Eugene Robinson: A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge

My man Eugene Robinson (recent Pulitzer winner) drops another fantastic editorial in todays Washington Post. Here, he writes about Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court. Regardless of who Obama had picked, the GOP and their sycophantic flock of infants would have no doubt bashed them, having "liberal activist judge" talking points ready. Sotomayor is by most educated accounts, a relatively moderate judge, with a highly distinguished career in both private and public law, and as Robinson points out, a longer career in the federal justice system than anyone else on the current Supreme Court. Of course, like the pathetic weasels that they are, Limbaugh, Coulter, and New Gingrich (amongst other squabbling old leaders of the "new" GOP) have jumped on the easiest thing they could: an out-of-context remark about being proud of her heritage and race.

What they don't understand, and what I haven't seen media explain, is that her saying that her life as a Latin-American woman WOULD make her a better judge in modern America. Granted, this is assuming that she has the educational and professional background to hold the position, but her unique perspective of being an underrepresented sex in an underrepresented minority DOES in fact provide her with a better understanding of the law. The only thing that I think would make her a more suitable candidate is if she were in fact also a lesbian. Who better to make weigh the constitutional relevance to modern legal precedence on abortion issues than a woman, who would be most directly affected by the decision? Who better to make decisions on affirmative action than someone who has lived through the subtle racism of modern professional America? Who better to decide on issues of immigration than a member of the Latin-American community (yes, I do know she was born in the Bronx, and that her parents are from Puerto Rico which is an American territory and the Latin-American community is not homogeneous)? I think it would be better if she was a lesbian, because who better to decide about whether same-sex marriage should be legal than someone who would be directly affected? All of the white-man decisions have been made, will continue to be made by the rest of the court (looking at you Clarence Thomas).

What Newt Gingrich fails to understand, is that racial pride for minorities in American is very different from racism. For white America, people can be proud of their Irish or Italian heritage, or celebrate being a southern gentleman or a California surfer, or enjoy the Jewish community which shares a common past and culture, but what has defined "white power" is hatred for everyone else. What Sonia Sotomayor was celebrating in her comment (which I think she should stand behind) was pride for her experience and her race and her culture. This invokes fear in white America, just as "Black is Beautiful" did in the 60s and 70s. Because white America only understands racial pride as hatred for everyone else, most cannot understand that ethnic pride for minorities is a celebration.

One final note, which may risk sounding like a conspiracy, but I believe that a fundamental reason why Limbaugh, Gingrich, Coulter, and others were so quick to jump on the racial comments, is that they are attempting to rally the subliminal or even overt racism which still unites the remaining steadfast GOP constituency against Obama. By brining up race, they can remind people that Barack Obama is in fact black, and that is something to be feared. This is the same old GOP bullsh!t, the same old tactics, the same old people. I look forward to the day when the GOP is a (not so) fond memory like the Whigs; something kids read about in history books. The Democratic party is fractured enough. Let moderate Democrats become the most right wing element in politics in America and start their own party once the black hole that once was the GOP settles.

Eugene Robinson in the WP:

President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is a proud and accomplished Latina. This fact apparently drives some prominent Republicans to a state resembling incoherent, sputtering rage.

"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," former House speaker Newt Gingrich ranted Wednesday on Twitter. My first reaction was that politicians above a certain age should never be left alone in the danger-strewn landscape of social networking. My second thought was: Whoa, Newt, what's that about?

Rush Limbaugh also -- predictably -- bellowed endlessly about how Sotomayor was a "reverse racist," and how Obama was one, too. But unlike Gingrich, Limbaugh doesn't ask to be taken seriously. He just asks to be paid.

Gingrich's outburst was in reaction to a widely publicized, out-of-context quote from a 2001 speech in which Sotomayor mused about how her identity might or might not affect her decisions as a federal judge. Far from being some kind of "racist" screed, the speech was actually a meditation on Sotomayor's personal experience of a universal truth: Who we are inevitably influences what we do.

Each of us carries through life a unique set of experiences. Sotomayor's happen to be the experiences of a brilliant, high-powered Latina -- a Nuyorican who was raised in the projects of the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, edited the Yale Law Journal, worked as a Manhattan prosecutor and a corporate lawyer, and served for 17 years as a federal trial and appellate judge.

Given that kind of sterling résumé -- and given that she has, according to presidential adviser David Axelrod, more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in at least 100 years -- it's understandable that Republican critics would have to grasp at straws.

The charge that she's a "judicial activist" finds no basis in her voluminous record. Critics have seized on a ruling she joined in a case called Ricci v. DeStefano, involving a reverse-discrimination claim by a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. But Sotomayor's action in that case is more properly seen as an example of judicial restraint.

What happened was that the city gave an advancement exam to firefighters, and no African Americans were deemed eligible for promotion. Fearing that it would lose ground in its effort to diversify the leadership of the fire department, and fearing a civil rights lawsuit, the city canceled the exam. The firefighters who passed did not get the promotions they had expected. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the city government had acted within the law, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit -- including Sotomayor -- agreed.

What Sotomayor's attackers either don't understand or won't acknowledge is that the issue before the court wasn't whether the city of New Haven had acted fairly in canceling the exam but whether it had acted legally. There was ample precedent indicating that the action was, in fact, legal. I thought the whole theory of judicial restraint was that we didn't want unelected judges telling our elected officials what to do. I thought the conservative idea was that judges were just supposed to "call balls and strikes" -- which is just what Sotomayor and her colleagues did.

Ah, but there's always a subtext. Like Sotomayor's 2001 speech, the New Haven case was really about identity -- and about power. In both instances, as Sotomayor's critics saw it, minorities were either claiming or obtaining some kind of advantage over white males. Never mind whether this perception has any basis in fact. The very concept seemed to be enough to light a thermonuclear fuse.

Despite the best efforts of Gingrich, Limbaugh and others, Sotomayor's confirmation process probably won't be about race. Her qualifications are impeccable, her record is moderate and her personality, according to colleagues, is winning. At her confirmation hearings, she'll have the opportunity to supply the missing context for any quote they throw at her. Absent some 11th-hour surprise, I can't imagine that her opponents in the Senate will be able to lay a glove on her.

I also can't imagine that she'll pretend to be anyone other than who she is. Sonia Sotomayor has made clear that she is proud of her identity, and she offers that pride not as an affront but as an example -- not white, not male, not Anglo, not inclined to apologize. She is the new face of America, and she has a dazzling smile.

Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking

I'm in a way surprised, and not at all surprised by this study done by Ohio State University on how Stephen Colbert's parody of a conservative talk show host is received by true conservatives:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

Full study.

Maybe they forgot this:

Republicans flinging bullsh!t at the Climate Bill

Functioning infant Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) had this to say about the draft climate bill now being heard in Congress:

This is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress. We’ve seen two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above.

He went on to say that global warming is God's will:



From Grist.org

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) chimed in with his own analysis: “Adapting is a common natural way for people to adapt to their environment ... I believe that the earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons,” he said. “And I think mankind has been adopting, or adapting to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay.”

(And if you think that’s bad, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC on Sunday that “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. ... Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”)

The witness skepticism program

The witnesses Republicans bring to hearings are just as out of touch with climate science.

Democrats, who control Congress and thus chair its committees, schedule hearings on topics of their choosing and invite witnesses. A committee chair isn’t required to grant the minority party their pick of witnesses, but if the minority objects to the panel, they can request a second day of the hearing for which they pick all the witnesses. To avoid that messiness, chairs tend to let the minority pick at least one or two panelists.

At the March 25 hearing, Democrats’ five witnesses included the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office, and leaders from the National Wildlife Federation, the National Council of Churches, and Oxfam America.

The NOAA representative, Tom Karl, presented on the trends toward increased droughts and forest fires, and an uptick in the frequency and severity of coastal storms that the agency forecasts. John Stephenson from the GAO talked about the “growing understanding” at his agency that the costs of inaction could be greater than the costs of mitigating climate change. Even the witnesses who don’t work in climate science or government stuck to the topic at hand—adapting to a warmed world—without claiming expertise they don’t possess. Bishop Callon Holloway of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, speaking on behalf of the National Council of Churches, testified about the “call to be good stewards of the earth,” reflecting on the values of “stewardship and justice” that should compel us to protect the poor who would be affected by climate change.

In stark contrast, the Republicans’ witnesses challenged the very idea of climate change, and thus the whole basis for the hearing. First up was E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, who warned that “fear of catastrophic, man-made global warming is a mistake,” and argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God,” humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate. Going further, he warned that restricting the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere would harm the poor, and that Americans are “morally obligated to provide access for the poor to affordable, abundant fossil fuels.”

The minority’s second witness was Lord Christopher Monckton, aka the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British hereditary peer who’s become a minor star in the climate-skeptic world. “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing,” he told the panel. He readily agreed with Rep. Shimkus: “We are a carbon-starved planet.”

Monckton argued that if Congress moved to address climate change, it would “create green jobs by the thousands and eliminate real jobs by the millions ... Green jobs are the new euphemism for vast unemployment.”

He also contended that aggressive environmental regulation in California has prompted a vast exodus from the state. “Everyone with the means to get up and go is getting up and going, and unlike their robotic governor, they won’t be back,” Monckton said—though he offered no evidence of a mass migration. (In reality, the state’s overall population continues to grow, even though the number of people moving out of California has slightly surpassed the number moving in.)

Monckton has a colorful history—journalist by training, advisor to Margaret Thatcher, business consultant, and developer of the high-selling Eternity puzzle—but no background in climate science. Nonetheless, he’s touted by climate deniers as an “expert” on the topic, and serves as chief policy adviser to the Science & Public Policy Institute, a climate-skeptic group. Republicans also trotted Monckton out as a witness at a Ways and Means Committee hearing on climate change in February, and he appeared at the climate skeptics summit sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute in early March. (See George Monbiot, DeSmogBlog, and Deltoid for more on Monckton.)

“This was a serious hearing on a serious issue,” an aide to the Energy and Commerce Committee told Grist of the March 25 panel. “We gave the other side advance notice on the kinds of witnesses [Democratic leaders] were choosing. They chose to invite Monckton. ... If this is the witness that they want to choose, even though he’s contradicted by U.S. government scientists, then we’re going to move forward.”

Will the GOP play ball or throw sand?

Climate legislation will be highly complex, with society-wide ramifications. So far this year, there have been 11 hearings on the topic in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee alone, and there will be a number of additional hearings over the coming weeks focusing specifically on the draft climate plan from Markey and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Markey has said they left many specifics out of their draft because they “want to hear from all affected parties” on, for instance, how to minimize impacts on citizens and help energy-intensive businesses adapt to a new regulatory scheme.

But instead of inviting witnesses who could speak to these critical concerns, the Republican committee members have thus far preferred to invite climate skeptics.

Asked about the prospects for meaningful Republican participation in crafting a climate bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged recently that there might not be much, if any. “We would hope to have Republican votes as we go forward on this,” she said. “Will I not put it forth unless I do? No. There’s an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold its first four hearings on the Waxman-Markey bill this week, starting on Tuesday. Democratic leaders aim to pass the legislation out of committee by Memorial Day, and out of the full House by July. If you want to know how seriously Republicans are taking the process, keep an eye on these hearings.

How are these really our elected officials?

Boehner: It's 'comical' to say carbon dioxide is dangerous

I hate to be partisan, but Jesus H. Christ............republicans..........

The video speaks for itself. Transcript below.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you then about energy. We showed your statement on the president's decision through the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Also, you've come out against the president's proposal to cap-and-trade carbon emissions.

So what is the Republican answer to climate change? Is it a problem? Do you have a plan to address it?

BOEHNER: George, we believe that our -- all of the above energy strategy from last year continues to be the right approach on energy. That we ought to make sure that we have new sources of energy, green energy, but we need nuclear energy, we need other types of alternatives, and, yes, we need American-made oil and gas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that doesn't do anything when it comes to emissions, sir.

BOEHNER: When it comes to the issue of climate change, George, it's pretty clear that if we don't work with other industrialized nations around the world, what's going to happen is that we're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas. We have to deal with this in a responsible way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what is the responsible way? That's my question. What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?

BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

BOEHNER: ... we've had climate change over the last 100 years -- listen, it's clear we've had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.

John Oliver Talks Tyranny With Tea Partiers On The "Daily Show"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Tea Party Tyranny
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

DCist: Teabaggers Denied Their Hilarious Metaphor at Lafayette Park

This year's most double entendre-rich protest movement arrived in front of the White House this morning without the benefit of the objects of ridicule themselves. As the Post reported earlier, the so-called Tea Party protesters were greeted with bad news while they set up for planned protests at Lafayette Square and the U.S. Treasury building today: they didn't have permission to dump a million tea bags in the park, and they lacked a permit to demonstrate in front of Treasury. No massive public teabagging allowed, after all.

Still, the Lafayette Square event began on time, drawing at least 500 people in the first hour, despite the rain. DCist stopped by to survey the scene, which took on the tone of an anti-Obama, pro-capitalism protest, with relatively few actual teabags in sight. The rally is planned to continue until 3 p.m., but it's an awfully cold and wet day for teabagging outside, so we'll have to check back later to see how long the protesters make it. In our experience, teabagging isn't an activity many people can keep up all day.





The hypocrisy of the right astounds me.