Would you have done the same if it happened to be in a low income 'white district'? Doubtful. Rather than explore the real reasons for the stimulus money refusal; which happen to be politically inconvenient for you to do so; you take the cheap shot designed to play upon collective 'white guilt'. But that's understandable, after all, the "taking care of the children" line had already been used........"Shameless?"...Yeah, I agree... And It borders on 'intellectual abuse'.

... Relax, Yogi and Boo Boo will be on soon.........

"Consider for one moment that the fact that Joan's point is that Sanford's actions will disproportionately affect black children in South Carolina. If this situation does not point to institutionalized racism, then I don't know what actually would."....................................

...While I agree with most of your points in regards to "institutionalalized racism", I don't see how that applies here. There's nothing in this report, that Sanford has said, or indicated, that could lead me to believe the decision is racially based; and therfore; that he must be a racist. The assumption (Joan's) is based soley on the fact that he's white, and of course, only whites can be racist in America. If he happened to be black, then we'd be forced to examine his motives a little closer. Which would be a more honest approach anyway, regardless of his color, and require a little more objectivity. I need a lot more evidence before I'm prepared to label someone a racist based soley on an authors manufactured assumptions. So, why would I not accept the reasons given in the article, for the stimulus refusal, and accept an unproven charge of racism by the author?

..."in his selection of a wife-being a very liberal senator-going to a black church".................. ....Interesting comment, considering the source. Do some African Americans still look at Obama as NOT really being black? Or not 'black enough' to be truly representative of African Americans? I remember the media having a 30 second field day with that question during the campaign, before collectively deciding to let it drop....

I suppose your answer then, in a way, explains the misintepretation of the 'African American' moniker in the general media and, even during my school years. My biology teachers routinely used the phrase to identify racial genetic makeup. So much for NYC public schools. So now, it's being used socially, as a "cultural" identifier rather than a biological one. You can see where the confusion might arise.. All this 'labeling and categorizing' can get little convoluted and tedious after a while; don't you think? Yet, we seem to be a nation fixated on the process. I have two cousins; white; that were born and live, in Durban S.A. It'd be pretty funny if they ever immigrated here, and tried to call themselves African American...

So here's a guy that worked at the World bank; deplores capitalism; lives in a socialist country, and obviously dislikes the U.S.....May as well have just mailed him the 'interview' ahead of time and had him initial on the 'X'.....Where was Mr "Chief Economist" before all this went down, busy investing in the DAX?

So basically, you reported on a flawed article whose basic premis was erroneous, and thereby shone the light on a non issue?.....I think I need a nap........

Interesting view; yet predicatable ....What's even more enlightening is the apparent notion that populist mob sentiment should drive policy, when convenient, rather than the rule of law.

This is what you get when political ideology becomes more important than the good of a nation.

.....of lawmakers introducing pointless legislation; at taxpayer expense, for every perceived threat, real or imagined; in an attempt to appear to be 'doing something'. I would consider 'hate crimes' part of that category. Unless of course, you consider 'murder' an act of love; the dead guy probably realizes the killer was a little pissed off. I don't think the crime is compounded by the killers inappropriate verbiage. Dead is dead.... The phrase "hate crimes' is designed to assuage the living, not the dead..

It seems we've rapidly become the catchphrase / 'talking point' nation. A collection of the intellectually lazy; too wrapped up in ideology, and unwilling to consider any view that doesn't conveniently fit into our personal framework of thinking. Catchphrases; along with the cutesy 'play on words'; are designed for the 'great unwashed' that lack the inclination to delve into any issue beyond what's spoon fed to them by the media.. Perhaps the notion, in this instance, that a new catchprase is needed; suggests the weakness of the original argument.

What this case really highlights is an issue we continue to ignore: the need for a nationwide overhaul of the voting process, and a standardization of the system. As long as there are different machines in use, or no machines; different rules for determining the validity of a cast vote; along with the myriad of ways people can register, regardless of real proof of eligibility; we're always going to have this problem.

......"74 percent supported "Mr. Obama's push to increase income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year."............. 74% of whom; those making under 20k? That must be the same 74% that think 'free health care. is a 'right'. Or that the 'rich guy' somehow got their piece of the pie, so 'here I am in this trailer park'. And that 'fair share taxation' means; 'taxing everyone else but me'.........Oh, those damn rich people! I just won't have anything I deserve until we make them poor.

I thought we might actually make it through a whole paragraph before Joan needlessly injected race into the mix once more. Alas it was not to be. It seems to be a strange fixation of hers........... ."stereotypical gruff-looking grey haired white guys?" Now, there's a mouthful. What exactly does that mean? Conversely; were there any 'stereotypical gruff-looking gray haired black guys' around? Or are they not listed in Salon's stereotyping handbook?