buy valium overseas can you buy valium in the uk – valium quality sleep

Race & Gender of Judges Make Enormous Differences in Rulings, Studies Find

Amazing!

Cleopatra black etc…

It seems impossible but each time the flag is planted in ever more bizarre territory, its stays there. Seemingly impervious to recorded history.

Its almost as if, once the claim has been made, its just not polite to refute it. I think some of the ethnic chauvanists involved are fully aware of this. Who is going to look them in the eye and tell them they are lying, I mean, what are you are a racist?

There is another similar industry involved in claiming that major historical figures were actually homosexual.

The end point will presumably be reached when all sigificant historical figures are deemed to have been both black & gay.

So how to explain the recent era of dominance by straight white men?

Well somehow those jealous troglodytes usurped their betters with that old white trick knowledge.

it is funny how the ridiculous claims that Hannibal and Cleophatra were black are quickly becoming mainstream.

the problem with blacks, just women, is the complete lack of relevance in their participation in history. the most important black man that has ever lived was Othelo

unfortunately, a fictional character crated by an evil, dead, white male

Basically, anybody who lived prior to the advent of photography was Black. Including Julius Caesar, George Washington, Mozart, and all the Kings, Queens, Dukes, and Earls.

In Japan and in China as well, many such Western figures from long ago are depicted with rather non-round eyes.

In the Time-Life classical music series, the cover art depicting the composers gave them a pronounced Ashkenazy glow, even Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky.

Just as the Pillsbury Dough Boy has acquired an odd golden glow (baked)? I am now waiting for his eyes to darken…

"Truth said…

"There is no reason to doubt that they were caucasian."

I there were "do doubt" the poster wouldn't be there."

No real classicist or egyptologist thinks that Hannibal or Cleopatra were black. Only blacks deluded by a deep-seated inferiority complex believe such nonsense.

But then, you probably believe Beethoven was black – another common delusion among many blacks. Believe what you want. Nobody cares what a guy who calls himself "Truth" thinks. And don't bother replying with a lame snide remark, or call me "sport". You are not amusing, despite what you think. You are a rather typical black braggart with a self-confidence completely unwarranted by your talent. You are an annoying waste of time on this blog, and nearly everyone hear wants you to just go away.

I AM SO WORRIED ABOUT FUTURE PUERTO RICAN ACHIEVEMENT IN THESE UNITED STATES THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

MY ONLY THOUGHT IS THAT LA RAZA MUST IMMEDIATELY DIRECT MORE RESOURCES IN THIS DIRECTION.

PLEASE MORE HIGH ATTAINMENT OF POWER POSITIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR BRONZE RACE PEOPLE. IT IS DISGUSTING THAT THE BRONZE RACE HAS BEEN HELD DOWN SO LONG BY CONSERVATIVES.

GAWD THE BRONZE RACE JUST MAKES ME TINGLE ALL OVER. WHY CAN'T THE ENTIRE EARTH BE COVERED BY BRONZE RACE PEOPLE? IT IS A CRIME THAT IT IS NOT SO.

Truth thinks that there is some doubt about Hannibal and Cleopatra's race. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Most of its inhabitants were Phoenicians, certainly the members of the Barca royal family were. They were Semites – related to Jews and Arabs.

Cleopatra (Cleopatra VII) was not a sub-Saharan black, she was not even an Egyptian, she was a Greek (Macedonian). There are lots of mysteries about race in ancient history – but not in the Ptolemaic bloodline. The Ptolemy’s were fanatical about preventing their bloodline from being polluted by Egyptians much less sub-Saharan Africans. The Macedonians lived in their own city and had as little contact as possible with the locals.

The whole myth of Cleopatra being black is based on a single missing record of one of the mistresses of her grandfather. Normally the Ptolemy’s kept scrupulous racial records.

As an occupying power the Ptolemy’s were hyper sensitive about race mixing. The mystery concubine was not known to be a Black or an Egyptian. She is simply unknown. She was probably also a Greek, but the propagandists seized this omission in a set of records that had been maintained to guard against miscegenation as proof that there had been a Black ancestor of Cleopatra.

Even if that concubine had been Black it wouldn't have mattered. Her father and mother were brother and sister and pure Greek.

"What is Sotomayor's race?"

Wise latina.

"There is no reason to doubt that they were caucasian."

I there were "do doubt" the poster wouldn't be there.

Steve, you made two predictions. Here are my two predictions:

1.) In a few years, Hollywood will make a movie along the lines of "Stand and Deliver" or "The Great Debaters" about a group of black and Latino firefighters studying hard to pass the promotion exam while a clique of white firefighters pull all sorts of shenanigans, using their "in" with the test writers, to frustrate their efforts. The whites even make threatening late-night phone calls and burn a cross on L.L. Cool J's lawn. However, in the end, the blacks pull off the top scores!

2.) Once Sotomayor is on the SCOTUS, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will for the first time in her life be referred to as "the good-looking one."

"I used to think this was some sort of moral deficiency but latter realized it was do to natural differences in perceptions of truth.

In the West we strive for the truth regardless of ideology, while 3rd worlders see the interests of the tribe or individual before anything. This is an extreme disadvantage we suffer from in the West. It works very well when its only Westerners but when in competition with other groups, Westerners are at a great disadvantage."

That is true. This reminds me of the posters in the African-American club room at school. On the posters were these pictures of many great historical figures who were born in Africa yet would falsely portray some caucasian rulers as sub-saharan black Africans, the most prominent being Cleopatra and the Carthaginian general, Hannibal. There is no reason to doubt that they were caucasian. There were many others I'm not very familiar with, but probably only a few of them were truly sub-saharan Africans or mixed.

Also, try telling an Indian that the northern Indian(Indo-Aryan) languages are Indo-European(and therefore related to most European languages and not to the southern Indian Dravidian languages), and they will get perplexed or angry. They will probably accuse you of lying or not understanding India, even though the classification of Indo-Aryan languages like Punjabi and Hindi and Bengali as Indo-European is an established fact in historical linguistics.

Similarly, many Dominicans who are mulatto or 75% black will similarly deny their blackness and claim they are actually descended from very dark Spaniards or the original natives of Hispaniola. Never call a Dominican a "negro" or a "moreno" unless you want to commit suicide by Dominican. This self-hatred is due in large part to their intense hatred for their poorer Haitian neighbors, who occupy the western 1/3 of the island of Hispaniola.

There are MANY more informed, better legal minds out there who would be much more qualified to be on our highest court rather than her, AND SHE KNOWS IT.

I agree with this statement. As Steve has pointed out before, this knowledge is what makes many AA recipients so angry. Best example is Mrs O. You'd think with all that pandering and enabling there would be gratitude, but instead there is anger. I've never seen a pick of Soto where she does not look like a butch, er …bitch.

Rob has made a very good point regarding most of the 3rd world's style of "thought." It can be very frustrating trying to communicate with these people as Western standards of logic and scientific thinking seems so "foreign" to them. I had an African Poli Sci professor who would straight-out lie to make a political point to the class. I used to think this was some sort of moral deficiency but latter realized it was do to natural differences in perceptions of truth.

In the West we strive for the truth regardless of ideology, while 3rd worlders see the interests of the tribe or individual before anything. This is an extreme disadvantage we suffer from in the West. It works very well when its only Westerners but when in competition with other groups, Westerners are at a great disadvantage.

Look at how the SWPLs just eat up speeches from people like Obama or MLK. SWPLs truly believe in all this stuff about "everyone treated equally," when in reality, these words are purely for political warfare purposes.

Westerners are very difficult to defeat on a standard battlefield but seem to have much difficulty in political war or 5th generation warfare (5GW).

Anonymous #1, you might want to see a shrink about that Stockholm syndrome.

How on earth could you possibly be unaware that moderate, ultraliberal, pro-affirmative action, etc, are all synonyms? Of course Sotomayor believes what she said in all those speeches. Everyone does. It's the mainstream of 21st-century American legal thought. That's the problem.

Meanwhile, her primary intellectual achievement appears to consist of being taught to spell properly and use correct grammar – at Princeton.

Unfortunately, Professor Winn, her Communist Svengali, didn't quite get around to explaining the difference between "vagrancy" and "vagary" or "eminent" and "imminent," telling her how to use a comma properly, or in general teaching her how to appear as anything but what she is – a natural-born DMV supervisor with an IQ of 105. Fortunately, her opinions on the Court will be written by her clerks, as they always have been.

In other words, it's not just that the emperor is naked, it's that he weighs 400 pounds and is wearing a bikini top and a thong. And you blame Steve for noticing this? Very fetching, your contentment with your masters.

the supreme court votes 5-4 a lot of the time now on "ultimate culture war!" cases. this turns many rulings on social issues into a simple supreme court head count. so why does it matter what kind of judge she becomes in sum total? she will mainly replace souter's liberal vote in most "ultimate culture war!" cases.

the supreme court seems to do a decent job getting the correct vote on non-"ultimate culture war!" issues, so i'm not concerned about how she'll rule on those.

she's an usurper, there to remove european men from their ability to control their own society. she should not even be eligible to be a supreme court justice. barack obama has gone full speed ahead, putting usurpers into positions of authority as the heads of many agencies. while they may hold various ideas and opinions, one thing they all agree on is the need to stop white guys from running the show.

What is Sotomayor's race?

"Perhaps they would be willing to step down and give them their fair share. You think?"

Him and Emily Bazelon.

I don't care so much about the hostility, but I'd like informed questions. *Way* too many people, both congresscritters and reporters, think hostility is a substitute for knowledge of the relevant subject areas and current issues.

This is especially true in Sotomayor's case: I don't find the law interesting, and don't know much about it. I'd prefer to know that actual legal experts were going over her record and asking her questions, holding her feet to the fire about questionable decisions she'd made. (Among other things, this would give ambitious federal appeals court judges a strong incentive to do a good job.)

As it is, I suppose someone on Obama's staff did some of that work, at least enough to make sure she wasn't going to embarrass them. And I assume some Republicans have done that. But what I've seen covered is the stupid "gotcha" quote game. (If I never hear the phrase "wise latina" again, it will be too f–king soon.)

There are all kinds of places, in this administration and the last, where I've really wished for meaningful oversight from Congress. But they're just not up to the job. Nor is the media, which may have once done a decent job at this stuff, but now seems incapable of remembering things done or said more than a week ago or doing any analysis at all.

There's always that risk. David Souter, who comes from the next town over, was thought to be even a bit on the nutso conservative side around here. It was he as Attorney General for NH who prepared the legal defense when Governor Thomson lowered the flags to half-staff on Good Friday.

Why does Ricci mean so much to Sotomayor?

I think its because its a microcosim of her career as a jurist. She is simply getting the Supreme Courty gig because of her race and sex. There are MANY more informed, better legal minds out there who would be much more qualified to be on our highest court rather than her, AND SHE KNOWS IT.

Maybe the Supreme court ought to have a IQ requirement or better yet a Ricci-like test to determine if you are -worthy- of consideration. The test should be designed for only the top 10% of all lawyers to be able to really ace it. If she could prove she was in the top 10% of her profession, then I'd be for her sitting on OUR Supreme Court, final arbiter of law in our land.

Sotomayor has a very moderate and restrained judicial record despite her liberal personal views. Steve I really do not think your side has anything to worry about. Her circuit court decision on Ricci was motivated more by stare decisis rather than anything else. Ruling in Ricci's favor before it got to the Supreme Court would have been a more "activist" decision.

"Sonia Sotomayor will turn out to be more liberal on the Supreme Court than she admitted to being under oath."

I am of the opinion that she is not as liberal as you or some of your other commenters think she is. I think she's pretty liberal on racial issues, but on all other issues she seems to be quite moderate.

Besides the Ricci case, no one has brought to my attention any other cases she has decided that scream "CRAZY LIBERAL!"

For example, I noted Sotomayor's conservative stance on states rights in which she took the same viewpoint as Frank Easterbrook, a well known conservative judge.

Big Bill, agree with you!

The present methods are "obsolete" for the same reason jury trials are less useful than they once were: oaths are meaningless and people like Sotomayor have no sense of honor to keep them from lying to get into power and push the liberal agenda.

We're living in an age when Jim Crow and Apartheid have been inverted. Whatever NAM's do is noble, whether it’s just making an ordinary living, whether lying, discriminating, minimal work, cheating or murdering.
Whatever whites do is bad or evil or useless, whether it is building Porsche's, aeroplanes, roads, hospitals or other endeavours. When whites perform in Uni it’s because if racism, when they make money, they were abusing someone, when they outperform NAM's the supreme court has to step in. It’s so ridiculous and childish. At least with Apartheid the ability went with the power. Now it’s the inverse. Of course this cannot be sustained, and eventually the US has to go the same route as South Africa or Rhodesia before that.

I guess there's an argument that by being unwilling to defend cultural Marxism, when she was anyway assured of getting through, she weakened cultural Marxist ideological hegemony in our society? Hmm, maybe a little bit.

Non-Western peoples didn't create the backwaters they live in by being broadly progressive: they aren't conservatives or liberals. Those are Western views. Third world peoples are troglodytic or particularist.

Sotomayor's legal philosophy isn't reasoned: its just an amalgamation of things that happened to be good or bad for her.

She got racial preferences? Racial preferences good. She climbed in the prosecutor's office?Prosecutors good. She did poorly on standardized tests? Testing bad.

If SNL ever attacked from the right, Sotomayor would be fantastic fodder for the old caveman Frankenstein's monster skit.

You know, you have to stand in absolute awe of their chutzpah.

Cardin, elected in 2006, is one of 13 Jewish senators.

With only 2% Jews in the USA that means Jews are 550% "overrepresented" in the Senate.

According the Leftist logic, the extra 11 Jewish senators have therefore "disenfranchised" some 11% of otherly-ethnicated Americans.

Talk about your "disparate Impact"! My goodness.

I wonder what other ethnic group's representation those 11 extra Jewish senators are stealing?

Not to worry, though. In view of Cardin's deep love for Affirmative Action and Sotomayor, perhaps the Blacks, and Puerto Ricans, and Chinese, and Hispanics and Japanese, and Indians and Pakistanis, and Native Americans ought to take up their racio-ethnic disenfranchisement beef with him and his tribe.

Perhaps they would be willing to step down and give them their fair share. You think?

And once they have surrendered their ill-gotten gains they can go to Israel and whack their brethren over the head for their racial and ethnic discrimination (and "disparate impact"!) and become a light unto their OWN people.

And they can airlift 20-30,000 black Jews from Ethiopia to go with them.

THAT ought to give them a real taste of diversity in Israel!

Obviously the present method of acquiring Supreme Court judges is now obsolete.

The framers never even intended for SCOTUS to review Congress much less create new quasi-legislative rulings. We hear pundits routinely suggest that the most important function of a President is his power to appoint justices. I think that's an exaggeration but still, what happened to democracy?

The Supreme Court selecton process is now throughly corrupt. Few think Sotomayor is being fully candid. She is running for a Justiceship. She is making in effect campaign promises for which she never expects to be held responsible. In fact she is almost certainly lying through her teeth.

The general public is rather adept at sensing dissembling. But Sotomayor doesn't have to face the public just fellow party members.

I'm the same anon who posted the comment about Steve's Sotomayor scaremongering.

Steve, I really like your stuff, I give you kudos for your quantitative approaches to things and your willingness to talk about the most un-PC of unPC topics. My own husband thinks you're a racist and is dismissive of your stuff for that reason.

BUT, you have the occasional big blind spot.

The Sotomayor-as-stealth-ultraliberal issue is one such blind spot. Sarah Palin's lack of intelligence and political savvy is another.

You keep bashing Sotomayor for being liberal and pro-affirmative action and all that, but you know, her actual judicial record is very moderate, even a little conservative.

You seem to think that her speeches about wise Latinas and being an affirmative action baby and all that are more representative of the "real" Sotomayor than her 17-year judicial career.

But honestly, the conservatives in those Senate hearings came to believe that the real Sotomayor was the moderate judge, not the liberal speaker. Yet you draw the opposite conclusion based on what…..the Ricci case? One single case?

Enough with the Sotomayor scaremongering, Steve. She's not a brilliant legal scholar but she's a solid legal thinker with a very moderate record.

The obvious solution is to exempt Blacks and Hispanics from having to take civil service exams. Sorta like how CA solved the problem of racist IQ tests:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ368279&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ368279

If Graham gets the GOP nomination

If he's a lifelong bachelor and remains so, not a chance.

~Svigor

Lindsay Graham for President? I would never vote for that woman.

And thus his overwhelming appeal as far as the press is concerned.

~Svigor

I agree that hostile questioning, rather than staged questioning from Real Americans who turn out to be working for some campaign or activist group, would be a boon to the republic. Let 'em preen and hog the camera if they want.

It would be a great "last man standing" competition for candidates as well. John Sununu would go through life undefeated, methinks.

I don't understand why you haven't commented on this. Obama Care could cost upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would be accompanied by higher taxes.

You could do CPSIA, FSMA, Obama Care, and the Design Piracy Act all together!

Over at Diversity Discrimination or whatever they point out that a Wise Latina did not know that all languages have adjectives etc, and that the same Wise Latina seemed to have been retained by the defendants in the Ricci case.

I suspect Lindsey Graham is the MSM and elite's wishlist next GOP presidential patsey, er nominee. They certainly are working hard to clear the way for him wrt Palin and other GOP contenders.

If Graham gets the GOP nomination, you can be sure that there will be video leaks of him where he's not butching it up so much for CSPAN. Even if Obama is unelectable in 2012, the mangina Graham is a suitable manchurian candidate on all the right issues anyway.

I wonder if he's the guy that had his thigh on David Brooks for an entire evening during a DC dinner party recently.
No way! I wonder what kind of gay senator is that desperate!
David Brooks must really believe he's hot, or something.

Ok. I'm not really familiar with all of Renaissance history, so the reference to Lorenzo Medici went right over my head. Please accept my apologies on that minor point.

And I'll leave it at that.

watched Ricci read his prepared statement to the Senate hearing today. His Dyslexia seems pretty bad. BUT if he can pass that test what is the matter with those that couldn't ??

Steve, not to be too pushy, but could you please give your input on Obama Care.

I don't understand why you haven't commented on this. Obama Care could cost upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would be accompanied by higher taxes.

The Sotomayor hearings are not that important. The justice she is replacing is a hardcore liberal as well, so it is not like Obama is tipping the court one way or the other.

However, Obama Care could cripple the economy. Your number crunching analysis would be greatly appreciated.

Steve you better watch out.

It has started. They might come after your site next.

"Black Philadelphia police sue over message board, say it's racist"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/police.racism.lawsuit/

Graham HAS to be gay. He's a lawyer and Senator who could easily have snagged one of South Carolina finest. The fact that he didn't even attempt at marriage shows he probably is not striaght.

John Anello "Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America."
=== Isn't hostility about to be outlawed?

Ben Tillman said…

How do you manage to equate freedom and "flowering of knowledge"?

Because usually the opposite isn't true. Generally, repressed societies achieve squat (China under Mao), while free societies (Taiwan, Hong kong) frequently achieve remarkable gains in living standards, technical prowess and literature. The lack of widespread scientific progress, low living standards, and mass illiteracy so bad that many priests were illiterate during the time of the Vatican's rule over Europe is excellent evidence of a repressed society.

And why wouldn't we expect decentralized power and decentralized knowledge to coincide?

You'll have to give an example of "decentralized knowledge".

Testin99 said…

The political reality is that Sotomayor's beliefs are probably in line with that of most Americans,

You'll have to define American before you make statements like that. United-Statesian (US resident) and American are not the same thing.

Lorenzo was chosen due to the exigencies of my original post, which only tangentially touched on where you've led it. You could have figured that out on your own, I think.

No, I won't elucidate. We're different ages. We've led completely different lives. We have, as previously mentioned, completely different worldviews. You believe in Jebu. I don't. That's a chasm that can't be bridged. Nothing I say would change anything you believe. Nor would I care for it to.

After googling, I found out that Lindsay Graham is a 52 year old life long bachelor.

I had suspicions before I found this out, and this just adds fuel to the fire (or 'flame' so to speak).

Hey, Jack Hunter the Southern Avenger, if you're reading this, any substance (or 'meat' so to speak) to these rumors?

It looks like I'm not alone in my suspicions about Lindsay Graham.

I wonder if he's the guy that had his thigh on David Brooks for an entire evening during a DC dinner party recently.

Lindsay Graham for President? I would never vote for that woman.

"Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America."- so true, there may be a few here though- Steve I would not count as one though, too mild-mannered

Byron "Whizzer" White- what a man, do they still make 'em like that? I put him up there with Jack Buck, Chuck Yeager and old Viking coach Les Steckel

No chance most Americans agree with Sotomayer…. most people are too busy to worry about this bs…of course, that's the problem

"We already have something like that right now with the confirmation hearings currently underway for Sotomayor. Do you see the opposing party making any effort to ask tough questions? A few softballs have been thrown, but none of the questions that Steve suggested have been used."

The reason they're not going tough on Sotomediocre is that there's no point. Her confirmation is a lock.

Presidential candidates are rarely so certain, and the common man is more easily swayed than 100 elected, partisan Senators. A questions session would be far different from these hearings.

Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America.

No shit. At least I got half that going for me.

LV I suspect you are correct regarding Graham.

However, Ace has a post-mortem on Sotomayor. He disagrees with Byron York on how "the GOP gave up" because even an attempt at a filibuster would be doomed with Senator Al Franken. That's Sixty votes, even if the Maine sisters Collins/Snowe held firm which they won't.

The political reality is that Sotomayor's beliefs are probably in line with that of most Americans, as painful as that is to realize. So Sotomayor's dissembling and disavowals of what she's said and done in the past are irrelevant, since most Americans hold the same views anyway. Not a huge majority, but 52% or so. Anti-ordinary White guy sentiment goes both deep and wide in America (look at any TV ad) as does the "need" for an imaginary Black or Hispanic friend by the SWPL crowd.

If medieval Europe under the Vatican provided so much freedom then why was there no flowering of knowledge until the Reformation?

How do you manage to equate freedom and "flowering of knowledge"?

And why wouldn't we expect decentralized power and decentralized knowledge to coincide?

Lorenzo said…

Sigh. Like I said, your Protestant worldview and my biocultural one don't mesh.

Lorenzo as I see it there are only two ways to interpret the events that happened before and during the Reformation.

1. From the viewpoint of the Vatican

2. From the Viewpoint of the rebels (Protestants).

Judging by your screenname I could swear you are arguing #1 and stating that the Vatican's rule would have improved over time without the Protestant rebellion. Maybe I am wrong and you are arguing for a third interpretation, but right now it seems you adhere to #1 while camouflaging it as "biocultural".

Since I don't seem to be getting your argument please elucidate.

Lindsay and his beard are sitting on the mother of all marriage scandals.

LG sets gaydars pinging more loudly than Barney Frank himself ever could. So, yeah, I suspect you're right.

anonymous said…

I'd like to see something like British Parliament's Question Time not only for the U.S. President but also for Presidential candidates. Let politicians from the other parties grill each of the candidates several times for a couple of hours at a stretch during the campaign.

We already have something like that right now with the confirmation hearings currently underway for Sotomayor. Do you see the opposing party making any effort to ask tough questions? A few softballs have been thrown, but none of the questions that Steve suggested have been used.

Billare: I feel like his marked conciliatory tone is the beginning of a political triangulation, especially given that a couple of Republican stars who were apt to run are now in no man's land with their prominent marriage scandals.

Ha!

Lindsay and his beard are sitting on the mother of all marriage scandals.

Axelrod and the Alinskyites will be sure to time that disclosure for maximum possible damage.

"Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.

You owe me a new keyboard for that."

See? Steve Sailer is funny, despite Steve Sailer's protestations to the contrary. I LOLed.

Good interchange with Kyl. Sotomayor clearly intended 'precedent' to rationalize her summary judgment. Yet when pressed the only precedent she seems to be talking about is the precedent that would allow those claiming disparate impact to sue. All this 'precedent' does is act as background for the legal issues as they get played out–it has nothing to do with rationalizing summary judgment of the case.

We need Presidential candidates to be subjected to more hostile questioning by truly hostile, well-informed individuals.

I'd like to see something like British Parliament's Question Time not only for the U.S. President but also for Presidential candidates. Let politicians from the other parties grill each of the candidates several times for a couple of hours at a stretch during the campaign.

It'll never happen, of course, but I can dream, can't I?

The "wise latina" meme makes about as much sense as "Irish teetotaller". Latinas are known for a great deal of things, but not for their wisdom or personal balance. Puertoricans least of all.
Steve might want to look at their credit ratings or teenage pregnancy rates.

Edmund Andrews was on Colbert last night, Steve. Highlights:

He claimed that he "fell in love with the woman he wanted to marry" – no mention of leaving his wife and kids, or the $50 grand a year he was paying them.

He called himself the "poster child" for the mortgage meltdown. I agree with him to an extent – if the MSM made a poster about the meltdown, a white man "with blue eyes" would definitely be front and center.

Colbert looked like he was restraining himself the entire time. It seemed like he was struggling to come up with anything to say other than "TAKE SOME GODDAMN RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU DID, YOU MORONIC, SHIFTLESS, GREEDY SCUMBAG!" After the requisite end-of-interview and post-interview handshakes, Colbert immediately gave Andrews the cold shoulder and flashed a shit-eating grin to the camera.

The question in my mind is how does such an utter disaster of a man end up on the national stage anyway? Is it the NYT Mafia? Or is it, as I suspect, just a convenient way to further the myth that the people to blame for this whole mess are middle and upper-class white men?

"Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever."

You mean where he stares like he's watching "Long Dong Silver"?

Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.
Sigh. This is me in every work meeting I've attended over the last 6 years.

Just take a look at how the left views it:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/15/what-we-really-see-gop-senators-question-sotomayor/

Apparently, MSNBC has only one clip from Ricci's testimony. They refuse to show him talk about his personal struggles. The only clip I've seen MSNBC show is the one in which he answers Sen. Specter's question about what he understood about Sotomayor's legal reasoning. The answer being, basically: nothing.

Steve, if you're watching the hearings or up to date on them, do you get the impression that Lindsay Graham of South Carolina is planning a run for the Presidency in 2012? I feel like his marked conciliatory tone is the beginning of a political triangulation, especially given that a couple of Republican stars who were apt to run are now in no man's land with their prominent marriage scandals.

"And she probably figures that when she finally gets on the Supreme Court, now Scalia will mock her by quoting constantly her testimony back to her. "Of course, we all know where Madame Justice stands on this issue; as she so eloquently put it during her colloquy with Senator Kyl etc. etc.," while Alito chuckles and Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever."

Funny. Made my morning.
-Vanilla Thunder

The last Supreme Court Justice, appointed by a Democratic President, who did not believe in making up Constitutional law to advance lefty causes was Byron White, Yale Law graduate, Rhodes Scholar, All-American college football player, NFL star running back and WWII Navy war veteran.

Do you sometimes get the impression that all these other judges who would kings are trying to compensate for having led such boring and pathetically narrow lives, grinding out briefs and decisions for a quarter century, before attaining real power?

That is not inevitable, of course. Roberts and Scalia were genuinely bright lawyers and judges, but they seem to realize that being a bright lawyer is not really that big a deal, so they are cautious in using their power over the rest of society on the Court. It is the half-bright liberal tier that seems to wants revenge for the relative impotence of a life in the law. And they have thus redefined both society and the Democratic Party since Byron White's days.

Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America.

"…voters are quite happy with that. Particularly, White women who largely agree with"…yada yada yada…

Is anyone else starting to get the idea that Testy is now just parodying himself?

Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.

You owe me a new keyboard for that.

Sigh. Like I said, your Protestant worldview and my biocultural one don't mesh.

Don't expect the MSM to ask any hard questions of lib Dems such as Sotomayor and Obama.

Steve, did you mean "giving speeches about … Diversity colloquia" or "giving speeches to … Diversity colloquia"?

Testing… I don't think Supreme Court nominations are on most voters minds when they elect politicians. We have a Democratic super majority because the economy tanked and John McCain was the most inept nominee in recent history.

On the other hand elections do have consequences.

I don't get the point of doing this. So, they lie and dissemble and get on the court anyway.

I say just vote against confirmation.

Poor Steve! Here you are, trying to make your name as an opponent of affirmative action. Yet you are still Republican enough that you feel you cannot accept the greatest gift ever given to opponents of affirmative action. "Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever." As opposed to all the other things Justice Thomas does, where he has some other reason for just staring at you.

Yes, more iSteve economic articles would be good because the social policies and economic policies are all related. Speaking of which this Biden quote has been zipping around the world tonight. Check out the Mish blog where he elevated the quote to hall of fame status of sorts. I guess this really is an intellectual collapse…

Top Three Orwellian Comments Of All Times

•An American major after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
•Vice President Joe Biden: "We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt."
•President George W. Bush: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

This sadly is what has become of our great nation.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Ask her whom she roots for in the Olympic Games.

Long overdue, long overdue.

All of the supposed renaissances you mention were false starts. The takeoff finally occurred after the Reformation.

I can point to the technical progress the Soviet Union made in physics, reactor construction, missile design, spaceflight, electrification, but that doesn't justify the overall Soviet system. In the same vein, I can point to the preservation of knowledge among the clergy, and occasional false starts, but that doesn't justify the Vatican's rule during the Dark Ages.

Second, your blaming "Christlings" when I am pointing out the failure, and depravity, of a government is a lot like Stalin blaming rightist saboteurs for the failure of Soviet economic planning.

Anello — If the voters wanted no Sotomayors, they would have elected a majority of Republicans. With only 40 Republicans in the Senate, and 60 Dem votes, including Senator Al Franken, Sotomayor is a done deal.

And most voters are quite happy with that. Particularly, White women who largely agree with Sotomayor that a Latina is "better" than a White Male. Given that the former are not workplace competitors and the latter most definitely are competitors.

"If medieval Europe under the Vatican provided so much freedom then why was there no flowering of knowledge until the Reformation? Why did all of these great advances have to wait until the power of the Vatican over Europe was broken?"

Again, Ronduck, this shows a decided lack of historical knowledge. Haskins has produced probably the best known work in the Anglosphere on the subject, "The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century". And that's just one century. You can hop back a few more and look up "the Carolingian Renaissance". Sure, there was a bad century or two – e.g. end of the sixth up to the time of Karl Magnus. But that, again, was because a bunch of Christlings were doing all they could to break with Europe's past.

Tanstaafl,
Maureen Dowd is just shooting off at the mouth to get that "love-to-hate" career boost that has earned Anne Coulter such a big pile of cash. This will keep her in print but she's unlikely to ever translate this to a relationship because, unlike Coulter, few men agree with the politics and ideology of her columns, especially not the kind of men she considers worthy of her.

After these hearings… what's the vote going to be? 61 Yeas for sure. From the 39 members of the Republican/Stupid Party, how many thumbs up?

I'll guess 71/24.

Off-topic post:

Hey, Steve, why are you not posting anything about Obama Care?

Is it because you agree with it?

I would like to hear your take on Obama care.

Did even one of the Senators ask the question that you suggested, Steve? Namely: "Ms. Sotomayor please explain what 'La Raza' means in english."

Which is more sincere: Senators' questioning or pro wrestling?

LOL! Obviously rhetorical question but I still can't resist: Pro wrestling is hundred times more honest. (That answer also applies to every single act done in the Congress).

Which is more sincere: Senators' questioning or pro wrestling? We report. You decide.

"Judge Sotomayor, on Ricci, you say you were bound by precedent as a non-Supreme Court judge. But now you want to be a Supreme Court Justice. How would you have voted on Ricci as a Supreme Court Justice and why?"

Whatever you'd like to hear, Senator. And by the way, just so you know, no matter how fulsome the lie, flaming anti-White Maureen Dowd has got my back.

I doubt you should all so upset. Senator Kyl eviscerated her, if his tone was anything like the transcript you linked suggests.

Deckin, you wanted "arrant," not "errant." I wouldn't usually bother over such a small thing, but arrant is such a great word, and you want to keep it, so I'm raising the red flag.

"* The Pope should have had the king of Spain send a million Spanish peasants offering to pick the crops of England and do the jobs that the English "just won't do" if he really wanted to destroy Protestantism."

Oooooooh, that was good.

It's always been a lost cause. Sotomayor is, and always was, going to be confirmed. The Republicans don't have the votes or the spines to stop it.

The Senators might as well throw a Hail Mary. How's this for question, "Are you know, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

Off topic: Steve, the 'deep state' really isn't so deep. Check out this denninger thread where the kids are talking about the stocke market rally today caused by a deliberate(!?) Dr Doom Nouriel Roubini misquote: 'the worst is behind us.'

ROUBINI RECANTED!!!!!
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=102886&page=1

So CNBC jacked up the market with this quote in the last hour and then this guy roubini takes the quote back! after the market closed. Now on page 2 of the Denninger thread someone has assembled the spurt of recent high profile celebrity bullish economic quotes:

greenspan: worst is behind us.
Benanke: we rebound end of this year.
whitney: time to buy GS.
krugman: worst is behind us.
roubini: worst is behind us.

The dates for these quotes are all very recent ie in the past week or ten days I believe.

#1+2 We know that Greesnpan and Bernanke are total liars with abysmal track records for accurate predictiions.
#3 Merideth Whitney said 'time to buy Goldman Sachs' at the same time she said '13% unemployment is coming.'
#4 Krugman is another guy with a lame track record for predictions.
#5 Roubini quote was fabricated by CNBC.

Conclusion: IT IS NAIVE TO THINK THESE CELEB QUOTES ARE NOT BEING ORCHESTRATED.

Another conclusion: THE FINANCE/MEDIA MANIPULATION MATRIX IS CLUMSY AND NOT SUBTLE.

Denninger said he is going to put up a video rant against CNBC tongiht he is hopping mad.

Related news: Biden has another incredibly stupid economic quote as marquis Drudge headline right now. Too bad drudge didn't use the police siren for this one because foreign investors must be freaking out.

ben tillman said…

Not so. With the competition between two authorities – secular and Church – the population had a greater degree of freedom. See, e.g., Brian Tierney's "Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300" (pp. 1-2):

If medieval Europe under the Vatican provided so much freedom then why was there no flowering of knowledge until the Reformation? Why did all of these great advances have to wait until the power of the Vatican over Europe was broken?

Britain was the leading state to break with Rome and have defensible borders that could reasonably repel an invasion, and in the centuries following the defeat of the Spanish Armada* went on to become the leading economic power in Europe. Britain also developed the Common Law which included modern property law as we know it and enshrined liberty under law as a right of the common people.

* The Pope should have had the king of Spain send a million Spanish peasants offering to pick the crops of England and do the jobs that the English "just won't do" if he really wanted to destroy Protestantism.

Maybe the senators are inept…or maybe they're just putting up token resistance, enough to make it look as if they tried but not enough to actually stir up a shitstorm they aren't ready to deal with.