First off, don't confuse the Right writers with facts. It just makes 'em testy.

Secondly, let's talk about what we like to call "race" in this country. Physical differences between "racial groups" are less extreme than those between different breeds of dogs. Cultural differences are less extreme in terms of race than in terms of class (e.g., the difference between a poor white family and a middle-class white family is often far greater than between a middle-class white family and a middle class black family).

What makes for "identity politics," then? The Right likes to assume that "identity politics" is a creation of the Left in order to win votes. It's convenient to think that (see remark number one in this letter). In actuality, as we see "identity politics" in the US--hardly a new thing, it's been around as long as immigration into North America has been around), it's caused more by oppression than anything else. Why did the Irish band together and create city machines? It's because the English and the German (especially the former) discriminated against them. If such discrimination did not happen, "identity politics" never takes place (look, for example, at the big French-American voting block--can't find it? D'oh!).

This is classic in-group/out-group social dynamics. The Right denies it, in large part because accepting it would mean great discomfort for them as they were made to examine the realities of American society.

Solutions? Create level playing fields. Create good schools for everybody. Make the first two years of college for those who can benefit from it. Create great remedial programs, and start to hold all schools accountable for results, without punishing the students in those schools. Enforce laws relating to equality. Talk about race and ethnicity honestly.

In about two generations, if we did all that, we'd be where we need to be, given our stated ideals.

Oh Oh mustn't use the term hog with muslims.

Nope; far, far more appropriate to use it in conjunction with the GOP.

Where'd all that money in the last eight years before BHO go? Who looted the treasury?

Same question: who are Dick Cheney's BFFs?

We all know what this "Birther" nonsense is about. It has nothing to do with producing a certificate, or any amount of proof.

It has to do with the color of the man's skin, his exotic-sounding name, and the fact that he's a moderate Democrat rather than a mouth-foaming conservative.

It's the perfect storm for the racists on the Right (well, okay, that's redundant, isn't it?). They'd declare him a non-person if they could.

It's race, ethnicity, the Other, and moderation. It has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

More ODS from the Right.

"On CNN, Lou is an independent reporter who covers stories that people are talking about, and often showcases issues that aren’t being covered by the mainstream media."

So can we expect CNN to give Art Bell his own show next?

even when you’re right, you don’t talk shit to the police. And that’s not a matter of manhood or pride; it’s a question of survival. Why? Because you’re black before you’re a Harvard professor.

I'm white; I've been white all my life. I learned, early on, that you call a police office "sir," no matter what they call you. You give them what they want, as soon as they want it, no back talk. You smile without showing your teeth. You nod and do as they ask.

Why? It's simple. They have a badge, a gun, and a club. They can beat you senseless. They can shoot you. Of course, you can carry a gun, too, and shoot back; but you don't have a badge. With that badge, they can shoot you and nothing more will happen to them than a temporary suspension and an investigation, and, if they're smart at all, they'll be cleared.

I was baffled at Gates's behavior, not because he was black, but because the police carry badges, guns, and clubs, and what kind of fool doesn't know that? Black, white, yellow, brown, or red? They're the cops. You're not. They're armed, with the authority to use it as they see fit. It really is as simple as that.

Your bleated version of reality has only been repeated ad nauseam by the most lamb-like, submissive elements of our current society throughout this forum.

This, and other comments by Agile Cyborg, makes me think that we'll see his death reported on the front pages before too long--if, of course, he practices as he preaches.

Since when has it become SCARY to voice opposition to questionable police behavior?

Since they have the legal authority to beat you and shoot you. Aren't you afraid of a man with a gun, off of a shooting range? I'm at least cautious; it's just good sense.

Since WHEN has it become revolutionary to question authorities and assert our valid arguments in defense of individuals who we feel have been mistreated?

It's always been revolutionary to do that. Haven't you read the Declaration?

what the FUCK do I have to fear from the police? And, why SHOULDN'T I be outraged when they harass a fellow citizen?

Once again, the police have guns and legal authority to carry and use them. Even if you know a particular policeman, you don't know how he's feeling on a particular day; always good to treat armed men with respect. Your second question is a completely different question; just don't get outraged around the cops, that's my advice.