If my business was competing in the market place to produce the best product for the least cost requiring optimum efficiency and customer service, laws prohibiting me from hiring the most qualified applicants would not help.
In the public sector, especially in the realm of public safety, what justifies limitations on hiring the most qualified people? Racial quotas? Social engineering? Absolutely not!
The public sector is the butt of constant complaints and jokes about laziness and inefficiencies. Is it a coincidence that that is where affirmative action and other efficiency and performance constraining policies are first and most aggressively applied?
One doesn't have to be a racist to see the negative shooting-yourself-in-the-foot outcome of eliminating "the best" to meet some racial, ethnic, or gender quota, or to meet some other social engineering expectation.
Darren Chapel of the San Francisco Examiner begins his article on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven, CT, firefighters case with some facts. Then, typical of experience-challenged leftward skewed commentators, he derails into opinion that shows his absence from the reality of running businesses and government services.
Here is where Darren loses it when he claims:
"But what's less fair is the playing field of American race relations. Anyone denying that fact needs to take a long look at the available information. What hasn't been discussed in the wake of this decision is the overwhelming income gap and stunning disparity in net worth that white Americans enjoy compared to their counterparts. If we are going to talk about fairness, this is the place to start. The rash of white people claiming discrimination in recent months needs to be noted, and I believe that in this case the firemen had a descent argument, but they're still wrong. They may have lost a promotion, but on average, they still are exponentially better off than their black co-workers."
The firemen are wrong? Because they "still are exponentially better off?" So, folks who are better off are wrong about issues of fairness, and justice, and skills, and merit, and hard work? This is the opposite of every sound principle of human success I have ever learned. So, let us forget about promotion, in school or at work, based on merit. Let's have it all based on quotas and making everyone feel good about themselves. Then we can have a lottery on how many years it will take for this nation to reach third world status.
Darren the Pollyanna continues:
"Justices may strive to make their rulings based on a "colorblind society," but that's not what exists in America. The romantic notion of racial harmony isn't realistic because the playing field isn't even. Living in a colorblind society means that each group is treated exactly the same in all aspects of life, including economics and social mobility. They aren't. To suggest so is pure ignorance. On average, blacks are less likely to go to college or finish high school. They also attend poorer funded public schools on average and are more prone to experience child abuse, substance abuse, neglect, divorce, teen pregnancy, health complications and about every other challenge available. They don't grow up next to country clubs. Most importantly, they are more likely to be poor, a fact that makes economic progress much more challenging."
Racial or any other kind of "harmony" does not require economic or social parity. Poor whites, poor Latinos and poor Asians face the same challenges. Whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians who don't perform well on tests well-designed to identify the best canditates for the job should not be hired for these positions - despite the fact they are poor. It is neither logical nor prudent to hire a less qualified person over a qualified person because of race, gender, ethnicity, or economic status. We have a black President, black generals, (prior) black Secretary of State, black Attorney General and blacks in hundreds of other high positions in government, for crying out loud! Doesn't that count for something?
In the balance of his article, Darren simply reveals his hostility toward "class". He seeks not merely equality of opportunity, but equality of class, income, and wealth. I'm not sure whether to label this thinking Socialism or Communism. In our current political environment, I wouldn't be surprised if these labels were considered a compliment.
Darren and Sonia Sotomayor are both racists in their quest to carry affirmative action to its illogical and counter-productive extreme. The affirmative action pendulum has now swung past its point of equilibrium into the realm of screwing whites. The Supreme Court decision wisely slowed the momentum of that swing.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
McCain is an Old Obama in Republican Clothing
This story is a dead giveaway to where McCain stands on things:
"WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has "done well" in his first five months in the White House.
The Arizona Republican says that using a legislative scorecard to judge the presidency so far, Obama has achieved all his legislative goals."
The only "down side:"
"McCain says that Obama's successes in Congress have come with little or no Republican support.
McCain also is critical of Obama for setting a date for closing the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay without first developing a comprehensive plan for what to do with its prisoners.
And the Arizona senator says Obama should speak out more in support of protesters in Iran."
If the similarity of McCain's and Obama's policy positions were not obvious back in September, they sure are now. McCain agrees with the majority of Obama's policies and actions that blatantly stab America in the back, including:
- Slobbering all over the Islamic world; being either ignorant or disingenuous about the nature and aspirations of the America- and Israel-hating world-wide Islamic political movement.
- Apologizing all over the world for America's allegedly caustic behavior over the years
- Appointment of many racist or sexist, tax-cheating radicals to high level positions
- Being the "Enabler-in-Chief", using hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up failing companies that should be allowed to fail.
- Trashing our capitalist, "personal responsibility" culture
- Selling out future generations via excessive debt
- Putting everything in place to guarantee double digit inflation within the next 2 to 3 years
- Setting the stage for another round of illegal alien amnesty proposals
- Claiming that we will "solve" our economic burn-out by spending additional trillions on univeral health care.
McCain is an Obama in Republican clothing, as are many Republicans. The only differences are age and the inability of most Republicans to talk BS as well as Obama. I am thankful McCain was not elected. He would have screwed Republican/ conservative chances of election for the next two decades.
"WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has "done well" in his first five months in the White House.
The Arizona Republican says that using a legislative scorecard to judge the presidency so far, Obama has achieved all his legislative goals."
The only "down side:"
"McCain says that Obama's successes in Congress have come with little or no Republican support.
McCain also is critical of Obama for setting a date for closing the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay without first developing a comprehensive plan for what to do with its prisoners.
And the Arizona senator says Obama should speak out more in support of protesters in Iran."
If the similarity of McCain's and Obama's policy positions were not obvious back in September, they sure are now. McCain agrees with the majority of Obama's policies and actions that blatantly stab America in the back, including:
- Slobbering all over the Islamic world; being either ignorant or disingenuous about the nature and aspirations of the America- and Israel-hating world-wide Islamic political movement.
- Apologizing all over the world for America's allegedly caustic behavior over the years
- Appointment of many racist or sexist, tax-cheating radicals to high level positions
- Being the "Enabler-in-Chief", using hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up failing companies that should be allowed to fail.
- Trashing our capitalist, "personal responsibility" culture
- Selling out future generations via excessive debt
- Putting everything in place to guarantee double digit inflation within the next 2 to 3 years
- Setting the stage for another round of illegal alien amnesty proposals
- Claiming that we will "solve" our economic burn-out by spending additional trillions on univeral health care.
McCain is an Obama in Republican clothing, as are many Republicans. The only differences are age and the inability of most Republicans to talk BS as well as Obama. I am thankful McCain was not elected. He would have screwed Republican/ conservative chances of election for the next two decades.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Another Kum Bay Yah Cartoon...
That's Jimmy Carter in the middle. Obama is behind Carter. You can't see him because he is bending over, bowing to the Saudi Prince.
Oh, and by the way, Carter was almost assassinated in Gaza this morning.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Iranian election, will of the people, & Hillary
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won another rigged Presidential election in Iran. The Ayatollah has so decreed.
And here is what Secretary of State Hillary had to say about it:
"The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people..."
Isn't that like saying "I hope the people of Iran want to obliterate Israel" because that is the outcome of this election. The outcome, rigged or not, is that the proponent of obliterating Israel and developing nuclear weapons to carry out that intent won the election. And Hillary hopes this outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people. We know for certain the outcome represents the genuine will and desire of many Iranians. How many we may never know.
Yes, she could have intended the meaning differently, as in hoping a different outcome had occurred to reflect the true will of the people. But this is not the way the words came out. What a mealy mouthed, wishy washy, pandering thing she said.
And why "refrain...from commenting on the election?" How laid back should we be in this matter? What's the matter Hillary and Barack, cats' got your tongue?
How about calling a spade a spade and proclaim a rigged election against the will of the people and against the best interests of the entire middle east region?
Would that be too much to ask?
And here is what Secretary of State Hillary had to say about it:
"The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people..."
Isn't that like saying "I hope the people of Iran want to obliterate Israel" because that is the outcome of this election. The outcome, rigged or not, is that the proponent of obliterating Israel and developing nuclear weapons to carry out that intent won the election. And Hillary hopes this outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people. We know for certain the outcome represents the genuine will and desire of many Iranians. How many we may never know.
Yes, she could have intended the meaning differently, as in hoping a different outcome had occurred to reflect the true will of the people. But this is not the way the words came out. What a mealy mouthed, wishy washy, pandering thing she said.
And why "refrain...from commenting on the election?" How laid back should we be in this matter? What's the matter Hillary and Barack, cats' got your tongue?
How about calling a spade a spade and proclaim a rigged election against the will of the people and against the best interests of the entire middle east region?
Would that be too much to ask?
Inconceivable Bedfellows...
Mallard Fillmore has a perfect depiction of Obama's foolish efforts to buddy up with Islamic entities...
Thanks, Bruce Tinsley. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Bruce Tinsley. Keep up the great work.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What Left, White Supremacists, Muslims Have in Common
The mainstream media portrays the shooting by the racist at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum as the work of a "right winger." Upon first blush, it appears that white supremacist was one of those fanatical far right wingers - the kind that Janet Napolitano warned us about a couple of months ago. That's the story line the left spins.
Upon more thoughtful consideration the facts are much different. Break down the components of belief systems clouded by popular labels and just the opposite is true.
The belief systems are:
The Left, etc........................The Right
* Authoritarian/dictatorial rule...* Self determination
* Anarchy............................* Rule of law
* Intolerance........................* Tolerance
* Anti-Semitism (anti-Zionism)...* Zionism
James W. von Brunn, the anti-Semetic murderer, fits the stereotypes of left wing liberals and Muslims much better than that of "far right fanatic."
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims (here referring to their legal system of Sharia law) thrive on authoritarian, top-down rule while the right thrives on "bottom-up" consensus building representative government. While von Brunn may have hated our government and appeared to be an anarchist, at the core he was an authoritarian fascist - the opposite of an anarchist.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims tend toward extra-legal, radical "take the law into their own hands"-type actions instead of respecting the rule of law. The lefts' passivity toward enforcing our immigration laws is one example. Muslim's propensity to terror and mayhem is another.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are known for their intolerance and inflexible thinking while the right is known for tolerance and the rights of individuals. The left is generally intolerant of captialism, religion (except Islam), and individual liberty; Muslims hate the west because of our liberties and rights.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are all to some degree anti-Semetic. The left wants to squeeze Israel into tolerating its Muslim neighbors who have promised Israels' destruction. Muslims are the essence of Jew-haters, just like von Brunn. Obama's anti-Israel views are becoming more obvious. And not surprisingly after sitting at the knee of radical anti-Semite Rev. Wright for 20 years. In a recent interview the Reverand said he hasn't spoken to Obama since he became president.
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office." That comment can easily be classified as anti-Semitic. And this is not just a recent or isolated gaff.
In short, von Brunn is a leftist. He shares the primary components of the leftist belief system: authoritarianism, radicalism, intolerance, and Jew-hating.
Most main-stream media prefer to paint the opposite picture. And many Americans, and inexplicably many Jews, follow along with this lie.
Upon more thoughtful consideration the facts are much different. Break down the components of belief systems clouded by popular labels and just the opposite is true.
The belief systems are:
The Left, etc........................The Right
* Authoritarian/dictatorial rule...* Self determination
* Anarchy............................* Rule of law
* Intolerance........................* Tolerance
* Anti-Semitism (anti-Zionism)...* Zionism
James W. von Brunn, the anti-Semetic murderer, fits the stereotypes of left wing liberals and Muslims much better than that of "far right fanatic."
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims (here referring to their legal system of Sharia law) thrive on authoritarian, top-down rule while the right thrives on "bottom-up" consensus building representative government. While von Brunn may have hated our government and appeared to be an anarchist, at the core he was an authoritarian fascist - the opposite of an anarchist.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims tend toward extra-legal, radical "take the law into their own hands"-type actions instead of respecting the rule of law. The lefts' passivity toward enforcing our immigration laws is one example. Muslim's propensity to terror and mayhem is another.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are known for their intolerance and inflexible thinking while the right is known for tolerance and the rights of individuals. The left is generally intolerant of captialism, religion (except Islam), and individual liberty; Muslims hate the west because of our liberties and rights.
von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are all to some degree anti-Semetic. The left wants to squeeze Israel into tolerating its Muslim neighbors who have promised Israels' destruction. Muslims are the essence of Jew-haters, just like von Brunn. Obama's anti-Israel views are becoming more obvious. And not surprisingly after sitting at the knee of radical anti-Semite Rev. Wright for 20 years. In a recent interview the Reverand said he hasn't spoken to Obama since he became president.
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office." That comment can easily be classified as anti-Semitic. And this is not just a recent or isolated gaff.
In short, von Brunn is a leftist. He shares the primary components of the leftist belief system: authoritarianism, radicalism, intolerance, and Jew-hating.
Most main-stream media prefer to paint the opposite picture. And many Americans, and inexplicably many Jews, follow along with this lie.
0
comments
Labels:
anti-Semitism,
Barack Obama,
Islam,
Jeremiah Wright,
left,
Muslims,
right,
von Brunn
Labels:
anti-Semitism,
Barack Obama,
Islam,
Jeremiah Wright,
left,
Muslims,
right,
von Brunn
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Is this what Obama means by "transparency?"
From the New York Times: "The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons."
"In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act."
The information is "sensitive but unclassified?" Yes, transparency we can believe in.
Note: Am I the only one who is increasingly concerned that Obama is not just naieve, but purposely and seditiously giving advantage to our enemies?
"In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act."
The information is "sensitive but unclassified?" Yes, transparency we can believe in.
Note: Am I the only one who is increasingly concerned that Obama is not just naieve, but purposely and seditiously giving advantage to our enemies?
What's With the Puerto Ricans?
The one other Puerto Rican I knew personally reminds me very much of Sonia Sotomayor. On one hand he bragged about not having to pay nearly as much tax in Puerto Rico as we do in our homeland. In the next breath he would praise "cultural diversity" as next to Godliness, that is, in the sense of maintaining cultural distinctives and definitely NOT assimilating into the US culture. I considered then his comments to be somewhat condescending and racist.
Now we have his kin, Sonia Sotomayor, lauding the superiority of being a female Puerto Rican over your standard white male. What is it with the Puerto Ricans? I have two from which to draw a conclusion. They are batting 100%. Should I logically conclude they are all elitist, condescending racist, sexist egoists?
By the way. These comments from me are no more a negative judgement of Puerto Ricans than Judge Sonia decreed upon white males who haven't lived her "superior life."
Now we have his kin, Sonia Sotomayor, lauding the superiority of being a female Puerto Rican over your standard white male. What is it with the Puerto Ricans? I have two from which to draw a conclusion. They are batting 100%. Should I logically conclude they are all elitist, condescending racist, sexist egoists?
By the way. These comments from me are no more a negative judgement of Puerto Ricans than Judge Sonia decreed upon white males who haven't lived her "superior life."
Recent "You Gotta Be Kiddin'" Quotes from Obama
On the right of Iran to procure a nuclear capability: "Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region."
Obama declared these "energy concerns" in the context of defending Iran's nuclear program. Mr. President: Why, when Iran is sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves - and when Iran has vowed to destroy one of our few and most dedicated allies? Why?
On the United States as a Muslim nation: In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
The US a Muslim country? When did that happen?
Check out the small size of the US Muslim population relative to that of Muslim nations. Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims. United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center).
Why would he say such a thing? Why? Oh, and he did say last month "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
On the incredible scientific and mathematical output of centuries of Islamic culture: “I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy I think leave a lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations,” Mr. Obama said.“And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge — the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture.”
Yes, Islamic culture had its day. But today it is a repressive scientific and mathematical backwater. It does appear Obama is hyping the development of the Islamic world ahead of his own nation. Why Mr. President? Why?
And what he didn't say: After the recent deadly attack on an Army recruiter by a recent convert to Islam with self-declared relgious and political motives, Obama said NOTHING. Here is Michelle Malkins view of this glaring omission:
"PM President Obama announced his choice for Army Secretary this afternoon.
The news isn’t what he said in his statement about GOP Rep. John McHugh:
“As Secretary of the Army, he will ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to meet the full spectrum of challenges and threats of our time. And John [McHugh] shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home, and he brings patriotism and a pragmatism that has won him respect on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.”
The news is what he left out.
Not a word about the jihadi attack on the two Army recruiters in Arkansas. No condemnation of the heinous attack and senseless violence. No condolences for the families of the targeted men or praise for the military recruiters who have been under increasing attack on U.S. soil. No statements from the DOJ or Pentagon, either.
Nothing."
Why?
Obama declared these "energy concerns" in the context of defending Iran's nuclear program. Mr. President: Why, when Iran is sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves - and when Iran has vowed to destroy one of our few and most dedicated allies? Why?
On the United States as a Muslim nation: In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
The US a Muslim country? When did that happen?
Check out the small size of the US Muslim population relative to that of Muslim nations. Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims. United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center).
Why would he say such a thing? Why? Oh, and he did say last month "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
On the incredible scientific and mathematical output of centuries of Islamic culture: “I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy I think leave a lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations,” Mr. Obama said.“And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge — the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture.”
Yes, Islamic culture had its day. But today it is a repressive scientific and mathematical backwater. It does appear Obama is hyping the development of the Islamic world ahead of his own nation. Why Mr. President? Why?
And what he didn't say: After the recent deadly attack on an Army recruiter by a recent convert to Islam with self-declared relgious and political motives, Obama said NOTHING. Here is Michelle Malkins view of this glaring omission:
"PM President Obama announced his choice for Army Secretary this afternoon.
The news isn’t what he said in his statement about GOP Rep. John McHugh:
“As Secretary of the Army, he will ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to meet the full spectrum of challenges and threats of our time. And John [McHugh] shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home, and he brings patriotism and a pragmatism that has won him respect on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.”
The news is what he left out.
Not a word about the jihadi attack on the two Army recruiters in Arkansas. No condemnation of the heinous attack and senseless violence. No condolences for the families of the targeted men or praise for the military recruiters who have been under increasing attack on U.S. soil. No statements from the DOJ or Pentagon, either.
Nothing."
Why?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Decline of Post WW-II US Will to Win
I'm rather slow when it comes to realizing certain things. After reading this article titled North Korea May Attack US; South Korean Ships, it finally dawned on me, 56 years late, that the US has not decisively won a war since WWII.
For the past few years, here I was, concerned about the "recent" decline of US power and influence in the world, when the reality is we have been declining since the Korean War. We never won that war. We executed a half-assed truce - a draw - a war that resulted in BS - nothing. The belligerant enemy was left to fight another day. Why should I feel bad about the US "tail tucked between our legs" defeat in Vietnam? Or the pending realization that Iraq will likely revert to fundamentalist Islam in the next couple of years, or the quagmire in Afghanistan, or our impotence concerning Iran and North Korea.
Yes, back to North Korea - a situation that should have been resolved 56 years ago. The "another day" for North Korea to fight is in our faces today.
Is our failure to decisively win any war since WWII due to our declining power and weakness, or is it due to badly chosen conflicts? Badly chosen conflicts have hastened and continue to hasten our declining power. Was Korea a badly chosen conflict? Probably not. A close ally was attacked. We responded "proportionately", that is, with just enough power to lose thousands of men and not win the war. We could have won, but our will was awol. Since then, we have suffered from the dual curse of poorly choosing our fights, and an awol will to win. Hence, a greatly weakened America.
For the past few years, here I was, concerned about the "recent" decline of US power and influence in the world, when the reality is we have been declining since the Korean War. We never won that war. We executed a half-assed truce - a draw - a war that resulted in BS - nothing. The belligerant enemy was left to fight another day. Why should I feel bad about the US "tail tucked between our legs" defeat in Vietnam? Or the pending realization that Iraq will likely revert to fundamentalist Islam in the next couple of years, or the quagmire in Afghanistan, or our impotence concerning Iran and North Korea.
Yes, back to North Korea - a situation that should have been resolved 56 years ago. The "another day" for North Korea to fight is in our faces today.
Is our failure to decisively win any war since WWII due to our declining power and weakness, or is it due to badly chosen conflicts? Badly chosen conflicts have hastened and continue to hasten our declining power. Was Korea a badly chosen conflict? Probably not. A close ally was attacked. We responded "proportionately", that is, with just enough power to lose thousands of men and not win the war. We could have won, but our will was awol. Since then, we have suffered from the dual curse of poorly choosing our fights, and an awol will to win. Hence, a greatly weakened America.
Whatever Happened to No Discrimination...
...Based on Race, Gender, or National Origin?
Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor because of her race, gender, and national origin - and because her legal opinions will be based on the "unique sensitivities" such background brings to the court that no white male could bring. Wow!
For the past 4 decades it has been illegal to choose anyone for anything on that basis - not employees, not college students, not contractors, not tenants - no one.
Newt Gingrich correctly observed: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” Ironically, Janet MurguÃa, president of the National Council of La Raza ("La Raza" meaning "The Race", more specifically the race of people indigenous to Mexico) warned against judging Sotomayor "unfairly." Well, well, Ms. "non-racist" racist La Raza President, I'm pretty sure what your opinion of "unfair" will be. Pretty much the same as your Puerto Rican, non-gender neutral, non-race-neutral female hispanic pal, Sonya.
(Note to critics of my sexist, racist verbiage: I only mention these gender and racial qualities because they are central in importance to our President Obama and to his Supreme Court nominee - not because I'm racist or sexist as I would be called if not for the fact that it has apparently become popular and accepted to be so.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out: "In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity."
In the interest of "change", Obama has nominated a self-declared racist to be on our Supreme Court. But what else could we expect from Obama, with his background steeped in racist rhetoric - 20 years of listening to "Not God Bless America; God damn America." And the company he keeps - yes - is there any doubt this is his natural course?
Will she be confirmed? A quick "Google" of "will Sotomayor be confirmed" indicated a solid consensus she will. I would hope for a resounding "ya gotta be kiddin'" rebuke of Obama from Congress. But in reality, the most likely "best case" is a long (and essential) confirmation debate.
In Sotomayor's Own Words
by Human Events
05/27/2009
President Obama on Tuesday nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Here are some provocative statements she has made in the past.
“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.”
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud… Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”
“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”
“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.”
Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor because of her race, gender, and national origin - and because her legal opinions will be based on the "unique sensitivities" such background brings to the court that no white male could bring. Wow!
For the past 4 decades it has been illegal to choose anyone for anything on that basis - not employees, not college students, not contractors, not tenants - no one.
Newt Gingrich correctly observed: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” Ironically, Janet MurguÃa, president of the National Council of La Raza ("La Raza" meaning "The Race", more specifically the race of people indigenous to Mexico) warned against judging Sotomayor "unfairly." Well, well, Ms. "non-racist" racist La Raza President, I'm pretty sure what your opinion of "unfair" will be. Pretty much the same as your Puerto Rican, non-gender neutral, non-race-neutral female hispanic pal, Sonya.
(Note to critics of my sexist, racist verbiage: I only mention these gender and racial qualities because they are central in importance to our President Obama and to his Supreme Court nominee - not because I'm racist or sexist as I would be called if not for the fact that it has apparently become popular and accepted to be so.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out: "In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity."
In the interest of "change", Obama has nominated a self-declared racist to be on our Supreme Court. But what else could we expect from Obama, with his background steeped in racist rhetoric - 20 years of listening to "Not God Bless America; God damn America." And the company he keeps - yes - is there any doubt this is his natural course?
Will she be confirmed? A quick "Google" of "will Sotomayor be confirmed" indicated a solid consensus she will. I would hope for a resounding "ya gotta be kiddin'" rebuke of Obama from Congress. But in reality, the most likely "best case" is a long (and essential) confirmation debate.
In Sotomayor's Own Words
by Human Events
05/27/2009
President Obama on Tuesday nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Here are some provocative statements she has made in the past.
“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.”
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud… Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”
“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”
“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.”
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Trillion $ Deficits Scream for Universal Health Care
Is President Obama really blaming our current multi-trillion dollar fiscal crisis on our current health care system? Yup. Here it is - another twilight zone moment.
C-SPAN's Steve Scully, interviewed President Obama today.
SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off. So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.
So, if I understand this correctly, the way to not "run out of money" (i.e. the way to reduce our multi-trillion dollar national debt) is for the federal government to spend more hundreds of billions on universal health care - Obama's current pet program. Yup. That'll fix the little red wagon of government runnin' out of money.
As Rahm Emanuel recently proclaimed, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Obama is a great student. Use our current generation gagging deficits as an excuse to further shackle these future generations with even greater deficits spent on health care. NOW I understand.
C-SPAN's Steve Scully, interviewed President Obama today.
SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off. So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.
So, if I understand this correctly, the way to not "run out of money" (i.e. the way to reduce our multi-trillion dollar national debt) is for the federal government to spend more hundreds of billions on universal health care - Obama's current pet program. Yup. That'll fix the little red wagon of government runnin' out of money.
As Rahm Emanuel recently proclaimed, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Obama is a great student. Use our current generation gagging deficits as an excuse to further shackle these future generations with even greater deficits spent on health care. NOW I understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)