TRenee:

Racism is a point of view that favors one race over the other. Racist action is action taken that purposely favors one race over the other.

Mark Sanford took his position on the basis of economic principles that he adheres to. There is no indication that race has any bearing on his decision. In fact, his comments indicate that he believes that, by taking a stand against the stimulus package, he is doing something that will ultimately be in Ty'Shea's best interest.

Jabberwacky:

Your story is irrelevant to this whole conversation.

....Mark Sanford has built a reputation for being a principled fiscal conservative, a-la Ron Paul. I would be surprised if his decision would be made differently, had it been a white kid who spoke up about his school.

"You define racist action as action which PURPOSEFULLY favors one race over another. I would dispute this definition."

How else can racism possibly be defined? Does racism encompass any act that negatively effects someone of another race? If I cut someone off on the freeway because I am trying to get to my offramp, and that person happens to be of a different race than me, was that a racist act?

In order for a word as heavy as racism to have any meaning at all, there has to be limits as to when it does and doesn't apply. Conscious intent is that limit.

Take away all the gratuitous insults and third grade depth of understanding, and you appear to be saying essentially what Sanford is saying: that 8 years of fiscal recklessness on the part of the Bush Administration is what created the incentives that led to the Wall Street meltdown. All Sanford is adding to what you have just said is that when you are in a hole - a hole caused largely by deficit spending - stop digging. Are you smart enough to get that?

Sticks and stones, my friend...

I must say I disagree with your definition of racism. I think conscious intent is a very important component of the definition of racism. I think both of your examples - the confederate flag and Bachmann - have an intent component. Flying the confederate flag is viewed as racist because of the intended message that is perceived in that act. Bachmann's comments are seen as racist because of what she intended to imply about Michael Steele with them. I think its fair to speak of black poverty as a legacy of institutional racism, because there were - and are - laws in place that were and are intended to keep black people poor. However, failure of a governor to adopt a preferred strategy for eradicating said poverty does not make that governor racist, unless his intent in not adopting that strategy is to keep black people poor.

I also disagree with your assumption that this is Sanford's intent here, and that he would have chosen otherwise had he been governor of Montana. Principled fiscal conservatives who cast unpopular votes based on said principles do exist, and what I know of Mark Sanford - most of which comes from the article linked below - indicates that he is probably one of them.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00006/

.....how do you italicize things that you type in these letters? I have been posting letters here for years and have not yet figured out how to do that.

"Both of you described Rep. Bachmann's 'you da man' comment as being an example of conscious racism, but the sad fact was that she clearly did NOT intend offense..."

I didn't see, hear, or read Bachmann's statement, and didn't know of it until you brought it up. My guess is that, in making the statement, she did intend condescension - and she wouldn't have expressed said condescension had Steele been white. Whether she was aware that her condescension would cause offense is another story - self absorbed people frequently are unaware of that. However, what was offensive about it was intended, and it was its intention that made it offensive.

"As far as your claims that we need to balance the budget in the middle of a drastic economic downturn, well, just ask Herbert Hoover how that turned out."

Herbert Hoover ran very large deficits during his administration. Roosevelt, by contrast, balanced the budget every year of his Presidency up until our entry into WWII.

If (a) young people are reading blogs and not newspapers, and (b) blogs cannot exist without newspapers feeding them stuff to blog about, perhaps newspapers ought to take note of the kinds of stories and articles that get most frequently linked to by major blogs and bloggers, and allocate their resources accordingly. Maybe this would result in more traffic to their site, and ultimately ever win over a few new readers, which could allow them to charge more for advertising.

Is it possible that the relationship between blogs and newspapers can be symbiotic, and not parasitic?

No, a creditor "pushing" a debtor into bankruptcy to get the insurance money is not like someone setting fire to their own house for two main reasons:

1) The creditors are not actually "pushing" the debtor into anything. Debtors go into bankruptcy of their own accord when they take out loans that they can't pay back. That's exactly what's happening here. All that the banks are doing here is refusing to accept less than what they are owed.

2) A fire destroys an asset. A bankruptcy does not. It merely redistributes said assets in the fairest way possible under the bankruptcy code. Any wealth that is to be lost in the process has already been lost before the bankruptcy proceeding begins.

The facts are plain and simple. Chrysler owes more money than it has available to pay back. The United States Bankruptcy Court was established to deal with such a situation.