Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTake the time, if you haven't already, to read the following post on Sonia Sotomayor and identity politics, by my good friend Ta-Nehisi Coates, a blogger at The Atlantic. In addition to being an original thinker with a highly original voice, Ta-Nehisi is the son of a black nationalist. I am the grandson of a Jewish nationalist (i.e. a Zionist). We've thus spent many evenings exchanging notes about what Ta-Nehisi once called ‘the perils and boons' of nationalism – the air of superiority but also the sense of empowerment that can be wrung out of thinking in terms of ethnic/racial categories and groups.
Like me, Ta-Nehisi apparently fell out of his chair the other day when he read this op-ed by David Brooks, in which the Times' columnist suggested that Sotomayor would have been better off if she had attended college in the 1950s, when the creed-of-choice among striving ethnic kids was assimilation, not the crusading multiculturalism that spoiled the atmosphere in the 1970s. Her problem was "bad timing," mused Brooks.
Sotomayor attended Princeton, as it happens, which did not begin admitting women until 1969. Sounds to me like her timing was pretty damn good! What was missing from Brooks' column? Something often missing when white guys who have enjoyed their share of privilege lament the scourge of identity politics – which, in its cruder versions, including the strain that flourished on some college campuses and certain enclaves of the left in recent decades, certainly does merit criticism. Ta-Nehisi identifies the curious omission here:
A critique of liberal identity politics is not wrong on its face, but it almost always is unconcerned with the identity politics of power. Thus Sotomayor's focus on her identity as a "wise Latina" pose is seen as the disturbing result of multiculturalism run amok, not having been raised in a country where the tangible mechanisms of white supremacy were in full effect.It isn't, for instance, the fact that Sotomayor was raised in an era where government-backed redlining was still legal, it's the fact that some students at Yale demanded a Chicano history course that's the issue. Likewise, it isn't the oppressive identity politics practiced by conservatives for the past 30 years that's disturbing, but Sotomayor's response to it. To be a true conservative is to be more disturbed by victimology, than actual victimizing. It is to claim to abhor evil--but to abhor the response to evil even more.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The biggest problem is that her ethnic and gender identity has been all that has been debated. This darling of progressives is being backed by for example the Wall Street Journal. Maybe instead of going back and forth on her ethnic and gender identity someone should ask why the Wall Street Journal produced an editorial backing her.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/10/2009 @ 6:49pm
Posted by syfriendly at 06/10/2009 @ 6:49pm
While I agree with the sentiment. I also understand the debate over her ethnicity. As prior to her nomination that was all that was being discussed. Will Obama pick a Latino/Latina... Most folks thought he would and they were right. I think she is more than qualified and if one looks at her rulings she is more than fair and not at all activist. However, the aspect that the next SCJ had to be a latina I found a little odd, I know it is politics. I just wish we could hire folks purely based on qualifications and keep blinders on when it comes to race gender, age, or sexual orientation. If there was a qualified transexual I would have no problem with them being an SJC, I just don't think sexual orientation should be a driving factor or requirement for the position, or for that matter race or gender.
This said I do belive Sotomayor to be well qualified, and even agree with her that she would likely make a better decision regarding discrimination than a white male.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/10/2009 @ 7:18pm
Actually if Sotomayor's supporters want to stump her opponents....ask them to -
explain any and all of Newt Gingrich's multiple views of her.
Should keep 'em busy for days...LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 7:21pm
News unflash...
Ahhhhh. The silence. Nice not to hear about Penguin Cheney-and macaque'y W's
UNITARY EXECUTIVE
What do you call a pig and ex-president in Crawford in 2009 after the ex-president walks away? A unitary executive. ---weak!
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 7:40pm
Regarding the hype about Sotomayer's ethnic background, I don't think these whiney libs should complain after John Robert's ethnicity was berated and picked apart far more intensively.
Remember the stuff about his Scottish-Welsh heritage, about his being prone to melancholy!? Libs commentators worried desperately that he'd be too enervated to be an active(ist) judge.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 8:00pm
Extraneous,
You say "...I just wish we could hire folks purely based on qualifications and keep blinders on when it comes to race gender, age, or sexual orientation....."
Why wish? There is an easy way to do what you "wish".
Don't vote for libs. Don't elect libs to office.
Wouldn't that be an easier way to get what you wish than by electing libs and then wishing libs wouldn't do what libs do?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 8:03pm
I'm sure you'd have given the same advice in Jim Crow days.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 8:15pm
Ah show a picture of his majesty talking with Gordon brown in bathrobe?
---------
Some Israelis Insulted By Obama Picture Posted by Howard Arenstein | (White House Photo/Pete Sousa)Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "insult" to Israel.
They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad
Posted by HelenDAO at 06/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
winyahn,
Except you do forget that Jim Crow or any thing to do with segregation was not a product of Conservatism.
This has been one of the big time distortions that has come along in modern times, that liberalism stands for people's rights regarding this and conservatism has impeded people's rights.
It used to be that people were excluded from the process and that was wrong and that has been fixed in this country.
You need to go back and review recent history and you will see plenty of segregationist Democrats who held office in the U.S. Congress. There is one in office to this day who was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan!
Liberalism obsesses about this now in the opposite direction - race, gender, etc. are not considered as reasons for exclusion, but as justifications for inclusion regardless of qualification.
It can be the sole basis for inclusion or selection based on the whim of the lib.
A long time ago now I came across an article that mentioned how the California delegation to the Democrat National Convention was made up of a certain percentage of blacks, a certain percentage of women, a certain percentage of gays, etc.
And this issue matters again now with Sotomayor, because she, as most libs do anyway, thinks that feelings, opinions, personal experience, etc. should be brought to bear and help form and should help form judicial rulings - this of course is wrong - because the judiciary is not a law making branch and is only to rule based on the law or Constitution, not on external "feelings", or "societal norms" or what foreign law is, etc.
As I said, most libs believe this - but it is obvious Sotomayor is blatant about it.
You have tried your hand at engaging in one of the old stereotypes about Conservatism, and you have failed.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 8:30pm
Old time yellow dog dems (southern, conservative white males with power and percs) = current day dittoheads.
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 8:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 8:30pm
SJCHER, how is it all those "racist Democrats" in the South "magically disappeared" and were replaced with "open-minded, inclusive Republicans" in the 70s and 80s?
And have you ever heard of "Nixon's Southern Strategy"?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 9:19pm
She's not experienced, not erudite, and certainly not deserved for the Sup. Court. But at least she's for change and says truths about herself.
-----------
Sotomayor once described herself as 'product of affirmative action'...
...admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to 'cultural biases... built into testing'...
Posted by HelenDAO at 06/10/2009 @ 9:30pm
EXACTLY - bring back Harriet Myers!
Posted by winyahn at 06/10/2009 @ 9:49pm
HelenDAO says:
"She's not experienced..."
The woman has been on the Federal bench for nearly 20 years -- that's more experience than MOST of the current justices have.
I'm not sure about the truth of your assertions concerning her admission to Princeton and Yale, but the woman graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, so your racist intimations about her intellect are shown for just what they are.
Posted by markpkessinger at 06/10/2009 @ 9:52pm
Mask,
1. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) is still in the Senate today. When did he "disappear?"
2. You asked me if I heard of Nixons "Southern Strategy". Have you heard about how the percentage of the Republican delegation in Congress back in the 60's who voted for the Civil Rights Act was greater than the percentage of the Democrat delegation in Congress who voted for the bill?
3. Have you ever heard the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations?". That is what a lot of the people on the left engage in, people who assume that people of color are automatic victims, victims of past and current wrongs (usually committed by anybody other than people on the left), and thus the people of color are incapable of achieving on their own and need government (i.e., liberal) benevolence and help in order to be able to make their way in life.
Certainly there have been a lot of past wrongs regarding this issue - but all people who were denied opportunity in the past wanted then and now is equal opportunity - then given the chance they will work and succeed on their own, and they have proven this over and over again.
But liberalism does not seem to have the goal of providing equal opportunity, it's goal is providing automatic equal outcomes in life - handing people who wanted equal opportunity the guaranteed outcome instead - and insulting them in the process by assuming they are incapable of making it on their own.
This is the reality that the left engages in, and denies they engage in, while at the same time throwing the race card at the drop of a hat and promoting itself (the left) as the reason why the question of equality has been addressed to the degree it has in recent years.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:33pm
Maybe instead of going back and forth on her ethnic and gender identity someone should ask why the Wall Street Journal produced an editorial backing her.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/10/2009 @ 6:49pm
OBAMAGARCHS UNITE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:43pm
If there was a qualified transexual I would have no problem with them being an SJC,
Posted by Extraneous at 06/10/2009 @ 7:18pm
i've heard whispers about justice [i'd better not pick a real name; nsa and all....]
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:46pm
This is the reality that the left engages in, and denies they engage in, while at the same time throwing the race card at the drop of a hat and promoting itself (the left) as the reason why the question of equality has been addressed to the degree it has in recent years.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:33pm
shouldn't you be watching judge judy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:50pm
<i>the wheels on the bus...</i>
The St. Regis Monarch Beach, infamous as the hotel where American International Group sponsored a luxury retreat just days after accepting a federal bailout, has been scheduled for a foreclosure auction.
The companies that own the resort are in default on a $70-million loan from Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group, people knowledgeable about the debt said Tuesday.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2009 @ 12:04am
Surprised David Brooks didn't speculate that Sotomayor could have been a Mau-Mau's girl back in the 50s. A college girl looking for source material for her thesis. An inspiration to Leonard Bernstein, maybe.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/11/2009 @ 12:55am
frosty zoom,
You asked me: "....shouldn't you be watching judge judy?...."
Perhaps I should....it would probably be better for the country if Judge Judy were on the Supreme Court instead of Sonia Sotomayor.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 06:42am
'But liberalism does not seem to have the goal of providing equal opportunity, it's goal is providing automatic equal outcomes in life - handing people who wanted equal opportunity the guaranteed outcome instead - and insulting them in the process by assuming they are incapable of making it on their own.'
All wrong, "sjchermak."
The goal of liberalism is to cleanse meritocracy of its white-supremacist, sexist, and homophobic subjectivity.
Every decision that a person makes in hiring a worker or admitting a student is to some degree subjective. If this person is white, male, and straight, then his subjective judgement tends to favor whites, males, and straights.
This is the bias that affirmative action is intended to counteract.
The claim that racist subjectivity no longer exists is false. There is plenty of evidence to show that birds of a feather still do flock together, and the whitest flock still hoards most of the usable property. Moreover, because of our country's segregationist, sexist, and homophobic heritage, white, straight males still comprise more than their proportional share of decision-makers and institutional gate-keepers. Therefore, it is their bias that still requires a remedy. Affirmative action is that remedy.
Nobody can guarantee "equal outcomes." But we can choose either to take meritocracy seriously enough to cleanse it of bias -- or not. In the latter case, we allow racism to persist.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/11/2009 @ 07:38am
Thanks SJ, you just confirmed most of the stereotypes of a "typical conservative". No need to post anymore drivel.
and Helen is still upset that Hillary is just a Sec of State, and continues to spread the right wing, discredited, talking points.
-------------------------
Latest killing by rightwing nutjob at the holocaust memorial. I am sure SJ will tell us that the holocaust was a liberal lie now.
So, after less than 5 months of having a centrist black man in office, the right wing has killed two innocent people out of outrage of having such a person leading the free world.
Rightwing terrorism is very much alive and well. Will we see ANY call for a reaction similar to what they call for when they "feel" threatened by "typical liberals" or islamo-fascists (or whatever name they have made up for the bogeyman du jour)?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 07:48am
Another racism-enabling myth that needs to be challenged is what I call the "insensitive remark" theory of racism.
This is the theory that racism expresses itself not in biased institutional gatekeeping, which I have described in my previous posting, but rather merely in insulting words.
If insulting words were all there was to racism, we'd long ago have moved on to another topic. But these words hurt precisely because of the persisting maldistribution of usable property, that is, the material legacy of Indian removal, slavery, and segregation.
Today's professional enablers of racism are always eager to seize upon remarks made by people of color that they find insulting, thereby suggesting that these people are as racist as Whites and concluding that racism must truly be dead, because we are all equally adept in insulting each other.
However, mere words do not hurt nearly as much as institutional exclusion. This provides the "sticks and stones" that make words hurt more when they enforce white supremacy than when they merely insult Whites, who, as I have mentioned already (because it bears repeating), occupy more than their share of usable property as an inheritance of years of legal, overt, and violent racism in our recent collective past.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/11/2009 @ 07:48am
Would Tiger Woods have been allowed at Augusta if he were not the #1 seed his first year?
When Nicklaus won it 6 times did they lengthen the course?
But, the cons will insist that it is only "the left" that is racist anymore.
crock-O-stimpy.
All of the talk of identity politics and Sotomayor is just so much BS. They have nothing to stop her appointment, she is FAR more qualified than any recent appointment. Clarence was appointed solely because he was black, probably one of the few black conservatives they could find. He was totally unqualified, and remains so. I remember little whining about Bush picking a black man for the job then. He got where he is via affirmative action, from his school days to his long black robe. The one place he wasn't given AA was at the porn shop.
I mean really, don't you cons ever tire of whining and crying about how hard it is to be a white Christian man in America?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 07:59am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 06:42am |
Based on one line from speeches?
Step right up...get your marching orders from the Drug Addict celebrity.
baaa....baaaa....
Hey SJ, I heard Barak Hussein Obama isn't even really American!!!!!!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 08:03am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:33pm
Don't you find it a LITTLE interesting that the ONLY name you can come up with is...Robert Byrd?
Or that you can't seem to explain why "all of a sudden" Southerners gave up voting for those "racist Democrats" and started voting for your "open-minded Republicans"?????
or the fact that you completely dodged the "Nixon Southern Strategy" question because...
well....we BOTH know the reason, don't we?
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 08:08am
we BOTH know the reason, don't we?
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 08:08am
Programming.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 08:22am
JakobFabian,
All the stuff about meritocracy, sexism, racism etc from you is just product of your far leftist political ideology.
You, after all, are the person who thinks that wealthy people should be taxed more just because you can tax them - with no regard to whether the tax money is needed or the economic impact of such actions. Just tax 'em because you can!
You don't fix past discrimination by engaging in current discrimination, which is what affirmative action is.
Placing somebody in a job or in a school that has not gotten there by their own merit does not solve any problem, and is an insult to that person as well.
Liberals are in no position to say that Conservatives are wrong about this, because in this day and age, when many laws have been passed making discrimination in the workplace and in public life illegal, the reason remaining why a person of color may not have as much training or skills or accomplishment as someone not of color is ONE REASON and ONE REASON ONLY.
The LOUSY public education system maintained by liberals.
Public education, from the time this country began, was supposed to be the equalizer - opportunity for advancement and knowledge, available to all, regardless of wealth or status.
But public education fails the very people who it is supposed to help. And then when Conservatives or some Democrats such as former District mayor Anthony Williams advocate vouchers for inner city kids to go to private schools so they can get a quality education, they are condemned by libs for "trying to destroy public education"
It is libs who destroyed public education. If everybody got a quality education, then people would not need affirmative action because they would qualify for college or jobs on their own merits.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 08:22am
crabwalk,
You are overdoing it. Qualifications for the Masters are golf-related, based on certain accomplishments during the prior year.
The Masters would not have been able to exclude Tiger Woods if he otherwise was eligible.
You lib mind is running in imagination mode. Any number of venues for the major tournaments make adjustments to courses from time to time. Tiger Woods does hit the ball a long way, but a lot of current pros also hit the ball farther than in days past, because of improvements in equipment, etc.
In general the pros hit the ball farther and if a course such as Augusta National is lengthened it was because of the overall change in the game over the years, not as an attempt by racist whites to stop Tiger Woods.
Your stupid argument falls short so many ways.
1. If lengthening the course was pertinent because of the change in the game, but the Masters officials did not do that because they feared charges of racism against Tiger Woods by libs, then the first person that would have been pissed at them would have been Tiger Woods, for pandering to him.
2. Tiger Woods wins anyway, no matter how long the course is.
3. Your comment is actually racist and an insult to Tiger Woods, because Tiger Woods is skilled in all aspects of the game, not just with the driver. (short game, putting). You seem to have forgotten that during the British Open a few years back, when the course was baked out dry because of a drought that year, Tiger hit his driver on one hole only out of 72 the entire weekend.... instead he hit a one iron off of the tee in order to keep the ball in play.....the other pros just kept doing what they normally did.... Tiger easily won the tournament by knowing how to adjust his game for the conditions.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 08:33am
I now realize that based on my remarks above I will have to comment further about one thing.
This involves my remark ".....during the British Open a few years back, when the course was baked out dry because of a drought that year......."
Mask, this does not prove the existence of global warming.... droughts are normal occurances that occur from time to time as part of normal weather cycles that have occurred the entire history of the earth.
And yes, Mask, I do realize that John McCain said that we should do something about global warming, and yes, Mask I voted for him anyway (and I explained to you why)...... but you do not seem to understand that because a Republican spoke in that manner about global warming that does not automatically confer legitimacy on the global warming argument.....
And no, Mask, I am not willing to make a bet with you about whether the Republican nominee in 2012, the next President of the U.S. Sarah Palin, will comment on global warming or what she will say.......
But that does not automatically prove your point just because I do not want to indulge you in stupid bets because you and I both know you are a pain in the ass at times but you never do admit it.
Phew!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 08:46am
"It is libs who destroyed public education."
Of course, SJ. What other reasons could there be?
If it makes you "feel" better, than you go boy.
HEY! I heard Saddam had nukes, and it is "libs" fault.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 08:47am
Published: Tuesday, September 11, 1990
The action by Augusta National, which is situated in Augusta, Ga., came in the wake of the controversy that surrounded the racial makeup of Shoal Creek Country Club outside Birmingham, Ala., where the P.G.A. Championship was held last month.
In response to the events at Shoal Creek, three of the main administrative bodies in golf, the PGA Tour, the P.G.A. of America and the United States Golf Association, all adopted new guidelines effective in 1991 requiring private clubs that want to host tournaments to demonstrate that their membership policies are not discriminatory against minority members or women by policy or practice.
Since the guidelines were adopted, one private club, the Old Warson Country Club in St. Louis, Mo., has informed the PGA Tour that it will not change its membership policies in order to hold a PGA Tour event.
The Masters is an independently run event that does not fall under the auspices of the PGA Tour. Still, Augusta National's compliance with the new standards is significant. Because of the Masters, one of golf's four major championships, the club has long been one of the nation's most visible bastions of all-white golf. No black player played in the tournament until Lee Elder in 1975. And until 1982, when the competitors were allowed for the first time to bring their regular tour caddies, all the caddies in the tournament were black.
''I know that sounds like something we made up,'' he said. ''But we have just quietly tried to find the right guy and invite him to join.''
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 08:49am
Oops, sorry, this got cut...
""In the midst of the controversy at Shoal Creek, Hardin said that the Augusta National had been looking for a black to invite to join the club for the past year.
''I know that sounds like something we made up,'' he said. ''But we have just quietly tried to find the right guy and invite him to join.''
Yeah, we been lookin, but can't find the "right guy".
Still ain't found the "right chick." (can I say "chick" Hootie? I can? Ok.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2009 @ 09:01am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 08:46am
No, sorry, SJCHER...not going to tangent off to Global Warming, right now...
answer the "Nixon Southern Strategy" question first.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:38am
A positive word for Sonia Sotomayor....in light of more disclosure of her `persona':
She is a consistent and evidently honest person, admitting (not that it's any mystery or much of a question) that she is a "product of affirmative action"!
Indirectly through her disclosure documents, we learn of course, "product of affirmative action", like her, have less qualifications.
Now the bad news, she has proven herself fairly honest, and NOT up to the standard we need in the Supreme Court....but as we are certain, she meets the Racial & Identity Politics' need of the Libs.....exactly like the way Magic fits the same need....except, BHO would not let anybody know anything about how he too, was wooed into the Ivy League.
In both "product of affirmative action" cases, The One and Sotomayor, one has to question, are they the best affirmative action is capable of producing?
IF so,.....pretty sad! We're backsliding....but just not as visible from a `form' standpoint. Where are the substance?
We have an Empty Suit black man as POTUS and an Empty Latina Racist, likely no more intelligent than your average state U grad, as SC Nomine......:(
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 09:44am
crabwalk,
Excellent posts, all irrelevant to the topic.
You now post in with information about club membership at some of the courses.....but your contention before is that the Masters would not have let Tiger Woods play and they were discriminating against him by lengthinging the course.
And you mention the example of Lee Elder....but you were sloppy in your post and you included the date 1975.
Everybody knows that the whole question of race and racial segregation has evolved over time... you seem to have forgotten that this is not 1975 but 2009 and a lot has changed over the years.
There are a lot of places where there was wrong and segration before which has been eliminated by now.
There were no African-Americans in the modern version of Major League Baseball until Jackie Robinson in 1947.
You falsely contended that the Masters in this current time could have successfully discriminated against Tiger Woods and was more or less "stuck" with having to admit him.
This is classic leftist stuff. Everybody knows there were wrongs in the past. I do not pretent to believe that everything is perfect now, or there still aren't wrongs to be fixed.
But as a classic leftist you throw the race card around with reckless abandon, falsely fabricating acts of racism that do not exist, and blaming all but leftists for these things occurring.
All the while I am sure you think there is nothing wrong with public education, with money being wasted in school bureauacracies, obscenely and inappropriately high salaries to unionized teachers in some school districts, excessive leftist control over cirriculum, all which result in lousy education that helps deny people oppportunity ......the people you contend you care about.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 09:46am
"It is to claim to abhor evil--but to abhor the response to evil even more."
Interesting quote coming from a devout liberal columinst. Hmm oh the irony
I guess if the response to evil is in accordance with liberal agenda...thats fine...but anything else?
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 09:47am
Mask,
You demand ".....answer the "Nixon Southern Strategy" question first......"
Not until you provide me examples of how WXYZ television in Detroit is biased towards Israel in their news coverage.
That one has been in the hopper, and long overdue, for a long time now.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 09:48am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 09:48am
Yeah, that's what I figured.
See, crab, he's not ignorant of the topic....he just can't talk about it!
Thanks SJ.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:52am
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well if you can answer why more REPUBLICANs voted for the civil rights act of 64 than did DEMOCRATS...i think you will have the answer to your query. According to the historical congressional office.
If these dixiecrats turned toward the republican party, as you claim, then i suppose they were duped.
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 09:54am
Posted by Happy at 06/11/2009 @ 09:44am
Well, HAPP, maybe that line will work better than the THREE that Newt came up with-
1. "She's a racist!" (Week 1)
2. "Okay, that was over the top, she's not a racist!" (Week 2 after Cornyn slap down)
3. "No, I mean, she's a racialist!!!" (Week 3 after GOP base got pissed at betrayal)
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 09:54am
MASK
Her statements are in fact RACIST, by definition. Whats the problem with taht characterization? While she might not be a racist, her statements are.
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 09:58am
Mask,
Another thing.....you harp about Richard Nixon.
Two pieces of relevant information.
1. When Richard M. Nixon became President of the United States, the Empire State Building was the tallest building in New York City.
2. Today, June 11, 2009, the Empire State Building is the tallest building in New York City.
Get my drift? (I know the answer is no).... on the surface one could conclude from item 1 and item 2, above, is that nothing has changed........
BUT....the reason Item 1 and Item 2 are the same is because things have changed.....and in the particular case in point changed in a BAD way.
The circumstance of that happening is way beyond any concern or attention or involvement of Richard M. Nixon.
In other words, to be blunt, I DO NOT GIVE a FLYING CRAP about anything to do with Richard M. Nixon!
We live in a different world today....totally.....Richard M. Nixon is totally irrelevant to any current discussion......
I am not concerned about Richard M. Nixon, instead I am more concerned about how if one walks out of J&R Computer World, goes across the street, goes into St. Paul's Chapel, goes through St. Paul's Chapel, out the door and then stands on the sidewalk outside and looks across the street they see...........
NOTHING
Back and forth games with you are fun most of the time, but sometimes you do get annoying, which of course is your objective to begin with.
Get off of your obsession with Richard M. Nixon.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 10:00am
MASK
I doubt you would have given any prominent consverative the benefit of the doubt if he/she made such statments.
I think you would dutifully mock and belitte such statements and the person making them
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by CPT at 06/11/2009 @ 09:58am
CPT, that might have a bit more punch...if Gingrich hadn't flip-flopped TWICE.
Hand it to Limbaugh, Rush has stuck to his guns in calling Sotomayor a racist. Gingrich did...then saw it wasn't playing well outside the GOP base, and went to
"My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.
With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable."
THEN, when YOU guys got mad, he flipped again and came up with "She's a RACIALIST".
Now while ONE version, like Rush's, would have still cost him with even conservative Republicans like John Cornyn (who rebuked Newt and Rush)...it wouldn't have shown spinelessness, would it?
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 11:12am
Get off of your obsession with Richard M. Nixon.----Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 10:00am
Isn't it interesting, when I bring up things you have no answers for (because your 25 word "first hour monologue" talking points don't explain them)....suddenly I'm "obsessed"?
ROFL!
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 11:15am
Mask,
As the great philosopher Frosty Zoom once said:
Bonk!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 11:35am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 11:35am
Yes, SJ...the fact you won't even SAY what the "Nixon Southern Strategy" was...much less debate it....
is a pretty clear game ender.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 12:34pm
Mask,
Is the definition of, or even the existence of, this "Southern Strategy" something that really is real or was real, or is it some fabrication or distortion by the political left.
The reason I wonder is not beacuse I give a flying crap about it, at least not since there was nothing anymore across the street from St. Paul's Chapel, but because I detect liberal game - playing here.
Such as during the Bush administration, the so-called existence of a Bush Doctrine, which is one of the things that the non-partisan and totally objective beyond mind bending belief journalist Katie Couric asked the next President of the United States Palin about during last fall's campaign.
As you know there really was no one "Bush Doctrine"... that term could have been applied to at least 3 or 4 different policy intitiatives by the Bush administration....and certainly no doctrine was ever formally defined by the Bush administration itself.......and yet libs "define" that there was a "Bush Doctrine" (one which they of course thought was bad) and of course this was another source of amusement and glee by libs who felt the next President did not answer that question either, from the objective journalist Katie Couric.
So I was just curious if the Southern Strategy you say existed by a past President whose name I can no longer remember really did exist after all, or if it is and was another lib myth and creation.
And the REAL reason I have time to wonder about this is that I have set up and scheduled time during my busy day to reveiew and analyze the information from you about WXYZ television in Detroit......since I have not recieved that yet I had time to wonder about your Southern Strategy.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 12:59pm
Well, sjcher, the TRICK is...
it's really the "Reagan Southern Strategy". Nixon is mentioned because he lost the Southern states, because he was still dealing with a paradigm of racist Southern Democrats (yes, they're real!) not supporting his support for civil rights.
So, along came the Gipper in 1980, stating he favored "states' rights" (a code word from the George Wallace days) and announcing the start of his 1980 Presidential campaign in...
Philadelphia, Mississippi....where three civil rights workers had been killed in the 1960s.
"Amazingly" "suddenly", Republicans started springing up in the South and "despite" voting for "racist Democrats" for decades...."suddenly" "amazingly" Southernes started voting for "open-minded, tolerant Republicans" who promised to end busing, affirmative action, "money to the 'inner city welfare queens'", and "white men losing jobs to less qualified blacks!".
And then years after that, historically-challenged types were told by Rush and Sean and Glenn and Mark Levin that "Hey! It was REPUJBLICANS who passed Civil Rights legislation" (true)....
while failing to note that almost all those Republicans were in the NORTH...and almost all of them were now out of power in the Republican Party or were called "RINOs" with people like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter in that group.
THAT is the "Southern Strategy"....and you MIGHT know it and just dishonestly want to not discuss it....or more likely, you believe what you're told on the radio...or "reading his website every day!"
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 1:24pm
Mask,
I guess you finally have me over a barrel here.
You really do know what you are talking about!
You mentioned "Southern Strategy", "South", "ending busing"
And you also referred to "North" in a positive vien, as though Northerners (i.e., Yankees) are pure as the driven snow and supportive of things like civil rights.
And pulling data off of the Internet shows you are correct, you betcha!
It does show how "South", or perhaps "Southie" does relate to things like ending busing!
Here it is, the stuff that confirms how correct you are!
====================
Young rioter recalls seething in Southie By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY In 1974, white resistance to forced busing in South Boston erupted in riots that rocked the city. http://www.usatoday.com/life/ people/2004-05-16-busing -riots-usat_x.htm
During the 1970s, South Boston received national attention for its opposition to court-mandated school (de facto) desegregation by busing students to different neighborhoods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /South_Boston,_Massachusetts
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 1:45pm
first, sjchermak says this:
"But as a classic leftist you throw the race card around with reckless abandon, falsely fabricating acts of racism that do not exist, and blaming all but leftists for these things occurring."
and then he says this:
"All the while I am sure you think there is nothing wrong with public education, with money being wasted in school bureauacracies, obscenely and inappropriately high salaries to unionized teachers in some school districts, excessive leftist control over cirriculum, all which result in lousy education that helps deny people oppportunity ......the people you contend you care about."
and the finally, he has this to say about sotomayor:
"And this issue matters again now with Sotomayor, because she, as most libs do anyway, thinks that feelings, opinions, personal experience, etc. should be brought to bear and help form and should help form judicial rulings - this of course is wrong - because the judiciary is not a law making branch and is only to rule based on the law or Constitution, not on external "feelings", or "societal norms" or what foreign law is, etc. As I said, most libs believe this - but it is obvious Sotomayor is blatant about it"
not only has sjchermak completely run amok, but he has no idea what he is talking about. alito himself said the often "brings to bear" questions of his immigrant past, and empathy for it, into his rulings. sotomayor has almost never done so, except for this one cherry-picked statement that conservatives have gone bonkers over. there is NO EVIDENCE that sotomayor has allowed identity politics to play an overt role in her rulings. none.
Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2009 @ 1:48pm
darladoon,
You say there is NO EVIDENCE about Sotomayor, but I also remember on earlier threads a while back that you proclaimed Obama was not a leftist........
So how can anybody take your comments seriously?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 2:59pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 1:45pm
Yes, SJCHER, that completely refutes the idea of a "Southern Strategy"...and easily explains away why Southerners who for generations supported "racist Democrats" and made it a "Solid South" for Dems...gave up such racist ideas and supported "diverse Republicans" and made it a "Solid South" for Repubs since Reagan.
You win.
BTW, why DID Reagan give his first post-Convention speech (the "states's rights" speech) in Philadelphia, Miss. where 3 civil rights workers were murdered? Fan of the climate? Wanted to do some shopping at Williams Brothers Store?
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 3:05pm
Interesting that those who shout the loudest about Judge Sotomayor's remarks are conservative white men who show their discomfort with ethnic identity and multiculturalism by calling them destructive and "unfair". On those occasions when my wife, who is Japanese, was treated unfairly by white clerks, they didn't like it when I spoke to them about it, telling me I was "unfairly accusing" them of doing something that both of us experienced as negative and disgusting. They did not like my "making them" uncomfortable by confronting them with having treated her differently than they treated their white customers. The obvious message to both of us was that their discomfort was our fault, and we should have kept quiet about it. Which I refused to do.
And so it goes with Newt, Rush and the boys in the House and Senate. Well, guys, welcome to the 21st century and the fact that we live in a multicultural, multiracial world in which all are players, and you don't have to like it.
Posted by georgepolley at 06/11/2009 @ 3:54pm
"You say there is NO EVIDENCE about Sotomayor, but I also remember on earlier threads a while back that you proclaimed Obama was not a leftist........"
sjchermak, point to a specific case in which sotomayor's ruling strayed from legal precedent, or which, as you claim, she allowed identity politics to play an overt role in her ruling.
and please defend alito's statement that alito's immigrant past played a role in his "empathy" with plaintiffs.
Posted by darladoon at 06/11/2009 @ 4:06pm
Mask,
You ask "BTW, why DID Reagan give his first post-Convention speech (the "states's rights" speech) in Philadelphia, Miss. where 3 civil rights workers were murdered?"
I of course do not know specifically why Ronald Reagan went to that location.....he did not call me up and tell me why.
But since he did not, I can only theorize, and I would assume he did it on purpose to confront the issue head on and show that when he was talking about states rights he was talking about just that and not bringing it up as a vehicle to enable racism and exclusion.
He no doubt wanted to demonstrate that was the case.
Someone who was really racist and was really intending to re-kindle or re-enable exclusion, segregation, and racism would not travel to a location where three civil rights workers were murdered to do that.
But someone who is trying to take an issue such as the relative amount of power that a state has versus the federal government, knowing that certain segments, the political left perhaps, would try to misrepresent his efforts at the issue as an attempt to get segregation, racism, etc going again,
AND....
who was bold and brave enough to tackle issues head on......
WOULD travel to a location such as Philadephia, Mississippi to make such a speech to show that he is not raising the issue for that purpose and to honor those who gave their lives in the civil rights stuggle and to show it was a different time now and the two issues were not related anymore......
KNOWING FULL WELL that BY DOING SO the population of Philiadelphia, Mississippi no doubt understood that and respected him for that despite the fact that some miscellaneous elite liberal snob in places such as Boston no doubt did not.
Just a theory, I am sure it's true.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/11/2009 @ 4:30pm
Interesting theory.....
read the speech.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 8:36pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/11/2009 @ 8:47pm
snow, you've got to understand the monkey wrenchs of history that we are throwing into SJ's "history".
He thinks the reason the "Solid South" went from solid "racist Democrats" to solid "open-minded, but strict constructionalist Republicans" is merely a matter of the "shift in America's political landscape from liberalism to conservatism after Carter."
To him, the idea that the GOP appealed to Southern racists, wooing them away from Democrats who had embraced civil rights from Kennedy to Johnson to the 70s Congresses...is impossible.
It's also impossible that Reagan, beloved and saintly (nearly a "Messiah" if you will..heheh) could use a place like Philadelphia, Miss. to show the South that the "New Republicans" weren't the old Eisenhower/Taft/Warren liberals who had started the end of Jim Crow with "Brown v Board" and Ike's nationalizing Orval Faubus' troops to integrate Little Rock.
This was a new "GOP" that would takeover what the Southern Dems had abandoned, when the Dixiecrats collapsed in the early 60s and would take up the mantle of George Wallace.
SJCHER may honestly believe that those majority blocs of Southern racist votes just "disappeared" in 1980...or stopped voting and some "hidden Republican minority" gained the majority....but I doubt it.
He's guillible but not that naive. He just can't bring himself to admit the ugly side of Reagan's Revolution.
or explain how for 1 Robert Byrd...there were dozens of Strom Thurmonds, Trent Lotts, Jesse Helmses.
Or why men and women who previously had NO problem supporting FDR, the New Deal, etc. were "suddenly" so put off by the idea of "Big Government".....just about the time, that schools were integrated and discrimnation was outlawed.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2009 @ 9:15pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/10/2009 @ 10:33pm
Dude you gotta ease up on your bogeyman before he shatters. You'll need him for years to come.
Meanwhile name one non-neocon who agrees with your definition of leftie/liberal? Did Martin Luther King proudly carry the Victim Torch? Ask-not Kennedy? Anyway, keep chuggin' pal. Just don't wear out your bogeyman too soon.
Posted by winyahn at 06/11/2009 @ 10:45pm
To state that Sotomayor is racist is questionable, BUT there is NO denying that she IS racially biased and she has stated the same over 7 times right out of her own mouth in speeches that leave NO room for reinterputation other than the usual blatant LIES from the left, Obamanations administration and Demoncrats!
The Obamanation that makes desolation will be successful in seating her on the court and it will be the sorriest day for the nation, its constitution, and will enshrine racial bias and perverted justice as long as such activists are allowed in the highest court of the nation!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 11:31pm
bigpasture,
please point to a specific case/ruling to back up your claim.
if you cannot do that, then you claim is groundless.
(which it is)
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 01:32am
I ordinarily would not post anything in a forum like this because it's rather pointless but something caught my eye and I just had to respond --- and sorry --- I don't remember who posted it:
"You, after all, are the person who thinks that wealthy people should be taxed more just because you can tax them - with no regard to whether the tax money is needed or the economic impact of such actions. Just tax 'em because you can!"
Um - actually I cannot speak for the person who is referred to in the above snippet, but in truth, the reason the wealthy should be taxed more is because - drum roll - THEY HAVE MORE MONEY - and generally pay disproportionately less of their income than do middle class and working class people!
Good public schools, good roads, public transportation --- these things aren't free, you know! We need taxes to pay for government programs and services and pay for the military expenditures that many people feel are so important. We ARE supposed to have progressive income taxes but in reality this is not the case. The wealthy must start paying their fair share!
Anyway, I just felt compelled to respond. I rarely read these messages so will probably miss the outraged howls of those who think our tax system is just fine now and it's perfectly okay for wealthy people to pay disproportionately less of their income for taxes than the rest of us. I'm sorry I upset you but - while you may disagree - I think fair is fair and the wealthy paying more taxes IS fair!
Posted by cbhillman at 06/12/2009 @ 01:33am
please point to a specific case/ruling to back up your claim.
if you cannot do that, then you claim is groundless.
(which it is)
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 01:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
At least, learn to read darlaloon, its about her statement made 7 times of elitism!
I guess you would rather talk about her judgement of the firemen that is clearly reverse discrimination and idicative of racial bias favoring racial quotas for unqualified black candidates and denying highly qualified for advancement white firefighters justice?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/12/2009 @ 02:20am
cbhillman,
I was the one who made the comment - the comment to JacobFabian, who believes as you do.
The problem with the wealthy paying their fair share is that the wealthy pay most of the tax in this country now. Look up the data at www.irs.gov and crunch the numbers.
This is a misconception, a lie, that has been promoted by the left for many years, that the wealthy do not pay any tax or they do not pay their fair share.
If the wealthy pay most of the tax, they certainly pay their fair share.
But when this is brought up, the argument switches to the rate, and the argument is made by others that it is the rate that matters, not the amount, and that the amount they pay is disproportionate.
When tax rates were cut (which liberals called "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy") then the economy improved. The wealthy had more money to invest back into their businesses, growing their business, hiring more people, etc. The businesses grew, and they earned more money, and thus payed more tax, and in many cases wound up paying more in actual tax amount than before the rate cut.
But you just don't tax people because you can. It is not appropriate to just hand money over to government because one feels they have the right to grab it from someone else. In some cases the government has more money than it needs or should have now, such as with some schools in some locations where the school districts have plenty of money but that money is wasted and the schools are lousy.
The District (Washington DC) has one of the highest rates of per pupil expenditure in the country, and the schools there are abysmal.
If someone is of the mind that we should tax people because they can pay, such as JacobFabian, it is because they are operating on ideological driven envy and greed.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/12/2009 @ 02:50am
I have already explained in previous threads that progressive taxation doesn't make us a classless society. It just brings the classes closer together. If you don't believe me, "sjchermak," it's because you either won't or can't do the math.
Progressive taxation is the only fair taxation, because it is the only method that takes into account how much easier it is to make money from money than from work. The ability to charge interest when we lend money is one of the most powerful disincentives to work that the market has ever created. Progressive taxation is the best tool yet devised to counteract it. If you're really concerned about incentives, you have to be universally concerned, not just obsessed with the poor, who consume a comparatively small portion of government expenditures.
According to the Federal Education Budget Project, the states with the highest per-student expenditure also tend to have the highest number of districts and to distribute their funding most unfairly among these districts. states with the lowest per-student expenditure tend to have fewer districts and to distribute their funding more fairly. Generally, higher per-student expenditure correlates with better student performance, but you have to be in a better-funded SCHOOL, not merely in a better-funded STATE, to enjoy this benefit.
Source: Federal Education Budget Project (febp.newamerica.net)
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/12/2009 @ 07:52am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/12/2009 @ 02:50am
So pretty much ANY progressive tax system, you oppose, right? In fact, if Bill Gates pays anymore than a guy working at Burger King...that's got to be "envy and greed", because it's going after Gates simply because he makes a BIT more than the guy working the fries station?
If Joe Schmoe pays $200 in taxes, Gates should pay only $200 in taxes...because to do otherwise would be attacking Gates due to his success in life, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 08:01am
"If the wealthy pay most of the tax, they certainly pay their fair share"
(most mindless quote of the decade)
it's hard to imagine how someone can say this with a straight face.
"At least, learn to read darlaloon, its about her statement made 7 times of elitism!"
oh, it's about her statements, and not her rulings.
again, bigpasture, point to a SPECIFIC RULING in which identity politics led her astray from legal precedent.
just one case, please.
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 09:59am
bigpasture's idea of "research":
"i heard something on fox news about a white fireman who lost his job, and sotomayor has said things about white people, and i think she's racist"
but....
"i haven't actually read any of her rulings, so i really don't have any idea why or how she's a racist, other than what she said like 10 years ago at some conference, and bill o'reilly said so"
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 10:01am
if tax rates remain the same, and yet 1% of our country's income goes up 300% in the last 20 years, then how is that fair?
sure, the rich pay more, but why shouldn't they pay more?
and if their income keeps going up, up and up, and their rate remains the same, or goes DOWN, then they aren't paying their fair share.
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 10:02am
I guess you would rather talk about her judgement of the firemen that is clearly reverse discrimination and idicative of racial bias favoring racial quotas for unqualified black candidates and denying highly qualified for advancement white firefighters justice?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/12/2009 @ 02:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
Whats the matter darlaloon is that just too specific an interputation of the facts of her ruling against the fireman?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/12/2009 @ 11:26am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/12/2009 @ 11:26am
Hey, RIO why don't you tell her about how your "interputation" of REPUBLICAN scandals like Teapot Dome and Watergate....is a smack on "Demoncrats"?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 11:30am
bigpasture, what SPECIFICALLY do you dispute in her ruling in that case of the fireman?
a) what was her ruling?
b) how do you dispute it?
c) why was it "racist" of her to rule in such a way?
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 11:36am
c) why was it "racist" of her to rule in such a way?
Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
You did not read what I said and LIE that I said she is racist!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/13/2009 @ 5:05pm
Interesting article. Hey, all of us have been trained to practice "identity politics" by treating the white male as the norm, the gold standard of humanity.
Posted by ktrig at 06/13/2009 @ 9:57pm
Affirmative action worked. Otherwise we would not have a president Obama, a Sotomayor candidacy or even a justice Thomas for another 50-100 years; if that.
Affirmative action worked because Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston and those for equality before them, did not fail-- they worked and 'succeeded'.
Can one say that because the USA is now a world power, we no longer need our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
No, it is that we need them now more than ever in order to continue to be successful.
But for every one of our successes, the new con repubs will seek a profit in its demise.
It is only correct that the GOP continue to fade into the oblivion they wish to drag the rest of us.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/14/2009 @ 12:33pm
To state that Sotomayor is racist is questionable, BUT there is NO denying that she IS racially biased and she has stated the same over 7 times right out of her own mouth in speeches that leave NO room for reinterputation other than the usual blatant LIES from the left, Obamanations administration and Demoncrats!
The Obamanation that makes desolation will be successful in seating her on the court and it will be the sorriest day for the nation, its constitution, and will enshrine racial bias and perverted justice as long as such activists are allowed in the highest court of the nation!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/11/2009 @ 11:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Seems clear to me!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by PigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 5:04pm
BWAHahahaha, sounds like the same old lame argument that the in trouble US car manufacturers made about not buying those foreign better built more economical cars. Saying we should keep buying and driving only their gas-guzzlers to be patriotic. NOT. One wise Latina will more often that not come to better decisions than a pack of white bred men if only per the diversity. I'd be saying the same if it was packed with a bunch of Latinas about one wise white guy.
Come-on, when it comes down to it, for the job that has to be done-- a hybrid is more often than not-- a better car than an old gas-guzzler; no separate but equal argument again.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/14/2009 @ 5:37pm
Progressive taxation pathology is not driven by rates or absolute amounts. What angers the progressive is that the higher income individual has more money left over after taxes than the poor or low income person. If you tax a $20K/yr at 5% this leaves that person with $19K. If you tax a $300K person at 50% this leaves them with $150K. This pisses off the progressive to no end. If you taxed them at 80%, they would still have $60K. The lack of fairness in this causes progressives no end of unhappiness.
Posted by sntauri at 06/14/2009 @ 7:59pm
Posted by darladoon ~ 20 posts! Gallant effort. You're not easily discouraged.
Posted by winyahn at 06/14/2009 @ 10:15pm
Posted by sntauri at 06/14/2009 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is called the "sin of greed and avarice" which is NOT restricted to those who are wealthy or have through hard work, long hours, and diligence and education gained wealth. The petty greedy leftist preaching income equalization are no different than the 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients which is why socialism is so appealing to them!
They will use a multiplicity of arguments and petty grievences to attempt to establish their "right" (from God knows who) to obtain the wealth of others unearned and unjustifiably!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 10:21pm
Lack of the things that tax revenue can do for the general welfare of our nation does make us unhappy though.
So why do you people hate your neighbors and country so much anyway?
Posted by snowball666 at 06/14/2009 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ask you california neighbors who voted NO! Other states are sure enjoying the rush of business leaving the high tax welfare socialist states and are offering increasing incentives for them to leave such for good!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 10:43pm
1.Obtain wealth from others...you mean like Bernie Madoff?
Which one of the 3500 new government regulations costing $1.7 TRILLION dollars which is more than the $1.2 trillion in taxes paid will rein in ponzi schemes operating for almost 100 years now?
2.I'm equally sure that you suck on the government tit just as much as any of the people at whom you are endlessly pointing that narrow finger.
Wife works and I run a small Ins. P&C agency, so how?
3.As for 'greed and avarice', what else do you call the behavior of a person who wants to have national defense, a post office, roads to drive on, cops to protect their stuff, firemen to put out fires, but are completely unwilling to contribute to the betterment of their country in any way?
A Californian taxpayer feed up with socialism and 42 billion growing state deficit!
4.You're welcome to leave at any time.
Ah yes, the vietnam era "America Love it or Leave it" mantra offer but NEVER taken by leftist in the 60s or Hollywood celebs both times Bush was voted in office. It was a very different America which is why retirees are beginning to look elsewhere if wealthy enough to draw S.S. without Medicare (you can't take it with you). Thats why some foriegn locals are ramping up catering to them!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 11:17pm
I don´t understand why so many conservatives are here talking! Hey guys! This is a liberal magazine... why don't you go to the Fox website and express yourselves there? Give us a break!
My vote is for Sotomayor. I thinks it is great that she was proposed: experienced, erudite, woman, latina, sober in her finances, smart, hard working... excellent choice.
Posted by AlexanderPaul at 06/15/2009 @ 12:04am
Bottom line...Sotomayor is intelligent and female; what else are the conservatives terrified of? Nothing gets them going like an intelligent female.
What I am looking for in a SC Justice is simple, one who understands the Constitution is a "living document". Strict "constructionists" would have us back where some of our population was only 3/5 human, women had essentially no Rights, and slavery was seen as a "necessity".
Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and I hope President Obama can get a few more seats nominated.
Posted by rasputin195 at 06/15/2009 @ 12:11am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 11:17pm
Actually, RIO, given YOUR proclamations of an "imminent socialist dictatorship"...
I find it odd you don't WANT to leave?
Unless you don't really believe your own b.s.??????
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 07:51am
'I would hope that a wise Latina woman ...would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male ...' -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- http://www.nyt imes.com/2009/05/15/us/po litics/15judge.text.html?_r=2 &pagewanted=5
'... you might as well put an astrologer in charge of funding for NASA...' -- Katha Pollitt -- 29 June, 2009 -- The Nation -- http://www.t henation.com/doc/200906 29/pollitt
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/15/2009 @ 10:38am