That piece was written by David Sirota, and his overarching point is that the identity of the perpetrator of the bombing will likely dictate how the American government responds to it. And the best case scenario for world peace is that it turns out to be a white American. So they won't do anything about it. Right. From the article, quote, in the context of terrorist attacks, such white male privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed as representative of not of whole groups and ideologies, but as lone wolf threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies, and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats. The kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts. Sorota goes on to argue that, quote, regardless of your political party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.