I'm still thinking and aggravated by the Sotomayor hearings. All those wingnut Republicans worrying about whether she is a "racist" because she thinks a "wise Latina" can add something to the country's judicial discourse.
And this comes from many in that crowd who were racist themselves long time ago. Hey Jeff Sessions, still think white lawyers are a disgrace to their race for having black clients? Some of these people are influenced by the space cadets over at "C" Street (see Rachel Maddow's shows of the week of July 13th in particular for details) who think that if one of them has been elected to Congress and a position of leadership, it's because God wanted them there and they can do whatever they want. The voters apparently had little to do with it.
The rules the rest of us follow don't apply to them.
Sen. Tom Coburn is one of them. He's been advising John Ensign and the other famous Republican adulterer, Mark Sanborn.
Sen. Coburn, in talking to Sotomayor, responded to something she said with "You got some 'splainin' to do." Quoting Ricky Ricardo of "I Love Lucy" fame. Apparently he doesn't realize there is a difference between a Puerto Rican and a Cuban.
This is typical of the level of ignorance of these people. Anything that falls out of the purview of the Powerful White Male is just incomprehensible to them. They can't figure out why they are being picked on.
"It's discrimination!" they shout. Excuse me. White males controlling finances, wars goods and services—at the expense of everyone else in the country, including other white males who are just trying to make a living but who don't have the power or connections—they are feeling picked on? And they try to make this a rallying cry for white males everywhere.
This unemployed white male ain't buying it.
Really, the middle and lower class white male is just another minority to be used as far as these Powerful White Males are concerned. Those industrialists, senators, bankers etc. They don't really give a sh!te about me or any other person, white, black, male , female, other who isn't part of their privileged world.
I hope Sotomayor kicks ass when she's on the Supreme Court.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Senate on Parade
So the so -called Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings are in progress. I say so-called because it seems so far that most of the procedure is to allow Senators the opportunity to ramble on, possibly (or probably) make fools of themselves, to let them show their constituents what they believe, and, incidentally, confirm a new Supreme Court justice.
Rachel Maddow said it was looking like the Jeff Sessions show. Ol' Jeff is a treat. he is really concerned that Sotomayor is a "racist." This from a guy who was denied a judicial appointment years ago because he said a white lawyer was a "disgrace to his race" for having black clients. Also, he was accused of calling a black lawyer "boy." You can see why racism is a particular concern of his. He wants to restrict it to white men, apparently.
Now, yours truly hasn't been watching the whole hearings. They pay people to suffer through these things, nobody pays me. I see the clips and hear the comments, no doubt slanted according to the presenter's racial or social background. Some of them may even be "wise Latina women." God I hope so.
It's almost alarming how foolish the Republicans are looking. I say "almost alarming" because lately it's just a given that Republicans will look foolish. In the absence of anything substantive to criticize Sotomayor over, the Repubes are grabbing onto any statement anywhere that she might have said, in the hope that in her off-the-cuff statements there might be gold. Gold for them to use to deny her a seat on the Court.
So they rattle on about the "wise Latina woman thing" and wonder if her "life experiences" will influence her decisions on the court (no one seems to have gone thru her 17 years of decisions as an appellate court justice to see if there is any evidence of this.) You know, I don't recall if the Repubes were concerned about John Robert's life experiences having an influence on his decisions. I suspect not.
I have had a running joke, a stupid running joke (not that that has ever stopped me) about calling Republicans "Repubicans." Drop the "L" and one has a reference to our "nether regions" as they might have once been called. That's basically where the republicans do their thinking, it seems. Certainly John Ensign and Mark Sanford have exposed the factual underpinnings of my little wordplay.
That's all for now.
Rachel Maddow said it was looking like the Jeff Sessions show. Ol' Jeff is a treat. he is really concerned that Sotomayor is a "racist." This from a guy who was denied a judicial appointment years ago because he said a white lawyer was a "disgrace to his race" for having black clients. Also, he was accused of calling a black lawyer "boy." You can see why racism is a particular concern of his. He wants to restrict it to white men, apparently.
Now, yours truly hasn't been watching the whole hearings. They pay people to suffer through these things, nobody pays me. I see the clips and hear the comments, no doubt slanted according to the presenter's racial or social background. Some of them may even be "wise Latina women." God I hope so.
It's almost alarming how foolish the Republicans are looking. I say "almost alarming" because lately it's just a given that Republicans will look foolish. In the absence of anything substantive to criticize Sotomayor over, the Repubes are grabbing onto any statement anywhere that she might have said, in the hope that in her off-the-cuff statements there might be gold. Gold for them to use to deny her a seat on the Court.
So they rattle on about the "wise Latina woman thing" and wonder if her "life experiences" will influence her decisions on the court (no one seems to have gone thru her 17 years of decisions as an appellate court justice to see if there is any evidence of this.) You know, I don't recall if the Repubes were concerned about John Robert's life experiences having an influence on his decisions. I suspect not.
I have had a running joke, a stupid running joke (not that that has ever stopped me) about calling Republicans "Repubicans." Drop the "L" and one has a reference to our "nether regions" as they might have once been called. That's basically where the republicans do their thinking, it seems. Certainly John Ensign and Mark Sanford have exposed the factual underpinnings of my little wordplay.
That's all for now.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Various Irks
Hmm. Seven Democrats from the House Intelligence Committee (there's an oxymoron for you) wrote a letter accusing Leon Panetta of lying when he said the CIA doesn't mislead Congress.
On the one hand, if true, this should be pursued and steps taken to punish people appropriately, even tho this letter-writing smacks of politics as much as it does moral outrage.
On the other hand—what? Are these guys surprised? Of course the CIA lied. It's part of their job. It's no surprise that once you encourage lies, cover-up and deception in one area, like foreign entanglements, that behavior slips over into other areas, like reporting truthfully to those who theoretically are monitoring the behavior.
A practice performed often enough becomes a habit, and the habit becomes hard to break.
Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Iraq war veteran, has started a movement in Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I saw him on yesterday's Rachel Maddow show
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31808171) and he was quite impressive. He's fairly conservative and straight, if that matters, and he's determined to get this passed. He made a good case for Obama NOT making an executive order to stop "Don't Ask", saying Congress passed the law and it was the responsibility of Congress to repeal it.
He also said that when you're patrolling an Iraqi street, you don't care about the people with you being straight or gay. You care about if they can shoot their weapons and act accordingly under fire.
Even tho he wants Congress, not Obama, to put a stop to "Don't ask," I still wish that Obama would say more than just he'd sign the bill if it came to his desk. I'd like to hear him being more forceful in speaking to Congress and the nation about it.
And what's with the continuation of Bush policies around secrecy? Transparent government? Only in selected areas it seems. Most be some kind of virus or mold there in the White house that causes Presidents to turn away from openness to secrecy. Yeah, you need some, but it seems like President Obama is being more like George Bush and less like Candidate Obama around this issue.
And don't let me get started on Guantanamo and military commissions to judge prisoners there.
There is a pertinent and thoughtful article by Jennifer Pozner on the NPR site about Sarah Palin and how the media treats her.
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106384060)
She's referring to the comments relating to her femaleness, not ethics or politics. All the talk about clothes, her attractiveness, is she going thru post-partum depression, yadda yadda. The usual guy talk about an "uppity" woman.
And there were and are so many substantive political issues one could go after her about. Of course that would be treating her (giving her the same respect) like a man.
I think I'm a little sorry about this resignation. I think her tenure in office would not have helped her political aspirations, and been a further drag on Republican efforts to regain the White House.
Now she's free from the possibility of doing a bad job as governor. Her quitting in itself will be an issue, of course, but she does learn a little from mistakes. No more posing in front of the turkey slaughter. Now she's in waders and going fishing, and looking competent and pretty much "one-of us"ish. Even I was thinking yeah I'd like to be there too. But then maybe that was my love of fishing clouding my judgement.
Positive images. If she can keep that up for another three years…
Nah. She'd still lose.
I'm outa here, bye.
On the one hand, if true, this should be pursued and steps taken to punish people appropriately, even tho this letter-writing smacks of politics as much as it does moral outrage.
On the other hand—what? Are these guys surprised? Of course the CIA lied. It's part of their job. It's no surprise that once you encourage lies, cover-up and deception in one area, like foreign entanglements, that behavior slips over into other areas, like reporting truthfully to those who theoretically are monitoring the behavior.
A practice performed often enough becomes a habit, and the habit becomes hard to break.
Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Iraq war veteran, has started a movement in Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I saw him on yesterday's Rachel Maddow show
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31808171) and he was quite impressive. He's fairly conservative and straight, if that matters, and he's determined to get this passed. He made a good case for Obama NOT making an executive order to stop "Don't Ask", saying Congress passed the law and it was the responsibility of Congress to repeal it.
He also said that when you're patrolling an Iraqi street, you don't care about the people with you being straight or gay. You care about if they can shoot their weapons and act accordingly under fire.
Even tho he wants Congress, not Obama, to put a stop to "Don't ask," I still wish that Obama would say more than just he'd sign the bill if it came to his desk. I'd like to hear him being more forceful in speaking to Congress and the nation about it.
And what's with the continuation of Bush policies around secrecy? Transparent government? Only in selected areas it seems. Most be some kind of virus or mold there in the White house that causes Presidents to turn away from openness to secrecy. Yeah, you need some, but it seems like President Obama is being more like George Bush and less like Candidate Obama around this issue.
And don't let me get started on Guantanamo and military commissions to judge prisoners there.
There is a pertinent and thoughtful article by Jennifer Pozner on the NPR site about Sarah Palin and how the media treats her.
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106384060)
She's referring to the comments relating to her femaleness, not ethics or politics. All the talk about clothes, her attractiveness, is she going thru post-partum depression, yadda yadda. The usual guy talk about an "uppity" woman.
And there were and are so many substantive political issues one could go after her about. Of course that would be treating her (giving her the same respect) like a man.
I think I'm a little sorry about this resignation. I think her tenure in office would not have helped her political aspirations, and been a further drag on Republican efforts to regain the White House.
Now she's free from the possibility of doing a bad job as governor. Her quitting in itself will be an issue, of course, but she does learn a little from mistakes. No more posing in front of the turkey slaughter. Now she's in waders and going fishing, and looking competent and pretty much "one-of us"ish. Even I was thinking yeah I'd like to be there too. But then maybe that was my love of fishing clouding my judgement.
Positive images. If she can keep that up for another three years…
Nah. She'd still lose.
I'm outa here, bye.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The madness continues
Gov. Mark Sanford now has the distinction of adding a new phrase to the American language. "Hiking in Appalachia" in now officially a synonym for cheating on one's spouse, according to the Urban Dictionary.
His original embarrassing news conference was bad enough, but then he went on to do more interviews (WHAT is that man smoking?) and talked about his "soul mate" and the "love story."
Too often a guy gets a stirring in his crotch and thinks its a stirring in his heart.
I spared myself listening to the whole thing. Just the excerpts were bad enough. The man is having a serious mental crisis.
His wife is looking good. She's not having anything to do with the usual "wife standing by philandering politician husband" routine. Didn't see her at the news conference. She had the guts to throw the bum out even before he went "to Appalachia." She's standing on her beliefs. The Repubs ought to look to her for their standard-bearer in 2012. She's got to be better than the other female possibility. You know who I mean.
The other possibility, dear Sarah Palin, has decided to resign her governorship. What is she up to? all the pundits are wondering. Has she had it with the ridicule, and wants to just hang out with the family? Is she going to go around drumming up support for a presidential bid in 2012? If she really has presidential ambitions this doesn't look like a good way to realize them.
Perhaps she just wants to catch up on her reading of all those publications, you know, "all of them, any that were put in front of me." Then she could go back to Katie Couric and say "Newsweek! Time! Utne Reader!" (well, maybe not that one) and prove she really does read.
Maybe she's been "hiking in Appalachia" (or maybe Todd has) and wants to get out before the media firestorm hits. Or the strain of running for VP is finally getting to her. All that traveling with the sneers of the McCain operatives, the interviews, the 100,000 (or was it 300,000) dollar wardrobe (o Sarah, I still remember you in those boots—mmmm), the pressure.
Stay tuned.
In the meantime—HEY OBAMA— when are you going to end "don't ask, don't tell" already?
We're waaaiiiting.
His original embarrassing news conference was bad enough, but then he went on to do more interviews (WHAT is that man smoking?) and talked about his "soul mate" and the "love story."
Too often a guy gets a stirring in his crotch and thinks its a stirring in his heart.
I spared myself listening to the whole thing. Just the excerpts were bad enough. The man is having a serious mental crisis.
His wife is looking good. She's not having anything to do with the usual "wife standing by philandering politician husband" routine. Didn't see her at the news conference. She had the guts to throw the bum out even before he went "to Appalachia." She's standing on her beliefs. The Repubs ought to look to her for their standard-bearer in 2012. She's got to be better than the other female possibility. You know who I mean.
The other possibility, dear Sarah Palin, has decided to resign her governorship. What is she up to? all the pundits are wondering. Has she had it with the ridicule, and wants to just hang out with the family? Is she going to go around drumming up support for a presidential bid in 2012? If she really has presidential ambitions this doesn't look like a good way to realize them.
Perhaps she just wants to catch up on her reading of all those publications, you know, "all of them, any that were put in front of me." Then she could go back to Katie Couric and say "Newsweek! Time! Utne Reader!" (well, maybe not that one) and prove she really does read.
Maybe she's been "hiking in Appalachia" (or maybe Todd has) and wants to get out before the media firestorm hits. Or the strain of running for VP is finally getting to her. All that traveling with the sneers of the McCain operatives, the interviews, the 100,000 (or was it 300,000) dollar wardrobe (o Sarah, I still remember you in those boots—mmmm), the pressure.
Stay tuned.
In the meantime—HEY OBAMA— when are you going to end "don't ask, don't tell" already?
We're waaaiiiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
