Disclaimer: I did not read the article. However, I'm responding to jzap's concern that the article only adressed the state of race relations from the standpoint of black respondents.

Clearly, the brunt of the effects of racism in America have been borne overwhelmingly by blacks.

Also, polls that ask whites about race relations have consistently shown a tendency to believe they are better than they actually are. For instance (sorry I don't have the link) a recent poll showed that whites felt unemployment and access to higher education were the same for both races. College attendance for whites is 28% while the rate for blacks is drastically lower at 17%. I don't remmeber the actual employment figures but I assume TPM readers are intelligent enough to be aware of the general relationship between black and white unemployment.

Point is, when discussing oppression, the viewpoint of the oppressed would seem to somewhat more relevant.

Posted at July 17, 2008 6:49 AM in response to Nagourney Responds: We Are "Comfortable" With Our Story, Though Headline Was Imperfect

FISA is not a key issue? Gutting the Fourth amendment is not a key issue? Shutting down any chance of holding the telecoms or Bush accountable for warrantless searches is not an issue?

What WOULD you consider an issue?

Posted at July 11, 2008 11:50 PM in response to Poll: National Race Tightens; Majority Says Obama Flip-Flopped On Key Issues

Mr. Bernstein,

"Are these ideas too “orthodox and cautious?” Dunno. And if they are, is that necessarily bad, given the likelihood of implementing uncautious, unorthodox ideas?"

You know full well that saying something is "too orthodox and cautious" is not the same as saying you prefer "uncautious, unorthodox."

Saying that someone who is driving 40 in a 55 MPH zone is driving too cautiously does not necessarily mean you prefer driving recklessly (uncautiously).

If you think Mr. Krugman's preferences are reckless, say so and why. But don't suggest he said something he didn't.

Posted at March 29, 2008 4:14 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=2550635&matches=114&author=Keynes%2C+John+Maynard&browse=1&cm_sp=works*listing*title

Posted at March 29, 2008 4:05 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

kozmik,

One more thing, have you ever read Krugman on Keynes?

Posted at March 29, 2008 3:58 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

Nice little game kozmik. If Krugman says something that hurts your position, just dismiss it. You're always right.

Either you don't know Krugman as well as you think, you don't understand him or you don't want to.

Krugman, as a kindred spirit of Stiglitz, has a great deal of skepticism about so called "free" markets. His support of "free" markets includes a healthy dose of regulation.

I think Krugman went out of his way to whack Obama a few times - and he was wrong - but the reaction by hard core Obama supporters to his initial comments was just plain silly.

Obama supports "free" markets doesn't he?

FYI, I am a former Kucinich, then Edwards supporter. I hope Obama wins the Democratic nomination. (Of course, since I don't agree with you, I'm just saying that to get "street cred.") But his most ardent supporters - as with Clintons - have just gone over the edge on a lot of these "issues" including the attacks on Krugman.

Posted at March 29, 2008 3:56 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

I think you're a little too quick to dismiss obstruction as the motivation for Lam's dismissal. Yes, Cunningham is in jail but this investigation showed every sign of widening not winding down.

There would also seem to be some precedence: Frederick Black was demoted in 2002 as USA for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands one day after issuing a subpoena that likely would have lead to Abramoff. That investigation then fizzled.

Posted at March 23, 2007 4:04 PM in response to What was the U.S. Attorney Purge Meant to Achieve?