Blogs and Stories
Why White Guys Are Doomed
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Sonia Sotomayor meets Tuesday with Harry Reid and a bunch of other senators who look, well...a lot like him. Former Ms. magazine editor Elaine Lafferty on how white guys lost their groove.
Quite soon, likely this week, Sonia Sotomayor will arrive on Capitol Hill, where she will be greeted by a gaggle of lawmakers. With some exceptions, nearly all of them will be white. Most will be men.
It must be said: These guys are doomed. Picture it for one solemn moment. All of these dark-suited white male politicians, with their crisp shirts and red coordinated ties, will be embarrassingly lacking the key critical appendage required in American politics today. Through elections and re-elections, grueling fundraising dinners and various travails required for elevation to the highest offices in the land, they thought they had it all! And until now, darn it, they did. They had what was needed to make it in America.
Here’s the good news for those doomed identity-less white guys. You actually do have an identity! You are in fact a minority in America. Embrace your status, file a brief, find your own voice.
But now, it’s not enough. These politicians are missing…an identity. As in “identity politics.”
OK, so here’s the issue, or so it seems based on the fevered response to a few sentences from Judge Sotomayor: If you happen to be a 54-year-old Hispanic woman from the Bronx, and if you happened to notice, somehow, that you are a 54-year-old Hispanic woman from the Bronx…and then if you imply, let’s say in an address to an academic audience, “Hey! I’m thinking I’m a 54-year-old Hispanic woman from the Bronx and that’s going to have something to do with how I look at the world…and oh, by the way, I’m thinking that may even give me a better perspective on the tapestry of global human experience than a rich white guy from Greenwich, Connecticut….”
Well, you have just entered the world of identity politics.
There appears, we’ll understate, to be concern among some conservatives—and I do emphasize some, because there’s a whole group of smart conservatives who are avoiding the trap—that Sonia Sotomayor’s so-called identity politics have compromised her legal judgments, and would continue to do so on the Supreme Court.
These criticisms fly in the face of common sense and the modern bipartisan call for political transparency. Back in the day, legal justice was colorblind, journalists were always objective, and American life was fair to all regardless of race, creed color, gender, etc. Except we know that wasn’t true. Who each of us is, our life experiences and backgrounds, always informs our worldview. (In my time as a news-magazine journalist, I knew I had a perspective, and, like many of my colleagues, I was honest about it. That meant we often counted paragraphs—five for that side, five for the other—to make sure we had been fair.)
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
The Woman Who Should Have Won Obama's Nobel
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Is Sotomayor Getting Palin-ed?
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Palin's Smart Move
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
"Because judges like Sonia Sotomayor, what with their identity and their empathy, who have spent a lifetime outside your members-only clubhouse, may be more willing to listen to you than you ever thought possible."
Ouch that got to hurt.
This user is no longer registered.
The details in the article you cite are incorrect. She attended a coed Catholic school in the Bronx that had a very diverse population. Her middle class neighborhood was CO-OP City in the Bronx where low to middle income families were afforded an opportunity of home ownership at below market rates. These are not member-only institutions.
"Why White Guys Are Doomed"
Does that include all the male white
men in the columnist's family?
When a liberal judge has a "Life Story" the media
is all over it like flies on stuff.
Latino Judge Miguel Estrada was nominated,
and he had a great "Life Story,"
but he took all kinds of grief because he was a conservative.
OH PLEEEEASE, no latina spends the majority of her life inside the 'members only' club unless her mother was the cook or cleaning lady and she got to visit---get real---she worked her way up and worked damn hard--a lot harder than her white male counterparts plodding down the same road---you can bet on it.
Right on sophia!!
When the left media is voting for someone they want it, it's a whole new ballgame.. but not for long - fortunately! Obama has been screwing up big time w his Chicago antics of bullying media, bankers and now Bond holders of GM.
God, is this site in the sh-tter! Almost no original content, videos and editorial from other sites. It makes me pine for the halcyon days of C. Buckley flogging his "my parents are both dead" maga-blockbuster book.
"Well, you have just entered the world of identity politics."
Tapestry of.. global.. human.. experience? What's that even mean?
Sounds more like the world of bullshit politics. The same one we've been in for years, it just has a new packaging.
You really don't understand what that means?
This user is no longer registered.
Too late. I got worked up. Sometimes it's easy to confuse satire for that which it is intended to mock. Like the relationship between the older Bond movies and the Austin Powers movies.
I am a "white guy" in his early forties who feels much closer to Obama and Stomayor than Reid or Cantor.
I am not going to be defined by the color of my skin, or the fact I happen to have a penis rather than a vagina.
Your maternalism is just a mirror of 19th century paternalism. Keep it.
BRAVO MURRAY---your mother obviously raised you right...kudos to her and you
Amen Brother!
Just remember one thing: it was "white guys" that made this all possible. You (I mean people who take their identity from an aggrieved status) can wallow in identity politics, or continue the wonderful tradition that these white guys started.
Yes the "white guys" made this all possible by "befriending" and betraying native americans and using african slave labor. You can't brush over history brother.
Easy there neverlate. You're on the cusp of showing a little historical idiocy. "White guys", as you put it, made this all possible through slavery, disentitlement and various other forms of oppression in this country. Then, after they "corrected" these grievances, they worked really hard to make sure that those oppressed groups didn't really get the same basic rights (i.e. Jim Crow laws).
I don't blame all white men living today for this. That too would be idiocy. I only blame the ones who make the issue worse by not being cognizant of the history behind "the wonderful tradition that these white guys started".
Easy there bunx. It was African chiefs who sold their own people into slavery and it wasn't just whites buying. If you are blaming our founding fathers of slavery, you'd best read the constitution's Federalist Papers and see that they were against slavery and made the law that all men were created equal.
Sorry denalaurens, but those same Federalist Papers did not prohinit slavery nor did they say all men were created equal. All white male property owners (of which there weren't many) were created equal and had equal rights under the constitution.
As for African chiefs selling their people into slavery. You have to understand that the definition of slavery was different for them. Slavery to them was the same as taking on new members into your society. they may have been lower class in some ways (not all), but they were considered valued members of the group.
Don't worry. I'm not just spitting nonsense I haven't thought through or researched.
"All men are created equal" is not law, it is a principle stated in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't made a reality for many until generations after those words were written.
While it is true that Africans sold other Africans into slavery, it does not justify the level of inhumane brutality that was inflicted upon those *human beings* by their slave owners. It does not excuse the post-slavery Jim Crow era, or the treatment of African Americans in the military. Hundreds of years of unjust treatment was the responsibility of many parties.
white guys held the keys to the kingdom and look at how they trashed it...now it's time to clean up your messes which, by the way, non white guys and women of all color have been doing since you white guys first got the damn keys!
Oh pullease; clean up the mess like k.kilpatrick made in Detroit, or Marion Barry did in DC or the lady General did in Aby Graib or Ray Nagin in New Orleans????
What all the above black men have in common is the fact they are liberal, very liberal. There are wonderful, intelligent, principled black men and women but they are marginalized by the greater black community. Too bad; there contribution to society is important, significant and altogether ignored by the liberal media and the Plantation Party; (read Democratic Party). I don't think hispanics and asians are as bitter as liberal african-americans; they seem to be more inclined to be mainstream.
But it is true; if the world had to wait for somebody other than the euro-male to conquer and subdue the world we still be a tribal/clan society. What makes liberal minorities hate white men now is the exact thing drove white men to advance the european/western culture which has more positive than negative; if you are being honest about this issue.
and yes, yes, of course I know that there were lots of people of color exploring and moving about but what they left behind has not been quite enduring has the much-maligned evil white male.
As for women and their duplicity concerning white men; well I could write a book about their shortcomings (the female general in abu graib)n the larger arena of amerian culture but just suffice it to say I AM A FORMER FEMINIST!!
Now; give me your best shot.
All I hear is blame for the current state of our union. Who will stand up and improve our circumstances?
Murray Abraham and neverlate both have it right. I'm a white male whose best friends growing up were Mexican and African Americans. Yo Moose and Greg! I identify more with Obama than W. Slavery, Racism & Sexism's roots go back to Africa and Asia, not Europe. Read your history books. It's a mistake Europeans have made, one they were also the first civilization to correct. Way to go forefathers! Way to go too, with the printing press, Telephony, radio, TV, and the internet! Excellent ways to disperse info on how not to be a racist, sexist, misogynistic hater of white men ( and other minorites). I have no truck with anyone, whatever their color or gender are, who think they deserve more than anyother color or gender. Grow the Fk Up!
What? Seriously? "Wonderful tradition?" Unfortunately, I disagree with Bunx05 and will say name the idiocy of conservative revisionism. Why be so defensive? What exactly do you think this author is blaming the androcentricism of the western intellectual and cultural tradition for?
Nb: The sheer volatility of these posts is clearly shocking. I sincerely hope that this is not the depth of American bourgeoisie political discourse that my generation chooses to pursue. Seriously - by looking at the posts you'd think most of the 'contributors' are adolescents.
i really couldn't care less who gets on the court, they all seem to have some form of the "peaking through the blindfold disease." those are nine people i never get to vote on but they make law as sure as the tide ebbs and flows. looks like a black robed oligarchy to me. what was all that trash i heard about a representative republic back in the day?
They don't make law. They can, however, tell you what you can and cannot do under the law, specifically the Constitution. That was the way the forefathers set it up.
Really, if you waited on the American public to stop racial segregation do you think it would have ever happened? And don't tell me that it would have in the North. I'm from Chicago and lived through the civil rights movement, and the racial hatred up there was as intense, if not more, than in the South.
Integration occurred via an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Politicians would never have passed any law like that. Of course, this argument assumes you think Brown v Board of Education was correct. You do......don't you?
Sometimes you need people who have wisdom beyond what the populace can support.
IT seems to me that once you legitimize condescension and sarcasm towards any group based on race, religion or gender, you have to accept that they will be entitled to use it against you.
So, out of respect for the principle of collective acrimony that you promote here, I will discriminate today against women at work for no reason other than that, according to you, I should utilize my gender, religion or race for that purpose.
This is a petty view of life. If any Supreme Court nominee ever said they had a better perspective because they were male, white, Jewish or anything else, you'd be hysterical.
If Don Imus could be fired for a silly comment, Sotomayor can be rejected for a clearly racist show of bias not as a morning show clown host, but as a sitting federal judge.
Her comments are very serious, and yours are bigoted and mindless.
I cannot understand how many people are so lacking in grammar skills. The entire sentence rests upon the verb "hope." It is a subjunctive sentence. But people don't know English or any language, for that matter,
Totally off topic. If I wanted an english lesson I would find the appropriate blog. As far as this topic is concerned-Lets face it all of us human beings (7 billion, or so) think that we know what is best for everyone else and would gladly have all others bend to our will and do things our way because we know whats best for everyone else. Yeah right!!! As long as you are not forcing someone to do something against thir will, live and let live.
I blame it on email. It has corrupted a generation. And texting, it's even worse.
Hope is not a verb. Thank you, and goodbye :)
None of Judge Sotomayor's comments, that I have read, could be construed as sacastic or condescending. Don Imus was fired for calling an admirable basketball team "nappy-headed ho-s". There is no evidence that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Her comment about a "wise latina" when read in context shows she was talking about the aquisition of wisdom, not superiority. She was comparing a "wise" latina to an "unwise" white man, if anything she was making the argument that there is NO inherent superiority based on race. It is an honest awareness of reality that lays the foundation of wisdom.
As long as the societal default position remains that of white men, the argument that white men are"victims" of powerful minorities is ridiculous. To not see the disparity between the actual population and the make-up of those in power is a self-serving lie.
Actually, Imus' problem was directly related to his whiteness. He was trying to put on a "street" patois and offer a backhanded compliment. What was stupid was that he couldn't see how offensive his words were coming from "an old white man." By now we should all realize that our words will be filtered through many layers before they arrive at the cortex of our audience.
Give me a break. You are reading into her plain English statement your own prejuidices.
BTW, I don't believe that Sotomayor is a racist. She probably does believe in identity politics. But I do think if a white guy had said what she said, ther the Democrats would have pounced like, oh, I don't know, like white on rice? Remember how Judge Pickering was called a racist by John Kerry and other Demos? And the people who knew Pickering, including blacks, were astonished at those smears.
rsbsail-
"Give me a break. You are reading into her plain English statement your own prejuidices."
Are you suggesting that "plain English statements" don't require interpretation? Or that my interpretation is incorrect? How did you interpret Sotomayor's speech?
BasPos
Nice summation about Imus.
I like this sentence: By now we should all realize that our words will be filtered through many layers before they arrive at the cortex of our audience.
I can feel it percolating in my mind as I read it.
For that matter, a wise white man is better qualified than an unwise latina. But her words did not reflect your excuse of it. Is she saying that only she is wise enough to sit on the bench, being the only latina? No matter how you slice it, people must take what she said as she said it. As for legislating on the bench, which is a constitutional no-no, cause for impeachment, she made the remark that they know they shouldn't but that THEY DO legislate from time to time. Then she realized she was on tape and looked sheepish...deer caught in the headlights come to mind. Empathy has nothing to do with interpreting the constitution since it already provides rights and liberties. Otherwise, it WOULD be making laws on the bench. Her biggest obstacle, as with ALL Justices, is not just Congress, but THE PEOPLE, who own all of the government.
Yeah, but BasPos, you have to admit the Imus' neat little cowboys suits are really cool.
If a white male said it then how exactly would there be an issue of translation? There would simply not be nor could there be a dual interpretation issue.
If what she meant was that her perspective has more value because it is one that is underrepresented than how exactly would that translate to a view that is in the majority?
I do not think that we should punish someone for their personal interpretation, but simple logic would be appropriate
Good thing she's a catholic.
The problem with Obama choosing a 6th Catholic for the 9 member Supreme Court should be obvious to anyone who supports affirmative action and quotas.
You can't choose your age, race, gender, or sexual orientation but you can choose what religion you are.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that systematically abused and raped thousands of children in Ireland.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that actively campaigns to take away other people's rights.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization whose leader said (AIDS) "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that consistently interferes with governments around the world, especially in the United States by telling it's followers "that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion." (in effect telling their followers who to vote for).
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that is headed by a former member of the Luftwaffe AA battery of the Hitler Youth Corps.
Granted one member of a church is not responsible for the actions of the other members but what they are responsible for is giving legitimacy and money to an organization that not only committed the above actions but then covered them up (in some cases for decades).
It is this lack of responsibility and the acceptance of the illegal actions of their own church that makes this such a troubling issue.
And it speaks volumes to what these justices view the role of the church to be and how much they are willing to over look criminal actions in the quest for their own personal jesus.
1) In the U.S. Constitution, the following is written as part of Article VI:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Under that, it is illegal for a president to discriminate in his choice of Supreme Court Justice based on religion.
2) If you look at the backgrounds of the 5 current Catholics on the court, they are fairly different:
Alito--Not sure
Roberts--Czech on mother's side
Kennedy-Irish
Scalia--Italian
Thomas--African American
You can't get much more diverse than that.
Yeah, and besides, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon!
"You are in fact a minority in America. Embrace your status, file a brief, find your own voice." - it does not appear that Judge Sotomeyor agrees with you, as she denied a voice to the white fire fighters.
This was a worthless article.
agreed
This user is no longer registered.
Great comment, AiriqS. This is the most underreported aspect of Sotormyer's racism of all. I actually don't care about her wise Latina statement, I care about the case of the white firefighters, which was truly revealing.
Actually, the Fire Fighter case (as I cannot remember the actual case name) is just one case Sottomayor has judged. If you look at the whole of her record, she has sided against the "aggrieved" party in race-related cases (as she did with the fire fighters) almost 80% of the time. That should be a bigger flag for affirmative action supporters than race hawks.
"white guys" made it all possible; typical uneducated (racist?) American response. Ancient Arabia had universities and culture while "white Europeans" were still shitting in the woods. Oh, lets not forget China and Japan, and the Egyptians too. And even the Greeks and Romans were not "white guys", by the way Jesus was a person of color also. White guys have made a contribution and its been a good run and may last a little longer, but demographics point to a more subtle blend of color in the future. Deal with it.
True, and Arabs, the Chinese, and the Egyptians also invented slavery and the Arabs and Egyptians continue to use slaves, especially black slaves, to this day. Much of Asia continues to use female slaves in record-breaking numbers today as well. Funny how white guys get all the blame for slavery, though, isn't it?
Actually, the concept of slavery was completely different in those societies. For example, slaves in ancient Persia (and many other Middle Eastern and African Societies), slaves were educated, cared for and eventually released back into society as a productive member. There are even historical figures that rose from the ranks of being a slave to hold prominent political offices in the Ottoman empire.
So, the concept of slavery that we know and refer to was primarily a European thing. Sorry to rain on that parade.
Bunx05 - There is a certain amount of truth to what you're saying, in the sense that the ideal of slavery was different in the Middle East if the slavemaster in question was entirely faithful in following the Koran, but generally speaking that didn't much happen. Except for military slaves, who actually got a career out of it and in some cases rose to positions of great power, being a slave in the Middle East was extremely unpleasant.
I will admit a certain number were well cared for by their masters, and of course under Islam a slave who becomes a Muslim could no longer be held as a slave. Though they generally had to have permission to convert, and this was something granted to favored slaves.
I've read more about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the United States, this being closer to home, but I did manage to read Giles Milton's "White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves" as well as articles from other sources. For most of the Europeans taken as slaves it was not a good life.
You might find these links interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/islamic-slave-trade/
http://www.answering-islam.org/ReachOut/slavetrade.html
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery .htm
http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2001/04/05/segal/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_4.shtml
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa101101a.htm
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/arab-muslim-slave-trade.html
http://www.arabslavetrade.com/
They are a mix in terms of agendas. Between them there is a sense of the nature and the scale.
I'm not well read on slavery within sub-Saharan Africa, though the impression I got of it was that it was relatively benign and not unlike the sort of slavery that an Israelite slave experienced under an Israelite slavemaster. It only got ugly in Africa once certain African chiefs or tribes got into the retail slave selling business, catering to the Europeans looking for cheap and durable labor.
I know very little about Persia and China, outside of more current history.
whipmawhopma - Thanks for the links. They are very intersting with a lot of good information. I've read Milton's work too. My earlier statements are more about slavery within a race. When slaves were taken outside their race, in the past, I agree that it didn't always end well. The other thing to remember was that there was also a lot less generation upon generation slavery (i.e. children of the slaves are slaves by default themselves)
Sub-Saharan slavery was almost down right hospitable for slaves, but as you indicated: it all went to crap when warring chiefs started to sell their enemies.
This user is no longer registered.
I'm a black male, and I agree with almost all of your statement. People are completely different today than 30 years ago. Most white men today can't be held responsible for the sins of white men in the past.
Also, EVERYONE'S "world view" or "life story" is completely different. I don't believe Sottomayor or anyone else would agree that Jennifer Lopez would be a better judge than Justice Roberts because she's latina.
White people are not the only racists in America. There racists in every group (a lot of them are racists to people of their own race; which is just another piece of evidence that race is just a social construct and is different from society to society). I just don't think Sottomayor is a racist.
My dog would be a better justice than Roberts. At least she's color-blind and doesn't lie.
I believe the term was "informs", not decides. But other than that....
Dear BasPos:
You have struck the truest cord in this entire pathetic symphony. You however raise issues (grammer) that require knowledge not available on the retail level. Thank you and Good Day.
Why is the Daily Beast wasting our time with this article? It add not a whit of information or analysis. It's simply one of those pieces that reinforces what everyone already knows -- I expect better.
This user is no longer registered.
Come on! Ya'll need to lighten up! This article is hilarious. I was laughing out loud at the last paragraph.
"But here's the good news for those doomed identity-less white guys. You actually do have an identity! You are in fact a minority in America. Embrace your status, file a brief, find your own voice. Because judges like Sonia Sotomayor, what with their identity and their empathy, who have spent a lifetime outside your members-only clubhouse, may be more willing to listen to you than you ever thought possible."
Why are people so insecure? Diversity is a good thing. I'm a white male, and I prefer to have more then just "old white guys" on the court. A wide range of life experience brings a bigger range of human understanding to issues and American life. Unless you want our nation run by a super-computer with all it's cold logic... I'd like a court with as large a range of experience that it can get.
"Why are people so insecure? Diversity is a good thing. I'm a white male, and I prefer to have more then just "old white guys" on the court. A wide range of life experience brings a bigger range of human understanding to issues and American life. Unless you want our nation run by a super-computer with all it's cold logic... I'd like a court with as large a range of experience that it can get. "
I love your response. you get it. great post.
Who programs the super-computer? Besides, I've seen the Terminator movies. I know how it turns out.
Ditto.
What does Lafferty hope to achieve with this article? Is she trying to push the pendulum of inequality more off center? As a younger "white guy," I don't feel doomed. I'm saddled with debt after graduating summa cum laude in engineering, while some of my friends that I helped pass, who happen to be women and minorities, got full (or nearly full) rides, and still I don't feel doomed. Of all the people that I've met, I'd say the real minority were the people that thought that things like sex, race, sexual preference, etc, mattered. Equality is not propping up another race or gender above the rest, it's allowing them to succeed or fail just like anyone else.
That said, I agree with Judge Sotomayor's comment that her upbringing would lead her to "better" decisions than someone who grew up in a bubble, not exposed to hardship. I do think, however, that it's unfortunate that she brought race and gender into the issue because it's her experiences that she's touting, not her color or her extra X chromosome.
I'm hopeful that Judge, soon to be Justice, Sotomayor will serve her country well. She has my support.
This only argument only works based on the assumption that race or gender does not affect experiences.
I do not think that is true.
No joke. Of course. White guys have known that for years. Poor white guys in West Virginia applied for government jobs and saw at the bottom of the form, "If you are a white male, do not even bother to apply."
Sorry, this sounds like Reagan's "Welfare Queen." This sort of legend needs to be squelched.
I too was saddled with college debt, rose through the government ranks through my hard work. Lost my seniority when I was on maternity leave. Worked harder and got a promotion as a program director, only to be told by my white male boss that I was being paid less than the white guys that I supervised, because "how would they feel, having to work for a woman who already has a husband (a primary wage earner) make too much. I couldn't file a complaint because it was Republican politics and I would have lost my job and ended my career. I am a product of my experiences and every day, as I work in a male-dominated industry, I treat my white male peers fairly and I expect the same. Am I still paid less? What do you think? (yes, of course)
I am sorry to hear this. Your boss was\is a baffoon. You really should sue and plan on a career change. Otherwise it just goes on and on.
Again, ditto to whipmawhopma.
unfortunately, versions of your story can be told by lots of women----commonplace--it's the price we pay---or have paid--but maybe, just maybe, we've paid the last of it soon!
HubertB is a liar. I live in West Virginia and poor white guys didn't see that "white males need not apply" because in WV poor white guys can't read, anything they learn they pick up from Rush "pimple" limbow.
I have to agree with the Dems on this one, We white guys could do a lot worse than Sodomy-R
Hardly anything more valuable these days than a employed hetereosexual white male interested in having a serious relationship with women.
Feminism liberated men to really enjoy life which boils down to wearing loose shoes, tight pussy, and have a warm place to shit.
I am tired of seeing "peeking" written as "peaking" [as in thro' a blindfold]. Sorry, that's the limit of my current contribution [if it even qualifies for that title]
I don't know what all the fuss is about. So she is a female and a member of a minority group. Not the first though, There has been a member for some time who is female, a member of an ethnic minority and even a different religion. Ruth Ginsberg and there are fewer Jews than Hispanics in the U.S.A.
Elaine, thanks for lightening things up a bit!
The conservatives hate Sotomayor becuase she is....
Smart, self made, Female, Not pasty white, Not old School, did I say smart?.
Get over it, she will be confirmed.
muddog,you said it all,and 100% correct.Plus,to hear someone like a Rush Limbaugh,and instigater, entertainer,and slob,call her names. How inseure and how little he thinks of himself.Any seure person man or woman,an reognize this is an amazing person.What a wonderful world if all were on this level,of smartness, decency,accomplishments,degrees.etc
As a conservative, I don't see what's wrong about her. She's not nearly as bad as what Obama could have nominated.
My only worries are that she will rule based on empathy, rather than the law.
Empathy means you understand and respect the other's point of view, that's all. It doesn't mean you can't apply the law, but it does make you more likely to apply the law fairly, to factor out your own biases. Solomon, for example, was an empathetic judge, or else how would he have been able to see that a mother would rather give up her child than have it killed? Or was there a precedent and ruling that already covered that situation?
What an ignorant statement. Conservatives love Condi Rice who is all the above. They don't like Sotormyer because she is an identity politics judge. Plain and simple.
Mary, You're dead on. Sotomayer wish she was as smart as Condi. That would never happen, and Condi is less pasty white than Sotomayer.Let's not forget that obama is a half-white man. Should we say he is half-dumb?
Hold up. I'm a conservative female, white and Cherokee, lesbian, smart, self-made, not old-school, and not pasty white. So your description of conservatives are way off base. I have a problem with her sexist and racist remark and the fact she admitted that she and other judges sometimes make their own laws on the bench, a constitutional violation and impeachable offense. SHE is the one who injected race and sex into the frame, not the conservatives, who have a DUTY to sound any alarm, under the constitution, of even a hint of possible indescretions. If she thinks her race, sex and life experiences have anything to do with her duties, that alone disqualifies her. She would have to decide FOR an issue that she is personally AGAINST, otherwise she would enter into tyranny, casting her personal beliefs as law. THAT is illegal.
It should also be mentioned that there haven't been many GOP senators/representatives saying anything about Sotomayor's comments. They seem to be pretty happy with the pick, honestly.
"Conservative" commentators have been leading the lynch mob.
Dear Elaine,
Thanks. This doom article goes a long way towards explaining my ongoing existential crisis.
I think it also suggests why I don't particularly like "blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, Native Americans, and gays". It was identity-envy all along. Now I can let go of all that envy-based pseudo-distain, since I now qualify for an identity myself. Henceforth, I want to be referred as a European-American so I can embrace my identity-siblings.
I also think that this identity change will go a long way towards the ultimate goal of hyphenating all Americans into meaningless clumps useful for writers such as yourself to use in essentially bogus yet divisive articles, and will allow for the creation of new pointless blather were none existed before, as well as provide jobs for well qualified noise generators such as yourself.
Of course, I am shocked that you used the term "blacks" to represent African-Americans and "Asians" for Asian-Americans - unless you were referring to people in Japan, China, Vietnam and so forth. Were you deliberately naughty in not using the correct labels?
I think America is changing far faster than you are aware. Except for the political class, the talking heads and certain gene pools isolated from cable television most Americans don't give a crap that Sotomayor is female, Hispanic and whatever else you want to label her with. I suspect some women and some Hispanics are delighted, but that too will pass, once they are pissed off by a few of her rulings.
Nor does any one with a functional brain, again most Americans, give a crap about her Latina comment. The agenda drummers can bang away on that all they want, but it's pretty obvious it's a bunch of blah-blah-rah-rah based a one-time remark made by Sotomayor meant to be funny yet insightful for a particular audience. If the amazing Fred Barnes himself had been in that audience I would like to think that he would have laughed and enjoyed the moment. I know I would have, and not have been insulted at all - because what she said is true.
And by most Americans I mean teenagers, 20-somethings and 30-somethings. Maybe a good number of 40-somethings. And some 50-somethings. The occasional 60-something. I think a hundred years from now identity politics is going to be dead, with only the occasional loon attempting to drum it up. We've already been shifting in this direction in the past 15 or so years, and it's accelerating, building on its own critical mass.
As for the White Guys Only Club, the doors were smashed down sometime ago, as amply demonstrated by the election of Obama. Not because he was black but because his being black didn't mean squat for most people, and he was voted in simply because he was the smartest and most composed of the two guys running for office. And I think the club doors were unlocked much earlier and the sign thrown away.
Regards...
Not for nothing, but did you notice how Elaine couldn't bother to capitalize "blacks"? Just another example of the man (or in this case the woMAN keeping my people down). :c)
Sotormayor isn't a racist.
She's a La Raza-ist.
xxzzzzxxxxxxxxxxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Im sorry ,my computer letters got stuck.This xzxx was a mistake.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.