Another Critic of Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Sentence:
President Obama. Greg Sargent (The Plum Line) reports:
In an interview to air on NBC later tonight, Obama concedes she may have misspoke but that her larger meaning was clear and uncontroversial.
According to the NBC press release, Obama says:
“I’m sure she would have restated it. But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”
For my thinking on the quote, see this item on politico.com.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in Alvarez v. Smith - A Key Property Rights Case:
- Eduardo Penalver's Defense of Sotomayor's Didden decision:
- What the Didden Case Tells Us About Sotomayor's Attitude Towards Property Rights:...
- Property Rights Cases are Not "Pro-Business" vs. "Anti-Business" Cases:
- Another Critic of Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Sentence:
- My LA Times Debate with Erwin Chemerinsky, Part 3:...
- The Sotomayor Pick:
- Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayor.
- Supreme Court to Hear Potentially Important Property Rights Case:
If a white man had made a racist and sexist comment like that, there would be no "larger meaning".
"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."?
How does it differ from what Alito said in his hearing, or how Bush I introduced Thomas as someone with empathy.
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
White, male, and yet somehow managed to be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
1) Out of context;
2) Alito said something like it!;
3) There's no such thing as reverse racism;
just isn't cutting it!
There you go.
still not seeing it.
ruffles, Alito doesn't compare himself to anyone in that statement, much less say he's better than anyone. Not comparable.
Is it not "may have misspoken"?
Also agree that her statement is not equivalent to Alito's, who did not say that he has rich experiences that a person of another race and socioeconomic status could not possibly have.
1) Out of context;
2) Alito said something like it!;
3) There's no such thing as reverse racism;
just isn't cutting it!Well, we see that such reasonable points aren't getting the foaming RWer to shut up. But that's actually not surprising given the participants. So, it's not surprising that someone else should say, "Hey, look, folks, here's what the actual facts are and here's the holes in this vicious attack...." It's called "discourse" (or as close to such as is possible with the foaming RW brigades).
Cheers,
Wow. How to win friends and influence people, right? How much discourse do you expect to have with someone you refer to as a "foaming RW brigade"? Can you claim, with a straight face, that you've made a good-faith effort at discourse when you've done that?
Cheers,
BTW Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (The Race).
Cheers,
Judged against her body of work and qualifications, does it disqualify her for the Court? Not even close.
I was wondering when Mr. Zarkhov would appear. Yesterday he treated us to this insights in the vein of black aren't the target of any special police harassment - they just commit more crimes. Let's see what's on the menu for today:
Ooooh, we have the "If they don't like it why don't they just leave" approach. I wonder of Mr. Zarkov would have been standing on street corners in Berlin in 1939 shouting: "If you Jews don't like it, why don't you just leave?"
Priceless, absolutely priceless.
Ah yes, the "go back to Africa" argument. This will surely be productive.
Her statement seems out of context and foolish, but I am just laughing that this is the best her opponents can come up with. Frankly, I don't care what Limbaugh says given that his oft-repeated comment about Powell's motivation for endorsing Obama is racist.
Zarkov: why do you always bring non-sequiters into every freaking post? You really do not seem to have a high opinion of non-whites, as you bring up these things all the time.
free education for you:
La Raza's website describes their name as follows:
Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
That said, I'm always going to take a chance to kick someone when they engage in these pernicious appeals to race/ethnicity group identity. Can't let nonsense like this pass without a fight.
I'll give you this - it was a dumb comment. I am too lazy, but I can come up with other stupid comments by very smart and capable people with little effort - such as when Scalia said that Catholic judges who believe the church's teaching that capital punishment is wrong should not be on the bench, stating that "any Catholic jurists (with such concerns) ... would have to resign."
DO you not like it when Americans refer to their group identity of being American - or does it only count for race/ethnic group.
To be clear, I don't think this is a serious threat to Sotomayor's confirmation. Nor should it be. She is just going to have to grovel a bit to dampen the political damage.
The other off-the bench remark that has got the nominee in hot water -- that Circuit Courts are where "policy" is made -- was another gaffe, but I think not as serious. She apparently meant that such courts set "precedent" or "make law," but used a very wrong word while speaking off-the-cuff.
Because of Sotomayor's long record on the bench, we can and should concentrate on her actual work as a judge.
Here's a free education for you: my extensive summary of the NCLR. I've been following their activities since 2004 and I've written 147 posts that involve them, so I think I have a good handle on what they're all about and how they can - and should - be an issue.
BHO/SS opponents should carefully note the last paragraph; not telling the truth about them - such as by confusing them with other groups or concepts - is very counter-productive.
The truth about them is bad enough.
And I somehow doubt that her relatives will be reduced to tears at the unfairness and viciousness of the questioning during the hearings.
That's not at all a good sign. While I'd much prefer to make this about the group I linked in the comment above, something like that works too.
Where exactly do you get the impression that Sotomayor wants Puerto Ricans to have 'victim status' or affirmative action?
As a matter of fact, why do you believe that all of her supporters want either as well?
This sentence is incomplete. It ends abruptly without an "if" and a description of what would have satisfied the conditional. In other words, Obama never answers the question of "why" she would have restated "it".
For one thing, "race" is a near-perfect translation of "raza". The only legitimate complaint would be that the English word also includes meanings that in Spanish would be denote by "carrera" or "rio".
The point they are so feebly trying to make -- that "raza" means more than a narrow biological category -- is also true of "race" ("a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock ' a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics").
And it's their own fault if people are associating their name with the somewhat negative connotations of "race". They could have picked "pueblo" or "communidad", perfectly good cognates of what they (now) claim they were trying to say.
I won't even stoop to mock "inaccurate and factually incorrect".
Perhaps from this 1976 letter she wrote or the fact that she later joined two groups that specialize in 'victim status' and affirmative action, including one just for Puerto Ricans? The first comment I left above links to extensive information on the NCLR; more on the other group is here. Even the slightest bit of research will show both are solidly in the 'victim status' or affirmative action category.
It wasn't "physiological or reasoning differences," it was "physiological or cultural differences," and she was referring to both gender and ethnicity there. Here's the quote:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
I read that pretty straightforwardly as a suggestion that gender imbues us with physiological differences and national origin imbues us with cultural differences.
Ooooh, we have the "If they don't like it why don't they just leave" approach. I wonder of Mr. Zarkov would have been standing on street corners in Berlin in 1939 shouting: "If you Jews don't like it, why don't you just leave?"
Are you asserting an equivalence between the German treatment of their Jews in 1939 with the American treatment of Puerto Ricans in the Bronx in Bronx? Funny I lived in the Bronx at the same time as Sotomayor and I don't recall seeing Puerto Ricans with arm bans walking around. I don't remember anything like Kristallnacht either. Moreover the German Jews were native to the country. On the other hand, most of the Puerto Ricans in the Bronx in the 1950s were immigrants. It is fair to ask as to why they would not have returned home if they were made to feel unwelcome.
The truth of the matter is they were not made to feel unwelcome and they were better off than in Puerto Rico which is why so many of their countrymen joined them. Trying to cast the Bronx Puerto Ricans as victims is simple opportunism on the part of Sotomayor.
No it is nothing like a "go back to Africa" argument. Puerto Ricans migrated to the Bronx of their own volition in the 1950s. They did not find life the the US insufferable and stayed and raised families. They remained in the US because it gave them a better life than they had before. It is for these reasons they should not be classified as victims.
http://www.optoons.blogspot.com/
If -- for the sake of argument -- their experiences were or are relatively worse than that of other immigrant groups, is it obviously wrong to say they are not "victims" of something? Disparate results, assuming they exist, do involve some factor that renders them understandable. I'm not suggesting that the label of victim is correct or beneficial in any case; I'm suggesting that, according to the information in this thread, there's no reason to accept it or dismiss it out of hand. Too much is unknown. But your simple assertion that because they stayed in the Bronx, they cannot be rightly called victims of anything, does not suffice as analysis.
Incidentally, you and Senator Tancredo appear to be quite incorrect about the motto of La Raza.
ShelbyC,
Alito said he would, in reaching a decision, take into account personal experiences relating to his family's immigrant history. He was responding when asked what was in his heart. Clearly, he said that it's appropriate to "take into account" his family's immigrant stories and the remembrances imprinted in his heart. Probably he feels his decisions would be all the better for doing so, and for having those experiences.
I believe this comes quite close to Sotormayor's statement as I understand it. I understand that Sotormayor's statement seemingly compares the value of her own experiences in a favorable way to the value of others' experiences. But I think she was confining her remarks to cases in which her experiences are conceivably relevant, and therefore have greater force than someone else's. I also believe "hoping" the richness of a given life experience would be reflected in the quality of a certain decisions is not a direct assertion of superiority. It's a wish that people who've "lived that life" glean from it lessons that allow them to render superior judgments in some cases. Perhaps you think I've put the statement through the laundry in parsing it so, but I think that's the sense of it.
It's certainly designed to be controversial rather than innocuous, so I understand the interest in it. She is, after all, departing from a statement attributed to O'Connor, which has the obvious effect of defusing controversy. And, for what it's worth, if a white judge from Nebraska said that he hoped a wise white man from Nebraska would make a better judge when it came to issues parochial to white Nebraskans -- and was then able to point to a case in which a wise Latina judge botched that job -- I wouldn't find it racist or deeply troubling. He would be saying, in effect, someone who's lived this life has a better understanding of the issues and implications at hand, and I hope this would allow him to render a better judgment than an outsider. It's an understandable perspective.
Now, if he was using that an argument for denying a wise Latina judge a chance to sit on a local court or the high Court, I might object. But was Sotormayor advocating that? She was not. She was using that statement as part of an argument for the necessity and probable value of having diversity in the judicial system. If my fictional Nebraskan was simply defending thevalue of voices from his cohort on the national stage, it would be analogous and, on balance, acceptable.
But obviously the fact that my little converse can even be constructed, in which a local Nebraskan presses for the importance of wise white men on the judiciary, indicates that very delicate issues arise from this passage. But in full, I still don't think it's so terrible.
Still, I would've liked Pam Karlan. Maybe some other time.
If you consider why the comparison doesn't work.
==================
shelby:
You forgot to respond in the other thread after I demonstrated (link, link) that Alito implicitly claimed that "those experiences allowed him to make better decisions that someone of a different ethnic group."
And the same dynamic is playing out here at VC, where Somin, tracking the Cornyn/Noonan line, says "She is No Racist." That quickly leads to a 278-comment shitstorm (closed prematurely after barely ten hours) which includes people like Bill Dyer accusing Somin of saying "the single silliest thing I've ever seen any author at this blog write." This is the best show in town.
Meanwhile, the GOP convention last year had "36 black delegates … fewer than 2% of the total and a sharp drop-off from 2004." But while we drive the blacks out, we might as well get rid of all the colored people:
(I notice that for some strange reason WP removed that passage from later versions of the article.) "We simply cannot?" Really? Yes we can. And the GOP death spiral continues.
Some Rs were busy overreacting and the party as a whole was infighting. Better to let that play out than partially validate those who criticized Sotomayor and put the spotlight on his remarks.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life”
I decided to play devil's advocate and cast about for a sympathetic interpretation, resulting in:
a) A person's judgement tends to be improved by exposure to different worldviews and by confronting and overcoming difficulties; and
b) In this society and era, and in Sotomayor's chosen profession, Latina women are likelier than white males to have had such experiences to any given degree over the course of their lives
..at which point my devil prevailed, for it actually seems quite plausible to me that both a) and b) are true, and that this is more or less what Sotomayor was trying to say (admittedly rather clumsily, but who am I to talk).
So the most I would now feel comfortable accusing Sotomayor of based on the above quote is some sloppiness in the wording, and maybe some political naivete. And I now think that concluding e.g. racism on the strength of that quote is rash at best.
Your analysis of Ms. Sotomayor's comment is fair when analyzing the comment in a vacuum. It is fair, in fact, to argue that the comment was poor in general.
However I believe you overreach when you say....
You admit that this is one statement out of a long legal and judicial career, a statement made at a political event no less. And yet you seem willing to condemn her as unqualified because of this comment.
Judge Sotomayor has one of the lengthier judicial records of recent SCOTUS nominees. It has been known for several weeks, and certainly since Justice Souter announced his retirement, that she was a likely candidate. So why the focus on a comment made at a dinner rather than on her judicial career? Professor Somin has been the only one to speak about her legal opinions, at least from what I have seen.
Although I am a liberal, I count on this blog to provide cogent conservative legal arguments. While I often disagree with the arguments made they are rational and reasonable. However it seems to me that you, in this instance, embracing a single sentence as the culmination of a legal career. I don't believe it is reasonable to judge someone on a single statement that could mean something entirely different if a single adjective is replaced.
If Sotomayor's arguments were so innocuous, why is the political furor over them increasing? Why have there been at least 4 or 5 posts on just Volokh alone examining the statement?
I'll take my "chances" with the Hispanic electorate. (Never mind the intensely collectivist intuition that only non-Hispanics would disagree with the gist of Sotomayor's speech). Let's see how ethnic groups that she doesn't favor feel and vote when they know they have someone who is disinclined to "empathize" with them as she is crafting the Supreme law that governs their freedoms.
Republicans do not need anybody's help to self destroy, which they were doing for the last few years at least and GOP is quickly becoming irrelevant regional party, deservedly so.
Si se puede!
Perhaps because this weak tea is all partisans have to attack her with? Well, besides deep, heartfelt concern over what she eats and how she pronounces her name.
Whether or not that sexy leftist dream of permanent majorities and permanent power will occur for the Democrats depends solely on demographics, not on the trifling political rhetoric of judicial confirmation battles. If the Hispanic demographic becomes greater than M% of the population, and socioeconomic disparities between them and the average American still persists at that time, then of course they well vote for liberal politicians and their cheap largesse. I can't believe so many are as stupid to actually believe their own party's spin.
Poor Latinos, in other words, cast their votes -- now and always -- exclusively on the basis of which party will give them the biggest unearned government handout. So nothing the GOP could do to woo them would draw them closer, and nothing the GOP could do to insult them would drive them away.
Of course this "analysis" is contradicted by even the most cursory glance at polling data, and it assumes without basis that the non-poor members of a mostly-poor demographic group aren't worth cultivating. But neither of those is the fundamental problem with it.
The fundamental problem, of course, is that it's a gross insult, grounded in hoary racial and class caricatures. It's an explicit deployment of exactly the kind of off-putting rhetoric it seeks to excuse.
Well done.
But still, he's at least mouthing opposition to this illiberalism, and that's good. No doubt, Sotomayor will do likewise, and disavow herself of any potential taint of racism. Shouldn't be too hard, as she's been on the bench for so many years that it would have arisen by now were it there.
That's what makes this a safe choice for Obama, all her experience on the bench. I suspect that's why the Left worked so hard to put down that other hispanic judge a while back, so as to keep him from attaining the same judicial experience as Sotomayor, and maybe winding up on the SC some day. Can't have those darkies straying off the plantation, can we?
The left worked hard to put down Estrada because of his uber-conservative credentials. Guess what, it worked! He was hardly the only nomination the left pushed hard against.
Moreover, why would you expect the left to support Estrada? Just because he is Hispanic?
Lets see if conservatives can stop Sotomayor. Some conservatives feel that she is some sort of affirmative action candidate. Keep repeating that line and see how much traction you get. Maybe I would agree with that line if she had the experience of perhaps, Miers.
As more or less everyone has already noted, a lot of people have been claiming that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist, would decide cases based on racial solidarity rather than on the law, and so forth. One natural way to check this would be to examine her actual record. She has, after all, been a judge for quite a while, so it should not be all that hard to see how she actually makes decisions.
Over at SCOTUSBlog, Tom Goldstein decided to do just that. He has been reading through all of Sotomayor's opinions in cases involving race. He promises to write more about them tomorrow, but here is what his analysis shows:
"Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.
As noted in the post below, Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection. (...)
In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."
I honestly don't know why so many people focus so much attention on their somewhat overwrought interpretations of one line in a speech and so little attention on ascertaining what kind of judge Sonia Sotomayor has been. Her decisions are not classified documents. They are public, and anyone can read them. Moreover, they plainly provide the best evidence of the kind of judge she will be.
I cannot imagine why more journalists have not done the kind of analysis that Tom Goldstein has -- the ratio of reporting on what someone thinks s/he can discern in one line of Sotomayor's speech to reporting on actual cases is just about the reverse of what it ought to be. That makes me all the more grateful to SCOTUSBlog for giving us the kind of analysis we need, but get far too rarely.
One other interesting point: Sotomayor's panel has been criticized for not explaining their reasoning in the Ricci case. Whether this is plausibly construed as an attempt to duck the issues depends in part on how common it is for a panel on the Second Circuit to affirm a district court opinion without explaining why. Goldstein therefore checked this point as he was going through the race-related cases:
"In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times."
hilzoy, Obsidian Wings
What this means is that the appeals court ruled against Ricci because it recognized that New Haven had tried to avoid a lawsuit that would have been possible and likely successful because of current law. In other words, the city tried to avoid falling afoul of the law, and the court did not penalize it for doing so. What is to blame in all of this is the law, rather than the judges who seem to have done what they were supposed to do. Indeed, what some people seem to have wanted to see Sotomayor do is to punish New Haven for trying to stay within the limits of the law, and for failing to do so she is declared to be an enemy of the rule of law. I submit that this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Perhaps I have missed something, but the injustice done to Ricci seems in no small part to be a product of the law as it exists. However, under current law, even granting that the city of New Haven seems to have bungled the handling of the promotion test for its firefighters, it does not necessarily follow that throwing out the test results from the apparently flawed test was a violation of anyone’s legal rights. Presumably had Sotomayor found for the plaintiff, we would now be hearing about how all that infamous “empathy” caused her to side with the dyslexic man against a municipality–oh, the judicial activism!–and to open the latter up to long and costly litigation (which would, of course, demonstrate her abiding love of greedy trial lawyers, her desire to enrich fellow minorities and her hatred of patriotic firefighters, as so many people would be only too happy to tell us).
Of course. I don't expect the Left would support him, but I do expect they'd put him down because they want to stigmatize any racial minority who strays off the plantation. They yet have a particular rage for Clarence Thomas as we know, not because of his judicial philosophy as we know that large numbers of judges have philosophy similar to his, but because he's black and therefore must have the Left's judicial philosophy.
Skin pigmentation must be accompanied by and only by certain kinds of thought, it appears. This strategy is well in line with their push for Sotomayor, who's an affirmative action candidate if there ever was one. Chromosomes and skin pigmentation were first order discriminators in this selection, as we know, but she does have the required thought, it appears.
Once you make skin pigmentation core to your political philosophy, then either your political philosophy has to expand and adapt to every political segment of a given tone of skin pigmentation, to become broader based politically, or you have to destroy anybody of that given tone of skin pigmentation who doesn't comport with your political philosophy, because political survival requires such, and you risk a depopulated plantation if independent thought is encouraged. I think that's what we've been seeing played out over the years.
Maybe it's because I travel in upper-middle class circles now, but the only times in my life I've been called crude racial epithets to my face were all by leftists, purporting to "explain" the secret feelings rightists really harbor about minorities in their fold. No gumption at all calling me a "house n*****" or words of that ilk.
Please continue to ignore the fact that the "concern trolls" include leading Republicans like Cornyn and Noonan. And Mark McKinnon (former advisor to Bush and McCain), who said this:
The important thing to understand about Rush is that he couldn't care less if the GOP has "permanent minority status." That's fine with him, as long as he's in charge. And he is. And the more shrunken and extreme the party gets, the easier it gets for Rush to stay in charge. Rush knows exactly what he's doing. He's a talented clown, and his job is to produce ratings, and he's very good at doing his job, and he loves doing his job. And the radicalization and marginalization of the GOP is very much in his personal best interest. The GOP's death spiral is great for his career.
Meanwhile, Newt is trying to out-Rush Rush, which makes for great theater. And I'm wondering how many nanoseconds will elapse before Cornyn offers Rush a groveling apology.
Because Rush has a very big drum, and he's beating it very loudly, and everyone loves to watch a clown beating a drum. And it's even more fun to watch when you realize he's at the head of a parade leading the GOP over a cliff. And other than events in Pakistan, N. Korea, and the retirement of Jay Leno, there's nothing else in the news. And those stories are pretty boring, to most people.
The number is at least 6 (here, here, here, here, here and here). And 4 of those 6 were posted by Somin. And I think it has something to do with the fact that Somin didn't figure out what Cornyn and Noonan figured out until roughly the exact moment when Cornyn and Noonan figured it out. Somin put up his backpedaling post ("She is No Racist") about 4 hours after Cornyn's remark ("terrible") hit Memeorandum. Prior to that moment, he was being a more genteel version of Rush.
The gist of her speech is that overcoming adversity and discrimination can make you a better judge. And there are definitely people who "would disagree" with that: people who have no experience with overcoming adversity and discrimination. In other words, Republicans.
The way this is going to play out is very similar to what happened with Obama. With Obama, the GOP spent months describing him as a wild-eyed angry radical. Lots of people heard this and figured it might be true. Then they saw him in the debates, and their lying eyes told them that he was anything but. So this is what they learned: the GOP can't be trusted (as if they didn't already know).
Now, once again, lots of people are hearing the GOP describe SS as a wild-eyed angry radical. Trouble is, in a few weeks they're going to see her in numerous hearing clips on teevee, and she's going to look like anything but. Rather, what they're going to see is an intelligent, personable, thoughtful woman who reminds them of their mom. So this is what they're going to learn, again: the GOP can't be trusted.
So please don't change a thing.
Do you remember who first put that phrase together? It's here:
You're pointing out, correctly, that David Brooks said something idiotic. Why should I care? He's your problem, not mine. And here's one reason the statement was idiotic: the statement was made barely a year after Bush lost the popular vote. It was also idiotic because it was said at a time when "the country was evenly divided along partisan lines -- 43 percent of the public identified with the Republican Party or leaned toward it, while the same number said they were Democrats." Compare that to the situation now.
So you can suggest some kind of a symmetry between R strength in 2002 and D strength now only if you're divorced from reality. But you're a Republican, so I repeat myself.
And let's take another quick look at "the idiot punditocracy." This is the Washington Times, 6/03:
And this is Fred Barnes, 11/04:
So when you remind us how "the idiot punditocracy was going about predicting a 'Permanent Republican Majority,' " you're reminding us of the idiocy of the GOP. It wasn't that "squeaky conservatives [were] running around giving the opposition advice." It's that "squeaky conservatives" were idiotically patting each other on the back.
Democrats are perfectly happy to accept votes from people who "describe themselves in polling results as 'conservative.' " And that's part of what's been happening. The D tent is growing and the R tent is shrinking.
"The Hispanic population will triple" between now and 2050. So pleae continue to bash SS.
And calling voters "stupid" is a great way to encourage them to switch parties. Keep up the good work.
Yes, I am going to greatly enjoy watching the GOP complain about the fact that SS ruled against a Hispanic plaintiff. Time to buy more popcorn.
I think this is very well-said, and I think every reasonable person understands this is exactly what she was saying. And Alito was saying something very similar (link, link) with regard to his poor immigrant ancestry. And Bush I was also saying something similar when he mentioned Thomas's small-town background and praised his "great empathy." In all three instances, the idea is that "confronting and overcoming difficulties" can help you become a better judge.
==================
student:
Perfect. I wish I had thought of that.
==================
justin:
Yes.
tripe....
Please continue to explain how and why the left does what it does. It is funny, because as someone who has been associated with the left my whole life - heck I am a union attorney - I rarely run into any of the folks you discuss. I am referring to the folks who you accuse of saying Estrada must act a certain way - or Thomas must act a certain way (although I have heard more of the Thomas/not black thing which is reprehensible). But mostly the criticism I hear about Thomas is about his jurisprudence, and he is hardly the only target.
The funniest thing about people who believe there is some monolithic Left - is that they are so ignorant. SHow me one time since the Civil Rights Movement that the left can do anything massive and coordinated with discipline.
Goto a anti-WTO march and you see signs for gay rights and Mumia. I think it is funny.
Isn't it a tad "racialist" (whatever the f' that means) to assume Obama's appointments are AA appointments or simply feel good appointments.
Does AA appointment cover all non-white mail hires?
I dont think you even came close to demostrating what you say.
You'rs saying that since he is saying that his decisions are better taking his family members experiences into account than not taking them into account, he's implying that his decisions are better than someone who doesn't have his ancestors. That is incorrect. He is remaining silent on how that person, with different ancestors and experinces to draw on, would make decisions and how those decisions would compare to his.
For example, if someone says "Sometimes in making descrimination decisions I find it helpful to draw upon my experiences as a white man accused of racism", by your reasoning, that is the same as saying, "as a white man, with my experience being falsly accused of racism, I can make better decisions than a black man who has not had that experience". That just isn't true.
Hmmmmmm, so on the one hand you're telling me this isn't so, and on the other hand you're telling me that it is so? I'd guess most of the skin pigmentation thought police aren't foolish enough to let slip their racism, but even you confirm that at least some do.
This is of course nothing but specious nonsense.
Keep reading how you want to, but I'll stick with what I actually said. I said that I rarely hear the type of talk you say is the liberal/left dogma, but I conceded that when I do hear it (remember I said it was rare) it has been remarks about Thomas.
So to recap - I rarely hear how the talk you say all libs/left say - but your point is somehow proven because I concede that there are rare occasions that I have heard self-descriobed libs/lefties say something reprehensible.
Weak man, weak.
Spin me around some more, nub.
I'm a "leftist," and before the nomination, I was pulling for Diane Wood.
Now that Obama has made the nomination, I've gone and listened to some speeches of Sotomayor's, read some things she's written, and generally tried to pay attention. I'm convinced that she's a good choice; not only am I satisfied with her nomination, I'm happy about it.
And if you think I feel that way about it because I think Obama can do no wrong, ask me about the recent filing by the DoJ on the Uighurs, or about Obama's reversal on releasing the abuse photographs (which we now know include instances of rape and other abuse of detainees), or about the way his administration has handled the Al-Haramain case, or....
Now, Justice Thomas is a jurisprudential fruit loop, for sure, don't get me wrong. :)
get the numbers correct:
60.4% White American including White Hispanic
43.0% are White, non-Hispanic or Latino
35.7% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
12.2% Asian American
6.3% Black or African American
3.3% Multiracial American
0.7% American Indian
I have heard a lot about horror stories from the press and academia about Asian Americans, poor whites, Indians, blacks . . . and the beat goes on.
I do not know about the racial preference system in California, so I won't comment on that portion. I thought Bakke took care of that.
Precisely. The skin pigmentation thought police are still enraged that this guy stole away from the plantation.
I'm not spinning anything, "nub", I'm commenting on your affirmation of the existence of the above mindset, and yes, you also affirm that only a few are dumb enough to expose themselves as pure racists. The others are as yet unexposed.
There are none. Watch out for the black choppers - they are coming for you . . .
"In California for example it is very hard to find a white anglo saxon protestant."
Who are the members of the CA executive branch? Re Armenian stories, have you been to Glendale? Re Vietnamese stories, have you been to the little Saigon area of Orange County? And so on. Those of us who live here are aware of these compelling and other compelling stories. Do you contend that Asians have been excluded from the California state university systems?
In general, I think that ex-con Gordon Liddy will be the ultimate winner of the Sotomayor debate.
But political motivation? Oh yes, this we know exists,and political survival is a powerful motivation. Let the plantation begin to depopulate, and political survival is at risk.
Bad Clarence... bad bad BAD!
That's exactly my point, I'm aware of these stories because I live here. But in the MSM and from the political elites I only hear about how political parties must pander to Latinos, how universities must admit more Latinos, how we must have a Latino on the SCOTUS, how our children should learn Spanish. Watching CNN or listening to the arguments about the Latino vote its as if the vast number of non-Latino immigrants do not exist.
The Dow dropped 22% during Bush's term (after more than tripling during Clinton's). Since Obama took over, it's up 3%. And here's the news yesterday: "Consumer Sentiment Rose to 8-Month High."
But keep hope alive. That is, the hope that Obama and the economy will both fail. It's the patriotic thing to do.
No. When was the last time there was an SC nomination that had "no political angle?" Clarence Thomas? If there is a perfectly qualified person who also offers a nice "political angle," what president is going to choose someone else?
=================
shelbyc:
If someone else with "different ancestors and experinces to draw on" also had, like Alito, a family history of discrimination, then that person (according to the implication of Alito's remark) would have something useful to "take … into account." But the absence of that family history of discrimination would indeed (according to the implication of Alito's remark) represent the absence of something that would be useful to "take … into account."
He was "silent" only to the extent that he didn't say this explicitly. But it's implicit in his remark (link, link). It's nonsense to claim that the thing which he defined as useful, which he possesses, does not represent (in his eyes) a comparative advantage over a person who does not possess that thing.
A person who makes that statement is indeed implying that they are in a position to make a better decision than a person who cannot "draw on [such] experiences." The implication is direct and inescapable.
=================
blue:
I never heard the term before, but your description ("that the slave knows the system better than the master") is indeed similar to what I said here.
For a moment let's put aside the fact that you are making an assertion with no evidence. Let's assume that she is "advocating … standpoint theory," and let's assume that standpoint theory is "nothing but specious nonsense." Trouble is, she's not being accused of "advocating … specious nonsense." She's being accused of racism. Is standpoint theory a form of racism?
=================
sbron:
People who "can point to a history of oppression in their own families" are people who are going to be in a position to identify with SS. In a way that was not possible with, say, Roberts.
There's "vast," and there's vaster. It has to do with numbers.
=================
per:
Something to know about rosetta is that he sees things that don't exist.
?? Haven't heard that name for a while, what's the connection?
Please don't confuse us with the facts.
To the Collective Leftist Body,
It is not so much that identify with the Republicans. I identify more as a libertarian on most issues, with some conservative leanings, and certainly find many GOP politicians distasteful and cowardly. It is simply the supercilious arrogance of the claim, repeated, over and over, that it was completely unreasonable to find Sotomayor's remarks and worldview troubling - obviously not, according to Obama - and also the disingenuous manner Democrats are imploring conservatives not to relegate themselves to an irrelevant future, all because of the inevitable Hispanic backlash. OK, if the political backlash is so inevitable, let those chips fall where they may, let's see who comes out ahead in the furor, and maybe then you can crow constantly and contently about the right's self-destructive tendencies.
It is not so much that I identify with the Republicans. I identify more as a libertarian on most issues, with some conservative leanings, and certainly find many GOP politicians distasteful and cowardly. It is simply the supercilious arrogance of the claim, repeated, over and over, that it was completely unreasonable to find Sotomayor's remarks and worldview troubling - obviously not, according to Obama - and also the disingenuous manner by which Democrats are seemingly imploring conservatives not to relegate themselves to an irrelevant future, all because of the inevitable Hispanic backlash. OK, if the political backlash is so inevitable, let those chips fall where they may, let's see who comes out ahead in the furor, and maybe then you can crow constantly and contently about the right's self-destructive tendencies.
Harumph.
Regarding McKinnon, he doesn't realize just how much he's internalized far-left concepts. In general, his advice is horrible not just for the GOP but for the country as a whole.
Regarding those GOP Hispanic strategists, read about one of them here. The GOP would be much better off rejecting someone who, among other things, hoped for money from the Mexican government in order to fund a pro-amnesty ad campaign. That would be akin to wanting money from the Chinese government in order to conduct an ad campaign in the U.S. promoting Chinese steel.
Consider the canonical case of the slave. It is indeed true that the slave has a first-hand level of experience with that status. Standpoint theory priviliges the slave in understanding the institution because of this closeness.
Problem is that the slave has no real insights into economic calculations behind their plight. Those insights--and thus the systemic knowledge of the institution--are contained almost solely at the slaveowners level of the system.
Now consider "racism." It is true that the minority experiences what they percieve as racism personally. But that perception may be flawed (e.g., false bikas claims) and even if it is NOT flawed it certainly provides no deep insights on WHY racism exists.
Oh, and I did remember to ask him whether he thinks you're a bandwidth gobbling troll, and while noncommital in the specific case, he agrees that anybody constantly posting mindless 1,000 (one thousand) word cut and paste gibberish likely fills the bill.
He also mentioned that any high school shop student would recognize that secondary framing members in the bottom chord of a truss structure act in the horizontal plane only, and certainly are not moment connections designed to support the vertical loading that would result if 1 (one) of the 2 (two) suspension cables were cut, subjecting those secondary members to a sudden cantilever load from the entire bridge span.
So in addition to being an internet troll, you must not have gotten as far as high school shop.
A huge problem is that most of the populace just isn't equipped with that knowledge of a good counter-argument to the "diversity makes a more complete Court" meme that you just refuted. Standpoint theory appeals to a certain intuition, maybe, but it is laughably wrong, and its popular acceptance enables the glib accusations of "racism!" whenever some takes a principled stance and dares criticize or oppose a minority political candidate.
No, you didn't respond to the facts sputnik posted about how SS actually decides cases. Without dealing with those facts, your feelings on the matter don't really amount to much worth addressing.
Of course, we could have guessed that somebody posts addressing the "collective leftist body" wouldn't have much substance to contribute.
(1) Criticism of a United States President, and parties associated therewith (an "Administration"), may not be used to deflect or distract from criticism of a different Administration; provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to restrict or prohibit the discussion of an Administration to the extent such Administration affected the subject matter of the existing discussion;
(2) Posts must contain 1,000 words or less; further, commentors must make a good faith effort to make posts as short as possible.
I've always found the "plantation" talk troublesome.
1. It robs non-conservative Black people of their agency by implying that they are either (a) too stupid to think for themselves and actually conclude that the Democratic party is better (the way that Black conservatives have reached a different conclusion)*, or (b) beholden to the Democrats' promises of welfare checks and food stamps (see, e.g., 2.a, infra). Lots of Black people (not just liberal Whites who have a stereotype of how Black people are "supposed to" think) criticize Thomas and other Black conservatives because they actually believe that Republican policies are generally bad (especially for Black people), and thus consider them complicit in making things worse. Why should this mean that Black Democrats are on a "plantation"? How is this much better than claiming that all opposition to Affirmative Action and Latino/Mexican immigration is really due to Republican racism? It seems like it would be better to simply argue the merits of Democratic policies and that they have failed to deliver than to claim that Black supporters of these policies are stuck on a plantation.
2. It's also not as if the modern GOP, to the extent that it has ideas that could be drawing more Black people to the Party (I suspect that vouchers, for example, are more popular than among the rest of the Democratic coalition), exactly presents itself as "welcoming."
Examples:
(a) Obama Bucks. I suspect that at least 80% of Black people in American would immediately see the racial overtones of the foods used on the food stamp dollar bill, and this sort of thing certainly isn't going to change the perception that the Republican = racist.
(b) Shannon Reeves' Open Letter to the Republicans Party. A few years old, but it still points out that there are some problems of at least racial insensitivity that should be addressed and which affect perceptions of the GOP. It's not that crazy to believe that Republican opposition to Affirmative Action is driven by racism (even if this is false) when the (former?) Secretary of the California Republican Party is assumed to be the valet when he goes to Republican events.
(c) J.C. Watts: (1), (2). Watts is interesting because he has used the "plantation" language himself but also concedes that it's not as if the GOP as it currently exists has shown itself to be a place where Black people would expect themselves to be seen as part of the big tent. And by this I don't mean identity politics pandering or accommodation, I simply mean what Watts conveys: taking the message into communities and interacting with people, rather than claiming that the overwhelming majority of Black people who vote for the Democrats live on a plantation and love their welfare checks, and then acting shocked that they don't vote for the GOP even though they're against gay marriage too!
* This is particularly ironic given how often welfare and Affirmative Action are criticized as paternalistic and implying that poor minorities are unable to solve problems for themselves.
How's anybody being "robbed" by pointing out the liberal plantation mentality? If anybody's being "robbed" by that mentality, then they're robbing themselves, aren't they?
What I mean is that, when one says that Black Democrats are on a "plantation," it implies that those who have left are bold, independent thinkers who are no longer enslaved by the Democrats/liberalism, and that those who haven't are just sheep following the crowd. What I'm saying is that Black Democrats as much as Black Republicans are making decisions about how to vote (although Black Republicans definitely face a bit of social pressure, as Reeves points out above). Those decisions might be bad, but implying that this bad decision = Black Democrats are all slaves on a plantation is no better than claims from the other side that Black Republicans are all self-hating Uncle Toms and sell-outs.
By robbing their agency I meant not that the choice to leave has literally been robbed from them. What I meant is that the plantation claim "robs" them by implying that it's impossible to consciously choose to be Democrats rather than being Democrats because they're unthinking slaves on a plantation, who, like Clarence Thomas et al., need to set themselves free. It's a Republican counterpart to Thomas Frank's thesis in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that if only working-class Americas would stop being deceived by the Republicans' God, guns, and gays propaganda, they'd realize that the Democratic Party truly has their economic interests at heart. Sure, each side might believe its claim sincerely, but it's not going to help their respective causes long-term.
Which is why I say that it would be better to make the kinds of arguments that Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and other economic conservatives and libertarians of all races make about the effectiveness of liberal policies, and let the chips fall where they may. Some will be convinced, some will not. But those who aren't convinced shouldn't be viewed as stuck on a liberal plantation any more than Republican-voting working class White people should all be painted as bitterly clinging to religion and guns.
IOW, how is anyone being characterized as a mindless automaton? All I implied is that they're mindless automatons.
Thanks for the halitosis, rosetta.
The comparison doesn't work.
=================
blue:
I'm noticing that you seem to have not noticed that I asked you a question. Maybe this time you'll answer it. Is standpoint theory a form of racism? Because establishing that standpoint theory is wrong (which you have asserted, but not demonstrated) is not the same thing as establishing that standpoint theory is a form of racism.
=================
cato:
With any luck at all, the GOP will loudly promote your premise, that the Court doesn't need diversity.
Somehow I think that if the court consisted of 9 Latina women, you would be shrieking about how "diversity makes a more complete Court."
I guess you must be thinking of the "glib accusations of 'racism!' " that the GOP made when the Dems dared to oppose Estrada.
=================
rosetta:
You should ask your "structural buddy" if he has a morality buddy you can borrow. You seem to lack one of your own. If you had one, he could explain to you why it's not OK to make things up.
=================
machina:
You mean 'but Clinton (allegedly) did that too' is no longer an acceptable way of making excuses for Bush? I wonder why you didn't think of that about 8 years ago.
This many of my posts in this thread exceed 1,000 words: zero. But I notice that rosetta also mentioned that number, so I guess your relationship with reality is roughly as solid as his.
And I have a suggestion for how you might choose to handle the situation where you run into a post that exceeds your attention span: figure out if your computer is equipped with some kind of scrolling device. Most likely it has some feature along those lines. Unless it's one of the old steam-powered models.
Not necessarily; for instance there is not a racial
component to slavery in general (as practiced across the world).
1. As you note, claims of racism on might be overstated by minorities in some cases, but the opposite may also be true. At least some of the opposition here to the criticism of Sotomayor's statement seems to be arguing against the idea that the judiciary would be making objective judgments if only women and minorities weren't taking their experiences into account and tilting the scales of justice (or if only White/male activists weren't empathetically ruling in their favor); rather, the argument goes, the judiciary would be making decisions that trended in the opposite direction. (See, for example, the posts pointing out how male judges' voting changes in sex discrimination cases if a woman is on the panel.)
So while standpoint theory may be false, it doesn't seem better to populate the court with people whose experiences shade their views such that they wrongfully dismiss claims of racism/discrimination. The question then is how to prevent this from happening, and if it has happened, whether putting someone with the opposite perspective on the court would act as a counterweight or lead to worse rulings.
2. Sotomayor is in a different position from the slave. She's also attended some of the more elite institutions in the country and subsequently has done well for herself. She's become peers with many of the people who might be analogized to "slave masters" and she has had the opportunity to socialize with them and hear their opinions, even if she cannot perfectly understand where they're coming from. A freed slave who is now acquainted with slave owners and associates with them would not exactly know what it's like to be a slave owner, but would have a better idea than a slave, and would know more about being a slave than a slave master who never was a slave. I don't think that it's crazy to hope that such experiences would cause such a person to be better at assessing slavery than a person who only knows one side of the equation.
Similarly, it would seem that having come from a humbler background and going on to an elite life, one might hope that a person in Sotomayor's (Alito's, Thomas') position would make better decisions, given the additional information, than someone lacking such knowledge. This isn't a categorical claim about ability, as Sotomayor admits that it may not hold true (since it's a hope and not a fact) and she points out that none of the judges in Brown had the experience of being Black. If Tom Goldstein's analysis is correct, her overall record doesn't seem to indicate a knee-jerk tendency to rule in favor of plaintiffs/minorities in racial discrimination cases. It doesn't seem then that her experiences have made her biased in favor of plaintiffs in this area, or that she's arguing for bias on the part of female and minority (and fellow-traveling White/male liberal) judges.
So while standpoint theory might be false, in the context of the Court, we're not talking about appointing a random female minority of low socioeconomic status, whose assessments of whether discrimination existed in a certain case should be above reproach and treated as dispositive, but someone who has had that life, but has also lived an elite life and thus has knowledge of both worlds, and wouldn't be analyzing issues in a manner analogous to the slave who has no insights into the economic decisions that a slave master faces.
I can go with that, and I think that to the extent that one reads her statement as privileging one perspective to another, the criticism of her statement should be made be assessing the empirical underpinnings of the statement (i.e., by pointing out evidence indicating that while Whites/males might sometimes downplay racism/sexism against minorities/women, there may be times when minorities/women make claims of discrimination that are not legally sound, and thus conclude that it may be problematic not to subject the latter tendency to the same scrutiny as the former).
I would just like to commend you on your two thoughtful posts, which I think are the exemplar of what proper debate on the nomination should be, not the typical endless castigation of conservative motives and armchair political analysis. Unfortunately I don't have time to respond at length at the moment, but I would say the true refutation of standpoint theory is that typical minorities are systematically biased in their assessment of racism, and Sotomayor's thinking on the subject hasn't shown any nuance or evolution from the theory of various very diffuse and ill-defined "racisms" the left claims holds minorities back. Sotomayor cannot make grand claims of judicial competence or insight based on her diversity of background, because not only do different cultures have unique insights to share, most also have expansive myths to overcome. I read some of her old published editorials at the Daily Princetonian, and much of it contained the stupid "proportionality" arguments I especially hate, and I listened to her oral remarks in the Ricci case which highlight the typical misunderstanding of test bias as psychometricians and psychologists understand it, a very specific example of her lack of insight possibly strengthened by her Latina heritage. I see little evidence that she would apply the same force of reasoning that she might apply in a highly technical statutory issue to racial discrimination cases, because her statement belies her belief in the same highly flawed theory that Blue articulated well.
Your analysis on Politico is rather weak when Sotomajor's point is that a diverse bench makes for better judging, in the aggregate:
I don't think she made any such kind of claim. I think she made a comment about the specific question of understanding discrimination. It is clear to me that many here are grasping for a straw based upon a preconceived idea of who Sotomayor is or what "liberals" are like, etc. I recommend this Balkanization thread.
I also think this statement from JS Mill is germane to the wider discussion (I found it at Scott Horton's blog):
It is hardly possible to overstate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar…. Such communication has always been, and is particularly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress.
–John Stuart Mill, The Principles of Political Economy
hostility tosupport for SS is all aboutconservative "feelings"a liberal knee-jerk reaction rather than her actual record as a lawyer or judge.There, fixed it for you.
(I have a hard time getting worked up about this nomination, but the media has their collective heads so far up Obama's ass on this, it's nauseating. NPR can't kiss his ass fast enough. I'm not asking for hit pieces--those are offensive--but some critical analysis would be welcome.)
She would HOPE that a wise Latina woman would come to a better conclusion because she accepts the proposition "that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color are on the bench." She does "not know what difference will be" but she HOPES it is better judging.
The liberal plantation mentality is a statement of the Left's actions, and constant drive for racial identity sorta politics. I take no notice of skin pigmentation, other than to point out the Left's obsession with skin pigmentation. Your concern with my comments effects on the "feelings" of people of one particular tone of skin pigmentation, based solely on their tone of skin pigmentation, may be important to you... but it isn't to me. We simply disagree here, and I don't share your concern.
Once you make skin pigmentation part of your core political philosophy, you're gonna run into trouble... it is inevitable. No sense blaming others for that trouble, if you yourself believe in that core political philosophy. We who do not share that core political philosophy will take notice, and hold up a mirror. If you're comfortable with where you're at, then you'll likely have no problem with that, and you shouldn't. However, if you're squirming when the mirror's held up...
Where did I say anything about "feelings"? I did say that (1) claims that individuals are on a Democratic "plantation" (a) aren't helpful if you think that these policies are bad and want to actually convince people and (b) imply that these individuals don't think for themselves, whereas individuals such as Justice Thomas are paragons of "independent thought," and (2) that some Republicans do things that undermine the claim that that Republicans have no concern for people's skin pigmentation (e.g., Obama Bucks and assuming that Shannon Reeves is in the "wrong place" when he's at Republican events because of his skin color).
I made no mention of anyone's "feelings," or being concerned about their "feelings" in the context of their skin color. I did say that there are better ways of making one's case that liberal policies are bad, and therefore that individuals such as Thomas shouldn't be vilified (e.g., by interacting with individuals and making the case, rather than claiming that they're not independent thinkers, but rather slaves on a plantation, for voting for the Democrats).
PS Unless you deny that there's been a Southern Strategy in the Republican Party, it seems odd to accuse only one side of using racial/identity politics.
I'm not implying anything about anybody due to the tone of their skin pigmentation. You are.
The liberal plantation mentality is an equal opportunity enterprise. It's about political power, through the use of discrimination based upon tones of skin pigmentation.
Additionally, your reference and interest to "Republicans", much like your interest in various tones of skin pigmentation, may be of interest to you, but neither has any interest to me.
Again, perhaps you're uncomfortable with what you see in the mirror. That's something you'd need to look at, not sure there's much I can help you with there.
Indeed. Where did the race consciousness of the Latina come from? Might it not have started when Kipling referred to them as "half-devil/half child" in the poem he wrote to commemorate the US's acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines, a poem memorably titled, "The White Man's Burden"?
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
But hey, keep thinking that this is all just liberal identity politics. Works for me.
I'll try to clarify what I meant without using the word "rob":
Many people accuse individuals such a Justice Thomas of being a sell-out, an Uncle Tom, or other awful things for rejecting liberalism. These slurs are based on the idea that because Justice Thomas has a certain skin color, he should have certain political and cultural beliefs. Some individuals who praise people Justice Thomas and others for rejecting liberalism speak of it in terms of him (and others) abandoning the (liberal) plantation. Some have even spoke of their own rejection of liberalism in the same terms. I object to this terminology because it implies that those who have the same skin color as Thomas but subscribe to liberalism are slaves subservient to their liberal/Democratic masters, and that if only they thought for themselves, they too would be like Thomas and reject liberalism. For example:
Does this characterization allow that those who are liberals/Democrats be individuals when it claims that they're simply slaves being overseen by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Because the plantation characterization downplays the possibility that individuals' decision to support Democrats derives not from manipulation but from their independent thought (like Thomas' decision to reject liberalism derives from his own independent thought), the plantation comparison is no better than the slurs hurled at Thomas. It's not a charitable interpretation of the actions and motives of the individuals who are or remain liberals/Democrats, and it would be better to abandon the characterization and simply argue about the merits and consequences of liberal policies (as Juan Williams does in the book that Michael Reagan is reviewing when making the above statement).
As far as mentioning the Republicans is concerned, if you don't identify with them I apologize, but it tends to be Republicans (like Watts) who talk about the liberal/Democratic plantation, and I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you identified with or at least favored the Republicans in electoral politics. But the point still stands that it's not just liberals/the Left who have used identity/racial politics, as noted by Mehlman's admission of as much.
Have fun watching the game!
No, clearly that has no relevance today, Tony.
I suppose you'd call me a "typical minority". So when I read that the last Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, on the bench as late as 2005, not only participated in Operation Eagle Eye, a program designed to suppress minority voters, but wrote a memo entitled "A Random thought the on Segregation Cases:"
"Plessy vs. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed...
...Rehnquist's memo concluded that the court should uphold segregation and refuse to protect "special claims" merely "because its members individually are 'liberals' and dislike segregation."
So when I, as a "typical minority" see charges of racism leveled at Judge Sotomayor for her statements, yet heard crickets from these same people about Rehnquist all these years, I have no choice but to challenge people like Cato and their theories of "systematically biased racism assessments."
--Cobra
"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleague..."
I am frankly shocked at the dishonesty here. Why do you demean our political discourse so? I would guess that Rehnquist was explaining interpreting the law as he saw he proper, and not constructing his "emanations of penumbras" to rectify an unjust situation as someone with no trust in our legislative branch might decide instead.
Anyway, I don't even want to go there. We are not arguing about Rehnquist, we are not arguing about "coding", we are not arguing about specific people, keep your anecdotes and emotionalisms to yourself and address my abstract arguments in that same fashion. I don't want self-flagellate in front of obscure histories and documentaries of racism that many leftists so enjoy. If that is too 'removed' for you, I'm very sorry.
[quoting from the La Raza website] As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect.
The first Spanish-English dictionary that comes up using a Google search (I'm not cherry picking) is here. Typing in "raza" it responds with "(human) race," not "the community. Even better is to enter "la raza" in the sentence translation box and the translator responds with "race." Now let's translate "the community" into Spanish and we get "la comunidad." How about "the people?" We get "el pueblo." How is the translation of "la raza" to "race" inaccurate?
What's important is what the phrase "la raza" evokes in Spanish speaking Americans? In my opinion the website is not being honest. Now that they are getting more and more publicity, they need to clean up their tribal invective.
"If -- for the sake of argument -- their experiences were or are relatively worse than that of other immigrant groups, is it obviously wrong to say they are not "victims" of something?"
I don't agree with your assumption that Puerto Ricans living in the Bronx in the 1950s and 1960s (when Sotomayor lived there) were relatively worse off than other immigrant groups. What is the evidence for that? Before the large influx of Puerto Ricans to the Bronx that borough was mostly poor and working class Jews and Italians. If anything these groups were worse off as they did enjoy the level of city services the Puerto Ricans got. However there was one big exception: crime. After the Puerto Ricans largely replaced the Jews and Italians the crime rate soared. Would you like me to give a block-by-block synopsis how much more dangerous the streets became. If Bronx Puerto Ricans were victimized, it was largely other Puerto Ricans that did it.
Don't try to bullshit me on this. I lived there. I had Puerto Rican friends who hated what was going on. For example, my good friend Jose, who was a pro-Castro Puerto Rican nationalist, could not wait to get away from the New York Puerto Rican community. He moved to Sweden.
"So when I...", "so when I...." These are personal arguments used to appeal to concepts of privilege, the idea that you can't have a valid opinion on some issue because you're not the right skin color or born into the correct socioeconomic positions. I only bring "that" up to quickly toss aside those claims. Should it affect the quality of my questions?
klp85,
No need to apologize for being "unclear". In fact, you're very clear, as per your statement above, that you use various tones of skin pigmentation to discriminate amongst people, and in imagining what's "implied" by statements concerning the liberal plantation mentality, and their "implied" effects on whichever segments of the skin pigmentation spectrum you've decided to identify as offended at the given moment.
It'll get easier for you to see if you take your eyes off skin pigmentation, believe me. I'm not discriminating on skin pigmentation... you are.
I don't think we're getting anywhere, and you seem to be struggling to find a way to explain the unexplainable... that you use skin pigmentation as a way to discriminate amongst people. We simply disagree on that point, and unless you move away from it, and disavow that from your core political philosophy, we'll continue to disagree.
You might spare yourself the trouble of the long explanations, because my only response can be to hold up the mirror.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/weekinreview/31liptak.html
I just recalled a humbler example of the benefit of bringing on board someone with a different perspective from the majority:
Our lone Republican county supervisor spoke about the transformative effect of his election. The eight (or so) Democrats had routinely approved certain ordinances and expenditures with little or no discussion. When the Republican came on board, he started questioning such groupthink-motivated decisions. Having to account to a skeptical peer reined in some of their worst excesses.
1. Look at the context of the statement that you quoted. My point was that when people insult Thomas and call him a "sell-out" for having his views, it's disrespectful because it's an insult based on his skin color and assumptions about he should therefore believe. All I've been trying to say is that when one uses plantation language, it makes equally problematic assumptions about those who have not made the same decision as Thomas.
Why else call it a plantation? On a real slave plantation, there were overseers who would make sure slaves wouldn't leave. There were also slave catchers and government-backed laws to minimize slave escapes. In other words, the slaves who either remained on or were brought back to the plantation were kept in place by the threat of force. So, when one speaks of a "plantation," it implies that those who remain on the plantation are somehow being compelled to stay there. I'm saying that this is false in the case of adherents of liberal ideology (who's forcing anyone to remain a liberal?), or at least it's no more true than of adherents to conservative or libertarian views, and therefore that the plantation language should be abandoned. Do you mean something else by the plantation language?
As I pointed out in my second response, I believe that plantation language is the equivalent of liberals' claims that working-class people are being deceived by the Republicans/conservatives into voting against their economic interests by being distracted by God/guns/gays issues. Heaven forbid that these individuals actually believe in conservative principles and economics, rather than being simply duped. Likewise for those who, unlike Justice Thomas, remain liberals/Democrats.
The point has nothing to do with race per se, except that most of the time when people describe liberalism/the Democratic party as a plantation, they are using it in a racial context.
Is anybody else finding my point that hard to follow?
2. As far as "my core philosophy" is concerned, what here have I posted that indicates my substantive political views/philosophy (liberal, conservative, libertarian), rather than simply being an (apparently failed) attempt to explain why I think that the "plantation" language doesn't make sense?
Rossetta has told you he has no response, so it is perhaps best to just drop it.
Then you should "draw the line" at Alito, because his remark embodied that concept of "BETTER."
History is always relevant.
===================
cato:
Her record demonstrates that she places a high priority on "rational interrogation &the careful application of law." So her view of the importance of "rational interrogation &the careful application of law" is a given, and to imply that she would ever imply the non-importance of those things is to ignore her record.
===================
gatorat:
mattski and dmv have provided some terrific references (here, here and here). Also indispensable is this.
===================
tony:
Along similar lines, I think most people don't realize what a racist Churchill was.
===================
klp85:
Thanks for your extremely intelligent comments.
rosetta's shtick (aside from making things up) is to repeatedly promote GOP talking points while insisting that he doesn't support the GOP. As Just an Observer said, "Cui Bono."
No, your posts haven't "given the impression that [rosetta has] taken from them."
No.
If you have "failed," it's only in the sense of failing to realize that rosetta is a waste of time. It is sufficient to notice that he has made false claims and then refused to take responsibility for doing so.
===================
cobra:
Thanks for that excellent post.
Cato, you first used the phrase "typical minority", with italics, no less, in your 5.30.2009 5:17pm post. If there's any "game" involving that phrase, you kicked it off.
Cato the Elder writes at 5.31.2009 8:43am:
But Cato the Elder wrote on 5.30.2009 5:17pm:
--Cobra
Well, I disagree that it's implicit. But it was explicit in Judge Sonyia's comments. And if I'm wrong and you're correct that Alito said the same thing implicitly, then he deserves criticism as well.
That's just flat wrong. If someone says that thinking back to their experience working on a beet farm in Salinas, CA in 1992 helps him make certain decisions, he is making a personal comment about how he makes decisions. He is not saying he would make a better decision than someone who worked on a hog farm in Iowa in 1989, or even a better decision than someone who has never worked on a farm at all. Judge Alitio was making an introspective comment. Judge Sotomayer was comparing her decision making ability to members of a different race. It's just not comparable.
Indeed. The experience of a Hispanic woman who has succeeded in a white male dominated world is just not comparable to that of a white male who has managed to succeed in a white male world. For some reason, this fact threatens white males, who finally are confronted with the realization that there are some experiences that they simply cannot have.
Perhaps these white men could have gender reassignment surgery, and then be parachuted into a non-English speaking country where the white male does not dominate. This could help them develop their empathy.
But this Hispanic woman was not comparing such abilities, she was noting that someone of a different gender and race would make a difference on the bench, and she was hoping that this difference would be better.
Yeah, my knees are knocking together. Hey, your comment almost seems to be admitting that Sotomayer said what she said. How refreshing.
If Sotomayor wanted to end the chatter, she should simply own up to statement, say it was an obvious mistake, and even admit she was pandering to La Raza. Then apologize, and say she's grown out of those ideas. This would end the matter.
The Republicans should carefully consider the alternatives to Sotomayor. From their point of view, she might be the best of a bad lot. It's even possible that she's a thowaway-- nominated to draw fire and exhaust the opposition to clear the way for a far more radical candidate.
Well no, plantations existed long after anybody was compelled by law to stay there, as we know historically. But, they were "persuaded" to stay there as we know... illegitimately persuaded... by those seeking personal gain, and who set up the means to achieve that personal gain. Sounds familiar, eh?
The plantation metaphor works fine, klp85, but you seem to have strong feelings about it, and again, that's something you'll have to look at. I can only hold up the mirror.
I take it from the end of your post that you do not believe in the use of skin pigmentation as a discriminator? That's admirable, and certainly sets you apart from the liberal plantation mentality.
You see, klp85, as an African-American liberal Democrat who wants to keep winning elections, not only do I defend the right of rosetta's stones to use this metaphor, but I encourage it. Disregarding the American historical absurdity of implying that conservatives did NOT discriminate based upon skin color, and the oh-so-convenient "slavery-allusions" when discussing Blacks, I think it's a great thing for many of these conservatives and Republicans to stand up and be counted on race and ethnicity topics.
Whether it's Rush Limbaugh playing "Barack the Magic Negro" song parodies &comparing Sotomayor to David Duke, Tom Tancredo calling La Raza the KKK, or G. Gordon Liddy maligning pre-menopausal women...
Whether it's various Republican groups making "colorful" flyers...
emails...buttons or food products, far be it from me to hinder or impede some of their unfiltered political opinions.
Oh no. Keep up the good work, folks. President Obama only took 96% of the African-American, 67% of the Latino-American, 63% of the Asian-American, and 46% of the White Woman Vote in 2008, not to mention 68% of all voters under age 30.
We have room to grow.
--Cobra
The interesting thing about these photos is that one does not need to be a "structural engineer" to realize that the things you claimed were "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation" are definitely not "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation."
But why should we believe our lying eyes when instead we can choose to believe some guy on the internet who makes transparently counterfactual claims and then refuses to take responsibility for doing so? Tough choice.
It's nice to see that you have that much self-awareness.
And some people "disagree" that the planet is round. I explained how there's no other way to read Alito's words, and you haven't explained what's wrong with my explanation. You've simply asserted that it's wrong, which is not the same thing as showing that it's wrong.
Surely you must agree that it's at least plausible to interpret Alito the way I interpret Alito (since I've shown that there's no other way to read his words, and since you haven't shown how I'm wrong). Therefore the important thing to notice is that with Alito, no one even asked the question, at the time. No one suggested a need for clarification. No one raised the issue, even as a possibility, that he had said something that "deserves criticism." And still, even now, it's impossible to find a Republican leader who can admit even the possibility that someone should have asked him what he meant, or that there might be something wrong with what he said. Why? Because IOKIYAR.
Note what Jeff Sessions said today on MTP: "I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me."
Hmm, let's see. That's what Alito said, that his family history of discrimination is something he chooses to "take … into account." So it's not just that "[his] background can influence [his] decision." It's that he consciously chooses to "take … into account" his background. And David Gregory played that clip for Sessions. How did Sessions respond? By ducking the issue. In other words, IOKIYAR. Read the transcript.
When the hypothetical ex-farmer is talking about the value of his farming experience, he is saying, by definition, that the absence of the experience would embody the absence of something valuable. And it's up to him to explain where the value lies. Is it in the "Salinas" part? The "1992" part? The "beet" part? Or just the "farm" part? Or just the "work" part? All of the above, combined? We don't know, and the answer could theoretically be any of those things, and it's up to him to tell us. But whatever answer he gives, he's claiming implicit superiority over someone. If the answer is "farm," he's claiming a kind of superiority over people who haven't farmed. If the answer is "work," he's claiming a kind of superiority over people who haven't worked. But regardless of his answer, he is claiming to possess something valuable that some set of other people do not possess.
And that's what both Alito and SS did. And there's nothing wrong with making such a claim; it's what we all do when we're looking for a job, or a date, or a vote. We say why our qualifications are superior to someone else's. And we can do that without explicitly mentioning the someone else (either as an individual or as a category).
And the claims by Alito and SS were not racial, because they were not saying that the racial aspect itself is inherently valuable. Rather, they were both talking about how their ethnic identity led to a certain experience. They were both talking about the value of that experience, not something inherent in the ethnicity itself.
They were both talking about how their ethnic background can help them be a better judge. SS was not talking about her race itself, but rather the experience she had as result of being that race.
All three people we're talking about (SS, Alito, and your hypothetical ex-farmer) would acknowledge that other people can be qualified, and that other people have their own valuable experiences. When I tout my own experience (as those three did), I'm only saying that if other factors are equal, this factor would put me ahead of someone else (in other words, if I imagine someone exactly like me, except that they lack this particular experience). And that's precisely what SS said. She didn't say a Latina is stronger than a white male. She said that a Latina with certain experiences would (hopefully) be stronger than a white male who lacked those experiences ("who hasn't lived that life").
And as Tony explained so clearly, it's possible for a white man to have the same experience. It's just that most don't.
Everyone agrees that "Sotomayer said what she said," so your tautological remark adds nothing.
True, but the impact of her statement goes beyond that.
Her statement is truly offensive to true racists because she's pointing out that oppression can lead to strength. When we oppress people, the result (often but certainly not always) is that they become stronger. For a vivid example, look at the history of the Jews.
SS does come from a background of oppression, and it has indeed made her stronger. So the statement she has made to racists is this: I have become stronger as a result of you oppressing me. And not just stronger than I would have been if I hadn't been oppressed. Stronger than you.
That's true. And from the perspective of a racist, it's a bitter truth. Hence all the shrieking and howling. From true racists, and from people whose career success depends (at least in part) on the support of true racists.
Today Lindsay Graham did a nice job of getting to the heart of the matter:
Yes, that's what she said (except that he left out the "hope" part, which is not OK, and he also didn't mention that she was talking specifically about discrimination cases; that's also not OK, but let's put all that aside). And Graham finds this offensive, which is a perfect illustration of how white males are accustomed to being on top. He is deeply rattled, because it's not just about accepting that a non-white non-male could be stronger than he is. It's about something much more difficult to accept: that the person did not just overcome their minority status, but that the minority status itself is something that contributes to their strength. From the perspective that Graham represents, such an idea is deeply subversive and disconcerting. And it's bad enough that she embodies this disturbing reality, but she made matters worse by talking about it honestly.
Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday) played the same Alito clip that was played on MTP, and Graham didn't totally sidestep it like Sessions did. Graham provided the same answer that shelby has been giving: that Alito didn't explicitly name the counterpart to which he was comparing himself. But as I've explained, that distinction is superficial.
Obama made a smart move which is bound to accelerate the GOP's self-destruction (while also giving the country a chance to have an adult conversation about race). The real battle here is not between Democrats and Republicans. The real battle is for the leadership of the GOP. Rush has everything to gain and nothing to lose by turning up the heat. And who is really feeling that heat? People like McConnell, Sessions and Graham. Because they can't afford to alienate Rush's audience, but they also can't afford to alienate Hispanics and women. Along with lots of other people who will notice and abhor the double standard, where Alito's very similar remark is considered just fine. If MTP and Fox were both savvy enough to have that clip ready today, we can expect to hear a lot more of it.
In a few weeks, lots of people will be watching clips from the hearings. There will be a big audience, because there is so much news right now about her famous remark. There is natural suspense as people wonder how she will handle it. And chances are she'll do fine. The GOP senators will be gentle with her, because they know they can't afford to be seen as bullying misogynistic racists. On the other hand, she has plenty of time to prepare, and she knows exactly what to expect. And she's extremely smart and articulate. So she'll probably handle herself well, and the clips of her on the evening news are going to make people feel warm fuzzy feelings. And people are going to shake their heads at the fact that so many Republicans shot from the hip and accused her of racism.
Rush wins no matter what. His power and influence grows. Who's the big loser? The GOP. And guess what: that's fine with Rush. Because Rush cares about Rush.
Sure, a political enemy could try to distort that statement, but anyone who looked at it honestly would see it's both true and non-racist. If I make that statement, I'm not saying that I'm better because I'm white. I'm saying that by virtue of being white, I've had the benefit of certain valuable experiences that are often not available to non-whites. I'm also acknowledging that a non-white who somehow managed to have those valuable experiences would be just as qualified as me.
One of the reasons we would never hear such a statement is that it's a statement of the obvious. It's a description of the pervading reality that has led to 96% of SC justices being white males. Both Obama and SS personify the death of that reality. This process is scary to certain people, and SS's remark is especially terrifying to them. Because they are not just being confronted with the idea that the Other can be as good as them (they've been getting used to that idea for a while, even though it irks them). Now they have to face the idea that the Other might be better than them. But it's even worse than that. They have to face the idea that the very Otherness of the Other is a source of the Other's strength. Where will this end? The Hispanic population is expected to triple between now and 2050. Along with other minorities, they will outnumber whites. So some people who are now relatively powerless are scared of becoming even more powerless. (And this all fits with what Cobra said about who voted for Obama.)
SS has become stronger than her white male counterpart, and she has used oppression as a source of her strength, and she has said this out loud. This is very much a reversal of the way things used to be, so some people find her remark very threatening. Not because it's racist. Because it's true.
box, you're too ignorant to even know what it is you're looking at, nor to have followed the original discussion in the first place. That's because you're not an engineer, you merely masqueraded as one on the internet, in the midst of one of your frothing partisan rants.
What's funny is that you were exposed playing structural engineer, and now are trapped with a bayonet in your teeth, screeching and looking to cover up your original overeach. It'd be so simple to just say, "I was mistaken", but your rabidity won't allow it.
Let us know if you ever get anybody to confirm your crazed rantings. It will take an engineer, not an internet addicted poseur.
Then I'm darn lucky to have run into you, because I bet you (and your "structural buddy") are exactly the right people to explain why the things you claimed were "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation" are not "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation."
I have a feeling it has to do with some special technical definitions of the terms "easily," "ground level," and "observation." So could you have your "structural buddy" pass along those definitions? Since you've been spending lots of time with him anyway.
I hope you'll help me figure out where my mistake is. OK, I think I might know. I've been counting on the authenticity of the google streetview photos which clearly show that the things which you said were "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation" are not "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation." What you seem to be hinting is that those photos were Photoshopped by the Islamofascists, specifically for the purpose of tricking us into thinking that the things which are actually "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation" are not "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation."
Pretty clever plot. How did you figure it out? And did you figure it out before or after you spotted the black choppers?
I just want to add some background for putting rosetta's stones comments in proper context. rosetta is quick to accuse others of "trolling" although what he means by "trolling" is entirely unclear. For myself, I would guess that trolling is pretty much deliberately wasting people's time by goading them while not making any good faith effort to exchange ideas &information. And yet, that is exactly what rosetta seems to specialize in.
Here is a pretty good sample. In this exchange rosetta hits a two-fer by both saying things he doesn't mean (making Obama/Nazi associations) and refusing to say what he does mean (by his previously volunteered opinion that it was a mistake to fight WWII.) Writing bullshit that one does not believe while refusing to share what one truly believes is first class evidence of chain-jerking. rosetta has a talent for that but little else.
God, how I hope the Democrats argue this. I hope some liberal writes this down in some official forum somewhere and it is promulgated widely. "Fear", "strength", "privilege"...amazing.
Like I say, you're ignorant of what you're looking at, and too rabid to admit that you illegitimately postured yourself as a structural engineer. Tsk tsk.
However, there is a way forward for you, and that is for you to find an engineer to confirm your fantastical rants. But remember, you'll have to spit the bayonet out of your clenched teeth in order to do the asking, bud. Good luck.
The people who are upset by what she said already understand the meaning of what she said (that 'she has become stronger than her white male counterpart, and she has used oppression as a source of her strength'). And that's why they're upset. So it doesn't matter whether or not "the Democrats argue this," because all the people who are going to join Rush's parade have already joined, because they already understand what she said.
I said it even more plainly than she did, but she has already said it plainly enough.
And when she points out that the people who tried to hold her back just made her stronger, the petulant self-pitying pseudo-victimized bigots are terrified, because her statement reminds them that there are plenty more where she came from, and therefore it's only going to get worse. They know she's going to get her way, and they know this means that her kind is only going to get more and more uppity (link, link). That's why we're hearing lots of shrieking and howling from people who are used to being on top, but know they aren't anymore.
=================
rosetta:
That's why I'm so glad I ran into you, because I figure that you and your "structural buddy" would be able to explain the mystery of the google streetview photos which clearly show that the things which you said were "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation" are not "easily accessible at ground level [and] away from observation."
I already did. That's you. You've said you're an engineer. That's why I'm so glad I found you. Because I figure that an engineer like would be able to explain the mystery of the google streetview photos that portray a reality contrary to the statements you made.
The post where you said WWII "was unnecessary" is here. You can "produce it in total" by clicking on that little link. You know how links work, right? Hmm, maybe not. You said you were an engineer, but you didn't say you were a computer engineer. Then again, maybe you're having some kind of mysterious problem with that one particular link, since I already presented it to you, weeks ago. Or maybe it's just taking you a long time to figure out how you want to answer this particular question. It's one of many that you've been ducking.
I asked you a straightforward, good faith question based upon genuine curiosity about statements you made previously. Why do you need me to show you what you said?
Do you deny saying you thought it was a mistake to fight WWII? If you deny it, then maybe I'll go looking for an additional reference to the one juke provided. I'm quite sure you repeated the sentiment on more than one occasion.
And in addition to being a lazy, confused fool with a loose tongue (your comments to klp85 about race are completely incoherent) you're a king-sized waste of time. If you want to show I'm wrong why don't you man-up and spit out your pet theory about WWII?
Find an engineer to support your kookiness, box. 'til then, you're just another internet addicted troll, who got nailed as a poseur.
I probably should have made myself more clear. I'm definitely not "a structural engineer." But since you are, I'm hoping you'll be able to help solve the mystery of the photos.
=================
matt:
Rosetta has made a number of interesting comments about WWII. Like this:
And this:
And this:
I was surprised to learn that in "the Pacific war … the US government sanctioned firebombings that killed millions." The context seems to indicate that this is a claim about civilians. But civilian deaths in Japan were apparently 580,000. And that includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though the claim seems to be exclusive of those events ("forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki").
So the numbers are a bit mysterious, just like the photos.
No, trollski, there's nothing good faith about your trolling for an argument, and it's pretty stupid for you to be trolling for an argument, and blind to the fact that that's what you're doing.
However, as you appear to be (semi) serious about the directed study, you'll need to complete your assignment. Remember, no learning without work, and you (claim to) appear to want to learn something here. Get to work.
It's obvious that mere mortals like us can't make 580,000 equal "millions," and can't make google streetview photos show something other than what they show.
That's why we need help from you, because you hold the key to these mysteries.
I still get a kick out of you playing structural engineer, and you don't even know what you're looking at!
I already found one. That would be you. The problem is not finding an engineer. The problem is figuring out why this particular engineer is allergic to answering questions. Have any ideas?
So, you'll have to find an engineer who does. Good luck.
And when you ask, remember to spit the bayonet out of your teeth!
Part of the reason I'm engaging you despite the fact that you're a waste of time is simply to give you a chance to redeem yourself. Alas, you don't have the courage of your convictions, that's plain to see.
The other reason is to show the other good folks who frequent this blog, liberals and conservatives alike, just what sort of person you are. The thread I linked to above makes it crystal clear that you're a person who says things he doesn't actually believe, and refuses to say what you actually believe. Is that honest? Is it sincere? Is it honorable? The fact that you are retreating at full speed from your previous statements about WWII, without having the character to admit it, kind of makes it easier for sincere folks like klp85 to ignore you in the future instead of, like chewing gum on their sneakers, getting tangled up with your incoherent bullshit.
there's nothing good faith about your trolling for an argument... However, as you appear to be (semi) serious about the directed study...
And I'm certain the blog is grateful for your contributions in exposing me as the evil presence that I am. I for one welcome you as our evil-presence exposing overlord.
However, since your post again appears to be appealing for some sorta education from me, the directed study process is still open to you. Get to work.
Then you should probably have a chat with the other fellow who's posting as 'rosetta.' Because someone using that name made a bunch of false claims and has refused to take responsibility for doing so.
Don't be too hard on yourself. You're overlooking the inadvertent public service you provide by vividly demonstrating the GOP's relationship with truth and reality.
You find an engineer to confirm your kookiness yet, bud?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.