0 comment Sunday, September 7, 2014 | admin
The Sotomayor story has been covered pretty well by everybody.
I don't know what I can really add, except to say that to her boastful claim to being better qualified to judge than a White male, based on her supposedly ''rich'' experience as a Latina, she is only confirming for me what I have begun to believe: that objectivity and impartiality are rare traits or capacities in this world, possibly being some kind of mutation that occurred only in some European peoples. I honestly and truly don't think others grasp the concept. Or perhaps their simmering resentments, which they seem to be never able to put aside, get the better of them.
I've noticed that it's generally alleged and now assumed by the media and by nonwhites generally, that Whites always act in White interests; anytime a White person, especially a male, makes a decision that does not explicitly favor nonwhites, he is called 'racist' or 'bigoted'. Years ago, during the Civil Rights Revolution, it was asserted that Whites should not sit on juries judging a black or other nonwhite defendant because they could not be ''fair.''
So to correct for alleged White ''unfairness'', we now place aggrieved nonwhites in positions of power, where they are apparently on a mission to exact payback and to return tenfold what they think Whitey did to them. To them, this constitutes ''justice''.
Hence, now we must practice ''diversity'', or the promoting of nonwhites to powerful and visible positions -- not because they are the best people for the job -- heavens, no. That's a White concept. And not because they are even necessarily qualified -- but because of their skin color, as this New York Times piece illustrates.
Now it's ''their turn'', you see. Now the world is being run on the same rules we demanded when we were, say, kindergarteners: ''Teacher, make Johnny give ME a turn! It's my turn now! Johnny gets to do everything and he never gives me a turn!"
So it's a Hispanic woman's turn to sit on the Supreme Court. A twofer: another woman, because we know women (though really no different from men at all) make better judges than men, and a Hispanic, because they have ''richer'' life experiences than old White guys, who we all know to be bland, boring, and dull, and non-vibrant.
And we are to believe that Sotomayor will be neutral or objective in matters involving race. Right.
The Hispanic thing is symbolic, of course, of the changing of the guard, the handing off of this country or ex-country to its coming new ''management.''
I don't know what I can really add, except to say that to her boastful claim to being better qualified to judge than a White male, based on her supposedly ''rich'' experience as a Latina, she is only confirming for me what I have begun to believe: that objectivity and impartiality are rare traits or capacities in this world, possibly being some kind of mutation that occurred only in some European peoples. I honestly and truly don't think others grasp the concept. Or perhaps their simmering resentments, which they seem to be never able to put aside, get the better of them.
I've noticed that it's generally alleged and now assumed by the media and by nonwhites generally, that Whites always act in White interests; anytime a White person, especially a male, makes a decision that does not explicitly favor nonwhites, he is called 'racist' or 'bigoted'. Years ago, during the Civil Rights Revolution, it was asserted that Whites should not sit on juries judging a black or other nonwhite defendant because they could not be ''fair.''
So to correct for alleged White ''unfairness'', we now place aggrieved nonwhites in positions of power, where they are apparently on a mission to exact payback and to return tenfold what they think Whitey did to them. To them, this constitutes ''justice''.
Hence, now we must practice ''diversity'', or the promoting of nonwhites to powerful and visible positions -- not because they are the best people for the job -- heavens, no. That's a White concept. And not because they are even necessarily qualified -- but because of their skin color, as this New York Times piece illustrates.
Now it's ''their turn'', you see. Now the world is being run on the same rules we demanded when we were, say, kindergarteners: ''Teacher, make Johnny give ME a turn! It's my turn now! Johnny gets to do everything and he never gives me a turn!"
So it's a Hispanic woman's turn to sit on the Supreme Court. A twofer: another woman, because we know women (though really no different from men at all) make better judges than men, and a Hispanic, because they have ''richer'' life experiences than old White guys, who we all know to be bland, boring, and dull, and non-vibrant.
And we are to believe that Sotomayor will be neutral or objective in matters involving race. Right.
The Hispanic thing is symbolic, of course, of the changing of the guard, the handing off of this country or ex-country to its coming new ''management.''
Labels: Hispanic Supremacism, Judges, Supreme Court