Friday, May 29, 2009

Let's Not Get Crazy Here, People!

Yeah! She's talking up affirmative action!

But hey, we all get things we don't deserve. I'll go further: almost all of us get something we don't deserve as a result of our race, including white people. Perhaps even especially white people.
Yes, perhaps. It might be that white people are overwhelmingly represented disproportionately in the ranks of the privileged. Or, maybe black people are just stoopid, too. I dunno. Too hard to tell, really.
If you don't believe it, ask yourself why repeated studies show that resumes with identifiably black names get fewer interview offers than identical white resumes.
Which is why she modifies her statements about racism? Wait, when she says "if you don't believe it" is she implying that she's trying to convince someone that racism exists? Perhaps not.
Sonia Sotomayor is not manifestly unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, so focusing on affirmative action is completely irrelevant.
But the fact that your cohorts are doing it is only maybe, kind of, and indication that they're racist, short-sighted dicks. Perhaps.
You can argue with her politics or her legal judgement, and hey, I'm all ears.
But the affirmative action complaints aren't advancing our quest to find out whether or not she'd be a good justice. They're just alienating the people you want to convince.
Megan, consistent with her uncanny ability to be about one or two years behind the conventional wisdom of even the most stubborn moron, is just now realizing that Republicans have gone insane. Perhaps.


Susan of Texas said...

It just amazes me that we can cover the same material and yet not overlap more than we do. It shows the richness and layers of her wrongness, to have so much of it crammed into so few words.

Ken Houghton said...

Geez, you guys are going soft:

"not manifestly unqualified"

Valedictiorian, first in her Princeton class, Yale Law Review, distinguished career followed by appointment to the 3rd Circuit by the real Bush from which she has (in 18 years) been reversed by the SupCt a grand total of three times.

There's a manifestation there, but using it to modify "unqualified" is the least of McMegan's evils.

Yuppers said...

2nd Circuit - and it was Clinton who appointed her to the Appellate court. GHWB appointed her to the District Court.

But the broader point stands.

clever pseudonym said...

Come on, folks. You can't let little things like facts get in the way of Megan's larger point that she is better and more civilized than everyone else discussing this subject.

NutellaonToast said...

Ken, I'm confused on your point. I think Megan is saying that Sotomayor ISN'T unqualified. You're just backing that point up.

She is using language that seems a bit soft given Sotomayor's credentials, but you could argue that there are quite a few people who've graduated near the top of their class at an Ivy League school, but only one Supreme Court nominee every few years. I don't see being near the top of your class at Princeton as a stand alone qualification for such a high position, though it's certainly enough to dispel the notion that a candidate is obviously not fit for SCOTUS. There are something like 10 ivy league schools. At least five people could claim to be the near the top of the class at each. That's 50 people a year.

Dhalgren said...

Oh man....McArdle just opened her mouth on the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

While US Marshalls are being deployed to act as temporary bodyguards for doctors, she is suggesting that getting aggressive against these domestic terrorists would not be effective, because (wait for it)....the surge in Afghanistan has not worked.

Unless I'm reading her incorrectly, which is totally possible....

bulbul said...

Nope, Dhalgren, you got her dead to rights.
Also, I've read the whole thing. Fuck me. Our Lady of Teh Ultimate Reasonableness has outdone herself in both absolute cluelessness about history (of the US and Iraq) and morality AND general stupidity. I hope you guys and/or Susan are on the case, cause this one is for the ages.

clever pseudonym said...

Wait - you guys could could understand what the hell she was even trying to say with that post? There was something about Hitler in there, but otherwise, I couldn't figure out what in the world her point was.

The frightening thing is that there are people in her comments congratulating her on what a great post that was. I can't stop rolling my eyes.

bulbul said...

Yeah, well, understand... There was a lot of translation from Meganese involved, but the gist I got:
First she tried to see the pro-lifers point, 'cause, after all, they are powerless in the face of an unjust law, just like the good Germans were in the Third Reich - and besides, it's all relative and it all evolves, cf. slavery and John Brown*. Then she noticed she was rapidly approaching the deep morass of moral relativism, so she did a full one-eighty and sternly condemned the kind of thinking she employed in the previous paragraphs. The condemnation of all liberals who insist that crimes be punished and laws be enforced seemed almost like an afterthought.
But hey, at least she kinda-sorta admitted that what folks like Operation Rescue had been doing to Tiller is terrorism.

* Is he really such a controversial figure or is he just 'controversial', kinda the way the whole Confederation is?

Susan of Texas said...

I think she just got pissed at hilzoy again and the whole "I see both sides" thing was incidental to the round of "what's wrong with everyone else" that she so enjoys.

Susan of Texas said...

Hilzoy responded, which means McArdle responded.

I know I talk a lot about how ideology blinds people, but even I can't believe this. She has to ignore everything anyone has ever said about right to privacy and ignore the implications of her own philosophy as well. It's striking a pose for its own sake, and looking pretty dumb in the process.