Kill the Darkie!
I have a hard time discerning whether Reinhard is a flat-out racist in his Dec. 01 article, or if he is using racism to justify the killing of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the founder of the Crips.
First he excoriates everyone who has risen to the Crips' founder's defense, and identifies them as "Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, all the usual suspects."
Funny choice of phrase, that. Are they "all the usual suspects" because they are black? Or because they are liberal? Not knowing Snoop's political views myself, I can only surmise it's because they're black, and belong in a lineup, that Reinhard calls them "all the usual suspects."
But then he rises to the defense of three Taiwanese victims of Williams at the end of his column, and the nine children and ten grandchildren left between them.
When, in Reinhard's career, has he ever stuck up for poor immigrants? When has he ever given a damn about anyone that is not rich, white and Republican?
Now is one of those times. So let's look at his new, altruistic motives: he is taking up the cause of the victims because he wants to see an imprisoned man die.
Vengeance, plain and simple. Williams' life spent in prison is not enough. His redemption, and his work on numerous anti-gang books over the last decades, is not enough. His pioneering of anti-gang programs for youth, orchestrated from jail, is not enough.
Reinhard wants this man dead.
No matter what the murderer does after the crime, there is no chance for forgiveness, Reinhard implies. How very...non-Christian of him.
Why does he devote an entire column to calling for the death of a human being? What kind of sick, sadistic man is Reinhard? The murderer is in prison for good. He has done good things while being in prison, even being nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes.
And still, Reinhard wants him to die.
Imprisonment is not enough. Redemption is not enough. He must DIE, he says.
Yes, he committed horrible crimes. Yes, his victims died unjustly. But this is no reason to increase his punishment beyond what is necessary.
Life imprisonment ensures he will not kill again. The streets are safe from Williams.
It is not enough, Reinhard says. He must DIE.
I seriously doubt Reinhard would have come out so vehemently for the death of a white man. Or a rich man. Does he fear the poor minorities of America so much that he wants to kill them one at a time on Death Row?
First he excoriates everyone who has risen to the Crips' founder's defense, and identifies them as "Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, all the usual suspects."
Funny choice of phrase, that. Are they "all the usual suspects" because they are black? Or because they are liberal? Not knowing Snoop's political views myself, I can only surmise it's because they're black, and belong in a lineup, that Reinhard calls them "all the usual suspects."
But then he rises to the defense of three Taiwanese victims of Williams at the end of his column, and the nine children and ten grandchildren left between them.
When, in Reinhard's career, has he ever stuck up for poor immigrants? When has he ever given a damn about anyone that is not rich, white and Republican?
Now is one of those times. So let's look at his new, altruistic motives: he is taking up the cause of the victims because he wants to see an imprisoned man die.
Vengeance, plain and simple. Williams' life spent in prison is not enough. His redemption, and his work on numerous anti-gang books over the last decades, is not enough. His pioneering of anti-gang programs for youth, orchestrated from jail, is not enough.
Reinhard wants this man dead.
No matter what the murderer does after the crime, there is no chance for forgiveness, Reinhard implies. How very...non-Christian of him.
Why does he devote an entire column to calling for the death of a human being? What kind of sick, sadistic man is Reinhard? The murderer is in prison for good. He has done good things while being in prison, even being nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes.
And still, Reinhard wants him to die.
Imprisonment is not enough. Redemption is not enough. He must DIE, he says.
Yes, he committed horrible crimes. Yes, his victims died unjustly. But this is no reason to increase his punishment beyond what is necessary.
Life imprisonment ensures he will not kill again. The streets are safe from Williams.
It is not enough, Reinhard says. He must DIE.
I seriously doubt Reinhard would have come out so vehemently for the death of a white man. Or a rich man. Does he fear the poor minorities of America so much that he wants to kill them one at a time on Death Row?
posted by platon at 11:40 AM
2 Comments:
Reinhard is probably not a racist in the truest sense; although, it would be reasonable to believe latent racism exists within him. He did, after all, lean towards placing all people of Middle Eastern ethinicity in a special category after 9/11. We can confidently presume that if Condi Rice or any other high-ranking, non-white member of the right wing or Wall Street were to visit The Oregonian's offices, David would be as eager as anyone to get a moment's attention from the visitor. Reinhard has probably from the time he was in kindergarten sucked up to authority and looked with disdain on anyone not part of the inner circle to which he aspired. He has many counterparts throughout history - the courtiers in European palaces and ambitious mid-level functionaries in corporate offices and other fascist regimes, among others.
I've decided to post in the comment section, to not take away from platon's wickedly skewing comments on Reinhard's Tookie Williams column....
Capital punishment seems to be in the news a lot lately. With the 1000th execution in the United States over the past thirty years having been conducted this past week- putting us in league with such countries known for egregious human rights abuses as Iran, China, and Vietnam- it is little wonder that right-wing pundits have been weighing in on this issue. But the reason for their pontificating is Tookie Williams, a celebrity of sorts who is seeking clemency on California's Death Row.
I'm going to digress a moment, but did anyone notice that The Oregonian's op-ed page carried a column by the National Review's Rich Lowry just a couple of days after Reinhard published his screed last week? Considering that Dave is an associate editor for The Oregonian, you would think that he wouldn't so easily help make DWR!'s case that he is a hack who swallows the National Review and the RNC's talking points and regurgitates them back onto The Oregonian's op-ed page. But hear we are with an excellent example. Sure, perhaps Lowry's piece wasn't originally published until Dec. 2nd- and Dave's was published Dec. 1st- but the similarities and the timing are much too coincidental. I'm not claiming there is a conspiracy, but I am going to state that there is an agreed upon consensus to focus on the same issues, with regional commentators taking their cues from the National Review.
At any rate, the topic at hand: man did bad things. Man has been on Death Row for years, using his constitutionally-granted appeals process. Appeals have been used up. Man scheduled for death. 'The usual suspects' clamor for clemency. Reinhard clamors for death, citing that 'justice' needs to be done for Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Yang, who left six children and 10 grandchildren and Yee-Chen Lin, who left behind three children in Taiwan.
I'll never understand the right's obsession with death. As murder rates have maintained at a steady level since the death penalty was re-instated in 1977, what evidence is there that capital punishment works as a deterrent? Indeed, more and bigger private prisons are being built, needing more people to fill these prisons, and a handsome profit is being turned. The death penalty is an action that condones violence, that says as a society, we approve of killing. Albeit killing of nasty, bad people, but socially-approved killing nonetheless. And that's okay, while feigning shock and surprise as our children play Grant Theft Auto. The only thing the death penalty accomplishes is a continual feeding of violent tendencies, resulting in more crimes being committed, and a further expanding of the prison industry.
I will grant that Tookie Williams is a bad man. For his crimes, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. It is unfortunate that he has realized, rather too late, the importance of life, but look at the life he has lived on Death Row, and the numerous lives he has had a positive impact on as his fate has been hanging in the balance. Writing children's books that warn against taking the path of violence, being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize- quantitatively, there appears to be more usefulness and worth in keeping Tookie alive, then in killing him. He won't have an effect on another young person's life if he's, well, dead.
But what about justice? To that I'll reply: no matter what Reinhard and Lowry may want you to believe, killing Tookie will not bring Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Yang back. 'Eye for an eye' may be an appropriate argument in Biblical times, but we don't live in Biblical times.
Besides, I consider life precious. Maybe that's just because I'm a liberal?
true_slicky
Post a Comment
<< Home