Larry Jankens's picture

    Rush has a question for you... And I hope to hell, you have an answer

    By Larry Jankens on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 8:43pm | Politics

    Would a white male judge have fractured his ankle?  Hmm.....  I have a few questions for you, Rush.

    I this like a zen koan or something?  Like: if a blowhard makes outlandish and moronic ponderings and no one is there to hear it is he still a big fat idiot? (yes)  Or: what's the sound of one @sshole windbag's jaw flapping? (it sounds his radio show)

    So what do you think?  Would Sotomayor's ankles have been stronger if she was a white guy?  Do hispanics have trouble walking and not breaking their ankles?  Is this another example of women not being good navigators?  (and please avoid the obvious answer of this is the stupidest question known to man).

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    unfortunately plenty of people hear the guy. of course, to be fair, he was merely mocking the judge's comments on how wise latina women would make better judgments than white men, which was a pretty stupid comment, tho obviously blown out of proportion and out of any context by her critics. but its not like hes being serious.


    by Deadman on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 1:22am

    Deadman, sure he was mocking her and trying to be funny, but it wasn't funny.  I can enjoy offensive and stupid satire that I don't agree with if it's humurous - like South Park. 

    Plus, I don't think her "wise latina" comment was stupid.  All she was saying is that she hopes that educated latina women who find themselves empowered to enact change in the world do not do what certain white males have done while they are empowered (ie endorse a racist and sexist worldview).  How is that stupid?


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 12:22pm

    All she was saying is that she hopes that educated latina women who find themselves empowered to enact change in the world do not do what certain white males have done while they are empowered (ie endorse a racist and sexist worldview).  How is that stupid?

    The problem is that she didn't say that. Her words suggested that she believed that a Latina judge would be superior to a white male judge - not merely that a Latina judge would do better than white male judges have done in the past, but that they make better judges overall. Taken literally, that does suggest a racist view point. I believe she meant what you're suggesting "she was saying". The problem is, that's not what she actually said. (When I say "problem", I don't mean "serious problem", I merely mean it's what has given fuel to the conservative fire.)


    by Nebton on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 12:36pm

    Saying that she implied that Latinas would be better than white guys at being judges is a bit off base. 

    What she literally said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

    When she says that she hopes that a Latina women would reach a better conclusion than a white male because they have a "richness of her expereinces," I don't think she is saying that Latina's would inherently make better judges.  She hopes that Latinas would not shirk their past and differences from a white guy and instead revel and utilize it to make better decisions on the bench. 

    I think it illustrates the idea that having a diversity of backgrounds is important and necessary in the judiciary. 


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 1:04pm

    I do believe that she meant what you think she meant. However, to my ears her statement, if taken literally suggests that Latinas are wiser than white men - not inherently of course, but by virtue of their life experiences.


    by Nebton on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 1:07pm

    The way I see it, a wise Latina woman would more often than not reach a better decision than a white man, because a white man is more likely to be blinded by privilege.

    By that I mean that our entire social structure is set up with white men at the top. It's been changing for decades, but it's been changing slowly. What that means is that a white man can be successful without paying a lick of attention to anybody else's experience.

    I'm not suggesting that all white men choose this path. Of course, many don't. But many do, and some of those many are probably judges, just as they are teachers and businessmen and whatever else.

    People who don't happen to be white men have to learn how to live in both worlds, which gives them better perspective.

    Maybe that's what she meant.


    by Orlando on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:44pm

    nice comment, o, and thats probably exactly what she meant. but the statement taken at face value was pretty stupid. is the white man shes comparing herself to 'wise' as well (cuz if so then he probably is able to better understand the experiences of others)- and what does she mean by 'better conclusion' - maybe 'more naunced' would have been a better way to say it.  and personally, i think the generalizations suck. not all white men are born with privilege. im glad you at least recognized that society is changing, yes probably too slowly for all but white men, but plenty of progress has been made.


    by Deadman on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:52pm

    I won't dispute your point (mainly because I agree with it, not that would necessarily stop me from disputing it). Whether or not it's true, however, isn't it "racist"?


    by Nebton on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:55pm

    I'm one of those that believes that racism has to have a power component. I can be a bigot. I can be biased against any group based on stupid random things like race. But I can't really be racist unless I am in a power position. So, as a white woman, if I have feelings of bigotry or prejudice against people of color, I am racist. If I think white men ought to get the hell out of the way of progress, I might be biased and I might be generalizing. But I'm not racist, because as a group, at this moment, white men still hold more power in our society than white women.


    by Orlando on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 4:05pm

    Evidently, you haven't gotten the memo. You see, it's us white men who are oppressed. ;)


    by Nebton on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 4:12pm

    The thing about Rush is people that listen to him don't get his jokes, they take what he says as fact.  My brother and I have spent years trying to explain to his oldest son that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and that he gets paid according to the number of people that listen to him so he'll say anything to get ears.  The boy just won't give it up.  And I have heard at least one other person carry on about how smart Limbaugh is - "He knows everything!".  I wish he would go away.


    by Bluesplashy on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 10:34pm

    I'm convinced that Rush and his acolytes are like 4-year-olds seeking negative attention.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 3:15am

    Folks, you're all trying in your liberal, leftist, PC way to avoid the perfectly valid point Rush raised: are not old, white males genetically superior to Latinas by virtue of the strength of their ankles?

    The week's news suggests the answer is yes: the only person whose broken ankle I've read about is Judge Sotomayor. No old white men appear to have broken an ankle this past week. They've shown a propensity for rushing into churches and museums and shooting people, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't make perfectly acceptable Supreme Court justices.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 3:48am

    Latest Comments