Blowing Up the Senate Over Photos

Just noting that KT’s headline would have fit this post.

Regardless of the subject matter, we’ll have broken government as long as one or two senators can stymie any and all action merely by stating willingness to invoke a procedural rule. I say let ‘em put on their best Jimmy Stewart and see how long they can last on the floor.

So….are you going to give us a quote from anyone who opposes the legislation?
.
I mean you have Pelosi in there but she doesn’t really explain why the ACLU and the progressives hate the amendment.

Don’t they understand that surppressing these photos causes it’s own problem? Forever after you will have speculation on what was so terrible that the U.S. Government couldn’t risk having these additional photos be shown. That in itself will be used as a propaganda tool. Obama has stated that the photos show “nothing new”. Well then fine, if we have already seen the worst then releasing these shouldn’t be as big an issue as some say. It’s only when you hide them that people really start to wonder.

I’m just saying that fundamental journalistic integrity would seem to dictate that you should present both sides fairly here, which you clearly haven’t.

Suppression of the fotos will inflame more than release of them, because they are known to exist. Our patriot Sen. Herr Lieberman (the one causing international damage from our country, not the one doing damage from Isreal) is clearly a fruitcake.
.
My own preference is to release the fotos in open court during prosecution of those responsible for the heinous acts.

Actually, I highly doubt suppression would inflame more than actually releasing the photos at this point. There’s a huge difference between hearing about the Holocaust or Hiroshima, and actually going to the museums and seeing the displays/pictures/accounts there. It’s the human element – huge difference between hearing about vs. seeing a kindergartner’s nuked lunchbox on display.
.
I have little doubt the photos will be released eventually, probably around the time we get out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Does that make the original suppression justified? Not necessarily. Then again, I doubt any of us calling for the full disclosure are being shipped out to that part of the world. We can claim the principle of the matter all we want, but at the end of the day I’m sure anyone hiding from an axe-murderer wouldn’t want Kant answering the doorbell.

In the IT business, we call this “security through obscurity,” and any IT guy / gal worth their salt will tell you, categorically, that it’s _not_ a useful form of security.
‘
Additionally, the bad guys don’t need these photos for recruiting. They have a multitude of people who have lived in hellish conditions, for years, from which to pick. I don’t know what images these photos portray, but this notion that we’re somehow safer from them is utter BS. Were we not able to handle the photos from My Lai? Let us decide that. I don’t need or want Obama as a “big brother” protecting me from harm.

redraven, I heartily disagree. Ship me over, no problem, release of fotos or not. The claim of danger to our soldiers from release of the fotos is phoney, false, empty, hallow, bs, when it is common knowledge that extreme abuse has occured, and may still be occuring, rendering the point of our effort in defense of the Constitution the same phoney, false, empty, hollow, bs.

“Just noting that KT’s headline would have fit this post.”
.
Jay-thank you the first casualty of war is truth is much more apt for this one.

Froomkin: “Obama’s approach to disclosure issues is turning out to be profoundly schizophrenic. On national security issues, Obama has been intensely disappointing. Most notably, I now consider him a willing and active partner in the cover-up of the Bush torture legacy.”

There San Fran Nan goes again, showing her patriotism. American lives are at stake, and San Fran Nan wants to roll the dice.
.
Guys, history shows, repeatedly, that propaganda matters. You guys think that republicans are so stupid, that we fall for every dumb thing that Rush says, etc. Well, release the photos is an interesting idea from people who think that millions of their fellow citizens are dupes. Certainly, others in the world may be easily misled. And let’s not forget the lives of those recruited into these jihadist groups. Some 17 year old kid, duped into joining, gets thrown up against experienced, professional soldiers who have huge advantages in materiel and equipment. These dupes drop like flies. While I don’t exactly weep for them, I’d prefer that they live to an older, hopefully more wise age.
.
Guys, patriotism doesn’t require unquestioned chauvinism, but it also places limits on the sackcloth you want to put your country in.
.
As for My Lai, guess what Nice Guy, we did “handle the photos”. But My Lai also was part of a malaise that caused us to lose the Vietnam war. Now maybe that’s cool with you, but a hell of a lot of people died or suffered greatly because we lost that war.

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the patriots in here will acknowledge that Hue was far worse than anything we did in Vietnam, both in terms of scale and in terms of command direction.

formerlyjames, the “Herr” Lieberman comment is anti-Semitic–I would ask that the moderaters remove the comment.

“I would ask that the moderaters remove the comment.”
.
Spob-I don’t think the moderaters cleared the last round of layoffs.

As for My Lai, guess what Nice Guy, we did “handle the photos”. But My Lai also was part of a malaise that caused us to lose the Vietnam war. Now maybe that’s cool with you, but a hell of a lot of people died or suffered greatly because we lost that war.
.
So you’re saying that the problem wasn’t the massacre, but the fact that decent people were properly horrified at it when they found out?
.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the patriots in here
.
Real patriots love their country even when it does something stupid and wrong.

Real patriots love their country even when it does something stupid and wrong.
-
Sorry to interject, but personally, I feel that should read “Real patriots love their country by noting when it does something stupid and wrong, and wanting to make sure it doesn’t do it again.”
.
My country, right or wrong: to support when its right, to fix when it’s wrong.

Absolutely right, kryptik. Thanks!

The photos must be hidden because ‘American lives are at stake…’ ??
.
Don’t ever forget: We wouldn’t be in this situation if the gopers hadn’t decided to put us here. If Bush, Cheney, and their apologists hadn’t decided to violate US law, international law, and the norms of morality and human decency we wouldn’t have this problem.
.
The photos depict behavior that Lieberman, Graham, and other gopers are unwilling to outlaw, but are also unwilling to acknowledge. They claim that letting the world see the behavior that they continue to defend will put ‘American lives at stake’. But they’re unwilling to outlaw the behavior to avoid putting American lives at stake again in the future.
.
It’s time for the torture apologists to finally admit that this behavior has not only been ineffective and immoral but also damaging to our national interests.
.
Personally, I’m terribly conflicted about releasing the photos. But I detest the fact that Bush and the gopers put me (and the country) in this position.

which is that those photos will go up on violent Islamist, extremist Web sites
.
Of course maybe we should have thought of that before we started encouraging soldiers to think of the Iraqis as subhumans. If we’re going to change laws simply to nullify court rulings we don’t like, why don’t we simply amend the Constitution so the Military never has to answer to anybody for anything?
.
Then from then on we can simply trust it to always do the right thing because it’s in its nature. That’ll work!

Further to the Friar’s point, Spob, are you saying we could’ve “won” in Vietnam if folks back home hadn’t known what was actually going on over there? I’m not sure that’s the kind of “victory” I’d relish. I can just imagine the kinds of dirty, rotten things our leadership would try, if they thought they could get away with it. Oh, wait – didn’t Bush just lead us down that road? Aren’t these pictures a result of that?

And if you guys want to see something really hysterical, this was posted yesterday
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Transparency-Access-to-Information/
.
Hypocrisy, It’s not just for Republicans anymore!

spob:
.
a malaise that caused us to lose the Vietnam war
.
What? Are you serious?
.
Come on, dude. You don’t really believe that Rambo nonsense, do you?

spob:
.
the “Herr” Lieberman comment is anti-Semitic–I would ask that the moderaters remove the comment
.
How so? How is that possibly anti-Semitic?

Cliff:” .. So why the constant surprise that there are civilians around?

The surprise is not only because there are kids around and they were killed: We know that most, usually over 80%) of those who die in wars are civilians. The surprise is that we would do likewise – and cannot fully convince our vestigial conscience (and especially our whiny, bleeding-heart libruls) that, unlike the bad guys, it is OK for us, the good guys, to kill those kids.

Lindsey Graham lied to the Supreme Court.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
You think such an egregious and damaging detail about his professional conduct might be important to mention so that your readers can decide whether his arguments have merit or not.

And it doesn’t make it any better is the said libruls keep on pointing out our blithe hypocrisy.

2 points:
.
First: Let’s keep in mind the president this would set. A Federal court has ruled that these photos fall under the FOIA and that they must be released to the public. The Obama administration and Sens. Lieberman and Graham are trying to circumvent the law. They say: we don’t like this law so we’ll create a new one -not acceptable. How can we have accountability in our government if there is no transparency? How can this shameful attempt to ignore the FOIA not lead to future abuses? This is the worst type of rationale from the Bush/Cheney era. They’re using fear to erode the rule of law.
.
Second: The argument that disclosure will harm our troops is weak sauce. Don’t commit the atrocities in the first place. They happened. Would we anger those who oppose us more by admitting our failures or by covering-up the crimes? The best way to prevent future inflammatory abuses is to hold those who have committed them accountable. The ONLY way to show the world that we’re ready to move on is full disclosure.
.

If Spobosity were in charge:
~

.
Consider the right wing point men on this issue: Lindsey² and Holy Joe.
.
If that isn’t enough to convince Obama and/or the people who voted for him (I am one of those) that this amendment is an immoral disaster, what would?
.
² What Pafro said at Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 8:51 pm
~

Glenn Greenwald:
.
(The) critical issue here is whether the President should have the power to conceal evidence about the Government’s actions on the ground that what the Government did was so bad, so wrong, so inflammatory, so lawless, that to allow disclosure and transparency would reflect poorly on our country, thereby increase anti-American sentiment, and thus jeopardize The Troops. Once you accept that rationale — the more extreme the Government’s abuses are, the more compelling is the need for suppression — then open government, one of the central planks of the Obama campaign and the linchpin of a healthy democracy, becomes an illusion.
.

The 5th Dimension was prescient: Let The Sunshine In.

What Cliff said @#3. Greenwald’s quote above (and possibly a half-dozen others I could find in five minutes) better frame the argument against more than a paragraph of scaremongering blather from Nelson and Lieberman. Why is it we never hear those?
.
Too bad. Otherwise you had a decent post about something important going.
.
One more thing. If we want to stop radicalizing people, perhaps we should stop bombing them into smithereens at their weddings. And, if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Joe Lieberman a big advocate for the biggest Al Qaeda recruiting tool ever devised: The Iraq War?

formerlyjames, the “Herr” Lieberman comment is anti-Semitic–I would ask that the moderaters remove the comment.

I agree with Herr Spob . . . the moderators better start cleaning up the rhetorical genepool around here. Some of you clowns are obviously not part of the commentorial master race, and your posts should be sent to the camps!

Irony, anyone?

I was away for a while, but let me now answer the allegation that my “Herr Lieberman” comment was anti-Semitic. It was not, despite the reference to the Isreali fascist zionist Lieberman. It was meant to be anti-Fascist.

vast, irony noted, thank you.

I do apologize to any Germans offended by my twisting of your common and proper title.

From a New Yorker article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/12/070212fa_fact_goldberg
A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”
How many ouf you have sat through a crappy movie and yelled “yeah” and “all right”? These are not serious people.

formerlyjames Says:
~
“I do apologize to any Germans offended by my twisting of your common and proper title.”
~
As a 3rd-generation German immigrant, I am deeply offended F-James. How dare you! In fact, I think my mental trauma is on par with what blacks suffered pre-emancipation or the Japanese Americans during their stay in US guest camps. Inside joke (for those who didn’t witness Neo’s inanely relativist thought-stream yesterday).

And might I just add that I’m thrilled to return to the classroom in a few moments, when the Magic-Lake Show is tight in the 4th qtr!
~
I try in vain to reason with these school administrators, about how their schedules interfere with my blog participation and sports viewing, but they just won’t listen. But when it’s their beloved Japanese athletes trying to win the World Baseball Classic, everyone can take a f’ing sickday!

I was not going to participate in this thread until I saw that jcapan was taking cheap shots at me and grossly mischaracterizing my point of view on a post that I am not involved in…
.
Jcapan,
For the last time, not once did I equate Italian-American discrimination with the injustices of slavery, in fact, I did quite the contrary in repeatedly expressing the fact that the 50 years of institutionalized racism against Italians paled in comparison to the atrocities perpetrated against blacks in America for several hundred years.
.
What I was attempting to convey, and did so on numerous posts, was the reality that it was not only non-whites who have been subjected to discrimination by the US government and American society. There are waves upon waves of immigrant populations who have been mistreated, oppressed, shunned, and discriminated against. The reason I took the issue to heart for so long yesterday was first, I am Italian and have heard first hand from my grandfather about what he endured, and second that Shepherd made the outlandish comment that my bringing up discrimination of Italians in some way was a slight at the “real” victims of racial prejudice in American history. His capricious denial that anything ever occurred to Italians was quite patently offending…
.
But I would expect nothing more from you, jcapan, than to twist my words while I am away, being the vicious ideologue that you are. Its much easier to simply discredit my point of views and manipulate my words into something bearing no resemblance to what I actually said, than for you to simply accept that from time to time I may say something that is not outlandish or contrary to your convictions. But in doing so, you would lose an opportunity of character assassination of a conservative poster who frequents these treads. You simply cannot allow anything to be said that doesn’t come off as extreme right-wing propaganda, so you mischaracterize it later in such a way. Nor could you bear to not take the side of your fellow ideologue, Shepherd, who made a ridiculous backtrack from his earlier statement about American prejudices by denying that Italians were subject to any discrimination…
Ci sara guerra sempre tra ideologhi…

This is about my government censoring what I can see as a citizen.
Just like China and its internet blockers. How are we better?

If the government can censor us, by hiding the crimes it has committed from its own citizens, then we are no longer a democracy – because democracy’s are defined “as controlled by informed citizenry — if we don’t see the pictures we are not informed of what our government has done in our name, we don’t know what we are responsible for.

As for upsetting Arabs or other folks, that is a red herring, to hid the fact(to justify) that the government is censoring information to its own citizens. Look people stop being distracted by bright, and shiny… YOUR government is censoring information for you — protecting you from information about what it is doing in your name. That is the only issue. Everything else is OZ behind the mask.

I’ll play nice and just call lieberman a MF’er.

lokhupbafa: Just like China and its internet blockers. How are we better?

Aha! A good question is the beginning of all understanding, so it may be said.
You are getting a handle on this hypocrisy/duplicity thing which has been with us from the beginning – and has been keenly honed by the neo-cons. Do you remember the “ALL men are born equal .. liberty and pursuit of happiness” piety as said by a slave owner? That’s it.

Ci sara guerra sempre tra ideologhi…
~
Is that Italian for “I can’t see the forest for the trees”? or is it merely, “With love, obtuse”?
~
I don’t know N-R, I must have some sort of man-crush on ya, b/c I almost never antagonize commenters. There’s just something about your diamond tiara and the way you blush that I find irresistable.

[...] voted down.  Meanwhile, in the Senate, “GOP Joe” Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham say they will fillibuster EVERYTHING unless the Senate refuses to release the photos.  The more I think about this, the more I believe [...]

What’s the risk? The risk is really a certainty, which we know from the past, particularly after the photos of horrid behavior at Abu Ghraib were made public, which is that those photos will go up on violent Islamist, extremist Web sites,” Leiberman told reporters Tuesday.”
.
Sure would have been nice if a reporter had asked Lieberman what the risk is to our country to continuely allow the government to pass laws after the fact to cover up its crimes. How long can we the people expect this retroactive passing of laws to circumvent prosecution of laws already on the books to continue and how far should it extend?
.
What would his response be if state and local governments decide to change their laws retroactively to cover up past violations by their officials on the premise that while the conduct was horrid, exposing it is much more dangerous because it might piss off this or that group?
.
If you Mr. Lieberman and you Mr. Graham feel so strongly about the release of these photos causing further attacks against the United States than why didn’t you threaten to blow up the senate to make sure the people responsible for creating the situation that led to the horrid conduct on display in the photos were held accountable? You both expressed your appropriate shock and horror in front of the cameras but why no threats to shut down the senate when it could have mattered?
.
Finally, let us say Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Graham you get your way and the photos are never released. With today’s technology do you honestly believe it really makes a differences if the extremist have the actual photos to put on their websites and in their videos? Some would say (strawman)that is kind of naive thinking?

I sure wish it were as easy as blaming Lieb/Graham, but per GG yesterday:
~
“UPDATE: Bill O’Reilly was just on Fox News vigorously praising Obama for trying to suppress the torture photos and viciously accusing Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Louise Slaughter of endangering the lives of The Troops by blocking the Graham/Lieberman amendment. O’Reilly is now interviewing Joe Lieberman and Linsdey Graham, and they’re doing the same. They all agree that Obama has acted so nobly here, and that Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are Far Leftists radicals who don’t care for the lives of the troops. As is true for preventive detention, military commissions and so many similar matters, the political divisions that have materializied in these areas are most interesting — and most revealing.”
~
Just to repeat: “Bill O’Reilly was just on Fox News vigorously praising Obama for trying to suppress the torture photos” Sorry, but as loathsome at the neo-fascist Lieb-Graham show might be, this is ALL on Obama.

” don’t know N-R, I must have some sort of man-crush on ya, b/c I almost never antagonize commenters. There’s just something about your diamond tiara and the way you blush that I find irresistable.”
JC I think it might be the coy way that neo enters the threads that draws you in.
.
“neorationalist86 Says:
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Very interesting discussion, glad to see you are all thoroughly exhausting your intellectual capacities here. Well, I’m off to a forum where there is actually some substantive discussion.”
.
“neorationalist86 Says:
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Against my better judgment, I will wade into this appalling thread briefly”
.
“neorationalist86 Says:
Friday, June 12, 2009 at 12:32 am
I was not going to participate in this thread “

“O’Reilly is now interviewing Joe Lieberman and Linsdey Graham, and they’re doing the same. They all agree that Obama has acted so nobly here”
.
Of course he is and what O’Reilly is doing is nothing out the ordinary because that is how our media behaves. It does not occur to anyone in the media to ask themselves if the media is supposed to be a watchdog on the government and expose government misconduct why are we instead providing them a platform to cover it up. The same goes for the Congress.
.
It does not occur to anyone in the media that this statement should be viewed as alarming to the citizens of this country ” President Obama’s administration helped us write the legislation,” Graham told reporters Wednesday.”
.
Here you have a branch of the government that is supposed to be a check on another branch the government helping the branch they are supposed to be checking craft a new law to circumvent a law.
.
The watchdog media and watchdog Congress know full well that the problem here really isn’t the photos or the ditigal cameras that produced the photos, but the conduct in the photos. And that fact that the photos show clearly that either there was no military or civilian leadership physically present at that prison for long periods of time or there exist leaders that condoned and enabled the conduct and no one has really been held accountable.
.
Either that or we had leaders to incompetent to check on what was going on with people that were enough of a threat to be put in the prison in the first place and no one has really been held accountable.
.
It also does not seem to occur to our ruling elite in the media and Congress that Holy Joe and Huckleberry’s threat to shut down the senate and stop every bill from passing is not going to hurt the extremists we so fear and its not going to hurt the ones responsible for the photos even existing. It’s going to hurt the very people these to cartoon characters claim to be protecting.
.
Are Holy Joe and Huckleberry really afraid and concern about how the extremist will react or are they really and truly afraid that the American people after viewing these photos will renew calls for one their friends to be held accountable? We will never know because no one seems to want to ask them that question.
.
What we get is a blog post like this from a reporter that just repeats everyones’ talking points and interviews by talking heads that heaps praise on authority.

not once did I equate Italian-American discrimination with the injustices of slaver
.
Is there a link to this supposed equation somewhere?

“What we get is a blog post like this from a reporter that just repeats everyones’ talking points and interviews by talking heads that heaps praise on authority”.
.
Wow, just a few years ago someone might call that reporting. But anyways.
.
There are many erroneous “mistatements”, “mis-quotes”, and out-right far left liberal lies being commented on this thread.
.
For example:
1. FlownOver Says:
Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 6:10 pm
…“we’ll have broken government as long as one or two senators can stymie any and all action merely by stating willingness to invoke a procedural rule”.
Well, hate to break it to ya buddy, but that IS our system. AND, to add that it is not just 2 Senators who are taking this very seriously. There were only THREE, count them THREE Senators who objected to the admendment. That is out of 100 total. Why not concentrate on the two Senators Feingold, the most extremist liberal Senator in the Senate and one other anti-American / anti-Patriot Senator whose name I forgot, that voted against the amendment.
.
2. queencersei Says:
Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“Don’t they understand that surppressing these photos causes it’s own problem?”
Yes we fully understand. We understand that there is NOTHING new in releasing these photos we have not already seen. It is voyeurism at it’s most highest and crudest level. If you disagree with that then perhaps you motive for wanting MORE photos of the SAME situation released is also, anti-American, anti-Military, and anti-Patriotic in your rant to “tell it all, let us see it all, DOWN WITH AMERICA!!!” ideals.
.
3. pintortwo Says:
Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 8:54 pm
2 points:
.
“First: Let’s keep in mind the president this would set. A Federal court has ruled that these photos fall under the FOIA and that they must be released to the public. The Obama administration and Sens. Lieberman and Graham are trying to circumvent the law. They say: we don’t like this law so we’ll create a new one -not acceptable. How can we have accountability in our government if there is no transparency? How can this shameful attempt to ignore the FOIA not lead to future abuses? This is the worst type of rationale from the Bush/Cheney era. They’re using fear to erode the rule of law”.
This one takes the cake if I have ever seen such a trite and facical statement used to justify the potential KILLING of American troops. Repeat after me libtard…”Laws were made to be changed, amended, and striken down as unconstitutional”. See, now isn’t that easy? Apparently you do not advocate the “living document, the ever evolving Constitution” rhetoric that you see on here all the time for the progressive movement nuts? Hypocrisy at its highest level. “If it doesn’t fit my agenda, my far left extremist agenda, then I don’t want any part of it!!!”. You people are very very sad indeed.
.
And last but not least, Number 4!!!
jcapan Says:
Friday, June 12, 2009 at 7:18 am
“Just to repeat: “Bill O’Reilly was just on Fox News vigorously praising Obama for trying to suppress the torture photos” Sorry, but as loathsome at the neo-fascist Lieb-Graham show might be, this is ALL on Obama.
You got that right BUBBA!!! THE President YOU elected has decided and decreed these photos to not be in the best interest of OUR national security, WILL endanger the lives of our military men and women, AND “there will be lives lost to the young men and women in Iraq/Afghanistan due to the muslim extremists and the propaganda these photos will encite”.
.
Do you want the blood of our military on your hands jacapan? Oh that’s right you are from Japan and couldn’t give a rats’ a$$ if our military is killed or not.

Didn’t Obama release a statement saying he was against LIEberman Graham? That might be important.

The photos depict behavior that Lieberman, Graham, and other gopers are unwilling to outlaw, but are also unwilling to acknowledge.
.
Just thought this comment from bobcn1 deserves repeating.
.
neorationalist86, a friendly piece of advice: trashing threads antagonizes people. If you don’t want to comment, don’t comment. If you do want to comment and engage, don’t hedge your bets by saying/implying it’s pointless or a bad thread.
.
I’ve enjoyed a lot of your commentary so I sincerely hope you keep commenting. You’re obviously smart and knowledgeable, and your age allows you to more easily escape a lot of your party’s dogma. (That comment applies equally to all of us young people interested in politics; I’m not singling out the GOP.) It’s very interesting to see glimpses of 21st-century reality-based conservative thinking.

I forgot to add…
.
neorationalist86, I was for HRC in the primaries so I know that it’s not easy being in the minority among commenters who are thoughtlessly trashing people and causes you support (I’m not going to say “believe in”; that will never stop sounding silly to me) and have actually thought about seriously. But you will find much less of that on Swampland, which is why I spent most of the primaries here: Our contempt is usually thoughtful and based on solid evidence! And we honestly are willing to listen to and sometimes even be convinced by arguments we initially dismissed.

In case you are wondering about my backgroud, I am 20+ years in Military Intelligence (graduated tech school in 1988) so comments from rebublitards spewing Rush Libaugh talking points just make me laugh. You (textee, Spob, rusty Returns) are the kid in kindergarden that gets sent home because he ate too much paste.
The loudest voices in broadcasting (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh) shout over their opposition because they know they are wrong. The only way to look feasible when you are so incorrect is to make the other person look meek or weak.
Or just repeatedly misquote people and take them out of context. The greatest example is the Sotomayor quote circling round the block…totally misquoted, totally out of context, no mention of what the speach was about, no mention of why she was chosen to speak at the conference or what topic she was told to speak about.
No mention of her actual voting record…let’s just recycle the 42 words over and over and over again till it gets some traction.
Despicable. republican (yes, I meant that lower case).
And the Letterman BS! He made a joke that Palin’s very loose older daughter (pregnant in HS is loose people!) had sex with the NY Yankees resident playboy, A Rod. He more than likely didn’t know that the older girl wasn’t on the trip, or he wouldn’t have told the joke. The Late Show is taped mid-day, so he told the joke before the game was actually played. But of course Ann Coulter and Fox news are outraged by a joke that totally fits the situation as far as David Letterman knew at the time of the telling of the joke. Deal with it Republitards!

We need closed sessions of congress investigating the many crimes of the G Dub and his crew…it doesn’t need to go public…Abu Ghraib was a boon to Al Quaida recruiting, and we don’t need to add to that shame. But it would be fun to see DICK Cheney led away in handcuffs for all the crap that he knew was illegal that he still pencil-whipped into policy.
But keep drinking the Rush Kool Aid…

What Rose said.

Rustydog:
.
What happens the next time that there’s evidence of government lawbreaking, atrocities or something that makes leaders look bad, and the President and key Senators tell us that it will harm national security or the troops in some way for that evidence to be publicly released –so they’re going to pass a new law specifically for the occasion?
.
For a supposed conservative you seem to trust the big ol’ state a lot more than the Founders ever did…

Rusty @ 9:55:
.
”Laws were made to be changed, amended, and striken down as unconstitutional”.
.
FOIA has been law for over 40 years; it has provisions and exemptions which allow for secrecy when national security is at stake. Obama has gone to court twice arguing that these photos compromise that security- and both courts ruled that the photos are public domain. This is not about the natural evolution of the “living document” that is our constitution—- this is about hiding embarrassing info and, more importantly, covering crimes committed by elite government officials.
.
Protect our troops by condemning these hideous acts, holding those responsible accountable and bringing the troops home.

Paul-no-not-that-one:
“JC I think it might be the coy way that neo enters the threads that draws you in.”
Tochè, that actually made me laugh…
.
Jcapan”
Ci sara guerra sempre tra ideologhi.
Translation: There will always be war between ideologues.
.
StewartZechman:
Are you asking for me to link to statements I never made?
Are you asking for jcapan to link to statements him and others are erroneously under the impression that I said?
Or are you asking that I link to their statements misrepresenting my views?
If it is the latter, here you are, sir….
.
Voice of the GOP, post #120 (Shepherdwong)
“If you believe that there is any equivalency, functionally, historically, socially or psychologically, between white and minority racism in America, the you are functionally insane.”

Blowing Up the Senate Over Photos, post #38 (jcapan)
“In fact, I think my mental trauma is on par with what blacks suffered pre-emancipation or the Japanese Americans during their stay in US guest camps. Inside joke (for those who didn’t witness Neo’s inanely relativist thought-stream yesterday).”
.
If you take these comments as a whole they portray my viewpoint as having been:
1) That I, personally, have experienced discrimination based on my Italian blood
2) That I equate my suffering, or the suffering of my family 70 years ago, with that of slavery or subjugation of the American Indians
.
In reality, the only point which I made, time and time again, was that there did in fact occur prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against Italian Americans between 1880s and 1930s. I was making this point because several others appeared to contend that either ‘whites’ haven’t suffered discrimination at the hands of the US government or that it doesn’t matter if they did because they are white. I was illustrating that the term ‘white’ is misleading and all-inclusive because when my family arrived they were not considered whites, and thus they were subjugated.
.
I was then demonized for daring to bring up these injustices because
they do not conform to the political correctness of only discussing what white have done against non-whites. White on ‘white’ racism doesn’t matter, doesn’t count, never happened, in some warped reasoning, belittles what others have gone through, i.e. Indians, blacks, etc, etc…
.
Furthermore, the mere fact that certain individuals continue to rant about what they perceived my viewpoints to be even while I was not even involved in this thread illustrates their persistent desire to continue to misrepresent my views. If people continue to read what they say I said, rather than read what I say, then this blatant misconception will continue. I stand by my words and my point of views, and I certainly will defend my character against such rampantly wanton disregard for the truth….

neorationalist86:
.
StewartZechman:
.
Not that this is particularly important, but it’s spelled “Stuart”.
.
Are you asking for me to link to statements I never made?
.
Yes! I mean, No!
.
Are you asking for jcapan to link to statements him and others are erroneously under the impression that I said?
.
Sort of. A link to the starting point in the thread of this controversy/discussion is what I was getting at.
.
Or are you asking that I link to their statements misrepresenting my views?
.
If it is the latter, here you are, sir….
.
OK.
.
Thank you.
.
Very much.
.
Sir.
.
the mere fact that certain individuals continue to rant about what they perceived my viewpoints to be
.
I can’t tell you how many times that this has happened to me in this forum. Of course, others will certainly attest to the fact that I have ranted back indefinitely, myself.
.
If people continue to read what they say I said, rather than read what I say, then this blatant misconception will continue. I stand by my words and my point of views, and I certainly will defend my character against such rampantly wanton disregard for the truth….
.
I’m actually with you, there. There’s a lot of that sort of willful, deliberate misunderstanding going on when it comes to political discussions involving what people say involving race and ethnicity. Some people find public inquisitions politically useful in both long- and short-term ways.
.
I’d like to stamp that sort of pathology out of our discourse, so I’m very much on your side, at least when it comes to the person making the statement having the final say about what they meant by it.

Stuart, here’s where it began:
~
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/10/the-voice-of-the-gop/?apage=3#comment-71351
~
Can’t say that my contempt is thoughtful (sorry Rose), but it was rather entertaining.

Thanks for linking, Oregon JC.
.
Now I’ll read it to see for myself exactly what was or wasn’t worthy of contempt.

Sorry Stuart,
That is all that I ask for here, that positions not be taking out of context and misquoted, especially in an entirely unrelated thread in which I am not a participant. At this point, I am fully prepared to drop the whole discussion. I simply felt the need to post the above comment defending myself from unwarranted misrepresentation.
.
And you are absolutely correct about discourse on race and the potentially dangerous ground that is walked, due in no small part to hypersensitivity. People become so defensive that they construe statements through an utterly twisted prism. A simple statement pointing out overlooked facts becomes the focal point of some alleged insult to other facts, for example, stating that a particular group experienced bigotry is perceived as ignoring or denying the prejudice that was experienced by entirely different group. It would be quite amusing if this hysteria were not such the norm that it clearly is….

“Now I’ll read it to see for myself exactly what was or wasn’t worthy of contempt.”
.
Basically, it was for the (lengthy and indignant) defense, within a thread that discussed (among other things) the role of racism in a political party that is overwhelmingly white and male, that: “but, but, (some) white guys (like in my Italian-American family) get discriminated against too”. Doesn’t really rise to being worthy of contempt, I think. Simple ridicule seems adequate (I got top billing and three honorable mentions).

(I got top billing and three honorable mentions).-Ha that killed me shep.

What is it you find so offensive about the truth, Shepherd…?
I wouldn’t expect you to know about, or care about, historical facts that do not conform to your narrow world view. But to ridicule those who indeed are aware is preposterous.
.
Your continuous belligerent belittlement of 50 years of anti-Italian sentiments and continued anti-Catholic bigotry in this country is quite telling as to your naivete, ignorance, or complicity. Not sure which it is in your case…
.
You propose that no one who is not currently being faced with institutionalized oppression has a right to speak of past instances. Well, I would contend that institutionalized racism is a thing of the past. Institutionalized meaning governmental sanctioning of prejudices through law. So no one can claim righteousness under that principle. What does remain, however, is social racism. That is, continued stereotyping and bigotry in media, cinema, and social discourse. In this category, racism is alive and well among the populace. And it very much does extend to Catholics and in some areas Italians, as well. SO I believe I have as much a right as anyone to be indignant and irate at the monopolization of ‘racial’ discourse by select minorities…

This might be relevant to this (undying) discussion, not that N-R is an “Italian Supremacist”:
~
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/12/self_absorption/index.html

I didn’t read neorationalist86′s comment that started all of this, but I have to point out that this is 100% historically accurate: In reality, the only point which I made, time and time again, was that there did in fact occur prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against Italian Americans between 1880s and 1930s. I was making this point because several others appeared to contend that either ‘whites’ haven’t suffered discrimination at the hands of the US government or that it doesn’t matter if they did because they are white. I was illustrating that the term ‘white’ is misleading and all-inclusive because when my family arrived they were not considered whites, and thus they were subjugated.
.
Immigration quotas around the turn of the century overtly discriminated against “inferior” southern Europeans. And of course the Irish have experienced quite horrific discrimination. We shouldn’t impose the contemporary “skin color” racism we struggle with on our understanding of the past.

Rose, I’d not force anyone to read all of the original thread (why Stuart would willingly do so is beyond me), but none of us were denying the above reality. But clinging so to that oak, N-R couldn’t move to higher ground, seeing the full sweep of the woods.

“While it is apparently in fashion to label white males as racists, any depiction in the reverse is immediately condemned as race-baiting pandering to the bigoted base of the GOP. Well, is it not pandering for the Democrats to consistently label the ‘old, white male’ dominated GOP as racists? Do any of you honestly think that latinos, blacks, asians, etc, etc bear any less of these racial divides than do whites? The Democratic Party picks up the minority vote by rhetorically rejecting the white race, while in practices its leadership is ironically overwhelmingly white.
.
Neither side rejects race-baiting, they merely pander to different ethnic make-ups in their accusations. And in this day and age, only one of those ways is politically correct, that of assaulting ‘white males.’”
.
That was the comment that started all of this silliness.
.
Self-pitying ” it is apparently in fashion to label white males as racists”
.
Broad Assertion “is it not pandering for the Democrats to consistently label the ‘old, white male’ dominated GOP as racists? ”
.
Bizarre Assertion “The Democratic Party picks up the minority vote by rhetorically rejecting the white race”
.
Confusing Assertion “Neither side rejects race-baiting”
.
And finishing up with more Self-pity “and in this day and age, only one of those ways is politically correct, that of assaulting ‘white males.’”
.
Everything that followed was SOP comment thread spinning out of control.

“I wouldn’t expect you to know about, or care about, historical facts that do not conform to your narrow world view. But to ridicule those who indeed are aware is preposterous.”
.
Actually, I know and care quite a bit about history and facts. My father’s first official act as an adult was to change his given name to the English translation and my wife had to use her middle as last name when she went into business, all to avoid “discrimination” based upon race/ethnicity/nationality. But we’re white so, so what? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand – perceived racism against people of color from within the GOP – and compared to the racism suffered by people of color in this country it really isn’t worth mentioning.

jcapan, I think I’d rather start reading the Wacquant article you linked to…

Part I
.
neorationalist86:
.
Hmm…
.
there are overwhelming racial differences that do indeed set various groups apart in their mannerisms, behaviors, values, and ideals
.
I wouldn’t say that. I think that these aren’t racial differences, they are cultural differences that arise in part due to ethnicly-based segregation, either self-imposed or structural. Labeling these differences as “racial” is less than exact. I don’t think that actual skin color or other physiological differences have so much to do with “values and ideals”, and I don’t actually think that many reasonable people believe that, either –excepting traditional prejudices, of course.
.
These differences do not constitute deficiencies in any particular group, but they do exist.
.
That’s a good point. Different people are different. It’s a fact. Sometimes differences do constitute deficiencies, but it’s not necessarily the case, unless one assumes some sort of ethno-ideal. I don’t think that’s your assertion at all, based on what you’ve written here.
.
A little bit of lucid racial stereotyping is not only healthy, it is unavoidable.
.
This is untrue, unless one substitutes the terms “ethnic” and/or “class” for “racial”. There’s no reason for me to believe that an American-born woman of Taiwanese descent should be categorized in my immediate apprehension the same way I would a Korean person visiting my city. It’s simply not reasonable or healthy, and even if it is unavoidable to a certain degree, it’s not terribly useful.
.
What I think is healthy and unavoidable is stereotyping along the lines of “That person is looking at my bag suspiciously.” or “These Germans are so pointedly organized!“. The stereotyping of nationalities and regional ethnicities –even the self-stereotyping of exceptionalism and pride– is normal human behavior.
.
These observations are based not on prejudices (although this is not always the case), but on environmental experiences. We reach conclusions based on our dealings with people. This is not racism.
.
In this, I think that we need to differentiate between actual, good empirical evidence influencing our thoughts and impressions, and simple, traditional village-isms like “I got my car broken into in a Spanish neighborhood twice. Spanish people are such thieves!“. In the US, our Enlightenment-era product culture and politics place a premium on individual merit and character, and not group identity, more so than some other cultures. This phenomenon makes our culture special and good, in as much as that we strive to see individuals as themselves instead of inevitable inheritors of a group identity. It’s what allows us to say “It’s wrong to assume that an African-American that happens to be in a certain place or time is a potential criminal.” It’s also what should compel us to say “It’s wrong to assume that all people of European heritage are to an oppressive degree inveterate racists.“. To respect the primacy of individual identity regardless of class is especially American, and so there is cultural impetus to do away with oppressive, unfair, meritocracy-destroying prejudice altogether.

“jcapan, I think I’d rather start reading the Wacquant article you linked to…”
~
Excellent idea. I’ve been trying to disentangle myself too, but I just can’t quit N-R.
~
Meanwhile, we’re all eagerly awaiting daddy’s (SZ’) verdict

Part II

.
While it is apparently in fashion to label white males as racists, any depiction in the reverse is immediately condemned as race-baiting pandering to the bigoted base of the GOP.
.
I think that you have an incomplete understanding of this phenomenon. It’s not “fashion”, it’s debatable theory. It’s also political strategy. The exploiters of race on the Democratic side, like Bobby Rush, for example, are just as despicable as those on the right who make their careers “debunking” good-faith efforts to correct prejudice.
.
Well, is it not pandering for the Democrats to consistently label the ‘old, white male’ dominated GOP as racists?
.
Yes.
.
It is, unfortunately for the Republican party, also an established fact that it adopted a political strategy designed to win Southern votes on the basis of appeals to Jim Crow-era traditions and identities.
.
The entire matter is perversely complicated by Federalist-style conservative ideology, which, when viewed through the lens of those who welcomed Federal troops into Little Rock to safeguard the first mandated school integrations, creates an entirely different implication of “States’ Rights” or “No to Big Government” that are not necessarily intended, but of which many Movement Conservatives and Republicans remain stubbornly unaware.
.
It’s complex. The “Southernization” of American politics is complex. Appeals to tradition aren’t wrong in and of themselves, but are made more questionable to outsiders when the history of the region is one of overt apartheid.
.
There is no question that those who would take political advantage of these complexities are vile Machiavellians who should be immediately ejected from honest debate, but often it’s very difficult to know intentions, and so stereotypes are created to combat other stereotypes in a politics dominated by mass-marketing techniques. It’s wrong (and insane) for the GOP to continue to label Democrats as anti-American based on the anti-war candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, too, but it continues.

Part III
.
Do any of you honestly think that latinos, blacks, asians, etc, etc bear any less of these racial divides than do whites?
.
No. As human beings, of course not. It’s a matter of level of education, and socialization in locals where integration is the norm that determines the pathology of prejudice. Some of that pathology is unfortunately accepted. The more that different ethnicities in this country believe themselves to be and are treated as fully American, the better. Some of this is inevitable, as you imply, but it should be regarded as a vestige, not as a permanent condition.
.
The Democratic Party picks up the minority vote by rhetorically rejecting the white race,…
.
I don’t think that this is the case. This seems like hyperbole on your part, actually. Please provide specific evidence of this. It might be that you are confusing “rhetorically rejecting separatism” or “rhetorically rejecting ethnic subordination” or “rhetorically rejecting a history of certain social failures” with “rhetorically rejecting the white race”.
.
while in practices its leadership is ironically overwhelmingly white
.
It’s only ironic if one assumes that Democrats are not actually committed as a party to the full integration of all ethnicities into representation. I happen to think that there’s less dedication in practice, due to the perpetual conflict between ideals and politics, but I can’t say that I believe that a majority of rank and file Democrats are simply closet white supremacists.
.
Neither side rejects race-baiting, they merely pander to different ethnic make-ups in their accusations.
.
Yes, this does happen, unfortunately. Some are worse than others, though.
.
And in this day and age, only one of those ways is politically correct, that of assaulting ‘white males.’
.
You know, this is a gross and offensive mischaracterization of what’s actually going on. Do you not remember Jeremiah Wright’s revolting tirade against a woman, namely Hillary Clinton?
.
People who aren’t looking for others to blame for their grievances find the whole “assaulting white males” thing that movement conservatives have adopted to be absurd on so many levels. As it happens, there is no “assault” to speak of, just as the claims of “liberal-fascist” government, or “islamo-facist” war of civilizations, or any number of the ridiculous victimization fantasies that talk-radio rightists puke out to gin up aggrieved righteous anger amongst their moron audiences are so much self-aggrandizing, self-justifying nonsense.
.
It’s like saying “the homosexualization of the media” is “assaulting white, conservative, christian, heterosexual American males”. It’s idiotic.
.
I’m sure that you can find other language not so laden with bathos to make the point that some misguided jackasses consider “white males” a problem, but like imbeciles who used to assert “intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior” and is “the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women“, those people speak to nothing but a silly, long-discredited, self-obsessed fringe, and thus do not an constitute an “assault”, except in the febrile imaginations of people looking for reasons to be angry.
.
There, then.
.
That’s my opinion of what you wrote, neorationalist86, just in case you were wondering.
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this.

Oregon JC:
.
we’re all eagerly awaiting daddy’s (SZ’) verdict
.
You sick f*ck

Thank you for posting that link, jcapan. The mentality of the author is exactly what I have been accusing Shepherd of.

Greenwald writes:
The most predominant mentality in right-wing discourse finds expression in this form: “I am part of/was born into Group X, and Group X — my group — is better than all others yet treated so very unfairly.” …So intense is their need for self-victimization — so inebriating is their self-absorption and so lacking are they in any capacity for empathy– that, for all the noise and rhetoric, the arguments they make virtually always have this tribalistic self-absorption at its core.
.
You see, this argument is incredibly manipulative. It suggests that any group whose oppression is not as visible or discussed, must naturally be apathetic about the suffering of others, otherwise how could they possibly talk about their groups’ histories over others. Its clearly misdirection.

Ah, SZ, the highest praise in my lecherous circle!

Stuart,
I see your point and I probably could have worded things better at times, but the comments were mostly reactionary statements to others’ belittling temperaments.
I’ve read much of your analysis, but by no means all. Unfortunately, I have Stanley Cup Finals game 7 to enthrall myself in. I will respond later.

Meanwhile, we’re all eagerly awaiting daddy’s (SZ’) verdict
.
jcapan, I think you’re speaking for yourself there!
.
neorationalist86, enjoy the game.

rustyreturns Says: ” .. that’s right you are from Japan and couldn’t give a rats’ a$$ if our military is killed or not. ..”
Do you? Most likely not. Really.

1) If you cared then you would be saying “Never Again” to the possibility of sending Americans into situations where the possibility of committing such horrible acts is high.

2) if you care, you would be calling for brutal retributions against those who committed such acts as well as those who sent them there. And you would be calling for brutal vengeance against all that commit atrocities against our troops and civilians anywhere in the world. And that we would pursue all evidence – including photos and eyewitness accounts – that would assist us in identifying the culprits and bringing them to brutal justice. And that the leaders whose men commit such acts are culpable – and forever condemned by humanity.

3) If you cared, you would have registered your vehement opposition to the baseless invasion of Iraq that resulted in thousands of out troop (civilians)and multitude of civilians) Iraqi dead.

Right?

So what do you say to the over 60% of enthusiastic (Christian) Americans who prayed and supported the bloody aggression that sent thousands of American to their deaths in Iraq – that they are from Japan?

Stuart,
I appreciate your lengthy insights. I respect your opinions and by and large agree with what you have said in general terms. There certainly were instances were I let my emotions perhaps drive my rhetoric a bit more than I should have allowed and tweaking of word-choice was certainly in order, however I wont argue semantics. There were several specific comments you made, however, which I would disagree with.
.
I said: The Democratic Party picks up the minority vote by rhetorically rejecting the white race,…
.
You said: I don’t think that this is the case. This seems like hyperbole on your part, actually. Please provide specific evidence of this. It might be that you are confusing “rhetorically rejecting separatism” or “rhetorically rejecting ethnic subordination” or “rhetorically rejecting a history of certain social failures” with “rhetorically rejecting the white race”.
.
I see what you are saying, and in fact I think my train of thought here was not accurately portrayed by what I ended up saying. The point I was getting at, largely instigated by the repeated racist allegations made by bloggers here, is that a vocal population within the Democratic Party (mostly non-elected commentators) continue to make these atrocious and detrimental statements about the GOP being a party of “racist, old white men.” While the Democratic Party does not ‘reject the white race’ as I earlier stated, what the leadership does is refuse to condemn this type of rhetoric coming from some of its supporters in a political effort to not alienate that base that holds these negative views of white conservatives. So, essentially, the Democratic Party allows these views to be voiced without rebuke by some of its constituents merely for political gain. Not unlike many GOP leaders who fail to condemn racist commentary coming from the conservative base. This, though, seems to be the more trendy discussion, rather than what is a similarly occurring theme within the Democratic Party.
.
I said: And in this day and age, only one of those ways is politically correct, that of assaulting ‘white males.’
.
You said: You know, this is a gross and offensive mischaracterization of what’s actually going on. Do you not remember Jeremiah Wright’s revolting tirade against a woman, namely Hillary Clinton?
.
Ok, I suppose I could delete the males reference and make this statement accurate. This is not a pity-statement, but a mere observation based on the way I have viewed society’s sensitivities and what it is willing to overlook. Society rejects the argument that someone is a racist if that person is within a historically discriminated against population; it is simply considered insensitive to call them that, or worse, racist in itself to suggest as much. However, flip the coin, and view it from the other side. It is perfectly acceptable to suggest the opposite. If Obama or Sotomayor are called racists, society has an aneurysm; if however, Buchanan or John Roberts are called racists, who is up in arms? Who is asking for irrefutable evidence when these slights occur? Not the media…Not the Democrats…Not society…

The point I was getting at, largely instigated by the repeated racist allegations made by bloggers here, is that a vocal population within the Democratic Party (mostly non-elected commentators) continue to make these atrocious and detrimental statements about the GOP being a party of “racist, old white men.”
.
Sorry, when you let guys like Limbaugh and Gingrich become the de facto spokesmen of your party, you are leaving yourself open for that attack. As soon as elected Republican officials start condemning Limbaugh’s statements in particular, and then not backing down a few days later when he complains, that attack will lose its effectiveness.
.
There is a price to pay for working with people like that, and commentators are making your party pay it.
.
This is where I completely disagree with you: Well, I would contend that institutionalized racism is a thing of the past. Institutionalized meaning governmental sanctioning of prejudices through law.
.
I honestly don’t know how someone can say that, especially in light of the war on drugs.
.
Ok, I suppose I could delete the males reference and make this statement accurate. This is not a pity-statement, but a mere observation based on the way I have viewed society’s sensitivities and what it is willing to overlook. Society rejects the argument that someone is a racist if that person is within a historically discriminated against population; it is simply considered insensitive to call them that, or worse, racist in itself to suggest as much.
.
I think this is a great time to remember the more encompassing definition of racialization offered in the Wacquant article I linked to in another thread; it suggests a different interpretation of the obsession with racism practiced by poor whites, if we think of poor whites as historically being racialized. In addition, I’ve actually heard a lot about racism within racialized groups. Remember with Obama the media – sitting around with other rich white men – “worried” that Jews, poor whites and Hispanics wouldn’t vote for him? In general we hear so much about prejudice and division among Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, etc. Do we hear much about non-white racism against whites? No, that’s true, with the notable recent exception of Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor. I would suggest though that’s because it’s incredibly rare, even assuming that an oppressed group can discriminate against more privileged groups. False accusations of racism, rather than actual racism toward whites, are far more common among non-whites, although I still think they’re a rarity that shouldn’t overshadow the exponentially bigger problems of institutional and social racism. (BTW, seeing the continuity between Obama’s and Bush’s Iraq policy, perhaps it’s time for Donna Brazille to apologize to WJC for willfully misinterpreting his “fairy tale” comment.)

I would suggest that the war on drugs is a class-based prejudice aimed at the impoverished segment of American society. The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crosses racial divides and targets the least productive and most disdained group in America, that of the habitual crack addict, which encompasses the lowest class segments of blacks, Hispanics, and whites. Paralleling the extreme sentencing guidelines for crack offenders are the stringent laws against methamphetamine users, the majority of which are poor whites. The war on drugs is color blind, when we consider the social class which has been most affected from tough sentencing. It is not simply a black issue, it is a class issue. In urban America the victim of the war on drugs is more likely to be a young, black male, however, in rural America it is the poor, white witnessed especially in the Midwest and Appalachian south. Having moved from Long Island, NY to the mountains of Western North Carolina I have witnessed both ends of the spectrum when it comes to drug sentencing; methamphetamines are an epidemic here and offenders (nearly unequivocally white here) do not deserve an ounce of leniency, in my opinion.
.
To suggest that institutionalized racism is still prevalent in America is a fallacy. To rise to the top-tiers of society requires several factors, connections and money. Regardless of race, one cannot rise the social ladder without these two ingredients. American society is beneficial to the wealthy, detrimental to the impoverished.
.
The institutionalized racism/sexism argument is a tired expression; its demise in public discourse is inevitable and will soon be extinct. The President of the Unites States is a black male. His cabinet includes Eric Holder, Ron Kirk, Steven Chu, Eric Shinseki, and Gary Locke, all non-white males. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the administration also includes 7 women. Need I go on?

[...] problem. President Obama late last week ended a show down between House and Senate conferees that threatened to tank the bill when he pledged to use his “administrative authority” to prevent the release of hundreds of [...]