but then, we haven't yet formed operational criteria for deciding what questions must be asked, or whose opinion counts.

on a side note, thank you for helping me become more precise in my own understanding of what racism is. i still find your opinion incorrect, but i appreciate the challenge of exploring what it means objectively, not just by intuition. i still disagree with you, but i appreciate the understanding you've incited.

1. "I would hope that a black man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

2. "I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

3. "I would hope that a white woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life."

4. "I would hope that a white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Would you consider ANY of the afore statements to be racist??

Michale.....

that's just it, though. until you have empirical data to show a consensus, it's all just conjecture based on your own interpretation. i'll take the wager though, 1000 quatloos says you can't produce the data without skewing your sample. let's settle this by taking this into the realm of actual fact rather than assumption of fact.

The statement's only ambivalence comes from the fact that it was uttered by President Obama's SCOTUS nominee and your "more people than not" would be determined by what kind of people you ask..

I would wager (although I am not sure where to fairly put the question) that if you were to put the question to 1000 completely neutral people, the vast majority of them would say that the statement is racist...

Consider these 4 statements:

1. "I would hope that a black man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

2. "I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

3. "I would hope that a white woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life."

4. "I would hope that a white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Regardless of who says them or in what context, each of those statements would be considered by a normal person to be racist statements.

Michale.....

So, if Ghandi made a claim that "black people are lazy and worthless" then it would not be a racist comment because, of course, Ghandi would NEVER made a racist comment?

Is THAT the argument you are putting forth?

A racist statement is a racist statement is a racist statement. REGARDLESS of WHO is speaking it, HOW it was spoken or in what context it was spoken..

A racist statement is a racist statement is a racist statement.

Context or spin is completely irrelevant...

A racist statement is a racist statement is a racist statement.

The simple fact (which no one has argued) that ya'all would scream RACIST if a white Republican male had uttered a similar comment should be enough to convince any one of the bias of ya'alls argument...

Michale.....

you seem to think a statement can be defined as racist independently of the identity or intent of the speaker. if this is your belief, we fundamentally disagree.

Ya'all have gone from, "It's not a racist statement" to "It's OK because "we happen to live in a culture that is still quite racist"

From all appearances, it seems to be perfectly OK if racism comes from the Left, but it's NOT ok if racism comes from the Right.

Can you explain this blatant hypocrisy to me??

Michale.....

So, you agree that Sotomayor made a racist statement, playing to her hispanic audience...

If this is what you are saying, then we are agreed..

Sotomayor made a racist statement "because we happen to live in a culture that is still quite racist"...

So, let me ask..

If a white Republican male made the corresponding statement, would you slam that Republican male for making a racist statement??

Of course you would...

So, why do you feel the need to explain or mitigate Sotomayor's racist statement when you wouldn't if a Republican make made the same contextual statement??

Michale.....

because we happen to live in a culture that is still quite racist, and many people, based on race alone, would not believe that the experiences of ONE hispanic woman might happen to make her slightly better suited for a job than ONE similarly accomplished white male. in my view, she's simply affirming that it might, in the face of a mainstream culture that still seems to think otherwise.

The use of the word "better" in the context of her quote is what qualifies the comment as racist.
If she was trying to give a sense of HER personal superiority (as you seem to imply) then why bring her race, or any race, into the discussion? By virtue of the fact that she stated her race (and possibly gender) would be superior to another race/gender, she was clearly making a racist comment and possibly a sexist comment as well.. The statement of superiority ("better") of one race over another is the very definition of racist.

If a Republican nominee made this statement....

"I would hope that a Caucasian man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life."

.... the entire Left would be screaming "RACIST!!!" from the rafters and everyone here knows it.

That's been my whole point. The hypocrisy of the Left on display once again for all to see..

@Bashi

I was purely arguing the mechanics of language

Ahhhh So we WERE trying to decide what the meaning of 'is' is... :D

Michale.....

I was purely arguing the mechanics of language. And a particular piece of it to which Michale abuses in many arguments I have read of his. Whether or not the quote was racist was immaterial to the point I was trying to make.

she is not deeming hispanic women as a group to be superior to white men as a group, which is the sense of superiority that the dictionary is referring to. that's the intended implication of people who call her racist for the speech from which that sentence is snipped, but it's simply not what she was talking about.

It was a joke.. Hence the ':D'.. Yes, I have a bizzarro sense of humor.. :D

Facts are facts. All those sayings are considered racist. That they are considered racist are still not facts. An opinion can be accepted as fact and still not be a fact.

OK, we'll play your game..

All Hispanics are lazy.

An opinion can be accepted as fact and still not be a fact.

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock

If an opinion is accepted as a fact, then it becomes a fact. An opinion, like a hypotheses, CAN be proven as factual..

Ergo, if the statement, "a wise Latina woman (which is kinda redundant) can make judicial decisions better than a wise white male" is opinioned to be a racist statement and that opinion is accepted as fact, then the opinion becomes a de-facto fact.

In short, you are trying to defend a racist statement as NOT being a racist statement when, in fact, it is...

But hay.. let's play your game...

Explain exactly how that is NOT a racist statement?

Sotomayor expressed an opinion of superiority based on racial criteria. That is the very DEFINITION of racist.

I would be very interested to hear your spin on how that statement can be anything BUT a racist statement.

Have at it.. :D

Michale.....

Have we entered in to some sort of bizzaro land? Or is this a poor attempt to belittle me by use of a colloquialism?

Facts are facts. All those sayings are considered racist. That they are considered racist are still not facts. An opinion can be accepted as fact and still not be a fact.

Also, none of them are direct quotes of Sonia Sotomayor. I do not see how they are relevant.

You try to "win" debates by defining your points as facts. Even though you will use all caps or even bold the letters, just because you say something is a fact, does not make it so.

You can dance around the definition of "is" all you want..

Is that more like a waltz or a jig?

Or are we descending in to some sort of colloquial gibberish?

But the facts trump the dance…

definitely the later...

A news flash for ya, Cupcake. :D Words do have definitive meanings and many of those words/meanings are not open to interpretation or opinion..

Example:

"White people work much harder than black people."

"Black people are physically stronger than white people.

"Oriental people are smarter than white people."

"A Latin woman has more wisdom than a white male."

Those are all examples of racist statements. None of them are open to interpretation or "opinion".

You can dance around the definition of "is" all you want..

But the facts trump the dance...

Michale.....

Ah, no I am not.

The Fact is she said something. It is a fact because it was recorded in some way and we know she said these particular words in this particular order at this particular time.

Any conjecture as to the meaning of those words, no matter how widely held is an opinion.

These are called the rules of the english language. I'm not making them up.

Also, your definition of racism is questionable. The dictionary you linked to had two other possible definitions. Why did you not include them? Did they not support your argument? Cross reference those definitions with other dictionaries and you will notice quite a difference between them and not all of them support your argument as well as you might like. Racism as a word is in flux. There is currently no concrete definition.

And the statement being racist IS also a fact. As I have clearly proven.

Only if we are not communicating in english. You very will could be "right" and it would still not be a fact. As fact as a word, unlike racism, does have very concrete definitions and your use of the word consistently ignores all of them.

The Fact is she said X. That X is racist is an opinion.

Sorry, you are wrong.

When you look at the definition of "racism", her statement is clearly racist as it (the statement) purports imagined superiority by one race segment of the population over another race segment. That is the very definition of racism.

One can also say that the comment was sexist as well, but we're talking about race right now.

So, Sotomayer making the statement IS a fact.

And the statement being racist IS also a fact. As I have clearly proven.

@Liz

Anyone who would publically call that statement ‘racist’ - in or out of context…it’s fairly contextual as is - is, I would suggest, either hypersensitive or insecure…or, a dangerous combination of both.

It's a racist statement. Period. No amount of Left wing spin will change that simple fact. You want to accuse the GOP of being hypersensitive, feel free. But you must admit that the Left would be MUCH more hypersensitive about the same sort of statement from a white GOP male, no?? Hypersensitivity to serve a political agenda is by no means only a GOP problem. One only needs to recall how Democrats screamed "VOTER INTIMIDATION!!!!" during the 2000 Presidential Elections in Florida because a police car was parked about a mile from a polling station. Rather ironic when one considers that you had a uniformed and armed militant Black Panther actually blocking access to a polling station in PA and Democrats just let that one slide..

So, do you REALLY want to talk "hypersensitive" vis a vis Democrats & Republicans?? Because there are THOUSANDS of examples of how royally whacked Democrats are when it comes to feigned hypersensitivity...

@Osborne

"FORCING diversity and FORCING people of different backgrounds to be together, solely based on race, is racism."

It's an interesting argument, isn't it? That racists aren't upset that racism is illegal, they're upset that they have to live and work and send their children to school alongside other races.

So, you have decided to enter the discussion. Good for you.... :D

How you got your conclusion from my statement is beyond me.

Once again, please support your claim that race based criteria is not inherently racist.

Can you do that??

No???

Didn't think so...

Michale.....

"FORCING diversity and FORCING people of different backgrounds to be together, solely based on race, is racism."

It's an interesting argument, isn't it? That racists aren't upset that racism is illegal, they're upset that they have to live and work and send their children to school alongside other races.

They just want the freedom to act like racist assholes, is all.

To enforce the laws of the land through deeds instead of words (AKA "Affirmative Action") is unjust: "If you make me stop acting like a racist shit, then YOU are the racist shit!"

Stunning. A candidate for Teh Stupidâ„¢ Hall of Fame, right alongside I'm rubber, you're glue...

Anyone who would publically call that statement ‘racist’ - in or out of context...it’s fairly contextual as is - is, I would suggest, either hypersensitive or insecure...or, a dangerous combination of both.

But, the next time a white male Republican or...ahem...a wise, white male says something about being capable of making a better judgement (in the judicial sense) based on his own long and unique experience and privileged position in life (or the...judiciary), knowing full well that out of the one hundred or so supremes that have graced the Court 96%+ have been of the white male variety, well...I’ll be sure and pounce on that like white on rice!!

:-)

Although, we should be very careful about using sweeping generalizations when referring to ‘wise white males’...if you know what I mean, and I’m sure that you do!

:-)

Wrong. As usual your use of "fact" does not meet the definition.

fact
  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

oâ‹…pinâ‹…ion
  /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

The Fact is she said X. That X is racist is an opinion.

Does this mean that you do not believe that statement made by Judge Sotomayor was a "racist" one?

The statement WAS racist, pure and simple. This is an indisputable fact.

My position is that, in and of itself, it doesn't indicate that Sotomayor is a racist.

It simply means that she made a racist statement and, as far as I know, hasn't tried to apologize for it and has, to date, stood behind the statement.

I ask, again, to consider the hysterical outcry if a white Republican male had made the same sort of racist statement. Would the Left ignore the statement of pooh-pooh it away??

Of course not..

Ergo, the Left's position on Sotomayor's statement is nothing but hypocrisy and political bigotry.

Michale.....

I noticed you couched the term 'fact' within a set of a couple of asterisks.

Does this mean that you do not believe that statement made by Judge Sotomayor was a "racist" one?

as any decision in which race or ethnicity is used as one of the criteria

Actually, it's not my definition, it's the dictionary definition..

rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Anytime race is used as a determinative factor that is, by definition, racism.

Now, like I said. I am not saying that Sotomayor is a racist. From all other indications, she is not.

But she DID make a racist statement. This is fact. A statement that, if made by a white Republican male, would have resulted in a clamor from the hysterical Left loud enough to be heard to the moon.. (Yea, CW.. I KNOW.. Sound doesn't travel in space.. :D)

nor do i agree that refusing to argue necessarily constitutes a concession of any debating points.

Who said anything about arguing? If a person cannot respond to a discussion with anything but childish and immature insults and name-calling, obviously that person has not other argument.

Further, I am constrained to point out that, in a formal debate, if one party states their position on the question and provides facts to support the claim and the other party merely responds with, "Neener Neener Neener!! I'm not listening to you!!" who do you think would win the debate??

I rest my case on THAT issue...

michale is not a conservative troll, just a conservative.

Actually, with a few exceptions (four to be exact) I am probably more liberal than you are. :D

1. is there anything wrong with the idea of affirmative action? (this one i addressed above)

I think ANY criteria based on race is a bad idea. And I am surprised that anyone here would feel differently...

2. is sotomayor's appointment an example of affirmative action or not?

No, I don't think it is. I think it's an example of political maneuvering by the Obama Administration. President Obama is learning the political game quite well... Sadly...

she's quite possibly the most qualified candidate for the supreme court in recent history.

Possibly..

And yet, there is STILL the **fact** of that racist statement she made and the hypocrisy from the Left that if it had been a BUSH nominee (White Male Republican) the Left would have been screaming bloody murder.

I have YET to hear anyone address this without the mealy-mouthed political condescension equivalent of "She really didn't say it"

Michale.....

michale is not a conservative troll, just a conservative. if you look at his comments far enough back, you'll be aware he supports much of what the president is doing, even if those aren't the same things we would want obama to do. frankly, that's just not trollish enough for me to buy that as a possibility.

on the topic of judge sotomayor, there are two questions relevant to the current line of thought:

1. is there anything wrong with the idea of affirmative action? (this one i addressed above)

and

2. is sotomayor's appointment an example of affirmative action or not?

to this i would answer no as well. my guess is that michale would answer yes on at least one of the above. there is an implicit assumption in much of our society that the most qualified candidates will be white and/or male, but the more i hear of this woman the more i think her race and gender were at most tangential to her nomination. affirmative action aside, she's quite possibly the most qualified candidate for the supreme court in recent history.

as a doctor of psychology, my professional interpretation of existing research is that there is substantial evidence of a pervasive cultural bias in favor of white males, a de-facto racism already present in most hiring decisions. affirmative action is an attempt to balance the inherent bias of the system, not create a different one. this may not always work out in a perfectly fair manner, but i posit that it would be more racist to pretend that other criteria were measured equally.

Since Osborne has conceded the argument, what is there left to say? :D

Basically that response is the Liberal's version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying, "Nyaaa Nyaaa I'm not listening to you, Nyaaa Nyaaa I'm not listening to you "... :D

Michale.....

Hey, the last thing we want to do around here is cut the conversation short!

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational counter to my argument and must, therefore, resort to childish and immature name-calling.

Your concession of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant.

Michale.....

If you have two people who are equally qualified for a job and one get's the position solely based on race, that is racism...

Encouraging diversity and bringing people of different backgrounds together is an admirable and worthy goal.

FORCING diversity and FORCING people of different backgrounds to be together, solely based on race, is racism.

Michale.....

They've obviously decided that affirmative action is a wedge issue they can hammer in 2010.

So, you agree with race or ethnic based criteria???

How is this not racism??

Michale....

Like I said, I'll be around in a few years to remind ya'all of your words.. :D

Michale.....

numbers 3 and 4 are really the best here. i spotted a few great one-liners in your opening that weren't even included as part of the talking point:

1. "No such thing" - courts are not even capable of being activist, they can only rule on the cases other people bring before them. that is "passive by definition." there's no such thing as "judicial activism."

2. "as the Founders intended it" - the founders knew there would be executives and legislators who pushed the limits of their power, which is why they gave the judicial branch the power to push back. it is not only acceptable for judges to make rulings that change the way laws are interpreted, it is their sacred duty handed down by the framers of the constitution.

3. "judges interpret laws every day" - conservatives trying to criticize judges for doing what judges always do and always have done is frankly just sour grapes over decisions they don't like.

I don't think any of us will be around to remind anyone of anything when the Democrats finally get around to being the minority party - of any branch of government!

Matt,

Hasn't the Republican Party become utterly irrelevant, YET!?

What about all those "up or down vote" quotes?

Yes, Democrats. What about those UP or DOWN votes that you fought tooth and nail when you were the minority party with a Republican President???

You seemed to think back then that they were Satan's Spawn, now you want to embrace them??

Please explain to me, Democrats, how your hypocrisy is any different than the Republican's hypocrisy??? :D

Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder

Judicial Activism is a double-edged sword. The problem *I* have with Judicial Activists are such based on their own personal biases and prejudices rather than being an activist in the best interests of the country..

United Nations calls for American Truth Commission

BWABWABWABWABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Now THAT is a good one.. The UN calls for a "Truth Commission".... That's like Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin calling for a Genocide Commission.

The UN is *THE* most corrupt, dishonest and self-serving entity on the planet, BAR NONE...

The UN asking for a "Truth Commission" definitely comes under the heading of "You can't make this stuff up!"...

Give Wall Street the deal the autoworkers just got

The Auto Workers just got 20% of the company in exchange for campaign donations to Democrats..

Where is the outrage??

Pelosi Galore update

Well, since Pelosi ran away and hid in China to escape her lies and accusations and the facts that Democrats STILL support her is not surprising in the least...

@Osborne

1) She's a racist

She may or may not be a racist. It is an undeniable fact that she has made at least one racist statement. Such a statement coming from a Republican and you et al would have been screaming and whining bloody murder..

So why bitch and moan when the Republicans react in the same way???

Put it together, and you have a political party determined to serve its worst impulses until it becomes utterly irrelevant.

Look up the term, "wishcasting".. :D

You can bet that, in a few years when Democrats are back to being the minority and can't get elected as a dog-catcher again, I'll be around to remind you of the "irrelevant" GOP... :D

Michale.....

It is impossible to live and work in a vacuum, and the GOP needs to remember that people always bring their life experience to their occupation if they want to win elections.

I agree with your #6 TP. It is unfair the union members are expected to give up benefits they have spent years fighting for while overpaid bankers/stockbrokers are not being asked to give up anything of importance.

...Stan

Funny you should say that. I put together a "top ten" list of Republican objections to Sotomayor in my blog this week, noting they said much more about the GOP than Sotomayor:

1) She's a racist

2) She likes ethnic food

3) She's too empathetic

4) She corrects bad spelling

5) She isn't "smart" (summa cum laude notwithstanding)

6) Her name sounds funny

7) The Supreme Court hates her (it doesn't)

8) She's too radically leftist

9) She's too liberal

10) She's a she.

Put it together, and you have a political party determined to serve its worst impulses until it becomes utterly irrelevant.