Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Pat Buchanan...not so smart.

Pat Buchanan...
Aptly makes the case here, unintentionally of course, why minorities will for the most part continue to feel the Republican party is no place for them.

Choice quotes:

[the liberal media] archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described "affirmative action baby" from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin.

Pundits here gets hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a "wise Latina woman."

Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate's Hispanic vote.

[republican likely voters] are the folks whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back.

What they must do is expose Sotomayor, as they did not in the case of Ginsburg, as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males to the degree necessary to bring about an equality of rewards in society.

Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.

Yes...these are all quotes from the same article.

I will agree with the last statement, that Sotamayor's concept of justice is race-based. Why? Because her reality has been race-based! Is that so hard to see, or is it supposed to be that, once someone has overcome a lifetime of disadvantage and (yes) racism because of her race, she is then supposed to forget all that and see things "blindly"? This is not to say she should, or would "discriminate against white males" but only that her understanding of "justice," as experienced, is not nearly color blind.

Thursday, July 02, 2009


Post Ricci (well, even pre-Ricci), there seems to be a lot of discussion about race in America again. I should say, the discussion has been picked up by those who don't often discuss race in America. I don't have too much time to write, but it seems as though there is a consensus (at least amongst those who own magazines and are on Fox news) that America is now a color-blind and equal society throughout which the opportunities that are available to one are available to all--equally.

I wonder if we are willing to extend that belief to everything, or only when it appears to affect white men. Are we going to re-vamp public education? housing? banking? Maybe we'll take a look at incarceration and three-strikes laws...

To paraphrase the actual opinion:
[many a minority's] situation is "unfortunate" and... "understandably attract this Court’s sympathy." Post, at 1, 39. But "sympathy" is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

So yes, let's move forward and end discrimination based on race...everywhere we see it, not just when it affects white men.