Hex Mex

Amid the anti-Mexican media hysteria festering since the outbreak of swine flu, Dave Letterman's portrayal last week of potential Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a hot-blooded Hispanic Judge Judy wasn't the ugliest stereotyping of Latinos. It was actually weak tea compared to the mouth-foamings of Jay Severin, the Boston radio host who called Mexicans "leeches," "the world's lowest of primitives," and exporters of "women with mustaches and VD." WTKK-FM has suspended but hasn't fired Severin, even as some advertisers have bailed.

No, Letterman's bit was far more mainstream, and more feasibly "acceptable" than, say, the kneeslappers of Betsy Perry, a branding consultant whose Huffpost musings about Mexican "banditos" and "the Mexican help with hands washed in parasite-infested tap water" resulted in Mayor Bloomberg axing her from the New York City Women's Issues Commission. Clearly, not all Perry's issues are about women. (She has since apologized.)

With the rightwing smuggling in the lie that immigrants are responsible for swine flu in the U.S. (when, in fact, it's been spread here primarily by Americans who've visited Mexico), Mexicans have been, of course, the prime target of the most rancid typecasting. But once the type has been cast, it has jumped easily to Latinos of any origins. A summa cum laude graduate at Princeton, an editor of the Yale Law Journal, now a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and a Bronx native raised by her single mom (like Obama), Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent, and so this:

Not even a gulp from the Morning Joe gang. Mika laughed, and Willie Geist mumbled something about "fit for the Supreme Court." We may never learn whether Sotomayor is or isn't "fit," because before we or the Senate Judiciary Committee see her in reality, we'll visualize that hot tamale from the courtroom TV show losing control of her fellow Hispanic hotheads.

This particular ethnic skewering seems out of character for Letterman, who often slices through idiot-think brilliantly. Maybe he was, as conservative blogger Ann Althouse suggests, "mocking the mocking of Sotomayor." What is up? I asked a Letterman show spokesperson, who answered, "We're going to decline comment on this."

Whatever Dave's intentions, the Sotomayor brand he's helped put into play seems to have grown out of a controversial post, "The Case Against Sotomayor," by The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffrey Rosen. Relying primarily on anonymous former law clerks as sources and admitting that he didn't research Sotomayor's opinions much, Rosen nevertheless deduced that "the most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.'" His unnamed sources, he wrote, questioned "her temperament...and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices." One of the unnamed said another unnamed said, "she's not the brainiest." From that, a National Review blogger further deduced that Sotomayor is "dumb and obnoxious."

Rosen has since backpedaled a bit, and testimonies to Sotomayor's intellect ("she'd be the kind of justice who could change some minds") and temperament ("one of the best mentors I've ever had") are coming in from named sources. But, as Media Matters asks, in a terrific, detailed piece, "Where does Sonia Sotomayor go to get her reputation back?" A TPM commenter adds, "It's this allegation about intelligence that most deeply plays into the hands of anti-'affirmative action' conservatives who just love to suggest that this woman, despite graduating summa cum laude at Princeton and so on, isn't as smart as a white guy."

Maybe playing fast and loose with Latino caricatures isn't the best idea in times of plague and economic dislocation. Remember how Jews were blamed for bringing the Black Death to Europe in the 14th century, setting off the mother of all pogroms?

Last week, Maria Hinojosa, senior correspondent for NOW on PBS and managing editor of NPR's Latino USA, spoke about how swine flu hysteria is hitting home. On New York radio's The Brian Lehrer Show, Hinojosa said a friend of hers, a domestic worker in Spanish Harlem, told her that she was recently "hassled by groups of women who said, 'Go ahead, tell them you're sick.'" Later that same day, she "was hassled again on the bus, and she saw a group of women physically push a Mexican man away."

"This has very human consequences," said Hinojosa, who is amazed that "in 2009...all of us here, suddenly we have to protect the lives of Americanos in New York City. It's crazy."

Hinojosa also cited the case of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant who was killed 10 months ago in the predominantly white town of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, apparently for walking with a white woman.

"A group of teenagers beat him to a pulp, beating his head in till his brains came out," said Hinojosa. "All of them, last week, just a few hours from here, were found nonguilty, only guilty of lesser charges, and in the courtroom when that was announced there was a crowd of cheers and applause.

"That's the country that we live in and the area that encompasses all of us."

Comments (25)

1. What a concoction of literary leftist puke is being served up here by mS. sAvEN! Funny how it passes as journalism at most leftist newspapers at election time and for political propaganda purposes!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 05/12/2009 @ 02:02am

2. Every large immigrant group in our "melting pot" - except the Puritan "W.A.S.P.s" has been stigmatized at one point or another. Few today realize that the first actual discriminatory laws (other than the 3/5 rule in the constitution itself) in this country were passed against the Irish. "No dogs or Irish allowed" signs were common. Those were MY ancestors.

   Chinese were rounded up and thrown out. Japanese were interned. "Polacks" are all stupid. Natives - and this isn't counting the general genocide - who had adopted our culture and religion, were rounded up by Andy Jackson and forcibly marched 1000 miles, killing thousands - because whites wanted their land. Of course, blacks are still stigmatized and persecuted - by the law itself. Jews? Don't get me started. If I left out the persecution of your particular minority group, forgive me. Not enough room allotted here.

   So there is nothing new about xenophobic hysteria and persecution here. Ironically, in my native Texas (and all over the Southwest), where Hispanic immigration preceded whites by hundreds of years, discrimination against "Wetbacks" and other Hispanics has been ongoing since the white immigrants took over.

   As a white man, I hope like hell that the rest of you have short memories. You're about to be the majority - and I sure don't want you treating us the way you have been treated.

   You Republicans? Please keep it up. You had started making some inroads here in Texas (and elsewhere) with Hispanics. Just a touch more of this crap and that will be over for generations.

   Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/12/2009 @ 02:11am

3. Hi, Snow.

   In the few days I've been posting here I have read your posts (along with those of a couple of others here) with interest and frequent fervent agreement. Nice to meetcha.

   Gotta be honest; I'm a former (and possibly future) voracious reader of books, but lately, alas, I simply don't have the time. If you saw the stack of "must reads" I have right now, you'd think me illiterate. (Sigh) I'll add it to the pile. Thanks, seriously - but don't test me on it soon - okay?

   To return the favor, I'd like to turn you on to possibly the greatest singer/songwriter/satirist in history, Tom Lehrer. This is a link to "National Brotherhood Week" : http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=CgASBVMyVFI&feature=PlayList&p=1C68974C982CBA 68&index=0&playnext=1

   If you haven't heard it, I also recommend everything else you can find by him - especially "Pollution." This guy was seriously ahead of his time.

   Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/12/2009 @ 07:42am

4. Seems a hard case to make a case AGAINST Sotomayor. She won her confirmation on the 2nd Circuit by a 67-29ish vote (always a couple absentees, ever notice that?).

   So hard to peg her as a "radical" (except by the nutty Right-wing Radio guys) and hard for Senate Repubs to reject her...since a LOT of them voted for her.

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 07:50am

5. Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 07:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

   "...and hard for Senate Repubs to reject her...since a LOT of them voted for her."

   I have faith in em.

   Now if we could just get Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia to go hunting with Cheney...

   Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/12/2009 @ 08:06am

6. 'A high-tech lynching of an uppity...'

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/12/2009 @ 08:51am

7. Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/12/2009 @ 08:51am

   Remember when you guys used to believe in sexual harassment?

   Oh, yeah...forgot...that only applied under Clinton, right?

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 08:59am

8. Ah, the purity of the left.

   They weren't being bigoted and exercising leftist prejudice against Bork or Thomas, right lefties?

   You were simply concerned with their qualifications; that's why you engaged in demagoguery against these outstanding individuals.

   Leftists are consumed with expressing righteous indignation against prejudice and bigotry-except when they are busy practicing it.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:57am

9. Leftists are consumed with expressing righteous indignation against prejudice and bigotry-except when they are busy practicing it.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 10:57am

   (this could become a routine event)

   "however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

   But of course, it's OKAY when YOU do it, right Larry???

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

10. "however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am

    But of course, it's OKAY when YOU do it, right Larry???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:06am

    Just pointing out how quickly the left looks for every supposed opportunity to paint only the right as having prejudices and biases, yet the reality is that you and they Mask, have no hesitancy to do the same as that which you condemn.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:41am

11. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:41am

    And just pointing out that you're a hypocrite who complains about HIS side being stereotyped...

    while steretotyping the other side.

    Of course I could cite Scripture on "hypocrites", but no doubt you'd have an excuse for why it "doesn't apply to me"....because that's what hypocrites do!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:51am

12. Jumping the border into America is illegal population control is good

    Posted by DA7888 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:58am

13. Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 11:56am

    Of course it was leftist bigotry and hate.

    Bork had the potential to be one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices in our nations history.

    It is shameful what the left did to keep him out of the Supreme Court.

    And Thomas has proven that he was an excellent choice. He has added a great deal to the court.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:08pm

14. And Thomas has proven that he was an excellent choice. He has added a great deal to the court.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:08pm

    If by "a great deal" you mean hard-right ideology far outside the American mainstream coupled with an inconsistent application of his preferred approach (originalism) to support that ideology, then I'd have to agree with you.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

15. Posted by richcarl at 05/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

    Yes, he DOES mean that.

    Larry IS a hard-right ideologue far outside the mainstream of America...proudly so.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:34pm

16. Larry IS a hard-right ideologue far outside the mainstream of America...proudly so.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:34pm

    As opposed to the all of the leftists here who are far outside of historic American poltical ideology.

    And if supporting the views that gave us our constitution are fringe, count me all in.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:51pm

17. And if supporting the views that gave us our constitution are fringe, count me all in.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:51pm

    Count me in, too. But those views aren't fringe. They're decidely mainstream. It's the particular take on the Constitution by the likes of Justice Thomas, where ideology and personal beliefs cloud legal reasoning, that are fringe. If Thomas were doing the same thing from the left, you'd condemn him as an outspoken judical activist. Instead, you have nothing but praise.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/12/2009 @ 1:31pm

18. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:51pm

    Larry, how many Americans in the mainstream do you think would have "no problem" with...

    10 year olds working in un-regulated coal mines???

    Ballpark it.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 1:58pm

19. BTW, yes, richard....he actually supports that-

    William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs /edcut/421547/ william_polk_on_afghanistan?rel=hpbox

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:00pm

20. Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 2:00pm

    That's the Magic Question Beck-heads usually won't answer (Larry HAS gotten close).

    "When WERE the 'good ol' days' of free markets and no government intrusion?"...the 1920s?...the 1890s?

    Cuz they know if they are honest, they'll look like fools when people start bringing up child labor, no safe food or drugs, people dying in un-regulated mines and factories....so they remain vauge or dodge the question.

    Again though, Larry not always opposed to making himself look foolish!

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:12pm

21. Again though, Larry not always opposed to making himself look foolish!

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Fanatics never are, Mask. In fact they revel in it.

    Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/12/2009 @ 3:12pm

22. Really, did the author ask if we remember something from the 14th century? Bringing up a mob-murder from 10 months ago? Those things weaken your argument because the public has amnesia and can't remember television from last season.

    Our battle is socially crippling economic despair. Let's try not go back to picking on someone because have a skin color or accent different from our own.

    Posted by stina at 05/12/2009 @ 3:35pm

23. Cuz they know if they are honest, they'll look like fools when people start bringing up child labor, no safe food or drugs, people dying in un-regulated mines and factories....so they remain vauge or dodge the question.

    Again though, Larry not always opposed to making himself look foolish!

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 2:12pm

    No, what you dislike about my responses is that I said there is no constitutional authority for the Federal govt to be involved in those issues.

    You always conveniently leave out that I've said that the states have the right to implement whatever laws they want to impose on all those issues. But telling all of the facts instead of part of the facts so as to distort my remarks would no fit into your agenda.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 5:47pm

24. From Wiki re the Federalist Society: "The society was begun by a group including Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Ted Olson and Steven Calabresi, and its members have included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito.[6]"

    These are the anti-constitutional creeps who came up with the "Unitary Executive" crap. They believe in dictatorial powers for the US president (if he is Republican - watch for hypocrisy on that front with Obama as president). About the only founding father in favor of that was Hamilton and his followers - who were influential as apologists for the powerful - but not fond of the constitution itself - especially the Bill of rights, although they had to pay lip service to it, as do the Federalists now. Hamilton wanted a King.

    Bork would have been a disaster - as are Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. They don't believe in the constitution - the fourth and ninth amendments in particular - and the only "original intent" they give a damn about is Hamilton's.

    These are RADICAL ACTIVIST JUDGES whose purpose is to subvert the constitution they are sworn to protect. Bush vs. Gore (even though Roberts and Alito weren't sitting then) is the classic example of their ilk. The fascists intervened in a process in which they have no constitutional role and conducted a coup de etat, installing their chosen dictator.

    Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/13/2009 @ 02:57am

25. PS: Had Bork wanted to accurately name the Federalists, they would have been called "The Hamiltonian Monarchists" - but then THEIR "origional intent" would have been obvious to all, wouldn't it?

    If there were any "truth in labeling" re that group, they would never have managed to get any of their anti-constitutional members and sycophants confirmed. I don't have a count on how many are sitting on the federal bench now, but like Bybee, they should all be impeached - for perjury, when they took the oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. THEY are it's domestic enemies.

    Federalist Society membership should be automatic disqualification for the federal bench.

    Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/13/2009 @ 03:17am