Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » She’s an Empathetic, Far-Left, Gun-Banning Racist Who Hates White Men!

She’s an Empathetic, Far-Left, Gun-Banning Racist Who Hates White Men!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Boy, oh boy! This is more fun than poking a stick into an anthill! Obama's got the right idea, instead of using the carrot-and-stick method to lead the conservatives along with the rest of America by nominating Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice, he simply gave the conservatives the carrot and the stick, apparently with the full knowledge that the conservatives would throw the carrot away because they think it's poisoned and would proceed to beat themselves to death with the stick, all the while accusing the liberals of doing it to them!

And yep! That's precisely what the conservatives are doing! Br'er Obama gave Br'er Fox News a tar baby to beat up on, and the dividends will pay off for us liberals in every election for the coming generation thanks to the burgeoning Latino population. Yeah! Go-Rushboy-Go-Rushboy-Go! Whoo-Hoo!

Lemme see here – it's been said that she's been appointed only because of affirmative action, because she's Latina. Of course, the fact that she has more federal judicial experience and a wider range of overall experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past century can't have anything to do with it, right? Hmm.  A quick Google search shows that Karl Rove supported Bush appointee for SCOTUS, the oh-so-experienced-and-capable Harriet Miers. So did Pat Robertson, and Alberto Gonzales, Newt Gingrich – and Bush and Cheney, of course.

Then there's the complaint that a high degree of empathy shouldn't be considered in choosing a Supreme Court Justice. Here's something to consider: "One research study conducted by Richard Boyatzis of 2,000 supervisors, middle managers and executives at 12 different organizations revealed [Emotional Quotient] separated high performers from average ones in 14 of 16 competencies. An even larger multi-national study of 286 organizations demonstrated that over 80% of the general competencies that identify superior performance depend on high emotional intelligence more so than pure cognitive abilities."

Furthermore, it's known that the lower one's level of congitive empathy, the more likely one is to bully, to denigrate others, and eventually to commit crimes. The flip side of this fact is that the higher one's level of ability to 'know how the other guy feels', the less likely one is to commit crime. Now, do we really want someone on the highest court in the land who has a low level of empathy? Come to think of it, one must wonder about Alberto Gonzales' level of empathy.

"Judges make policy." Hey, does that mean we can get rid of Congress? No, Judge Sotomayor is right on this one, too! As the hated-by-conservatives Media Matters points out: "Moreover, Sotomayor's [statement that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made] is in line with federal appellate courts' "policy making" role as described by the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) and explained by numerous legal experts.

University of Texas-Austin law professor Frank B. Cross has similarly written that "[t]he circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system." Indeed, according to Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Sotomayor's remark "seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation." Adler has been honored by the Federalist Society, advised the Cato Supreme Court Review, and strongly supported the nominations of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito Jr.

In fact, if one looks at one of Dave Nalle's own references in his article decrying the selection of Judge Sotomayor, you can find this telling statement: "Sotomayor has been criticized by some conservatives for saying in a talk at Duke University that appeals court judges make policy, but her writings typically do not stray from the law."

It's also been said that Judge Sotomayor is (gasp) a racist because she once said she "hoped a wise Latina could arrive at a better conclusion than a white man [who had not lived the same life or shared the same experience]." Is this really a racist statement, or a statement of fact? Remember, it was an all-white-male court that ruled in Plessy v. Furgeson that it was lawful to arrest a mixed-race man (7/8 white, 1/8 black) for sitting in the all-white section of a train. Would a judge of a minority race have agreed with that decision?

Would a minority-race judge have sided with the Dred Scott decision? Or how about Yick Wo v. Hopkins wherein the Supreme Court let stand a California Supreme Court decision that allowed a San Francisco board of supervisors to drive out Chinese-run laundries?

Clearly, there is a need to have a Supreme Court that is heterogeneous, a mixture not only of gender (see Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. from just last year) but of race as well.

Conservatives will say that those times have passed, but have they? Really? If that were the case, then how could we have GOP congressmen whose statements are unquestioningly racist, and who are even now accusing Sotomayor of being racist? To wit: Former GOP congressman Tom Tancredo said that "Miami is a 'third world country' [because of the number of Latinos there]", criticized presidential candidates for “pandering” by participating in a Spanish-language debate, and accused immigrants of “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.”

Then there's Rush, who says that both Obama and Sotomayor are "reverse racists." Good ol' boy Rush is now a veritable bastion standing strong against racism, and maybe, just maybe this Dear Leader of the Republican Party could actually claim that the song "Barack the Magic Negro" that he liked to play on his radio show was not actually racist — unless one Googles his own statements like "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" and "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." and "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"(to an African American female caller). Yes, these comments were from the purported leader of the conservatives, Rush Limbaugh (and not that monument to tokenism named Michael Steele).

The conservatives on BC can deny it all they want, but the reality of the matter is that the GOP is far more attractive to, and supportive of, racists. Most of you know it, too, but none of you dare admit it. Sure, there are some among the Dems who are racist (especially three decades ago, as I can personally attest), but how many are elected officials? I mean, look at the new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee – Republican Jeff Sessions, who once called a white civil rights lawyer a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases.

Can we imagine Democratic support for such people? Hardly. But there's still plenty of support for racists inside the Republican party. I'll see it once more when I travel back to the Mississippi Delta next month.

In conclusion, then, I think it's obvious that Judge Sonia Sotomeyer's most notable achievement to date (except for ending the baseball strike) is by possibly marking the newest milestone on the Republican party's road to marginalization.

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Clavos

    Your reference and citation to the study showing that high achieving leader types have a high “Emotional Quotient” is irrelevant to the question of whether or not empathy has a place in the decision-making process of a judge who is expected (by both the participants and the Constitution) to be impartial.

    Tom Tancredo did not characterize Miami as “Third World” because there are a lot of Latinos here, he did so because, among its many other Third World attributes, Miami is the nation’s leader in Medicare fraud, in unlicensed medical and dental practitioners, one of the top cities in the availability of drugs on our streets, home of the nation’s most aggressive drivers, one of the lowest per capita incomes, high rate of school dropouts, etc.

  • Doug Hunter

    Agree with the thrust of the article. I said in my first comment that this was a brilliant pick that would cement democratic voters for decades to come. Using race and identity politics the left has managed to get an astounding 90+% of the black vote (amazing, you can’t get 90% of people to agree on anything)

    Nobody buys the usual leftist class hatred in this country, you guys now have an excellent end around with race.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    tried reading it, but couldn’t take all the bold

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I notice you didn’t address the link between low empathy and tendency towards unlawful conduct.

    As you can imagine, I tend to be an empathic individual. When I was on active duty, I was trusted by the officers and by my shipmates not because of my ability to empathize, but because of my ability to be strictly impartial.

    You see, the conservative talking point that high empathy automatically means a lack of impartiality is a FALSE argument – I’m living proof of that.

  • Clavos

    You see, the conservative talking point that high empathy automatically means a lack of impartiality is a FALSE argument – I’m living proof of that.

    Your assertion that you are living proof of your premise does not constitute proof.

  • Clavos

    I notice you didn’t address the link between low empathy and tendency towards unlawful conduct.

    Of course not, it has no bearing on the question of whether or not empathy is desirable in a judge.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos – by the same token, the presence of ‘empathy’ is NOT a sign of ‘lack of impartiality’.

    That’s simply a conservative talking point…and I think you know that.

  • Clavos

    Ours is a system governed by the rule of law. For such a system to be fair, it must be applied without bias of any kind, including empathy. When necessary, the baby must be split.

    A judge (especially a SCOTUS Justice) must rule only in accordance with the facts pertinent to the case and the law, without “empathy” or bias of any kind.

    Empathy is a form of bias, and bias has no place in the application of the law.

    That’s why Justice is depicted blindfolded.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Using race and identity politics the left has managed to get an astounding 90+% of the black vote (amazing, you can’t get 90% of people to agree on anything)

    Especially amazing when their policies are designed to consistently marginalize and exploit and degrade the ethnic groups on which they prey. Every vote cast by blacks or hispanics for Democrats is a vote against their self interest. Some of their community are beginning the realize this, but the 90% that you refer to continue to follow along like sheep, sacrificing opportunity for handouts and rights for privileges.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Empathy is a form of bias . . .”

    I find this somewhat problematic. One should think that “empathy” is one of the important elements which make up a healthy outlook on life, view/perspective.

    There must exist a viable contrast in order for “bias” (as a term in language) to have sufficient cash-value. Positing perfect sternness and impartiality doesn’t quite cut it because it’s untrue to life.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Good article and good point. Empathy is a necessary part of the human soul. Without it what are you going to turn into? a mass murder or a politician…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Empathy is a necessary part of the human soul.”

    Exactly. Which is why I’m having problem with Clavos’s characterization of it as “a form of bias” (see #10 above).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I like the way you put it – “a necessary part of the human soul.” Which brings on the corollary, the lack of it is a defect.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Clavos would not really split a baby now would he.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Thus Rush Limbaugh….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I should hope not. Neither was Solomon intent on splitting the baby. So I should hope that Clavos would take heed.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    On the 90% of the black vote…whose fault is it? Those terrible, terrible Dems? Or the conservatives who still support racists? Whatever you may think of our policies, you have no one but yourselves to blame for losing the minority votes.

    And one more thing – “conservatives” as a rule resist change…thus the descriptive ‘conservative’. The nation needed a great change when it came to Civil Rights…and who was it that resisted that change? Conservatives (of both parties, but mostly Republican).

    You have only yourselves to blame…and you dig the hole deeper every time your conservative cohorts give any credence to racists like Rush.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Actually, Clavos’s point still stands about the rule of law (except the “form of bias” bit). If aside from qualifications, character is also a criterion in the nomination process, then the empathy part should be implicit and therefore in no need of reiteration.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger – huh? Be patient with me – I’m a bit slow.

    Empathy is known to help in understanding not only ‘how people feel’, but also interpersonal issues – hence the type of empathy called “cognitive empathy”.

    Furthermore, those with high levels of cognitive empathy are less likely to break the law…less likely to be corrupt.

    Those facts – combined with the studies I referenced above – should be enough to indicate that the conservatives’ talking point is a false argument, that instead of being a hindrance to one’s impartiality, a high level of empathy would not only AID a judge in passing a proper judgment, but would ALSO help in ensuring that the judge would not be corrupt.

    A high level of empathy would be a definite PLUS for any judge.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    For Dave and Clavos –

    Wastin’ away again in Democraticville
    Lookin’ for my…lost minority vote
    Some people claim that there’s a liberal to blame,
    Now I think – hell, it could be our fault.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think it’s all covered between #10 and #16. I don’t see why you should have any beef with what I said.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    On a different subject, here’s an article on my last trip to the Philippines.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m aware of it, Glenn, just didn’t get to reading it yet. I will shortly.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “superior performance depend on high emotional intelligence more so than pure cognitive abilities.”

    Very good point, BTW. I would argue further in fact and say that maturity is essentially “emotional maturity,” that to think of maturity in other (say, just cognitive) terms is not to understand the concept.

    But my argument simply was that these qualities should be implicit in evaluating the nominee’s character.

  • zingzing

    dave: “Especially amazing when their policies are designed to consistently marginalize and exploit and degrade the ethnic groups on which they prey. Every vote cast by blacks or hispanics for Democrats is a vote against their self interest. Some of their community are beginning the realize this, but the 90% that you refer to continue to follow along like sheep, sacrificing opportunity for handouts and rights for privileges.”

    i’ve been making this point for a little while now, but i’m pretty amazed you guys continue to basically say that “minorities are stupid.” you posit that minorities only vote for dems out of ignorance, which is quite a position for a bunch of white men to take. could it be that you are wrong? or that you see things differently than other people, and therefore come to different conclusions?

    i think it’s this kind of attitude that has your party/position on the decline, and in your arrogance, you continue down your righteous path into the void. it’s time to put the brakes on this kind of thinking, look at where you are, and reverse your current direction, lest you leave us in a one-party country. that is something none of us wants.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Zing, to amplify your point, you’ve got to read Horace Mungin’s “The Phantom Culprit,” both on BC and my own website (last entry) which I reproduced there.

    It’s a chuck full of examples of how the racist policies in the South were instrumental in the poor white’s switching the party and voting against their own best interests.

  • Arch Conservative

    Gee Glenn I’m sure you were just as upset when the libs in Conress just a few short years ago tried to portray Alito as a racist, failed, and then mostly voted against him right?

    The fact is that the GOP is doing exactly what the Dems did to Bork, Alito, Thomad, and Roberts.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Cannonshop

    Does anyone know what her record of rulings looks like? I personally could care less about her politics, or her ethnicity, or even her gender, than about HOW she rules, what she writes in her rulings, and what her in-practice judicial inclinations are.

    Seriously, folks, I haven’t seen any sources talking about Sotomayer’s record on the bench, it’s just the left gushing about her skin colour and the right ranting about her political stances.

    It’s a Judicial Appointment, not a glamour-contest like the Presidency has become.

  • Arch Conservative

    Well one thing we know is that 60% of the decisions that Sotomayor has ruled on that have gone onto the Supreme Court have been overturned.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Re comments #28 and 29, by Cannonshop and Arch:

    Please see my comment #1 here about the “60% argument;” that argument is meaningless, as persuasively demonstrated by the linked article.

    My article to which I appended comment #1 deals with some of the Second Circuit decisions of concern in which Judge Sotomayor participated. Please see also my article here, dealing with other Second Circuit decisions in which she participated.

    As explained elsewhere, I hate to see my brother conservatives making arguments which lack any sound basis. This is what the conservative author of the article linked in my comment #1, above, said about the 60% argument:

    unless there is more to the story, conservatives should stop citing the 60 percent figure as evidence of any lack of competence on Sotomayor’s part.

    Throwing mud indiscriminately and reflexively against the wall in the hope that some of it may stick does little good and merely gets the hands of the thrower dirty. If we have something worth throwing, we should by all means throw it. Otherwise, we should not emulate those who did that in opposing Republican nominees. That merely justifies their unseemly actions.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Arch Conservative

    Well Dan, my whole take on the thing is that, in politics, as with pretty much everything in life, one must pick one’s battles carefully.

    In the grand scheme of things this is not a battle the GOP should even attempt to fight and waste political capital on.

    They should focus more on the radical left’s attempt, led by King Barry, to ruin this nation by spending it into oblivion.

  • Cannonshop

    #31 An effort begun under WHOSE administration?

    (Drumrollllllll)

    George…W….Bush.

  • Clavos

    Cannon #31,

    True, but Obama’s contributions in that arena make Bush’s spending pale by comparison.

    There’s another point, also: When Bush was doing his spending, the nation was not in a severe recession (and, before you jump, I’ll stipulate to the probability that Bush’s spending helped bring on same), while Obama is spending during a recession, with the certain outcome of not only plunging the nation into a staggering level of debt, but also with the near certainty of bringing on severe inflation (because, to finance his spending he must print more money, and has already begun to do so).

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, where did I say that minorities are stupid? That’s your interpretation, not mine. I said that minorities are misled. That’s not at all the same thing. Being fooled by people who have lied to you for generations and bribe you with things you think you want is being humanly gullible and perhaps somewhat greedy, not stupid. Many other groups are just as vulnerable to the politics of division and hate which the Democrats use, particularly working class white folks. It has nothing to do with race or stupidity and everything to do with exploitation and deception.

    When one party comes to you and says “we will do X, Y and Z” for you and the other party comes to you and says “we won’t stand in the way of you doing stuff for yourself” it’s not surprising that a lot of people find the first message more appealing, even if they really shouldn’t. Even moreso when the media and your own community leaders are helping to market the first party’s message and denigrate the second party.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    so you figured it all out for them, right dave? they’re “gullible” and “greedy?” and you’re not? well, i’m glad you’re bright enough to vote for the good ol’ gop. “misled” is a pretty funny word. could mean “too dumb to know better,” if you put “easily” on the front of it. and obviously, with over half of the country voting dem, that’s pretty easy to say in america.

    you, and many other republicans constantly posit that the dems are racists and that minorities are being racially manipulated. yet, they vote in droves to be manipulated? why, dave? oh, it’s gullibility and greed. sounds exactly like what i said… maybe even worse. you even know all the reasons for their stupidity.

    and if your first sentence of your first paragraph is your idea of politics, then you’ve got horrible tunnel vision. there’s so much more to it than that. and people care about that stuff as well as your precious taxes.

    and it’s not just the media and community leaders that denigrate the republican party, it’s pretty much the rest of the world as well. forgot about them, right?

    realize what i’m saying to you. i’m not saying you think minorities are dumb. i’m saying that you are wrong about dems. the dems subscribed to a different political philosophy than you do, and lots of america (and a large chunk of the rest of the world) agrees with that philosophy. you can think we’re all dumb if you want to, but it doesn’t make you look any better.

  • Clavos

    the dems subscribed to a different political philosophy than you do, and lots of america (and a large chunk of the rest of the world) agrees with that philosophy.

    Depnds on how one defines “large chunk.” In this instance it empirically means about one in 4 (25%) of registered voters, according to the November 2008 election results.

    According to Pew Research:

    In more than 7,000 interviews conducted in the first four months of 2009, 37% of Americans describe themselves as politically conservative – roughly double the number who say they are liberal (19%). This ratio has remained largely stable over the past nine years, even while the balance of party affiliation has changed substantially.

  • zingzing

    “large chunk” referred to the “rest of the world,” not america, but i guess that it must be said that the rest of the world is even more left than the american democratic party. but at least we’re leaning in that direction, at least as compared to the republicans, the right wing, etc.

    the right wing of american politics is very, very far right compared to a majority of the voting public, worldwide. that’s why the world celebrated so much when bush left office (and obama entered).

  • Clavos

    “large chunk” referred to the “rest of the world,” not america…

    OK.

    Since “the rest of the world” does not vote in our elections, where they stand on the political spectrum is of only marginal importance to the question at hand.

    You also said,

    lots of america (and a large chunk of the rest of the world) agrees with that philosophy.

    Of course, “lots of america” is not an empirical measure, but a ratio of 2 to 1 among respondents to the poll self identifying as conservative vs liberal — hardly qualifies as “lots of america.”

  • Arch Conservative

    The world celebrated because Obama is good for them not good for America.

  • zingzing

    clavos, you and i both know who won the last elections. i’d say it’s a good bet that “a good chunk,” meaning more than 25% of the voters, voted dem. are you bringing up some sort of “silent majority?”

    you’re right, the question at hand was about minority voting patterns in the united states. but, i also pointed out to dave that he disagrees with the political philosophy that minorities subscribe to. that philosophy that dave disagrees with is to the left of himself. and so i went on to make a point that a “large chunk” of this world disagrees with him on that level. by extension, one might figure out that i’m saying a lot of the world takes a dim view of him. but i didn’t think it needed to be so explicit.

    archie, you must have figured out that i actually care about the rest of the world, rather than wanting to bomb it. of course an american president who isn’t going to gung-ho fuck up your country on a whim is a good thing. i think the world gave us a big pat on the back and said, “wow, you aren’t as dumb as you seem.”

  • zingzing

    good chunk, large chunk, whatever.

  • Clavos

    OK, zing, my figure is based on the percentage of all Americans who voted for Obama:

    In 2008, the total US population was estimated at 307.2M Americans, which means that Obama got 22.6% of Americans to vote for him.

    Here, with source links, are hard numbers, rounded to the nearest 100K:

    In the 2008 election, Obama got 69.5M votes.

    In November 2008, there were 212.7M eligible voters.

    And 184.7M registered voters.

    Which means that Obama got only 32.7% of the eligible voters and 37.6% of the registered voters.

    Either way, not a “large chunk” of the voters.

  • SJ

    Glenn, it’s clear that when you use the term “tar baby” that you are not using it in a racist way, but in the way that is described in the fairy tale with the Br’er patch and the rabbit, fox and bear. That being said, I would just as soon not see that phrase used anymore, especially in political discussions.

    The phrase also is frequently used as a racial slur.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Explanation from Toni Morrison’s novel:

    “Tar Baby is also a name […] that white people call black children, black girls, as I recall.
    At one time, a tar pit was a holy place, at least an important place, because tar was used to build things.
    It held together things like Moses’ little boat and the pyramids.
    For me, the tar baby came to mean the black woman who can hold things together.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ,

    I think Glenn’s use here was idiomatic; and very poignant, I should say, given the context. It makes the point that ought to be made.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    SJ –

    Okay, point taken – I think the use of ‘tar baby’ was not truly inappropriate…but you are right. Using a term that can easily be seen as racist (just like ‘uppity’), no matter how appropriate for the subject at hand, does cast the writer in an unfavorable light, and rightfully so.

    I will not make this mistake again, and thank you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    The world celebrated because Obama is good for them not good for America.

    I know this is a bitter pill for you to swallow…but what is good for all the world IS good for America. There’s an old Chinese saying: “A rising tide floats all boats.”

  • Clavos

    As an expert on boats, I’m compelled to note that the expression is “A rising tide lifts all boats (all tides float all boats).

    As a half Irishman, I’m also compelled to note that, as so many of the best sayings in the English language are, this one is attributed to a pair of Irishmen: Seán Lemass, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) in 1959–1966.[1] [2] Lemass himself attributed the phrase to John F. Kennedy.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Either way, not a “large chunk” of the voters.”

    you forget that out of the people that ACTUALLY VOTE, he got enough to win in a landslide. you can bring up all the eligible voters (old people who can’t walk, drunken bums living in subway tunnels, 18-year-olds who don’t know what a chad is, people who live on boats in the gulf of mexico, invalids who have no idea what year it is, insane people without fingernails, people who work on tuesdays) you want, but a majority of people who ACTUALLY VOTE voted for obama. so there you go.

  • zingzing

    and remember that even less of your general population voted for your side.

  • Clavos

    Twist it any way you want, it was still not a “large chunk.” My point being that those who did vote for him, while a majority of those who voted, were still a minority of Americans.

  • zingzing

    what the fuck, clavos? how else are you going to measure it? how do those who don’t vote vote? it’s like you’re saying that the 50% of americans who don’t vote vote republican or something.

    spin it anyway you like, he/we still won by a landslide, and we took over congress as well. what does that say to you?

  • Clavos

    That a majority of Americans didn’t vote for him, zing; nothing more.

  • Clavos

    Or alternatively, 69 million people voted for him; 238 million did not.

    Winning 53% of the popular vote is hardly a landslide.

    List of US landslide election wins.

  • zingzing

    so how do those who don’t vote vote?

    sure, 238 million people didn’t vote for him, but they didn’t vote at all. there’s something fucked up in your logic. are you purposefully not seeing this? how else do you measure how people vote, other than counting votes?

    i understand your point, but you are willfully ignoring mine. maybe you just don’t want to admit to yourself that conservatism is on the decline… may you live to see the rest of your generation die, watching as my generation sweeps you under the rug like some hilarious mistake.

    bush lost the popular vote, yet still won. obama cleaned up, handily. it was over 2 hours after the polls closed. (well, it was over when the polls closed, but still.)

  • Clavos

    maybe you just don’t want to admit to yourself that conservatism is on the decline

    “conservatism is on the decline,” huh?

    From a report published May 21, 2009 by Pew Research:

    In more than 7,000 interviews conducted in the first four months of 2009, 37% of Americans describe themselves as politically conservative – roughly double the number who say they are liberal (19%). This ratio has remained largely stable over the past nine years, even while the balance of party affiliation has changed substantially.

    Keep whistling past the graveyard, zing.

  • zingzing

    do you find those numbers comforting?

    in 50 years, do you think this country will be more liberal than it is now? do you think it’s more liberal than it was 50 years ago?

    in 50 years, i’ll be comparatively conservative compared to the rest of society. and i’m happy about that fact.

  • Bliffle

    “A rising tide lifts all boats (all tides float all boats).”

    Except the ones anchored to the bottom, which will sink, drowning all on board.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ain’ that the truth.

  • Clavos

    Except the ones anchored to the bottom, which will sink, drowning all on board.

    Stick to something you know about, bliff.

    All anchored boats “anchor to the bottom.”

  • Bliffle

    I dislike analogies, similes and metaphors because they are simply contrived debating tricks. But I don’t mind puncturing the obviously flawed ones.

    The original point had nothing to do with boats, whether floating or anchored.

    As for the reference to “tar baby”, my recollection is that the tar baby was something that you couldn’t let go of or get rid of: it stuck to you with the adhesive of the tar.

    So, do you see how many wrong paths analogies can lead one down?

    It’s simpler just to address the original point.

  • Bliffle

    And another thing:

    “All anchored boats “anchor to the bottom.””

    As I recall from a few sailing courses I took many years ago, there is such a thing as a “sea anchor”, IIRC, that consists of a sort of shroud that one deploys in deep seas (where one cannot possibly have enough anchor chain to reach bottom) that merely ‘anchors’ one against the sea to reduce drift caused by wind and current.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    To continue the side-track I think it’s debatable that anchored boats will sink when the tide rises. Boats are very boyant. It’s far more likely that the anchor will be pulled loose or that the mount for the anchor will break. Plus anchors chains usually aren’t taught and have some extra length played out, so unless the tide is unusually dramatic — like in a tidal pool or narrow channel it probably wouldn’t lift the boat enough to risk sinking it. Consider that boats stay anchored in harbors for days at a time through high and low tides without being sunk.

    dave

  • Clavos

    Bingo, Dave. In order to stay anchored (and not “drag” or pull it out), you must put out scope (extra length of anchor line). Under normal circumstances the necessary scope is approximately 5 times the depth of the water. And yes, if you had no scope out, the anchor would pull out long before the boat was pulled under.

  • Clavos

    bliffle,

    A boat with a sea anchor deployed is not anchored. The purpose of the sea anchor is merely to keep the boat’s bow (or stern, depending on how it’s deployed) into the wind and waves in order to avoid broaching. The boat continues to drift with the force of wind ans wave, albeit at a slower pace.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Now that we’ve got the mechanics right, we can use the metaphor to our hearts’ delight.

  • zingzing

    that was like watching some OCD guy clean a kitchen. fascinating, yet kind of sad. or maybe the other way around. i mean really… anchors…

  • Clavos

    @67:

    It’s OK, zing.

    As you’ve repeatedly pointed out in the past, your only real motivation in life is your puerile obsession with pussy.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I dislike analogies, similes and metaphors…

    Oh well, my heart is broken, in that these are some of my favorite things. Still, the dissection was instructive and I’ll have try to never turn my back on a metaphor again.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger, that is hilarious #66. I think you are a natural at humor.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Cindy, I want to sign into your blog without street address so that I can read your writings is that possible?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hi Jeannie,

    We were like two ships passing in the night in the thread yesterday.

    I think we should encourage Roger’s sense of humor. For some reason, he has been keeping it under wraps. It reminds me of my Italian grandma. She kept her small number of beautiful linens in a hope chest. She never even got to use them.

    Anyway, I am out the door into the sunshine. :-)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    OK BYE :) scan time

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks, Cindy. I have my moments.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “As you’ve repeatedly pointed out in the past, your only real motivation in life is your puerile obsession with pussy.”

    what? i’ve never said any such thing. i think you’ve got me confused with someone. wouldn’t mind a little taste though, now that you mention it.

  • Clavos

    what? i’ve never said any such thing. i think you’ve got me confused with someone. wouldn’t mind a little taste though, now that you mention it.

    QED

  • zingzing

    ab uno disce omnes?

  • http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420 FirmMarci

    Glenn
    I believe that the constitution be upheld completely by a Supreme Court Justice.
    If empathy is to play a part then I want to be sure exactly what a nominee is emphatic about. As in Judge Sotomayor’s case, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
    Three weeks ago the American Bar Association wesite stated that “Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR” (La Raza), which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
    Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
    My point being, empathy may be good but only if your interests completely lie with the country you are a member of.
    Another thing I must point out is that the “American Bar Association” page did state 3 weeks ago that Sotomayor
    was a member of LaRaze, but since I last looked it has been scrubbed, which is a typical method of our new government. Scrub all the damming evidence off of websites before whats left of our media find it.