Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fred Korematsu, RIP
Michelle Malkin can breathe a little easier today. Fred Korematsu, the twentieth century's greatest threat to the U.S. government's constitutional authority to keep American citizens in concentration camps, has died at the age of 86. Although the case Korematsu v. United States was decided in favor of the government and Korematsu himself kept a low profile in the postwar years, his challenge to the policy of interning Japanese-Americans received new attention as historians and activists began to take a closer look at this shameful piece of American history. President Reagan issued an official apology and reparations in 1988, and Korematsu received a Medal of Freedom from President Clinton in 1998.
Like all bad ideas, internment seems destined for periodic revivals. Malkin, the meretricious bigmouth and self-described "first-generation American," has led the effort to burnish the sordid legacy of internment in recent years—all the more reason to remember the lives, the fortunes, and the sacred honor that get destroyed when the government responds to (and helps to lead) a public panic.
|4.1.05 @ 2:17PM|#
Well, if there's anything we learn from history, it's that we don't learn anything from history...
|4.1.05 @ 3:07PM|#
From the dissent:
Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.
This exclusion of 'all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and
non-alien,' from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military
necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved.
Such exclusion goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power'
and falls into the ugly abyss of racism....In dealing with matters
relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, . . . it is
essential that there be definite limits to military discretion,
especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals
must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a
plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor
support."
Full decision here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=323&invol=214
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=323&invol=214
|4.1.05 @ 3:09PM|#
Does Ms. Malkin at least have a nice chest, so that I might have
something to stare at while she's talking?
Ann Coulter: No boobs = can't even fake interest in her reactionary
agenda.
|4.1.05 @ 3:22PM|#
SPD,
Boobs don't do it for me. I'm not a boob guy. Legs UMMM. The
turn-off, for me, on Anne Coulter's body, is her pasty-white,
caderver-like skin tone.
|4.1.05 @ 3:37PM|#
I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
The lack of excellence in journalism .
I have become a big fan a Laura Ingle here in LA.
|4.1.05 @ 3:41PM|#
SPD & Drooling Richard,
As someone once said in a similar thread (I think it was Joe
[probably one of the few times that I've agreed with
him])...Michelle Malkin has been a naughty girl and needs to be
punished...We should hold some sort of lottery to determine who
gets the honor of performing such a noble and selfless task...
|4.1.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Malkin is way dummer than Coulter, although I can't stand either
of them.
Great shot of Malkin engaging in rational discourse:
http://www.gisleson.com/norwegianity/images/malkin.jpg
|4.1.05 @ 3:46PM|#
MayDay72,
In the spirit of democracy we shall hold an election to determine
which of us gets to punish naughty Ms. Malkin. A puff of white
smoke will declare that a winner has been chosen.
For the good of all rational and free-minded individuals
everywhere, I nominate myself for this thankless task.
|4.1.05 @ 3:49PM|#
As good as Justice Murphy's dissent was, I like that of Justice
Roberts even better (written a mere year before he became the chief
US prosecuror at Nurmemberg.
It should be noted that all 3 of the dissents are worthwhile
reading for our times--especially when one considers that thousands
of US troops were being killed EVERY WEEK as these words were
written. Also, note that the majority opinion was written by the
"great liberal" Hugo Black (and joined by the other "great
liberal", William O. Douglas). Funny how things change, huh?
|4.1.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Ann Coulter: No boobs = can't even fake interest in her
reactionary agenda.
I think you may be confused. Considering that Coulter is skeletally
thin, she has a substantial rack.
For God's sake, when a woman is talking, pay
attention!
|4.1.05 @ 4:06PM|#
"Considering that Coulter is skeletally thin, she has a
substantial rack.
Pro, Stevo, pro. :)
(Sorry I'm feeling a little silly today - I start a new job on
Monday and so I don't feel like being too serious today!)
|4.1.05 @ 4:06PM|#
Stevo,
I had to do a prompt Google images search in order to research your
claim. A prompt search, mind you. I stand
semi-corrected.
By the way, how many political commentators actually have a
freakin' picture gallery on their home page?
www.anncoulter.com... softcore porn for people who hate
freedom.
|4.1.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Congrats on the new job, Lowdog.
Today is my birthday, and I don't feel like being overly serious,
either.
|4.1.05 @ 4:30PM|#
Today is my birthday,...
One day, like me, you'll stop having those; they only make you
older.
Happy Birthday.
|4.1.05 @ 4:33PM|#
Not feeling overly serious guys?
Welcome to my world.
and congratulations, Stevo BirthdayBoy
|4.1.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Guys, if you want to see a good looking conservative woman you
must see Laura Ingraham.
http://www.lauraingraham.com/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=19
To see her in a picture with a nice big rack check out the fourth
picture down.
|4.1.05 @ 5:35PM|#
So what would a "pragmatic libertarian" say about the Korematsu case? Or internment in general?
|4.1.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Mr. Darkly,
Happy birthday! I'm exactly one month behind you...
NoStar,
Wow! That IS a big rack...
Everyone:
Enough about hot-or-not right-wing statists...Now lets talk about
the leftist femmes! Does anyone else fantasize about seeing Naomi
Klein dressed up as a Japanese schoolgirl?
|4.1.05 @ 5:40PM|#
"Nice rack" indeed, NoStar!
Hey, that first picture has Laura with Buyer's Guide To Comics
Fandom founder Alan Light! He sold out to Krause years ago, of
course, but once a fanboy....
Laura I is cute, but the Polling Co.'s Kellyanne (Fitzpatrick)
Conway is an uberbabe.
Kevin
|4.1.05 @ 5:46PM|#
I really want some libertarian cheesecake. Did Rachel Mills put out a calendar for 2005?
|4.1.05 @ 6:01PM|#
I guess trying to start a conversation about internment would be
a waste of time, huh?
Sheesh. Men.
|4.1.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Jennifer,
For months now, I have had a fantasy about being interred with
you.
See? that wasn't hard at all.
|4.1.05 @ 6:18PM|#
Comments like NoStar's make me more befuddled than ever about one of the great mysteries of human history--MY gender has all the pussy, yet YOUR gender rules the world.
|4.1.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Jennifer, the reason we focus on the way right wing pundit
chicks look is that they have nothing remotely interesting to say.
Rounding up citizens and imprisoning them based solely on ethnicity
is bad, and Coulter and Malkin are dead wrong when they claim
otherwise, so there's nothing interesting to say about that.
But Coulter and Malkin are nonetheless hot, so we still have that
to talk about!
|4.1.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Speaking of fantasies: If only Michelle Malkin could be interred with Fred Korematsu.
|4.1.05 @ 6:31PM|#
Feliz Cumpleanos Stevo!
Jennifer, why do you think men have treated women like chattel for
centuries. If y'all ever got wise to the power you have, we'd be in
trouble. That is why I find the sexy feminists more frightening
than the man-haters. The man-haters have a more frightening agenda,
the sexy ones can convince men to implement their ideas.
|4.1.05 @ 6:32PM|#
My Con Law prof. gives a lecture on this case that is simply
stunning. There is no doubt that this case is one of the most
important in all American jurisprudence, because it goes deeply
into the heart of the limits of the Constitution and the
unbelievable burden that justices sometimes face when they think
the law disagrees with their own moral convictions even in the face
of what they consider to be atrocities. Roll in some gross
violations of the standards that the court usually holds to (such
as the justices conferring with Roosavelt to find out if particular
decisions would be to his approval!), and the painfully tragic case
of Fred Korematsu himself (a man who litterally mutilated his face
for all time in an effort to try and rid himself of his Japanese
appearance), and you have one of the greatest American stories ever
told.
Shame on a vacuous twit like Malkin trying to milk it for her the
benefit of her screechy politics.
|4.1.05 @ 6:36PM|#
You are forgetting Laura Ingraham, who is not only prettier and better built than either Coulter or Malkin, but seems to be hipper and nicer, too. (So much for my contribution to this very intellectual discussion.)
|4.1.05 @ 6:38PM|#
I'll repeat:
So what would a "pragmatic libertarian" say about the Korematsu
case? Or internment in general?
|4.1.05 @ 6:52PM|#
So what would a "pragmatic libertarian" say about the
Korematsu case? Or internment in general?
That the Korematsu case wasn't about internment. There would never
have been a Korematsu case if it had been.
|4.1.05 @ 7:05PM|#
My favorite comment about Ann Coulter was in that Boondocks
comic, where the boys decided she was actually a man, because she
has a huge Adam's apple, considered by some a masculine
trait.
Think about it. Conservative chix with dicks.
What's that do for your mental image of Ann and Laura and
Michelle???
|4.1.05 @ 7:11PM|#
Thanks, everyone!
Speaking of magnificent racks ... this
Japanese Web page shows an incredible specimen. (It's actually
work safe, if you don't stare at the photo too long.)
Does anyone else fantasize about seeing Naomi Klein dressed up
as a Japanese schoolgirl?
I do now, thank you.
I'll repeat:
So what would a "pragmatic libertarian" say about the Korematsu
case? Or internment in general?
Dude! What are you ... gay? :)
OK. Y'all can go back to talkig about boring stuff like interning
hot Asian women.
|4.1.05 @ 7:27PM|#
D Angelphone,
Yes, we're all aware of your demarcation. But you're avoiding the
question.
Stevo Darkly,
Only on Tuesdays.
|4.1.05 @ 7:38PM|#
That the Korematsu case wasn't about internment. There would
never have been a Korematsu case if it had been.
D Anghelone, you keep harping on this point every time it comes up.
As far as I can figure out, you're basically saying that the
correct legalese definition of "internment" only refers to the
detention/imprisonment/relocation/insert-favorite-description-here
of foreign citizens, and that this is perfectly consistent with the
Constitution, as well as various duly ratified treaties on the
conduct of war.
Not being a legal scholar I'll accept that, at least for the sake
of argument. No doubt Gary or others can find some holes in it. But
I'm going to advance an argument that doesn't depend on any such
holes. I think it's possible to discuss this issue without getting
bogged down in arcana, so I'll freely grant D Anghelone whatever
arcana he wants.
Anyway, the event in question involved the forcible removal
of US citizens from their homes without due process. For
all I know some non-citizens may have been handled in the same way
as well, but the point is that most of the people involved were US
citizens, and they were forcibly removed from their homes without
due process. And I think we can all agree that this was morally
wrong as well as unconstitutional.
Still with me? OK, good. Now, colloquially the practice in question
has come to be referred to as "internment". I know, I know, that's
not what the legal dictionaries would say. Well, as any good lawyer
could tell you, there's a difference between standard English and
legal jargon. Hell, there's a difference between standard English
and almost any type of professional jargon.
Do I, a physicist, get upset when somebody says that an idea or
business has momentum, even though it doesn't involve actual
objects moving through space? No. Do I get upset when somebody
makes a table or chart, fills in the blanks with words, and refers
to it as a "matrix" (usually in a retreat or seminar), even though
it isn't a mathematical operator that describes a linear mapping?
No. Do I get upset when somebody is at an amusement park and says
that he could really feel strong centrifugal force on a ride that
was spinning? No.
So, is there any non-dictionary point that you'd like to make about
the treatment of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII?
|4.1.05 @ 7:42PM|#
I think I'm going to save that last post to my hard drive and
use it again the next time this matter comes up, since no doubt D
Anghelone will again make his dictionary point.
I still wonder why he's so determined to harp on this. It could
just be a matter of linguistic precision, but he's so determined to
go after Malkin's critics with this ultimately irrelevant cudgel
that I have to wonder whether he actually agrees with her larger
point.
Care to comment, D Anghelone?
|4.1.05 @ 7:54PM|#
I think the internment issue is a worthy one, but since that
conversation is clearly not possible let me say this. I wouldn't
give a hoot whether a rightwing, bs spewing, nauseating talking
head was the hottest thing on the planet. With a mindset like that
he wouldn't do a damn thing for me. What a bummer! How come guys
are so easily taken off topic by the most idiotic members of the
opposite sex as long as they have a nice perky chest standing at
attention? Perhaps I need to begin looking in the direction of the
waist more often when Coulter's male counterparts start yakking?
Nawww...I don't care how many angles from which I attempt to view
Tucker Carlson...there is simply NOTHING that would prevent me from
being disgusted.
Now, if you want to see the hottest person on television...take a
gander at Anderson Cooper.....Holy Smokes! You can lock me up with
that combo of beauty and brains anytime! The only problem with him
is that he's getting way too famous these days which seems to screw
with people's objectivity. I'm choosing to remain optimistic in
Cooper's case, though.
|4.1.05 @ 8:00PM|#
Wow. That was a brilliant post Thoreau. I'd say you handled that as well or better than any scholar. I think I'll save it, too.
|4.1.05 @ 8:30PM|#
when someone is known for polemicism bordering on insanity -
bombing, killing, converting a la coulter - what ideas are there to
focus on?
if anything, they're good for the side of liberty because they are
so absolutely, positively, 100% looney.
then again, i have never met a malkin or coulter fan in the flesh
(though i like defending coulter at parties just to make people
mad) so perhaps i am misunderestimating their genuine appeal.
|4.1.05 @ 9:05PM|#
Combining the diverse themes of this thread, here is a high
school lesson plan which uses the usual oppression-studies
format to teach about the internment. I've jazzed up the lesson
plan a little bit by adding the parts in italics.
"Imagine you are a Japanese American high school student in May,
1942. Today you saw this poster and learned you and your family
will have to leave your school, your home and all your belongings.
Write a diary entry describing your feelings, questions, and fears.
Continue with your diary to describe your adventures when
you're sent to Tule Lake High School in one of the detention camps.
The headmistress of the school likes to inflict corporal punishment
on unruly schoolgirls. Are you able to end the headmistress' reign
of terror? Use pictorial illustrations. We'll be waiting in the
teachers' lounge to carefully examine and grade your work.
|4.1.05 @ 9:41PM|#
When you start drooling over Malkin et al, you know you've been interned way too long in your apartment. My suggestion: move to Miami Beach.
|4.1.05 @ 10:38PM|#
Education Reformer,
He he he. :)
Deus Ex Machina,
Yeah, I just don't see what their is to lust after.
|4.1.05 @ 11:47PM|#
I consider myself a "pragmatic libertarian" and have no problem
saying that the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 was
atrocious and unjustifiable, with no excuses acceptable. The people
who decided upon or supported the internment knew better, but
decided to take a page from the Nazi playbook.
That said, every time this comes up lately, it gets used in one of
two ways. On one extreme, people all but liken the fact American
soldiers don't Mirandize the enemy before returning fire to
committing war crimes. At the other extreme, people want a moral
blank check to commit war crimes.
I'm guessing the more reasonable folks are just tired of the
"debate".
|4.1.05 @ 11:49PM|#
And back on topic, Michelle Malkin looks good in some photos I've seen. Fox News has a few pretty newsreaders. The Scary Gaunt Conservative Glamor Queens...eeegh.
|4.2.05 @ 2:40AM|#
GG,
Why do you keep asking an irrelevant question? Other than Coulter,
Malkin, and a handful of very stupid conservatives, I pretty sure
that very few people--certainly a minority--think that the
internment was justified. The rest of us folks think it was stupid,
but not surprizing considering the racism of that time. I doubt
you'll find a "real" pragmatic libertarian that supports the
internment. No offense intended, but I really don't see the
point.
Malkin and Coulter are morons and Coulter is not hot.
Malkin's somewhat physically attractive, but Coulter looks like a
gutter snipe.
|4.2.05 @ 5:13AM|#
thoreau,
We're not talking "dictionary points" but why we're still talking
about what was done. When do you see discussed the internment of
WWI, for instance? When do you see introduced to the discussion the
internments done worldwide during WWII? Is there any good reason
for refusing to take the thing in perspective? That perspective is
needed to see why the Relocation program was something beyond what
is normally done with internment. That perspective is likely needed
to understand, for instance, why Gitmo was this time chosen as a
detention site.
|4.2.05 @ 5:23AM|#
huh?
Look, I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed, so just spell
it out for me. Instead of encouraging me to consider the
complexities, just tell me which lessons you draw from an
episode where US citizens were forcibly removed from their homes
without due process solely because of their ethnic origin.
|4.2.05 @ 6:51AM|#
D Anghelone-
Are you saying that, when looked at in "perspective," it was in
fact acceptable to lock up the Japanese? Seriously, what is your
argument here?
|4.2.05 @ 9:40AM|#
I think that in a situation like World War II. Some perspective
is important. In 1942 the US rounded up a bunch of Japanese
citizens, locked them up for several years and confiscated their
property.
During the same period of time 250,000 American men were drafted
into infantry and sent to beaches where they were machine gunned to
death by fascist armies.
Who had the "good war"?
I think it is really wrong that internee�s property was taken from
them and not returned after the war. But looking at everything that
went on globally during the period that these people were interned,
the internees did not have such a bad time of it.
|4.2.05 @ 9:42AM|#
Are you saying that, when looked at in "perspective," it was
in fact acceptable to lock up the Japanese?
No.
Seriously, what is your argument here?
That that situation didn't just spring from the ground. That the
precedents were set in WWI and after. That any comparisons to
current events should consider what actually occurred.
|4.2.05 @ 9:47AM|#
...just tell me which lessons you draw from an episode where
US citizens were forcibly removed from their homes without due
process solely because of their ethnic origin.
Neither am I the sharpest tool. Do you mean the Germans and
Italians who were forcibly removed from their homes in the US? Or
who were forcibly removed from their Latin-American homes to the
US? The Aleuts who were forcibly removed from their homes?
Please be more specific for we slow ones.
|4.2.05 @ 10:17AM|#
Precedent is not always a good justification. It takes the
argument out of the hands of people in the here and now as to
whether something is right, and supplants logic with "they did it
this way before, we should too."
World wide internments are not a good comparison, because other
countries are not the US. Do we really want to follow their
examples?
|4.2.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Precedent is not always a good justification.
Who is justifying what?
World wide internments are not a good comparison, because other
countries are not the US. Do we really want to follow their
examples?
No.
fyodor|4.2.05 @ 12:24PM|#
D Anghelone,
That that situation didn't just spring from the ground. That
the precedents were set in WWI and after. That any comparisons to
current events should consider what actually occurred.
So what's the point of all that? Are you saying it can't happen
again because the circumstances are different now? Or are you just
making casual observations, like "the sky is blue"?
|4.2.05 @ 12:58PM|#
Are you saying it can't happen again because the
circumstances are different now?
How about that it can happen again? We may not see again something
like the Relocation program but internment is still accepted
worldwide.
How about that internment was practiced During WWI and so was the
dehumanizing of the enemy? Germans were The Hun.
How about that signalling and receiving devices (flashlights and
radios) were confiscated from people's during WWII? What would be
the equivalent of such devices today?
How about that people derived from Axis nations were abducted from
Latin-American nations to detention centers in the US?
Are there any government tendencies that thread from WWI to the
present time? Detentions of people deemed dangerous, HUAC, the
Smith Act, the Palmer Raids, whatever. Is what's going on today
unique or is there a whole lotta that precedent stuff?
|4.2.05 @ 2:25PM|#
D Anghelone-
Yeah, I agree, there are some scary threads connecting the past to
the present.
Seems like we need to remain vigilant.
So, what exactly is your point about internment? I will grant that,
in legalese, "internment" may not the the best word to describe the
way that citizens were rounded up from their homes
based on ethnicity during WWII. But I'm not interested in legalese.
I'm interested in the lesson that when people are scared and angry
they'll do all sorts of awful things to their fellow citizens and
persuade themselves that it's OK.
|4.2.05 @ 3:18PM|#
Buck Smith-
Your statement sounds suspiciously like this: "If you suffer an
injustice, you have no right to complain if anyone, anywhere in the
world, is suffering worse than you are." Which, in turn, is pretty
much the attitude currently used by Super-Patriotic Americans (TM)
to explain why Iraqis shouldn't complain about being tortured in
our prisons--after all, Hussein was worse. And at least they're not
in North Korea. Et cetera.
fyodor|4.2.05 @ 3:33PM|#
D Angelhone,
Regarding your first paragraph, agreed. I think that's the POV of
most everyone here. Why do you take such a confrontational tone
with people with whom you agree? Or am I misunderstanding
something?
Regarding your second through fourth paragraphs, all very
interesting, but I still don't know what the upshot of it
all supposed to be. And evidently no one else here can tell either.
Are you trying to confound us? If so, you're apparently
succeeding. Congratulations.
Regarding your last paragraph, yes I'm sure there's precedent to
what's going on today, and that's a major reason why we're all
concerned. And you are too, right?
|4.2.05 @ 3:34PM|#
Lots of RIPs this week! Maybe those superstitions about Easter
Week have a kernel of truth...
Anyway, RIP JP2!
fyodor|4.2.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Re this "perspective" thing, I think it's worth pointing out how
other injustices compare to this one if one's point is that America
is not the most evil nation in history or that too much attention
has been paid to this particular injustice to the exclusion of
others more deserving of our attention.
But if one intends to use the fact of other injustices to belittle
concern over this one or to dismiss its relevance, then I don't see
the logic.
To Buck Smith, I understand that you've clearly stated that the
internment was wrong. But what's your point in bringing up
other injustices? There's been a zillion other injustices
throughout history, so fricken what? I'm not saying you're
necessarily saying what Jennifer thinks you're saying, but
hopefully you realize that that's how comes across in lieu of there
being anything else we can clearly take from your comparing this
injustice to others.
|4.2.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Back to the beginning - the Korematsu case was about Relocation
and not internment. No Relocation, no Korematsu case.
105,000 Japanese-Americans were were placed into camps because of
the Relocation program. No Relocation program, no 105,000
Japanese-Americans in camps.
No meaningful difference between internment and Relocation? Tell
that to the 105,000 Japanese-Americans.
Some 5,000 Japanese-Americans were able to relocate and find jobs
without going into the camps. How could that be? That could be
because Relocation was about relocation and not about camps.
Internment was about camps because internment is about
detention.
Internment accounted for some 15,000 or 16,000 Japanese detained
(such a mild word) and a roughly equal number of Europeans
detained.
Some Italian-Americans were also relocated but in small numbers and
for a short period of time and without camps as camps were not
needed. Some greater number were subject to Exclusion which was
like Relocation but which involved not being within a few miles of
the west coast. They couldn't live, work or be inside of the
excluded zone along the coast. They had to move, abandon their jobs
and their fishing boats and so on.
So, Relocation/Exclusion was about being relocated from or excluded
from the coast with Relocation Camps being a consequence of that
policy.
Internment was about detention and so about camps or centers or
whatever they were called. Ellis Island, for instance, was a
detention center or internment camp or what you care to call
it.
|4.2.05 @ 6:28PM|#
OK, fine, not every relocated American citizen of Japanese
descent lived in a camp. About 5% of them were able to find
employment and live a life outside of the camps.
So I guess one could argue that relocation was a slightly
lesser evil relative to internment (as defined in the appropriate
legalese, yadda yadda). And I want to emphasize slightly
because apparently 95% of the relocatees found themselves in
circumstances where they could not build new lives for
themselves.
No great surprise: Take people away from their homes (which, if
they own rather than rent, is a significant loss of assets, and a
huge violation of liberty and either case) and job. Force them to
move to a place where they have no friends or family, and a place
which may not be all that economically viable. Restrict their
ability to move about and seek new opportunities. Label them as
untrustworthy in the middle of a war (when patriotic sentiment is
pretty intense). Lo and behold 95% of them are unable to find work.
Gee, who'd've thunk?
I think (hope?) that we could all still agree that there was no
excuse for coercing US citizens to leave their homes without due
process and go to some other locale dictated by the government.
What are the lessons you would draw from this distinction?
I'll grant that accuracy is important for its own sake, so we
should note that not every relocatee was kept in a camp, but:
1) Why did you take so long to make this point? You just kept
telling us that we're missing the big picture without clarifying
explaining what's being omitted.
2) While it's always important to correct errors, some errors are
less significant than others when it comes to drawing lessons that
can be applied in the present. The fact remains that US citizens
had their liberty grossly violated without due process based solely
on their ethnic background, because the country was in the grips of
fear. The details should be corrected lest sloppy habits take root,
but the conclusions remain the same: We need to be wary about
mistrusting fellow citizens based solely on ethnicity, because that
can quickly lead to deplorable measures.
fyodor|4.2.05 @ 7:00PM|#
D Angelhone
Okay, replace whenever I said "internment" with "forced
relocation." Fine.
But I still don't know what your point is. Primarily because you
won't say. (Also I guess because I lack clairvoyance.)
|4.2.05 @ 7:08PM|#
So I guess one could argue that relocation was a slightly
lesser evil relative to internment...
Do you know what the problem is, thoreau? The problem is that
anyone not chanting the prescribed mantras is assumed to be trying
to minimize what was done to the Japanese-Americans. I haven't done
that, guy.
1) Why did you take so long to make this point?
I haven't. You said above that I harp on this. I make the point but
it never penetrates.
And it ain't that difficult. 105,000 Japanese-Americans were placed
into camps because Relocation was not internment. How many ways can
that be said and how many times need it be said?
|4.2.05 @ 7:21PM|#
The problem is that anyone not chanting the prescribed
mantras is assumed to be trying to minimize what was done to the
Japanese-Americans. I haven't done that, guy.
No, the problem is that anybody who keeps arguing without saying
what his point is will be presumed to disagree with the people that
he's arguing with. And if he doesn't make the nature of the
disagreement clear, the others will fill in the blanks with their
best guesses.
Basically, you want to clarify something: The difference between
internment and relocation. Fair enough. Rather than just clarifying
it, you make cryptic comments and keep dancing around the point
until enough people ask what the hell you're talking about. Then
you clarify it and say "geez, why does everybody think I support
what happened to Japanese-Americans?"
Gosh, I wonder why.
|4.2.05 @ 7:24PM|#
For the record, I don't think that you approve of what was
done.
But I also don't think that you have anybody to blame for the
misunderstanding other than yourself. You did everything possible
to be cryptic and incomprehensible.
|4.2.05 @ 8:38PM|#
Its a game of charades.
Ah, the historian weighs in. Maybe you can help with a question.
The question is why the Peruvian government was willing to send its
Japanese to the US. Opportunism (booty)? Fear of the US? Fear of
the Japanese sweeping across the Pacific?
|4.3.05 @ 12:04AM|#
I gotta admit I'm confused here. If all you want to do is clear
the record, well, more power to you. I have to admit that I didn't
realize the relocatees were (at least under some circumstances)
allowed to leave the camps. Now I know. It may not change the
bigger lessons to be learned, but it does sharpen the image, and
that's always a good thing.
But you keep hinting that the distinction between relocation and
internment should significantly affect the conclusions that we
draw. How so?
One conclusion that I can draw from the distinction: On
the surface, relocation might seem better than internment if it
means that people still have some freedom of movement. But the fact
that 95% of relocatees were unable to start new lives should drive
home the fact that any loss of liberty can be worse than it might
look on paper. It sounds all well and good to say that relocatees
are allowed to work and live outside the camps. But when a person
is forcibly taken away from his job, his property, and his network
of friends and professional associates, is labeled disloyal in a
time of intense patriotic fervor (i.e. war), and is given only
limited options for where he can go (otherwise the relocatee would
catch the first train back home), starting over is not easy. In
time of war, a lot of people won't trust a person who's been
labeled disloyal by the government. This would be especially
crippling in WWII, where so much of the economy was reoriented
towards the war. It's not like non-defense jobs were abundant in a
time of rationing.
So I guess I have learned something from the distinction between
internment and relocation. Thanks.
|4.3.05 @ 12:51AM|#
thoreau,
Well, there is also the fact that relocatees were poorly
compensated or not at all for their loss of property (which in many
instances included significant going concerns). In many instances
properties were sold at rock bottom prices to
non-Japanese-Americans and the original were not compensated; which
is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment.
|4.3.05 @ 3:00AM|#
thoreau,
D Anghelone is really just offering the standard government
propaganda line of the time. Here is a link
to a press release from the "War Relocation Authority" in
'43.
Here are the conditions for leaving...
---
Before any evacuee is permitted to leave a relocation center for
the purpose of taking a job or establishing normal residence,
however, certain requirements must be met:
1. A careful check is made of the evacuee's behavior record at the
relocation center and of other information in the hands of the WRA.
In all questionable cases, any information in the possession of the
federal investigative agencies is requested and studied. If there
is any evidence from any source that the evacuee might endanger the
security of the Nation, permission for indefinite leave is
denied.
2. There must be reasonable assurance from responsible officials or
citizens regarding local sentiment in the community where the
evacuee plans to settle. If community sentiment appears so hostile
to all persons of Japanese descent that the presence of the evacuee
seems likely to cause trouble, the evacuee is so advised and
discouraged from relocating in that particular area.
3. Indefinite leave is granted only to evacuees who have a definite
place to go and some means of support.
4. Each evacuee going out on indefinite leave must agree to keep
the WRA informed of any change of job or address.
---
Here is a
link to some pics.
No, all in all, it wasn't as bad, not even near it, as something
Germany might have done. But since when did not being a murderous
thug mean that you still couldn't be a dangerous thug?
What D A doesn't want to confront is the honest possibility that
someone who knows all the facts, might still call this
"Internment".
But if you use Charles Manson as a median, well, hell, a whole lot
of behaviours become attractive in comparison.
|4.3.05 @ 3:00AM|#
Oh...I meant to point to this one...nothing drives home the point quite as well as barbed wire....dunno, it's only one pic, sure as shinola looks like internment to me.
|4.3.05 @ 3:00AM|#
Well, then, I clearly need to be more skeptical of D A. You are
aptly named, Skeptikos.
D A, care to comment?
|4.3.05 @ 7:08AM|#
Well, then, I clearly need to be more skeptical of D A. You
are aptly named, Skeptikos.
For what reason? I'm covering for FDR? Note that Skeptikos is
reading into things what he/she will. I said nothing about the
nature of the camps.
They couldn't legally intern those people and so neutralized any
threat they might pose by moving them. The camps were a consequence
of that policy. That's not an important point? Is that not like
what was done with Native Americans? Are Indian Reservations a
purpose or a consequence?
|4.3.05 @ 7:10AM|#
Well, there is also the fact that relocatees were poorly
compensated or not at all for their loss of property (which in many
instances included significant going concerns). In many instances
properties were sold at rock bottom prices to
non-Japanese-Americans and the original were not compensated; which
is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment.
I haven't any lawyerly details but there was some compensation in
1948.
|4.3.05 @ 12:31PM|#
This discussion does shed some light on why so many men are
willing to check their Constitutional rights at the door when they
get married--or even when they just move in...
...There are so many guys I know who can't watch what they want on
television, can't say what they think, can't assemble at the poker
game, are subjected to unreasonable searches and are often
compelled to testify against themselves...
...And when someone points out that guys "can" do anything they
wants, some guys just "won't", so many of them get so
defensive.
Women run social circles around men. When women look into the
social universe, they see a wonderland full of possibilities
complete with chutes and ladders. When most men look into the same
universe they see a dark, eternal abyss, and they're terrified--I
don't know why.
...But I know that this is what so many guys do...they end up
subjecting themselves to an authoritarian if not totalitarian
dictator at home anyway, so it doesn't surprise me to see
libertarian guys panting after these right wing retards.
...Many of them are going to end up living under a domestic
dictator anyway, at least for a while, and I suspect they already
know it.
|4.3.05 @ 1:17PM|#
Ken-
As I sit here on the couch surfing the Internet while my boyfriend
puts away the groceries and starts the dishwasher, let me just say
that I REALLY resent that comment o' yours. Heh heh heh.
|4.3.05 @ 2:55PM|#
They couldn't legally intern those people and so neutralized
any threat they might pose by moving them. The camps were a
consequence of that policy. That's not an important
point?
Let me see if I understand. The government couldn't legally intern
them. But they wanted to intern them. So they came up with a
"relocation" policy that technically allowed people to leave the
camps, but in practice only 5% were able to do so successfully, for
a variety of reasons.
The lesson? I guess that the gov't can always find a way to do what
it wants.
But here's what confuses me: I get that the gov't couldn't legally
or constitutionally intern the Japanese-Americans. But how was this
relocation scheme constitutional? I know, I know, the Supremes
ruled in favor of it. But the Supremes aren't infallible. There are
plenty of instances where the Supremes have found dubious
exceptions to the Constitution.
Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. You
insist that you don't condone what was done, but I'm having a hard
time trying to figure out what other point you're trying to make.
Could you stop being so deliberately obscure?
|4.3.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Jennifer, Fyodor,
I think I can make my point of view clearer than I have. Let me
try. First I believe this:
1. As country the US cannot completely control or always avoid
being in a war. Indeed, an affluent country is attractive target
for aggression. There is more to plunder, as it were.
2. In US history, we have a good record of reining in civil rights
abuses that occur in wartime. They happened in the Civil War, in
WWI, II, in the cold war, and they are happening in the war on
terror.
3. Civil rights abuses during war time do not make us no better
than our enemies. If fact in every conflict I mention, we have
fought on the right side. Full disclosure - most of my male
ancestors in the 1860s were probably Confederate soldiers.
Personally, I am quite glad the Union won. Further to the point I
am an admirer of Gen. W T Sherman who created and distilled a
uniquely American brand of whip-ass which has served our country
well during desperate times, and may yet be needed again in the
present conflict.
4. Exigencies of war may cause reasonable governing officials to
violate constitutional protections of civil rights. I have sympathy
for the government officials both politicians and soldiers who must
make difficult, existential decisions under intense pressure with
limited information. What protects freedom is a judiciary system
that makes judgments (including judgments not to hear cases) about
these actions as complaints are filed by citizens and law
enforcement officials.
More specifically regarding Japanese internment, in my judgment,
the interment was justified based on information known at the time
about Japanese government plans to recruit spies from the Japanese
American population. It was very wrong to seize property
permanently from the internees and almost certainly wrong to keep
them interned past say, the liberation of the Philippines and maybe
even Guadacanal.
More specifically regarding torture in war on terror, in my
judgment, the Bush Admin was wrong to loosen the definition of
torture, mainly because of the negative publicity for the US
created as a result. I do not think anyone should be punished for
that decision, even though a reasonable case can be made that it
violated the US constitution, international law, etc.
|4.3.05 @ 3:03PM|#
More specifically regarding Japanese internment
Buck-
Didn't you get the memo? They weren't interned. They were
relocated!
Seriously, though, I may disagree with you, but at least you've
come out and made your point clear. I'm still struggling to figure
out what D Anghelone's point is. He insists that it isn't the point
you're making, but he won't tell me what it is. He just hints at it
with "Don't you think this matters?"
|4.3.05 @ 4:17PM|#
But they wanted to intern them.
No. They wanted to move them away from the coast.
So they came up with a "relocation" policy that technically
allowed people to leave the camps, but in practice only 5% were
able to do so successfully, for a variety of reasons.
No. Some were able to relocate without going into the camps. As
with the relocated Italians, they were able to find jobs away from
the coast.
The lesson? I guess that the gov't can always find a way to do
what it wants.
The government can't always get what it wants. It wanted those J-As
away from the coast but working productively so as to support the
war effort. Instead, it had to build camps to hold the majority of
the J-As who couldn't find work.
But here's what confuses me: I get that the gov't couldn't
legally or constitutionally intern the Japanese-Americans. But how
was this relocation scheme constitutional?
Beats me.
I know, I know, the Supremes ruled in favor of it. But the
Supremes aren't infallible. There are plenty of instances where the
Supremes have found dubious exceptions to the
Constitution.
Should I write that one down?
Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. You
insist that you don't condone what was done, but I'm having a hard
time trying to figure out what other point you're trying to make.
Could you stop being so deliberately obscure?
I'm not being deliberately obscure. In fact, I am less apparently
obscure than I was several years ago when I couldn't speak at all
of this matter to the libertarian herd or to any herd.
|4.3.05 @ 4:45PM|#
OK, so now your point is that they "only" wanted relocation
without camps, but many of the relocatees couldn't earn a living,
so the gov't had to build camps to support them?
So the lesson is that every effort to infringe liberty has
unintended and expensive consequences?
What exactly is your point? I realize that there were at least
some differences between relocation and internment, and we
should note that for the sake of accuracy. Duly noted. But some
details matter more than others when trying to learn the big
lessons.
You keep hinting that
1) There are big lessons to be drawn from our treatment of US
citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. And I agree. But, you
also seem to be hinting that...
2) People today aren't drawing the right lessons, and
3) Part of the reason for failing to learn the right lessons stems
from an inability to understand the difference between internment
and relocation.
|4.3.05 @ 5:04PM|#
D Anghelone,
Not along the lines of true market value, and not every party was
compensated. Furthermore, a four year delay is also unjustified
(that by itself was a cost and oppurtunity lost by the deportees)
and went uncompensated.
|4.3.05 @ 5:07PM|#
thoreau,
They couldn't earn a living because the states they were moved to
actively discriminated against them. The state governments didn't
want this influx of Americans of Japanese heritage in their general
population, so they worked to keep them out of it. The seething
racism of state Governors and state legislators is evident from
their remarks on the matter.
|4.3.05 @ 6:02PM|#
It sounds to me like D Anghelone is willing to forgive a lot
simply because there's a war going on.
...We did this sort of thing to Anarchists and immigrants from
eastern Europe during World War I too, but the ultimate predecessor
seems to me to be the removal of the Indians. It seems like anytime
we cross some invisible threshold of fear, the Constitution goes
out the window.
...and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, which is
why this reasoning appears so vague, I suspect. It's just, when
we're afraid, we should be able to do whatever we want to make
ourselves feel safe again.
P.S. The North would have won without all the pillaging, murdering,
and raping of civilians. I will never support targeting civilians,
which is what both Sherman and Sheridan did.
P.P.S. Has anyone else seen the old photos taken of Terminal Island
(Long Beach) when it was a Japanese fishing village?
The government destroyed their culture--how do we compensate them
for that?
|4.3.05 @ 6:05PM|#
OK, so now your point is that they "only" wanted relocation
without camps, but many of the relocatees couldn't earn a living,
so the gov't had to build camps to support them?
What is your mindset? Postmodern or somesuch?
There was a war on. A world war. A war for survival. The Feds
didn't "only" this or "only" that. They "only" wanted to prosecute
the war. If that meant screwing over people then so what? History
would sort that out after they were dead.
It wasn't that they were trying to screw over the
Japanese-Americans but that they didn't give a shit if they
did.
So the lesson is that every effort to infringe liberty has
unintended and expensive consequences?
Every policy has consequences, intended or unintended, positive or
negative.
And the rest of your post is just more projection.
|4.3.05 @ 6:09PM|#
It sounds to me like D Anghelone is willing to forgive a lot
simply because there's a war going on.
I haven't forgiven anything. I haven't justified anything.
|4.3.05 @ 6:12PM|#
It wasn't that they were trying to screw over the
Japanese-Americans but that they didn't give a shit if they
did.
That's a historically inaccurate claim. It is quite clear from the
statements of those who were intimately involved in the
deportations that animus towards Japanese-Americans was a
significant factor in what occurred.
|4.3.05 @ 6:14PM|#
Basically D Anghelone is parroting Michelle Malkin's ahistorical non-sense regarding the effect of animus towards Japanese-Americans.
|4.3.05 @ 6:16PM|#
They couldn't earn a living because the states they were
moved to actively discriminated against them. The state governments
didn't want this influx of Americans of Japanese heritage in their
general population, so they worked to keep them out of it. The
seething racism of state Governors and state legislators is evident
from their remarks on the matter.
That is so. But then we all know of the racism, right? We know that
there were so few Japanese in the US because they weren't allowed
in. We know that the citizenship rate among Japanese-Americans was
low because we wouldn't allow them citizenship. We all know of the
racism so what is your point?
|4.3.05 @ 6:17PM|#
It is quite clear from the statements of those who were
intimately involved in the deportations that animus towards
Japanese-Americans was a significant factor in what
occurred.
Who are you speaking of and what did they say?
|4.3.05 @ 6:19PM|#
Basically D Anghelone is parroting Michelle Malkin's
ahistorical non-sense regarding the effect of animus towards
Japanese-Americans.
You are an ass, Gunnels.
|4.3.05 @ 7:11PM|#
There was a war on. A world war. A war for survival. The
Feds didn't "only" this or "only" that. They "only" wanted to
prosecute the war. If that meant screwing over people then so what?
History would sort that out after they were dead.
Well, now after dozens of posts we get to your point: They did what
they did because they thought they were right at the time.
To which I reply with DUH!!!!
How many people have done something because they thought they were
wrong?
The problem is that they were dead wrong, and their mistakes were
inexcusable.
You claim that you haven't excused anything. That may be true in a
very literal sense. But everything you are saying seems to point in
that direction. If there's a fine distinction that you'd like to
draw to defend yourself, you haven't done a very good job of
articulating that distinction.
I'm forced to conclude that, at best, you are doing an awful job of
articulating a fine point.
|4.3.05 @ 7:13PM|#
You are an ass, Gunnels.
You know, there are certainly times when I take issue with Gary's
style. But this is not one of those times. D A has done everything
possible to obscure whatever fine distinction he'd like to make.
He's made it incredibly difficult to draw any conclusion other than
that he's trying to make excuses for the past.
That may not be his intent, but it's how he's coming across, and
he's passing up every opportunity to correct our (possibly
mistaken) impression.
In my optics class, a student told me that she understood a concept
perfectly, but she didn't know how to articulate it on the test
when asked to explain it. I said that her inability to communicate
something isn't going to improve her score.
|4.3.05 @ 7:49PM|#
D Anghelone, you do seem to phase in and out. Are you simply
talking about what happened historically?
...Are you saying that Japanese Internment Camps are defensible?
Indefensible? Are you saying that relocation is defensible?
...If you're saying that any of these things are defensible, are
you saying that what we've done to Muslims and Arabs is
defensible?
...'cause I can't figure out what you're saying either.
|4.3.05 @ 8:44PM|#
Gary,
It is quite clear from the statements of those who were
intimately involved in the deportations that animus towards
Japanese-Americans was a significant factor in what
occurred.
Even if some of the motives were unjustifiable and shameful, the
action itself might still be justifiable. Actions like the attack
on Pearl Harbor and the entry of the Japanese army into Nanking may
produce racist, vengeful and hateful feelings, but they also
produce justfiable existential fears. The response to threat of
spies in the J-A population should be different after Pearl Harbor
to what it was before.
Ken,
The North would have won without all the pillaging, murdering,
and raping of civilians. I will never support targeting civilians,
which is what both Sherman and Sheridan did.
Yeah, we could have won in Europe in WWII without fire-bombimg
Dresden and Hamburg and against Japan without fire-bombing Tokyo
and dropping the nukes, too. Do you think Eisenhower, Truman,
Macarthur and Curtis Lemay should have been tried as war
criminals?
Or take it to the present. Say the jihadi's succesfuly launch a
series of attacks in the US that kill tens of thousands of American
civilians and threaten to continue the attacks until we submit to
their rule. Would you support targeting civilians in the population
centers of Arabia which produce the jihadis?
|4.3.05 @ 9:14PM|#
In regards to targeting the farmers of the Shenandoah Valley and
Georgia, using such tactics to specifically target civilians is the
very definition of terrorism, and I won't support it.
Hamburg was, and still is, a major industrial center and port;
still, the name "Operation Gomorrah" kind of speaks to intent,
doesn't it? Wasn't the bombing of Dresden done, specifically, to
create a fire storm? Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics
base for the Japanese Military. Wasn't the Emperor complicit in the
bombing of Nagasaki? Tokyo had industrial targets, but I remember
McNamara himself saying in "Fog of War" that if the United States
had lost World War II, he would have been tried as a war
criminal.
"Would you support targeting civilians in the population
centers of Arabia which produce the jihadis?"
The problem with hypothetical questions is that you only get
hypothetical answers. So I'd rather address what happened in
Afghanistan, which seems to suit your hypothetical just as well.
Afghanistan was breeding jihadis like so many mice.
...I think we did a great job of getting rid of the regime in
Afghanistan and removing it as a threat to American civilians. We
did it, of course, without targeting civilians specifically.
|4.3.05 @ 10:13PM|#
Let's not forget that the reduction of Dresden was in large part
a retaliation for the same treatment given to Coventry. If one side
in a conflict doesn't follow "the laws of war", one of the few, if
not the only way to convince that belligerent to conform to them is
to adopt a "tit-for-tat" policy.
It may surprise some who don't know much military history (and I'm
no expert), but when forces like those of the CSA "live off the
land", denying your enemy food and forage by stealing everything
that isn't nailed down, and destroying what you can't carry away,
was SOP for attacking and defending armies. Neither Sherman nor
Sheridan invented the "scorched earth" policy. It was only the
fairly recent inventions of canned food and the railroad that
allowed troops to have access to enough provender to avoid
stripping the lands they marched through - even friendly territory
- of food and fuel, and even in the 1860s an army could outmarch
its supply train.
Kevin
|4.3.05 @ 10:24PM|#
D Anghelone,
You're an ahistorical git.
Let's repeat your stupid remark for effect:
It wasn't that they were trying to screw over the
Japanese-Americans but that they didn't give a shit if they
did.
That statement is so wrongheaded in so many ways one can only call
it pathetic. American officials were most definately trying to
screw them over.
Who are you speaking of and what did they say?
American state governors, state legislatures, Congressmen, etc. The
whole sad and sordid tale has been told enough that you should
know, Michelle. Of course I also know that you know these things
because you have specifically read a number of blog entries at the
Volohk Conspiracy at the matter and the original author's website
on the matter. We discussed these facts here and you did not claim
that they were false then. So quit playing the sophist.
Buck Smith,
One wonders if it was justifiable why the Justice Department and
other agencies of the U.S. government had to lie about their own
findings on the matter. Yes, lie. To be frank, it is the efforts of
historians, decades after the war, that touched off the issue
again. They dug into the records and discovered that the Justice
Department hid from the courts and the American public the true
nature of their findings; that many in that agency and the U.S.
questioned America's efforts legally, morally and as a matter of
efficacy. By itself, this behavior is a violation of not only
American law, but, I dare say, the finer ideals of Western legal
sense and culture.
|4.3.05 @ 10:26PM|#
kevrob,
It was quite common for CSA units to seize free blacks on their
raids into the Union and send them down river.
|4.3.05 @ 11:09PM|#
You're right about the (re-)enslavement of free blacks by CSA
units, Gary. It makes a sort of twisted sense, if you have the kind
of mind that sees a fellow human being as equivalent to a plow
horse. A beast of burden was a beast of burden to those
folks.
As for foraging and scavenging, I expect a few Civil War buffs here
know that Lee's army (Heth's Division) first poked its nose into
Gettysburg because they had heard that the Pennsylvania town was
someplace they could get shoes! That was one expensive "shopping
trip."
Kevin
|4.3.05 @ 11:49PM|#
kevrob,
Well, the CSA got arrogant at Gettysburg. Still they had a chance
to "win" the war in the summer of 1864 when Sherman and Grant's
armies were bogged down or being outmanuevred.
|4.4.05 @ 5:45AM|#
FYI:
"Meretricious" comes from the Latin "meretrix", meaning ...ahem...
prostitute
|4.4.05 @ 6:08AM|#
PaulP,
I always thought it simply meant specious or or gaudy. I didn't
know about its other meaning.
He he he. It fits Michelle Malkin certainly. :)
|4.4.05 @ 7:25AM|#
Gary:
Obviously Roman prostitutes were fond of using cosmetics to cover
up their lack of good looks so meretricious came to mean 'looking
falsely good on the surface'.
|4.4.05 @ 5:17PM|#
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internment
thread!
"In the spirit of democracy we shall hold an election to determine
which of us gets to punish naughty Ms. Malkin. A puff of white
smoke will declare that a winner has been chosen.
"For the good of all rational and free-minded individuals
everywhere, I nominate myself for this thankless task."
In my opinion, the words "Thank You" should feature quite
prominently in the operation. But that's just me.
|4.4.05 @ 5:53PM|#
joe-
I'll arm wrestle you for the right to discipline Malkin. And after
I win I'll jello wrestle with Malkin!
|4.4.05 @ 7:28PM|#
No way! You'd pull one of those physicist mind tricks to beat
me.
You know, like saying "This is not the contest you want to win,"
then blowing chalk dust in my eye.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245