Politics and Culture

1. Sherrilyn A. Ifill is both wrong and right. Judge Sotomayer did say a racist thing, technically, if you define racist as the dictionary does:

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

She said:

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. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life..

Here we have an allusion to actual and meaningful natural differences and the allegation that Latinas would not only make different choices, a problem in itself as judges are supposed to not take that stuff into consideration, but "better" ones.

(I personally don't think physiology affects wisdom: it's available to all sincere people. I don't know if Sotomayor would consider my mom, a Latina, wise, but if my mom were on the supreme court, she'd not only allow the death penalty, but offer to carry out the sentence herself.)

So, yes, what Sotomayor said fits the definition. On the other hand, I don't really think that Sotomayor is a racist- she's a liberal. There's a difference. Liberals say things that fit the criteria for racist speech, but they don't really believe it. What liberals try to do in this regard is achieve equality, which is their one sacred dogma. One way to straighten a see-saw is to lift the low side. The other way is to lower the high side. Sometimes liberals feel that the lower side has to "make up" it's low time by spending time as the higher half. It's the reason why Marxist-inclined race movements say that the oppressed can't be racists- the oppressed have no power (more here).

This is what Sotomayor was doing. Whereas O'Connor stopped at equal, Sotomayor wanted to make up a little for past slights by saying that Latinas are not only equal, but better.

Some conservatives like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are also being unfair to Sotomayor because immediately after that passage Sotomayor said:

“Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

Here, Sotomayor returns to the correct (my) position.

So, how should Republicans handle Sotomayor? I know what appeals to me and that is, calm, non-sensational, non-nitpicking, truth. How would this strategy sound like in a hearing:

Justice Sotomayor, what is your position on this? Do you agree with this decision? What's your general philosophy?

In other words, this is a teaching moment for Republicans. Contrast and illuminate.

1. The California Supreme Court allowed Californians to define marriage. I'm glad. I had more stuff prepared, but this subject pains me, and I don't want to talk about it anymore. It's important to put out good arguments however, because, a) there are some b) they work because people are looking for an excuse to support the traditional view and c) it's important.

2. The one judge who voted to throw Proposition 8 out was appointed by a Democrat. Hot-button issue justice in the United States is a joke. The best way to predict any particular decision, especially on social issues, are the political leanings of the justices and not the merits of a particular case.

3. Which brings me to Sonia Sotomayor. Another liberal vote.

4. Speaking of empathy, I'm not going to criticize Obama on North Korea. What would you have him do? What would "getting tough" look like?

5. I wonder if Kim Jung Il is happy. I know he refuses food for his people so that he can avoid weapons inspection. His people fall dead in the streets so I assume he doesn't feel a whole lot of guilt. He has bunches of orgies. He gets to order people around.

6. Contra-empathy in California SSM debate:

In a 136-page majority ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the justices said it was not their job to address whether the ban was wise public policy, but only to decide whether it was constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

7. Another Caribbean Sotomayor is high jumping superstar Javier.

8. Puerto Rican music coming up when I have time.

9. Liberal Fascism in Chrysler bankruptcy? We know that the Obama administration pressured Chrysler stockholders to accept a certain deal. Now, something almost comically fishy may be happening: Red State speculates that Chrysler closings may be politically motivated.

10. This is an interesting chart. I wish I could just say that this particular policy leads to this in these states, but it's not that easy.

Unlike some, I don't begrudge Muslims for wanting to Islamicize Europe. Anybody who believes that his philosophy is best wants to spread it, from Al Gore in public schools and popular media to George Bush in the Middle East. I'd like to see Christians become the majority (again) in 'Amr Khaled,s own Egypt or in Turkey. I think Christianity would be especially good for China and North Korea.

Christians in Europe- serious ones numbering about the same as Muslims, probably- can also win over the secular masses by their example: Christians need to act noticeably better than both Muslims and the general population. They must also be tough and a refuge of resolute sanity in rudderless, cowardly society.

Thanks guys. God keep you in his arms.

**update**

Anyways, thank God there are some people willing to at least get in the way of danger. Contrast with the French video below.

I admit to a conflict of interest here. My salary come from state revenues and some of the money generated from the propositions above will find its way to the Asymmetric household. In the log run, however, it's probably better for all of California if a sane business climate prevails, and that can only happen if taxes and regulation are low.

I don't know the propositions' details. If you're interested, go here.

Maureen Dowd:

Dowd, who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1990, told The Huffington Post that the mistake was unintentional. She claims she never read Marshall's post last week and had heard the line from a friend who did not mention reading it in Marshall's blog.

I don't really care about this--it's too "inside baseball" for me, but I do find her explanation funny. First, when people talk about an article, do they quote it word for word or do they summarize and paraphrase it? Did he print it out and take it to the party? Second, what are the chances that Maureen would remember the quote, exactly, on the odd chance that the guy did, in fact, do that? And, then, to not go to Talking Points Memo when she got home?

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

The quote itself makes absolutely no sense. It's a non-sequitur, no sigue. Why can't the Bush administration be trying to prevent terror and looking for evidence of WMD in Iraq at the same time?

It's like asking, "Why would the Obama administration be creating uncertainty by transforming health care while trying to stimulate the economy." Wait, that's actually a good question. It would be like incredulously asking, "Why would somebody be trying to prevent an attack while finding evidence against somebody he thinks might attack the United States in the future? The answer's pretty obvious, no?