that African-Americans are individuals, think like individuals, act like individuals, etc. But please, let us not ignore the fact that, for the large majority of the history of this country they have been treated by governments, laws, schools, businesses, etc., not as individuals but as a group. You remember, irrespective of the individual's excellent qualifications, he/she still couldn't eat at this restaurant, use this bathroom, live in this neighborhood, have this job, because he/she belonged to a particular group that was defined by skin color.

Not only were blacks discriminated against as a group, the group was always a small minority of the general population. I suspect that that fact contributed a good deal to their tendency to identify with that group. (It's been my observation that minorities who are discriminated against on the basis of some trait unique to that minority group, tend to identify themselves with that trait. Homosexuals are another example. I think that's one of the perhaps ironic effects of invidious discrimination.)

So it's not surprising that, given this history, African-Americans often tend to see themselves more as part of a group than as individuals. They've had to "circle the wagons" for so long, it's easy to see the world in terms of who's inside the circle and who's outside it.

I don't know why you think I was "explaining" you to you, given that I didn't address you. And I really just said what I said, not what you seem to think I said.

Do I think of African-Americans as people? Yes I do. But what I observe is that they often think of themselves as a group, specifically as a racial group. (Indeed, that seems to be exactly what is happening in response to Clarence Thomas, and of course there are many other examples one could cite.) There is nothing strange, threatening or wrong about this. It seems clear from a huge amount of evidence. I think that is pretty much to be expected because of the history of anti-black racism and racial oppression in this country. Don't you?

It's a simple point. No need to get exercised about it.

I'm not sure Thomas was nominated by George I to be a token black on the court but because he was thought to be suitably right-wing, which he has proven to be. At the time it seemed pretty clear that Bush appointed an African-American to make it hard for the Dems to vote against his confirmation. I think it was a lot more about his politics and jurisprudence than just to get a black on the court.

The battery has to be recharged which requires electricity which comes from power plants which run on coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc. How does this save energy? It may save oil, but the amount of energy the car uses must be replaced somehow, right?

Or do I not understand? Someone explain it to me, please.

to counter bad economic fundamentals with deficit spending. That put a gloss on the economy for about 5 years, but no longer. The housing bust is way too much for even the massive deficit spending of the Bush presidency to counterbalance. Predictably, Bush proposes ever greater deficit spending which will result from his proposed tax rebate. That would provide a bit of relief for a short time, but will not address fundamentals.

What's required and what I suspect no politician will even mention much less actually do, is to agressively redistribute income downward via taxation and spending policies. In other words, we have to increase taxes on the wealthy and continue strong government spending. Increased infrastructure spending would be a good idea. That would put money in the hands of those who have lost so heavily during the Bush years. Because those folks are poor and middle class, they'll spend the additional money which will spur economic growth. It's just New Deal economics. We've known this for decades. All we have to do is do it.

You are 100% wrong in what you wrote. It's the pooling of ever more massive amounts of wealth at the top that is the chronic problem. The acute problem is the bursting of the housing bubble which exacerbates the chronic problem. Both take money from the poor and middle class which depresses aggregate demand. That depresses wages and prices which equals recession. Tax cuts do the opposite of what is necessary. Because the wealthy pay more per capita in taxes than the poor and middle class, tax cuts put money in their hands resulting in the pooling of money at the upper levels of the economic ladder. That's bad economic policy at any time, but particularly now.

and I've done similar things trying to scare up a favorable witness. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It just never occurred to me that the experience was worth writing an article about. Having read this one, I think I know why.

for the people against big corporate interests is important. What these people fear most is democratic power in action. That's what 'Viet Nam Syndrome' is, after all - the terror of power elites about the fact that the people stopped a war and therefore restricted their ability to prosecute new ones. That's why they had to invent "low intensity warfare."

EVERY win is important in taking power from the warfare state and putting in the hands of the people.