Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Who knew?
Arethusa
Universal Cathode
in Zocalo v2.0
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm]It appears the New American Century was only [i]six years long[/i][/url].
Comments
I really have to wonder how the Bush Administration would've tried to pull off the attempted democratization of Iraq if September 11 hadn't happened. Because that did seem to be the ultimate goal: Go through the world, blowing the unamericanism out of every country that looked at us funny.
Don't get me wrong, I consider myself fairly liberal and I was opposed to this conflict since the beginning. But I can't shake the feeling that they will somehow blow it in '08. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
[B]I've had similar feelings. Rather notably, all the PNAC guys just went back to the AEI, and if they didn't go there, they'll likely end up at CATO, Rand, or one of the others. I don't truly think this movement is over. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. The United States is still mostly conservative, despite the results of the last election. Those who were ousted (or like minded people) will be back in power soon enough.
I have the feeling that for some reason the Democrats will put Hillary Clinton as the frontrunner in the next election. While I personally have no problem with her as I feel she's completely capable of being president, she would be a disaster for the Dems in 2008. There are far too many people who despise her and I'm convinced that she would lose in a landslide. Even having her as a vice president would be foolish in my opinion.
In any case, I do agree she would be a disaster. Obama is a gamble; Clinton is just outright suicide.
The problem, is Obama left enough for the primary run? I think Hillary definitely is, but given Obama's reception most places he goes, he may not need to be that left to make it. Only time will tell at this point if he is just a flash in the pan, or will have some staying power on the campaign trail.
I see a very possible generally election that will feature McCain and Obama and would be the first election, since I've been old enough to vote, in which I would be comfortable with either candidate.
Jake
[B]You know, I really do wonder why she's so polarizing.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think it's because many people want see a Laura Bush type of women in the public arena rather than a Hillary Clinton. The US is still a sexist nation whether people will admit it or not.
Along similar lines, it is the reason why Obama would lose as well. I am very fond of him as a candidate and I agree with him on many issues. He is intelligent, articulate, and charming. In a more perfect world I think he would make an excellent president. However, I don’t think an African American can get elected today. As sexist as Americans are, they are even more racist. While this country has come a long way, I think there is still much more work to be done before a person of color becomes commander-in-chief.
I think many people see her (along with her husband) as ultimate political opportunitists. Allowing their positions and stances to wander and change to what ever suits the situation. I think most believe her personal gain is well ahead of the needs of the country.
That's not to say that the country is looking for an idealist, lord knows that competent opportunitist is much better than an incompetent idealist (as we've found out over the past few years). Rather, I think people will be looking for a pragmatist in the next election, hence my belief that it may be McCain and Obama.
I also think you are underestimating middle America if you believe that much of the country is still too racist to elect a black man. There are absolutely districts and states that would not elect Obama, but those are also pockets that wouldn't elect a Democrat. For much of the rest of the US, I think that a sincere, articulate black candidate has just as much chance at election as a white candidate with similar credientials.
Jake
As for racism, I really do think that's more significant than you think. Sure, the districts that would never elect anyone without an R next to his name are rare and likely to be the same districts that would never elect a no good nigger, but look at the last presidential election and factor in even 1% of the (mobilized) electorate being prejudiced against a black man running for office. Stormfront style racism may be more or less irrelevant and antiquated, but racism as a social pathology is arguably as strong as its ever been, and certainly strong enough to make it hard for Obama (and much more pervasive than 1% of the population, though this country is loath to admit it). The fact that he is [i]not[/i] African American and comes from a socioeconomic background that is basically white powerful elite will likely be an asset.
The case gets worse for Hillary. Last study I saw indicated that only 86% of the country is willing to consider a woman a legitimate candidate for president. 14% of the electorate in a Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry type election is a landslide fucking loss.
Get ready for eight more years of hard right Republicans. If you think McCain is moderate and reasonable, take a look at some of his recent bedfellows. The McCain you knew is not the McCain that can get elected.
I have a serious question about a first family being a first family for 4 terms. Now, while I believe that Hillary would be her own person, my issue is in terms of precedent setting for the spouse of a former (or current) president, while still married, becoming president. This can be either direction: husband, then wife; or wife, then husband.
The reason being: what happens when someone decides to abuse this and nominate their spouse for terms 3 and 4 just to get themselves another 2 terms? While legally their spouse would be president, that power can be delegated 100% to former president resulting in an unofficial 4-term presidency. This is my biggest issue with Hillary while she is still married to Bill. If she divorced, it would no longer be an issue.
Personally, I feel that a (1) no individual can be president more than 2 terms, and (2) no current spouse of a (former or current) president can run for president if the combined total of their terms in office is 2 or more. This is to preserve the 2-term precedent of office and to avoid abuse of that precedent by people who wish to manipulate the citizens of the US.
Now, of course, this brings up the question of unwed first families. I'm not even going to try that one, since it isn't an issue (yet).
[B]Personally, I feel that a (1) no individual can be president more than 2 terms, and (2) no current spouse of a (former or current) president can run for president if the combined total of their terms in office is 2 or more. This is to preserve the 2-term precedent of office and to avoid abuse of that precedent by people who wish to manipulate the citizens of the US.
Now, of course, this brings up the question of unwed first families. I'm not even going to try that one, since it isn't an issue (yet). [/B][/QUOTE]
What about the son of a former president? *cough*Bush*cough* ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa[/i]
[B]The fact that he is not African American and comes from a socioeconomic background that is basically white powerful elite will likely be an asset.[/B][/QUOTE]
According to [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama]Wikipedia[/URL] Obama's father is from Kenya.
[B]What about the son of a former president? *cough*Bush*cough* ;)[/B][/QUOTE]
Seriously, dynasties are nothing new in American politics. Madison always intended the wealthy elite to be the ruling class. Bushes, Roosevelts, Kennedys (albeit only one presidency), Adams, etc.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Space Ghost [/i]
[B]According to [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama]Wikipedia[/URL] Obama's father is from Kenya. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, but not African American as the term is more or less defined in use: his father was not born here, he has no geneological roots to slavery, he's half black African, and he grew up not only in privilege and wealth but in an extremely liberal state far removed from the racism and ugliness one would find in, say, NYC or LA.
[B]Yes, but not African American as the term is more or less defined in use: his father was not born here, he has no geneological roots to slavery, he's half black African, and he grew up not only in privilege and wealth but in an extremely liberal state far removed from the racism and ugliness one would find in, say, NYC or LA. [/B][/QUOTE]
While what you say is true, he is a man of African decent and a citizen of the United States. According to the definition provided by [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=African-American]Merriam-Webster[/URL], he would correctly be called an African American.
Besides, I doubt very much that most people would make the distinction in the way that you do.
[B]Iraq was on their hit list in 1997, and they knew that it would take some time to manufacture consent for the war without 'some massive, catalyzing event'. Then a couple buildings fell over, and it was time to put down that uppity dictator for disobeying orders ten years ago. [/B][/QUOTE]
Manufacturing Consent eh? Are you a Chomsky reader? I got a new Chomsky book for Christmas :)
Chomsky is a great mind in his field of linguistics. Outside his field his work is a complete joke though. His misuse of sources (aka "facts") is legendary and he has been repeatedly caught out over the years. It's the reason he avoided publishing any of his historical or political work in refereed journals in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And it's not due to his politics meaning that he was refused publicication - there are plenty of Marxists whose work was/is taken seriously and who do not distort or twist sources to fit, he was simply unwilling to put his work up for proper scrutiny.
Chomsky would of course quote the above as something like this
"Chomsky is a great mind in his field of linguistics. Outside his field his work...is legendary. [Those in power] avoided publishing any of his historical or political work...due to his politics meaning that he was refused publication...[his] work is taken seriously and ...[does] not distort or twist sources to fit, he...put his work up for proper scrutiny."
[B]Quite to the contrary, there's been a lot of polling done by political ops testing the waters for his run (both for him and for his potential opponents), and the African American community (as I defined it) has been largely rather tepid in their reception of him. And it's not [i]that[/i] surprising that they see him as an outsider— I mean, he basically is. I'm not calling him an oreo— that's an insult I reserve for truly deserving cuntbuckets like Thomas Sowell— but in terms of his upbringing and his proximity to real race issues, there [i]is[/i] a reason white people have been so comfortable with him. That is is oversimplification, to a degree, and it doesn't mean he's a bad person or that African Americans won't vote for him, but just because he looks kind of black to white people doesn't mean he looks the same to the American black community. [/B][/QUOTE]
I understand. But my point was that Mr. & Mrs. Joe Blow Redneck isn't going to make the distinction. A black person is a black person to them regardless of Obama's background. While the African American community (as you have defined it) may see Obama as different or an outsider, few racists will do the same.
[B]Manufacturing Consent eh? Are you a Chomsky reader? I got a new Chomsky book for Christmas :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh. Well, I recently gave a lecture on neoimperialism and American economic hegemony. You can probably guess.
Which book was it? Failed States?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]Chomsky, Chomsky... Chomsky. You may as well throw it in the bin. His politics have been widely dismissed by nearly everyone on the left. Why? Maybe it was his refusal to accept that the heaven of communist Vietnam's DRV involved mass killings in order to impliment its land reform campaign.[/B][/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10869]Please, show me where he refuses to acknowledge the DRV's land reform violence[/url]. Apparently, you read FrontPage and made the mistake of thinking you learned something from it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]Or his initial denial of the extent of Khmer Rouge atrocities (and later excuses for them)[/B][/QUOTE]
So, basically, you also read New Criterion and foolishly take it seriously. Windschuttle is a fucking idiot and a liar.
I think I'll defer to Michael Vickery, who [url=http://www.radioislam.org/totus/CGCF/file36Vickery.html]wrote to the president of Harvard International Review[/url], "as one of the three or four most experienced students of recent Cambodian history who have carried out extensive interviewing of Cambodians who lived through the Pol Pot years, I find that Chomsky and Herman were fully justified in their skepticism of mainline propaganda, and that little in the Cambodia section of their book requires revision in the light of more recent information - on the contrary, their approach is for the most part validated by careful analysis of the much larger body of material available today."
But, hey, [url=http://www.walrusmagazine.com/u/register/?ref=history-bombs-over-cambodia]who needs truth[/url] when you have propaganda.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]maybe his support for Diana Johnstone and her "genocide denial" (regarding the massacre at Srebrenica)[/B][/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone11142005.html]You mean except for the fact that that didn't actually ever happen, right?[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]not to mention his classic description of Mao's China as a just and livable society...[/B][/QUOTE]
Have you, in fact, read anything but Windschuttle's article and a couple of shitty fascist postings on FrontPage? For fun, let's compare your propaganda with [url=http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm]what Chomsky actually said[/url], since you are basically lying:
"Indeed, a recent article in the China Quarterly -- which is hardly a pro-Red Chinese journal -- compares Chinese and Russian communization to the very great credit of the Chinese communization, precisely for these reasons, pointing out that its greater success in achieving a relatively livable and to some extent just society was correlated with the fact that these methods involved much less terror."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]Chomsky is a great mind in his field of linguistics. Outside his field his work is a complete joke though. His misuse of sources (aka "facts") is legendary and he has been repeatedly caught out over the years. It's the reason he avoided publishing any of his historical or political work in refereed journals in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And it's not due to his politics meaning that he was refused publicication - there are plenty of Marxists whose work was/is taken seriously and who do not distort or twist sources to fit, he was simply unwilling to put his work up for proper scrutiny.[/B][/QUOTE]
His politics have been dismissed because the "herd of independent minds" finds him too uncomfortable. All great truths begin as blasphemies.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jambo [/i]
[B]Chomsky would of course quote the above as something like this
"Chomsky is a great mind in his field of linguistics. Outside his field his work...is legendary. [Those in power] avoided publishing any of his historical or political work...due to his politics meaning that he was refused publication...[his] work is taken seriously and ...[does] not distort or twist sources to fit, he...put his work up for proper scrutiny."[/B][/QUOTE]
Now, isn't [i]that[/i] ironic.
Pot. Kettle. Black. End of fucking debate.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Space Ghost [/i]
[B]I understand. But my point was that Mr. & Mrs. Joe Blow Redneck isn't going to make the distinction. A black person is a black person to them regardless of Obama's background. While the African American community (as you have defined it) may see Obama as different or an outsider, few racists will do the same. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't disagree, but you don't really need to find Stormfront posting rednecks to find racism. I mean, just look at Sean Bell. Obama's problem isn't going to be redneck, hood wearing, David Duke racism. That kind of racism has never been more irrelevant. His problem is going to be pervasive, latent racism that affects this entire nation just as deeply as it is entirely unwilling to address it.
[B]His problem is going to be pervasive, latent racism that affects this entire nation just as deeply as it is entirely unwilling to address it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, this is true.
Yes the "propganda" was sensationlist and such, but that doesnt change the fact that it was in the end, true. Although one could add that the massive proponderance of evidence we have today about the true depravity of the situation in cambodian, situation was not avaible to either Chomsky or Vickery, even at the time he wrote his letter in [I]1981[/I] Also the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge continued into the 1990's, it wasnt until the late 90's that the situation in Cambodia settled down to the point, that a detailed picture could start to emerge. although saying its settled down is quite relative, cambodia still is pretty much a "failed" state
Vickery is one of those that irritates me greatly because his constant claims that it was the US using the Khmer Rouge as a cats paw versus Vietnam, and totaly ignoring the Soviet and Chinese hands in the matter, since China itself dumped alot of resources into the Khmer Rouge to counter the vietnamese. In a sense Cambodia was a proxy war between the Soviet Union and China. (rember at the time the Soviets and China hated one another, Brechnez even jokingly made an offer to Margret Thatcher that the West and Soviet Union should get together to nuke china off the map)
As for Obama, and all those red necks you people keep talking about, where the hell do you keep finding em? I mean yeah Ive met a few, and there are some out there, but they are not even close to forming a major part of the republicans let alone the electorate.
Hell a good chunk of the republican party wants to draft Condi Rice, or is it since she's a republican and thus an "aunt Tommiana" she's not really black?
And as for Sean Bell, I find it funny that while alot of bad police work was present, only 2 of the 5 officers involved were white, the first officer to shoot (and the one struck by the car) was black. So how does racism play into that?
[B]Quite to the contrary, there's been a lot of polling done by political ops testing the waters for his run (both for him and for his potential opponents), and the African American community (as I defined it) has been largely rather tepid in their reception of him. And it's not [i]that[/i] surprising that they see him as an outsider— I mean, he basically is. I'm not calling him an oreo— that's an insult I reserve for truly deserving cuntbuckets like Thomas Sowell— but in terms of his upbringing and his proximity to real race issues, there [i]is[/i] a reason white people have been so comfortable with him. That is is oversimplification, to a degree, and it doesn't mean he's a bad person or that African Americans won't vote for him, but just because he looks kind of black to white people doesn't mean he looks the same to the American black community. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow, you are truly the understanding and senstive defender of the comman man,
I mean, just look at your little rant there because somebody is black and has a radicly different political and economic belief that what some people think they should because of the color of their skin?
hate to brake it to you Arethusa, there are alot of people of all colors who reject marxist lennist or maoist ideologies based on thought and deliberation, many of those people also reject softer socialist economic theories for similar reasons.
To illustrate my point looking at economies around the world today, and you find that the socialist ones dont seem to fare better then their capatlistic counterparts.
[B]Wow, you are truly the understanding and senstive defender of the comman man,
I mean, just look at your little rant there because somebody is black and has a radicly different political and economic belief that what some people think they should because of the color of their skin?
hate to brake it to you Arethusa, there are alot of people of all colors who reject marxist lennist or maoist ideologies based on thought and deliberation, many of those people also reject softer socialist economic theories for similar reasons.
To illustrate my point looking at economies around the world today, and you find that the socialist ones dont seem to fare better then their capatlistic counterparts. [/B][/QUOTE]
In my personal observation people seem to vote based on one to a small few number of issues, often at the expense of the bigger picture and the rest of a candidate's platform. Minority status will almost certainly be one of those issues and it is amazing how many others, such as marxest vs capitalistic views, will be ignored.
And as for Arethusa saying McCain is a hard core conservative, Im thinking he's showing either he's on crack or that he is marxist/lennist, cause you would have to be that far to the left to thing of McCain as hard right, and yes this is judging by the policies he's voted for.
Jeeze Arethusa why dont you just start labling all your opponents counter revolutionaries and be done with it?
[B]Croxis, thats pretty much true, which is why I think when it comes to Obama race isnt going to mater, those who core issues he supports will vote for him, regardless of skin color, and those who's core issues he opposes will vote against him, again regardless of skin color.[/B][/QUOTE]
I must respectfully disagree. To think that race means nothing to people in the United States is wishful thinking. The point that was made earlier was that while the KKK style racism may be all but dead, racism in other forms is alive and well beneath the surface.
to behonest I think those who are shallow enough to vote against him because he's black either already vote republican, or even more likely vote for minority party canidates on the fringe, or dont even bother voting at all.
[B]Aethusa, the fact remains that Chomsky was highly skeptical of the extent of the problems in Cambodia till long after some credible information was present about the situation in the killing fields was present, Vickery is backing that postion, because it is also one he himself held.
Yes the "propganda" was sensationlist and such, but that doesnt change the fact that it was in the end, true. Although one could add that the massive proponderance of evidence we have today about the true depravity of the situation in cambodian, situation was not avaible to either Chomsky or Vickery, even at the time he wrote his letter in [I]1981[/I] Also the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge continued into the 1990's, it wasnt until the late 90's that the situation in Cambodia settled down to the point, that a detailed picture could start to emerge. although saying its settled down is quite relative, cambodia still is pretty much a "failed" state
Vickery is one of those that irritates me greatly because his constant claims that it was the US using the Khmer Rouge as a cats paw versus Vietnam, and totaly ignoring the Soviet and Chinese hands in the matter, since China itself dumped alot of resources into the Khmer Rouge to counter the vietnamese. In a sense Cambodia was a proxy war between the Soviet Union and China. (rember at the time the Soviets and China hated one another, Brechnez even jokingly made an offer to Margret Thatcher that the West and Soviet Union should get together to nuke china off the map)[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't obviate the USSR and China of their responsibility, and I don't disagree that Cambodia is a failed state. But Chomsky's incredulity at the time was entirely justified in the face of overwhelming propaganda, and that propaganda did not simply turn out to be true.
Regardless, claiming that he is a "Khmer Rouge apologist" is just a fanatical lie, and [i]that[/i] I cannot stand.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Wow, you are truly the understanding and senstive defender of the comman man,
I mean, just look at your little rant there because somebody is black and has a radicly different political and economic belief that what some people think they should because of the color of their skin?
hate to brake it to you Arethusa, there are alot of people of all colors who reject marxist lennist or maoist ideologies based on thought and deliberation, many of those people also reject softer socialist economic theories for similar reasons.
To illustrate my point looking at economies around the world today, and you find that the socialist ones dont seem to fare better then their capatlistic counterparts. [/B][/QUOTE]
What.. the fuck.. are you even talking about? I know you really want to get your 'Merican hardon to go bash some commies or something, but (1) I'm not a communist and (2) you're and idiot.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]And as for Arethusa saying McCain is a hard core conservative, Im thinking he's showing either he's on crack or that he is marxist/lennist, cause you would have to be that far to the left to thing of McCain as hard right, and yes this is judging by the policies he's voted for.
Jeeze Arethusa why dont you just start labling all your opponents counter revolutionaries and be done with it? [/B][/QUOTE]
Hilarious. I suppose you want me to testify before HUAC to prove my patriotism, too.
McCain has been drifting steadily towards the right since his defeat in 2000, and as he's been readying for a run in 2008, he's been getting much closer to the evangelical and neoconservative movements. McCain speaking at Bob Jones would have been unthinkable ten years ago. As I said, McCain as president will not be the same McCain you think you know.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]to behonest I think those who are shallow enough to vote against him because he's black either already vote republican, or even more likely vote for minority party canidates on the fringe, or dont even bother voting at all. [/B][/QUOTE]
While that is likely true of most who [i]consciously[/i] would vote against him because of his skin color, I really must emphasize that much more latent racism is far more prevalent and will make things very hard for Obama.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]As for Obama, and all those red necks you people keep talking about, where the hell do you keep finding em? I mean yeah Ive met a few, and there are some out there, but they are not even close to forming a major part of the republicans let alone the electorate.[/B][/QUOTE]
Did you even read what I posted? Those red necks are rare and irrelevant, and I never said otherwise.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]And as for Sean Bell, I find it funny that while alot of bad police work was present, only 2 of the 5 officers involved were white, the first officer to shoot (and the one struck by the car) was black. So how does racism play into that?[/B][/QUOTE]
Very easily. You seriously think black cops aren't just as racist as white ones?
[B]I don't obviate the USSR and China of their responsibility, and I don't disagree that Cambodia is a failed state. But Chomsky's incredulity at the time was entirely justified in the face of overwhelming propaganda, and that propaganda did not simply turn out to be true.
Regardless, claiming that he is a "Khmer Rouge apologist" is just a fanatical lie, and [i]that[/i] I cannot stand.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I still think the propoganda mostly hit the mark, were quibbling over the diffrence between 900,000 dead, and say 1.2 million, even if Vickery's low numbers of 800,000 are right, thats still a hell of alot considering were only talking a country of 7.2 million.
But your right calling him a "khmer Rouge apologist" isnt right, however that doesnt clear the critisim that he has been rather quiet on the subject even though his initial beliefs have been proven wrong.
[QUOTE][B]
What.. the fuck.. are you even talking about? I know you really want to get your 'Merican hardon to go bash some commies or something, but (1) I'm not a communist and (2) you're and idiot.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I was commenting about your comments on Thomas Sowell, your usage of cuntbucket and other bits of diatrbe, plus calling me an idiot are wonderfull examples of skilled debating tactics.
[QUOTE][B]
Hilarious. I suppose you want me to testify before HUAC to prove my patriotism, too.
McCain has been drifting steadily towards the right since his defeat in 2000, and as he's been readying for a run in 2008, he's been getting much closer to the evangelical and neoconservative movements. McCain speaking at Bob Jones would have been unthinkable ten years ago. As I said, McCain as president will not be the same McCain you think you know.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but his moves to the "Right" are blatantly obvious to those of us in this corner as simple pandering in attempt to firm up his chances for 2008, his actual politics as evidenced by his voting record, even recently, is still pretty far left.
[QUOTE][B]
While that is likely true of most who [i]consciously[/i] would vote against him because of his skin color, I really must emphasize that much more latent racism is far more prevalent and will make things very hard for Obama.
Did you even read what I posted? Those red necks are rare and irrelevant, and I never said otherwise.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Then it sounds to me like alot of people who are registered Dems need to to alot of soul searching, because it sounds like dispite talking the talk, they are not going to walk the walk on this issue.
[QUOTE][B]
Very easily. You seriously think black cops aren't just as racist as white ones? [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy if its like that, then no, they arent targeting because they hate blacks or anything, unless you think secrently they go to bed every night hoping to wake up white.
Not all the time when cops shoot people that they shouldnt is it down to the racism card, hell, considering how much and how lousy they shot, I think the officers in question shoulda been tox screened, considering they damn near took out two transit authority police who were a few blocks away, I mean what the hell, were they drinking?
While some sort of discriminatory behavior was taking place, there were probably other factors at play other then simply skin color.
Note I am not claiming it was a justifiable shoot, I think the cops had some lame ass personal motive for it, perhaps one of the party goers made some very negative comments about cops while telling a story or something. I wouldnt be suprised if this was cops engaged in rampent thuggery, but not one based on skin color.