts said this was not significant enough to be solely down to the procedure. To have a meaningful and significant improvement in the live birth rate, the difference would have to be much higher than the 6% reported in the trial.

World’s First Test-Tube Orphan?

Posted in Controversy, Health and Beauty, Living, News Media, Politics, Science with tags , on August 6, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

By Sky News SkyNews – Wednesday, August 6 09:34 am

A test tube baby in India may become the world’s first surrogate orphan after the Japanese couple who were to adopt her split up.

 

 

Ikufumi Yamada was due to adopt the girl with his then-wife Yuki Yamada but since their divorce she no longer wants anything to do with the child.

The law in India allows commercial surrogacy but does not allow single men to adopt.

This means Mr Yamada, 41, cannot take the baby from the hospital in Jaipur city, in western Rajasthan state.

Dr Sanjay Arya, who is caring for the baby, said the surrogate mother has also left the little girl, who is now being looked after by Mr Yamada’s mother.

“The grandmother becomes very emotional when she is told that the child cannot be taken out of India,” he said. 

“The lawmakers will have to find some solution for this.”

Without adoption papers, the baby girl cannot be issued a passport or leave the country, he added.

Experts say commercial surrogacy is growing in India. There are no exact figures but doctors work with surrogates in every major city.

The women are impregnated in-vitro with the egg and sperm of couples from all over the world who are unable to conceive on their own.

Surrogate mothers, often poor women with little education, earn around £2,500, plus all medical costs, for the service.

Most couples end up paying the surrogacy clinic about £5,000 for the entire procedure, including fertilisation, the fee to the mother and medical expenses.

She Hate Me-Spike Lee’s Most Slated Joint-But his best film…

Posted in Controversy, Education, Film, Health and Beauty, life, Living, News Media, Politics, Racism, Romance, Science, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on August 6, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

Okay for the record I have seen most of Spike Lee’s films so I maybe biased towards his work, I love that he does films independently and doesn’t care how controversial he is, it may seem strange but Barbara Steisand is the same with obviously different themes, weird comparison but nevertheless true..

She Hate Me is not the worse film of Spike Lee’s or generally , and unlike most critics and moviegoers state (check metacritic)

Even Peter Travers-Rollingstone slated this film and I usually like his reviews..

In my opinion this film is the best alongside Mo Better Blues, which people would argue about due to the love of Do The Right Thing….

So every 6 months I watch this film alone or with friends and last night for a change with my girlfriend, who loved the film by the way. So that is one person who at least agrees it’s a good film.

Like I said most people consider this film awful, but sometimes it is just not so easy to comprehend.

This involves alot of subjects which are tackled in this clever satirical way, I would love to interview Spike Lee about this film but I will have to wait and bide my time…

However this is my snopsis on the film and afterwards I would like you to check it out, rent it or borrow it, but give it back to the person who owns it (they probably like the film), and perhaps buy it from Amazon or buy the Spike Lee boxset for a reasonable price in the UK £20 for 9 films..

 

It’s safe to say that most people don’t like Spike Lee. He’s a radical, he can be seen as racist(bit far fetched i know but he has been accused of it), and a lot of people just don’t like his movies.

“Not another Spike Lee Movie?” Sigh, Huff, sulk that you can’t come up with better ideas.

I like most of Spike Lee’s films, they all have an edge to them only Bamboozled got abit jumbled near the end half an hour in my opinion, in some ways a film which was better done relating to the meida perhaps not racist but the infleunce was Network By Sidney Lumet . But as critics hate She HATE Me and moviegoers who like to write comments on blogs or film websites.

I believe most couldn’t handle everything that Lee (and co-screenwriter Michael Genet) put onto the plate, probably as they couldn’t be that pretenious about it.

There’s so much for Lee to rant on and make fun of that the movie occasionally can lag but this is not a disadvantage as it gives you time to reflect on previous points in the film.

Jack Armstrong (Anthony Mackie) is a VP of a pharamsuetical company and witnesses the suicide of his co-worker Dr. Herman Schiller and finds a CD with his co-worker confessing of the company’s (Progeia) wrong doings. Jack gets fired from his position as he witnesses shredding of evidence to not get impeached and his bank accounts are frozen (How he reacts at the bank to the manager is hilarious). He does what he has to do to live until his ex-boss Leland Powell (Woody Harrelson) finds out about it and get him on charges.

His ex-fiancée Fatima (Kerry Washington) and her lesbian lover Alex (the stunningly beautiful Dania Ramirez) gives Jack an offer he can’t refuse. He gets to impregnate (“the old fashion way”) women for $5000 each. He’s initially reluctant, but he decides to go ahead. Soon, Fatima brings a bunch of lesbians to his place, and from then he goes on to father 18 lesbians for the price of 10 grand each. Jack has morality issues to deal with, but also, at the same time his former company frame him for the corrupt business practices.

The saying SHIT HAPPENS applys here too much.

Also in the storyline is Monica Bellucci’s character get impregnated with her mob family knowing about it.

At the film’s climax, Armstrong’s situation is portrayed as a cause celebre, with protests being held in support of or against him, and the news media interviewing people on the street with respect to his sexual activities. Armstrong is called before a committee of the United States Senate investigating his alleged securities fraud, where both his services to lesbians and his relationship to the “Bonasera crime family” are raised.

Armstrong’s situation is compared, both by cutaway scenes and by direct reference in dialogue, to the plight of Frank Wills, the security guard who discovered the break-in that led to the Watergate scandal, which brought down President Nixon. He eventually wins the case and is seen with nineteen of the children he helped his lesbian acquaintances make at the end.

All of Spikes film’s go off the storyline and gives the audience a chance to know the characters.

But by the end of the film, you feel connected with Jack, Fatima, Alex and all the other characters surrounding them. Another thing that Spike did a good job on was the portrayal of lesbians. Unlike other films, “She Hate Me” doesn’t portray them as sex vixens who have nothing on their mind but sex. But as smart, intelligent and funny women that are concerned about family values and the society surrounding them, and maybe a little bit of sex.

She Hate Me” for me is one of the most entertaining of Spike’s, and during the aforementioned courtroom climax, you’re rooting for Jack, because you’ve been through what he’s been through. You recognized the cruelty of the company, so you feel with Jack, and because he’s such a normal character, you can go along with what he’s feeling and everything unfair that happens to him (which is a lot).

I can’t stress how interesting this film is but please open you mind and watch, it is unconventional…

Interracial marriages-How times change or do they?

Posted in Controversy, life, Living, Politics, Racism, Romance, Science with tags , , , , , , , on July 30, 2008 by Richard James Clark II

The article from Wikipedia, edited by myself…this is a long read and needs more information but for the average person this is detailed enough..

Term

Interracial marriage occurs when two people of differing racial groups marry. This is a form of exogamy (marrying outside of one’s social group) and can be seen in the broader context of miscegenation (mixing of different racial groups in marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations).

Now in the 21st Century it is more common for interracial marriages but at the same time their is a higher number of divorces then before.

Are the two linked? Could be? but perhaps not, however due to stats,these might not be highly accurate but interesting nevertheless.

I would like comments to this blog as I believe their is many unified comments on this subject aswell as against it…

Legality of Interracial Marriages

Now legal in most countries certain jurisdictions have had regulations banning or restricting interracial marriage in the past.

These included South Africa under apartheid; Germany in the Nazi period; and many states of the United States, particularly in the South. In both Nazi Germany and certain American states, such laws have been closely linked to eugenics programs.

The US has some interesting results and compared to the UK shows a uprise of these marriages..

In Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Gunnar Myrdal ranked the social areas where restrictions were imposed by Southern whites on the freedom of African-Americans through racial segregation from the least to the most important: jobs, courts and police, politics, basic public facilities, “social equality” including dancing, handshaking, and most important, marriage. This ranking scheme seems to explain the way in which the barriers against desegregation fell.

Of less importance was the segregation in basic public facilities, which was abolished with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

Statistics

The number of interracial marriages in the United States has been on the rise: from 310,000 in 1970, to 651,000 in 1980, and 1,161,000 in 1992, according to the US Census of 1993.

Interracial marriages represented 0.7% of all marriages in 1970, rising to 1.3% in 1980 and 2.2% in 1992. With the introduction of the mixed-race category, the 2000 census revealed interracial marriage to be somewhat more widespread, with 2,669,558 interracial marriages recorded, or 4.9% of all marriages.

It should be noted that these statistics do not take into account ethnic groups within the same broad categories – for example a marriage involving a person of Japanese origin and a person of Indian origin would not be considered ‘mixed’. Nor is hispanic(why is this term used? the polite word for SPIC!) status taken into account according to the “Census 2000 PHC-T-19. Hispanic Origin and Race of Coupled Households: 2000”. U. S. Census Bureau.

Married Couples in the United States in 2006

White Husband married a White Wife 50,224,000
Black Husband married a White Wife 286,000
Asian Husband married a White Wife 174,000
Other Husband married a White Wife 535,000

White Husband married a Black Wife 117,000
Black Husband married a Black Wife 3,965,000
Asian Husband married a Black Wife 6,000
Other Husband married a Black Wife 23,000

White Husband married an Asian Wife 530,000
Black Husband married an Asian Wife 34,000
Asian Husband married an Asian Wife 2,493,000
Other Husband married an Asian Wife 41,000

White Husband married an Other Wife 489,000
Black Husband married an Other Wife 45,000
Asian Husband married an Other Wife 13,000
Other Husband married an Other Wife 558,000

Some things I noticed which the articel elaborates on is the following

Now what interests me is the rate of Other Husband marrying a White Wife is higher then the two previous results of Black Husband married a White Wife, Asian Husband married a White Wife put together

Also double the amount of Black Males marry White Women then White Males marrying Black Women.

But even though interracial marriages are more accepted. White Males are 4 times likely to marry an Asian women then a Black women, the link between this I will read up on more. I have a theory but i would like to back it up

Based on these statistics:

Whites are the least likely to marry interracially, although in absolute terms whites are involved in interracial marriages more than any other racial group. 1.9% of married white women and 2.2% of married white men have a non-white spouse. 1.0% of married white men are married to an Asian woman, and 1.0% of married white women are married to a man classified as “other”.
3.7% of married black women and 8.4% of married black men have a non-black spouse. 6.6% of married black men, and 2.8% of married black women, have a white spouse. Only 0.1% of married black women are married to an Asian man, representing the least represented marital combination.

19.5% of married Asian women and 7.2% of married Asian men have a non-Asian spouse. 17.1% of married Asian women are married to a white spouse, and 3.5% of married Asian men have a spouse woman classified as “other”.

There is a notable disparity in the rates of exogamy by Asian males and females. Only 25% of Asian/white marriages involve an Asian male and white female, and only 15% Asian/black marriages involve an Asian male and a black female

Benefits of interracial marriage to the United States

All these quotes from After 40 Years, Interracial Marriage Flourishing”, Race & Ethnicity, MSNBC (2007-04-15). Retrieved on 2008-07-15.

“The racial divide in the U.S. is a fundamental divide. … but when you have the ‘other’ in your own family, it’s hard to think of them as ‘other’ anymore. We see a blurring of the old lines, and that has to be a good thing.” Michael Rosenfeld, Stanford University Sociologist

“I think the children of [interracial] families like ours will be able to make a difference in the world, and do things we weren’t able to do. It’s really important to put all their cultures together, to be aware of their roots, so they grow up not just as Swedish or Haitian or American, but as global citizens.” Michelle Cadeau

“[A]gainst the tragic backdrop of American history, the flowering of multiracial intimacy is a profoundly moving and encouraging development.” Kelley Kenney, Kutztown University Professor

Interracial marriage by pairing

Native American and Asian

Filipino Americans have frequently married Native American and Alaskan Native people. In the 17th century, when Filipinos were under Spanish rule, the Spanish colonists ensured a Filipino trade between the Philippines and the Americas. When the Mexicans revolted against the Spanish, the Filipinos first escaped into Mexico, then traveled to Louisiana, where the exclusively male Filipinos married Native American women. In the 1920s, Filipino American communities grew in Alaska, and Filipino American men married Alaskan Native women. On the west coast, Filipino Americans married Native American women in Bainbridge Island Washington.

There was a frequency of racial intermarriage between Japanese Americans and Cherokee Indians in California during the 1930s, since these ethnic groups were introduced or hired as farm laborers and they had been in high contact with each other.[citation needed] “[W]hile in the 1920s Japanese men married Eskimo women throughout western Alaska

Asian and White

Marriages between whites and Asians are becoming increasingly common for both genders (Lange, 2005). In 1990, about 69 percent of married 18-30 year-old Asian women were married to Asian men, while 25 percent of married Asian women had white husbands. In 2006, 50 percent of American-bred Asian women were married to Asian men, while 41 percent of American-bred Asian women had white husbands. 60 percent of American-bred Asian men were married to Asian women, while 30 percent of American-bred Asian men had white wives (2006 U.S. Census Bureau). C.N. Le estimated that the gender gap is smaller among the American-born or 1.5 generation Asian Americans.

Asian Americans of both genders who are U.S.-raised are much more likely to be married with whites than their non-U.S.-raised counterparts. Not all Asian ethnicities have similar intermarriage patterns, for instance, South Asian Americans were overwhelmingly endogamous, with a small amount of outmarriage to other ethnic groups.

The interracial marriage disparity for South Asian Americans was low with outmarriage to whites slightly higher for Indian American males whereas all other major Asian groups had more outmarriage for women. A 2001 U.S. national survey conducted by Yankelovich Partners in collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League indicated that 24% of the respondents disapprove of marriage with an Asian American.

Black and White

Although mixed-race partnering has increased, the United States still shows disparities between African American male and African American female endogamy statistics. The 1990 census reports that 17.6% of African American marriages occur with White Americans. Yet, African American men are 2.6 times more likely to be married to White American women than African American women to White American men.

In the 2000 census, 239,477 African American male to White American female and 95,831 White American male to African American female marriages were recorded, again showing the 2.5-1 ratio. In 2007, 4.6% of married African Americans were married to a white partner, and 0.4% of married White Americans were married to an African American.

Asian and Black

With African Americans and Asian Americans, the ratios are even further imbalanced, with 59.8% more Asian female/Black male marriages than Asian male/Black female marriages. However, C.N. Le estimated that Asian Americans of the 1.5 generation and of the five largest Asian American ethnic groups had black male/Asian female marriages 27.2% more than Asian male/black female relationships. Even though the disparity between Black and Asian interracial marriages by gender is high according to the 2000 US Census, the total numbers of Asian/Black interracial marriages are low, numbering only 0.22% percent for Asian male marriages and 1.30% percent of Asian female marriages, partially contributed by the recent flux of Asian immigrants.

Historically, Chinese American men married African American women in high proportions to their total marriage numbers due to few Chinese American women being in the United States.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, many Chinese people immigrated to the American South, particularly Arkansas, to work on plantations. The tenth US Census of Louisiana counted 57% of interracial marriages between these Chinese Americans to be with African Americans and 43% to be with White American women. After the Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinese American men had fewer potential Chinese American wives, so they increasingly married African American women on the West Coast[13]. In Jamaica and other Caribbean nations as well many Chinese males over past generations took up Black female wives gradually assimilating or absorbing many Chinese descendants into the black community or the overall mixed-race community.

Native American and White

The interracial disparity for Native Americans is low. According to the 1990 US Census (which only counts indigenous people with US-government-recognized tribal affiliation), Native American women intermarried white Americans 2% more than Native American men married White women.

Historically, in Latin America, and to a lesser degree in Anglo America, these groups have intermarried at very high rates. Many countries in Latin America have large Mestizo populations and in many cases mestizos are the largest ethnic group in their respective countries.

Marriage squeeze

A new term has arisen to describe the social phenomenon of the so-called “marriage squeeze” for African American females.

The marriage squeeze refers to the belief that the most eligible and desirable African American men are marrying non-African American women, leaving those African American women who wish to marry African American men with fewer partnering options. According to Newsweek, 43% of black women between the ages of 30-34 have never been married. Several explanations of this phenomenon have been advanced.

It may be due to the lingering effects of social ostracism to which white American men who married African American women were subjected in the past. A 2006 survey found that the number of white Americans would consider marrying across the colour line is one in five.

It may also be the result of a desire among African American women to marry African American men due to concepts such as racial loyalty, and the internalized stereotypical belief that non-African American men would not find them attractive. There is also the lingering belief that negative social stereotypes preclude them being viewed as anything but sexual objects by non-African American men.

Lastly, there is a desire among educated women of all races to “marry up” or at least within their social and economic class. Some claim that black women often face either “marrying down” or not marrying at all, when they choose to restrict their marriage prospects to African American men. Also, rates of incarceration for marriage age African American males are far higher than rates for females, further contributing to the male/female gap. As of 2002, 10.4% of all black males between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison.

The African American male-female disparity is highest between the ages of 25 – 29, when for every two African American men there are nearly three African American women.

Immigrants and interracial marriage

Racial endogamy is much stronger for immigrants as compared to natives. Immigrants of African descent are 4.9 times more likely than African Americans to marry interracially.[citation needed] Additionally, immigrants of African descent have the highest rates of endogamy of immigrants.

Also, African immigrants are much more likely to marry other same-race immigrants and African Americans, than to out-marry racially. Native-born white Americans are also 1.6 times more likely to marry a native-born black American than an immigrant of African descent. Female immigrants of African descent are generally more likely to marry native-born whites than their male counterparts.

Interracial marriage versus cohabitation

Rates of interracial cohabitation are significantly higher than those of marriage. Although only 7 percent of married black men have white wives, 13 percent of cohabitating black men have white partners. 25 percent of married Asian women have white spouses, but 45 percent of cohabitating Asian women are with white men—higher than the percentage cohabitating with Asian men (44 percent).

These numbers suggest that the prevalence of intimate interracial contact is greatly underestimated when one focuses only on marriage data.

Now for other countries apart from the US and some interesting factors occur..New Zealand for example doesn’t even record inter-racial marriage data..

Canada

“Canadians do appear more accepting of interracial relations than Americans. According to a poll in the mid-1990s, 87% of Canadians approved of marriages between whites and minorities. While this survey didn’t specify the respondents’ race, another conducted ten years earlier with French Canadian whites showed 88% to be in favor of black-white marriages” Emily Monroy-Race and Interracial Marriage, Canadian Style”. Urban Mozaik (2002). Retrieved on 2008-07-15.

Africa

Indian men have married many African women in Africa. Indians have long been traders in East Africa. The British Empire brought workers into East Africa to build the Uganda Railway. Indians eventually populated South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Rhodesia and Zaire in small numbers. These interracial unions were mostly unilateral marriages between Indian men and East African women

Australia

In 2005 there were slightly more marriages by Australian resident women (13,079) to foreign born partners than Australian resident men (12,714). Australian born males and female residents who married that year were most likely to have married an Australian-born partner (84.1% of marriages involving Australian men; 83.7% of marriages involving Australian females). Male Australian residents who were born in China and were married in 2005 were least likely to have married an Australian-born resident (only 3.1% of marriages involving a Chinese born groom were to an Australian-born bride).

Female Australian residents who were born in Vietnam and were married in 2005 were least likely to have married an Australian-born resident (only 15.7% of marriages involving a Vietnamese born bride were to an Australian-born groom). Only 8.8% of males, and 11% of females, who were American born, Australian resident and married in 2005, married another person from the United States.

In terms of variance between brides and grooms from particular countries in marrying native Australians, 36.7% of brides but only 7.9% of grooms born in countries defined as ‘North Asia’ (Japan and Korea) who married in 2005 did so to an Australian-born partner. Conversely, 64.1% of grooms but only 43.8% of brides born in Lebanon who married in 2005 did so to an Australian-born partner[24].

Japan

In 2003 there were 36,039 international marriages between Japanese and non-Japanese in Japan – about one out of twenty marriages. About 80% of these interracial marriages involved a Japanese male marrying a foreign female (predominantly Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Thai and Brazilian), and 20% involve marriage to a foreign husband (predominantly Korean, American, Chinese, British and Brazilian).

South Korea

International marriages now make up 13 percent of all marriages in Korea. Most of these marriages are unions between a Korean male and a foreign female (mostly from Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and China) [26].

New Zealand

Interracial marriage has been common in New Zealand since the first full-scale contact between Maori and Europeans in the early 1840s. Racial mingling has been so extensive that most Maori are now of mixed blood. Statistics are not available, because the government does not keep statistics on interraccial marriage or the “percentage” of a person’s ethnic makeup.

United Kingdom

United Kingdom Census 2001

As of 2001, 2% of all UK marriages are interethnic. Despite having a much lower non-white population (9%), mixed marriages are as common as in the United States[27]. New Studies are being conducted by London South Bank University called Parenting ‘Mixed’ Children: Negotiating Difference and Belonging. Two sources this information comes from

Smith, Laura (2007-09-26). “Mixed Matches”, Society, The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-07-15.

Caballero, Chamion; Edwards, Rosalind. “Cultures of Mixing: Parents from Different Racial, Ethnic and/or Faith Backgrounds”. London South Bank University. Retrieved on 2008-07-15.

Interracial marriage disparities for certain groups

According to the UK 2001 census

Black British males were around 50% more likely than black females to marry outside their race, whereas British Chinese women (30%) were twice as likely as their male counterparts (15%) to marry someone from a different ethnic group. Among British Asians, males were twice as likely to have an inter-ethnic marriage than their female counterparts.