White Privilege
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

By Tim Wise

Riiiiiiiight.

Cogent, to the point, incisive, beautifully articulated and.....most
important.....intellectually rigorous and deeply profound.

Wolfgang
is it any wonder that davie is the go to guy for critical analysis?

White Privilege
 

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 8:24 pm, Frank Reid © 2008 wrote:

I agree with you, that peoples kids should be left out...

Yeah, that's the trouble with Murrca......people keep bringing family into
family values.

Wolfgang

White Privilege
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.


You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

White Privilege
 

"Charlie S." w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.


You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

It's true that Miranda isn't a verbatim recapitulation of anything
specifically and explicitly stated in the constitution, but then, anything
that is would be superfluous, right? Meanwhile, it is generally accepted
that the busines of the Supreme Court is, to a large extent, the analysis,
interpretation, extension, amplification and exposition not only of the
literal content of the constitution (which, after all, is right out there
where any educated and thoughtful person can read it for him or her self,
and which couldn't possibly have anticipated any and all future needs,
anyway), but also of the philosophy and doctrine of law espoused therein.
Unfortunately, not everyone in this country is well educated and thoughtful.
Many are not intimately familiar with the provisions of the fifth Amendment
to the Constitution and all of its implications, legal, philosophical, or
practical. Moreover, even among those who ARE intimately familiar with its
provisions, there will be those whose capacity doesn't necessarily extend to
a realization that self-incrimination can be inadvertent and that simple
silence may be their best course.

In simplest terms, Miranda is nothing more than a gloss on the phrase
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself..." and a prohibition against law enforcement agents working on the
erroneous assumption that accused suspects may be treated as if they don't
have certain rights just because they aren't aware of them.

In short, there is a widespread (if not quite universal or expressly stated)
consensus in this country to the effect that Miranda rights ARE included in
the fifth Amendment which, the last time I looked, is still a part of the
United States Constitution.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

Ainna?

Wolfgang

White Privilege
 

On Sep 22, 11:03*am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
* * *By Tim Wise
* * *9/13/08

snip

* * *White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

White Privilege
 

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:03*am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
* * *By Tim Wise
* * *9/13/08

snip

while if you're black

What about if you're of bi-racial...? About white folks? How about
mixed races?

and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

Well, that's OK - it appears to refer to Obama, so if it does, he taught
his classes that it was in there, so it probably was and someone just
erased it as a dirty trick...probably a wild pack of gay male
prostitutes hired by the GOP...

Sheesh,
R

White Privilege
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:03 am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

while if you're black

What about if you're of bi-racial...? About white folks? How about
mixed races?

and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

Well, that's OK - it appears to refer to Obama, so if it does, he taught
his classes that it was in there, so it probably was and someone just
erased it as a dirty trick...probably a wild pack of gay male
prostitutes hired by the GOP...

8?

Wolfgang
everyone who thinks dicklet actually believes this stuff enhances his image
as an adult raise your right hand. :)