I can’t bite my tongue and let idiots rage on unfairly and inaccurately about important matters.
Earlier I noted the difficulties with reality at Texas Darlin’. The warden of the blog dropped by and suggested I should join the discussion there if I had something to say. It always ends badly. Someone there says something plug ugly stupid, and I note the facts. My posts get edited, or censored.
Some post linked there, and I looked. I couldn’t resist. The owner and commenters are flailing around like a bass in the boat, trying to make a case that Sonia Sotomayor shouldn’t be a justice of the Supreme Court. They have convinced themselves that she’s a racist, she’s sexist, she got where she is solely because of affirmative action and the Great Cabal that Runs the World. And they are stuffing tinfoil in their ears now — it makes their hats leak, but it keeps them from hearing anything that might upset them.
I expect they’ll remove my posts soon. If you care, I’ve made some defense of Sonia Sotomayor, and I copied the posts below the fold. Texas Darlin’ inmates correspondents repeat every canard about Sotomayor you can imagine. And some you can’t imagine.
Texas Darlin’ is neither.
I am persuaded to do a series of posts on the nomination of Sotomayor. In the interim, here’s my attempt to square things at Texas Darlin’, below the fold.
My latest TD post: [begin quote]
Ed, get real. I am going to assume you attended college. While attending classes, did you not experience your Professor’s grading on a sliding scale?
So now you’re arguing Sotomayor was discriminated against and still came out on top?
I attended three very good universities. Damn few classes had anything other than a hard and fast grading scale. Professors were too busy professing, researching and writing to fool around with grades. Either you cut the mustard, or you didn’t.
Maybe it’s different at weaker institutions and Bible colleges. Sotomayor went to Princeton and Yale.
Did you not notice that your Professor’s spent an inordinate amount of time with those classmates that were different from you?
I noticed professors spent more time with students who did the reading, did the labs, wrote the best papers, and did the best work. Your schools were different? Warn us about them — which ones were they?
Sotomayor went to Princeton and Yale. Tough academics are normal there.
I attended a woman’s college. During exams their were all kinds of exceptions made for all different kinds of challenges my classmates had. Some were dislexic, ADD, black, of different nationalities. I had carpel tunnel and was given three hours to finish my exams. I’d get sick in the middle of it and have to go to the bathroom to throw up b/c of the intensitiy.
There’s no evidence Sotomayor was given any special conditions for any exams or anything else. She mentioned in an autobiographical piece that she had to get tutoring on her writing because, even though she was top of her high school, her writing didn’t flow well in English.
No special privileges. She got in on the grace of her great intellectual promise. She prospered on her hard work.
Sotomayor is what most Americans hope to be, what they hope to achieve. She worked hard and finished in the very top of her classes. Always.
I wasn’t given anything special. I had to suck it up, take and finish the exam on time.
Women I attended school with had exceptional grades but were denied Magna Cum b/c of having to miss a class due to severe snowstorms. I knew one woman who lived in a suburban neighborhood down in a culvert. She couldn’t get out for days to attend class b/c of the ice on the road. She was given an “F” although she was a straight “A” student.
I hope she appealed the grade.
Please don’t come here, by invitation, insinuating that the collegiate playing field is equal.
Please don’t come here denigrating the hard work of Sotomayor. It’s ugliest if you do it because she is brown, or female. It’s ugly if you do it because of her politics, and stupid since you don’t know her politics (she is a Republican appointee). It’s ugly if you do it just because Obama appointed her.
In any case, there is no good reason for you to denigrate Sotomayor’s great achievements. It’s ugly. So don’t do it.
It is not. 0bama, was chosen to be an editor b/c he was either black or a foreign aid student NOT b/c of any brilliance on his part.
You don’t know much about the Harvard Law Review, obviously. It’s an elected position. It’s a large group in the law school, populated by the best and brightest, and the most politically active. His colleagues wrote then about their concerns others would vote for him simply because he was so bright, or black — though of course, they voted for him simply because they were sure he was the best qualified.
No matter. He graduated #1 in the class, too.
Obama wasn’t “given” anything at Harvard. He was brilliant. He demonstrated great leadership. It’s ugly to denigrate such high achievement on anyone’s part, but especially ugly when one insinuates, contrary to the facts, that Obama wasn’t brilliant. You don’t get in to Harvard Law unless you’ve got flashes of brilliance at least. In this case, he was Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes — pulling away from the pack at the mile and a quarter post.l
He simply met a quota. He knew it and now we know it.
As I said, denigration is ugly. Denigration based on demonstrably false assumptions is uglier. Don’t act like a redneck racist and then say you’re not being racist.
I appreciate your intellect, so please don’t get me wrong. When you come here touting whatever position you choose to come from, be prepared to defend your position with facts, article citations and grounded opinion.
Ditto. Got anything to suggest any standard was ever lowered for Sotomayor or Obama?
Don’t get ugly without facts to back the ugly claims.
We TD bloggers are a unique group of folk in the blogosphere. We are voracious readers of both sides, we challenge all opinion and thought which may be contrary to our own, but we do this to better understand where you are coming from and to know who your sources are. Don’t take it personally.
My experience is that alternative ideas, and especially contrary views are censored mercilessly here. This is very much a “believe as we believe or hit the road” blog — as you’re threatening me, now.
We’re a rough bunch BUT we crave and demand informed opinions not the special the MSM is feeding the sheep today. We want to know what YOU think after educating yourself what both sides of the aisle are spewing.
Please apply those high standards to Sonia Sotomayor’s biography as you know it. Check the facts — they’re readily available. She’s been through the Senate’s advise and consent process twice already. None of the things you claim against her were discovered in those processes, nor evidenced anywhere else, ever.
Rough, I can see. Craving information? I’m from Missouri, and I don’t see it.
Despite all this outreach, her friends said Sotomayor was never one to talk about herself much, so it came as something of a surprise to them when she won the Pyne Prize her senior year, graduated summa cum laude and was inducted into the academic honor society Phi Beta Kappa [at Princeton]. A history major, Sotomayor maintained almost straight As in her junior and senior years and was the first Latino student to win the Pyne Prize, according to a 1976 article in The Daily Princetonian.
“It didn’t occur to me she was as talented as she was until she won the Pyne Prize,” Schubert said. “She invited me back [to campus] to witness her acceptance … [but] she’s not one to focus on herself or brag about her accomplishments.”
Check out the facts for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, but don’t think that a chorus of amens at this blog means you’ve got the facts. It means you’ve got the political correctness. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes it’s contrary to the facts.
Get the facts, if you wish. Get the facts if you dare.
Earlier in that thread, I had said: [quote]
Sotomayor’s LSAT scores were better than yours. You’re still in the realm of sour grapes.
But don’t pretend that admission to school — law school, undergraduate, medical school, or any other — is dependent solely on grades or test scores. Admissions officers have admitted for a hundred years that they look at a lot of different factors.
For example, Amherst needs to get at least one hockey goalie in every class. So, if you’re a successful goalie on your high school hockey team, and you apply to Amherst, you’re not competing against every other kid trying to get into Amherst. You’re competing only against the other hockey goalies.
Diversity brings a huge benefit to a student body. We’ve learned that every student benefits from a very diverse student body, and so admissions offices work hard to structure their admissions to make a very diverse class.
Is this fair? How is it not fair to take a pool of the best students, and make them better? It would be unfair to America to do anything different.
Was Sotomayor an affirmative action admittee? So was George Bush, and his father before him. So what?
Getting in didn’t get her to the #2 position in the class. Affirmative action doesn’t get grades. Affirmative action doesn’t read the cases and brief them for you. Affirmative action didn’t get her the editor’s position at the law review.
So, in hard competition, Sotomayor’s made the case that she can compete, that she can compete at the highest levels of academic enterprise.
And she was a helluva prosecutor.
What were your LSAT scores, by the way? Why are you slamming a brown woman for success — how many crooks have you put in jail? How many mothers do you support? What are your law review articles about? Where did you graduate in the Yale class? Where did you graduate undergraduate, from Princeton?
Sotomayor’s a great pick for the Supreme Court. Everyone who loves liberty, equal opportunity and the American way celebrates. Why are you so crabby?
Since you’re a reasonable person, Dear Reader, you’ll probably want to read Judge Sotomayor’s law journal note from her student days. Yale provides the link, and more.
Of course, Texas Darlin’ herself showed up to rescind the invitation to discuss. It’s really quite humorous:
As to the socialism, didn’t he run on the socialist ticket for office in Illinois? Didn’t he declare in the Audacity of Hope that he was a socialist?
No, Obama did not run on a socialist ticket in Illinois. He’s always run on the Democratic ticket.
No, Obama didn’t declare he was a socialist in his book. Did you read the book?
So Texas Darlin’ responded:
Unfortunately for you I do not allow trolls to disrupt the discussion on this blog.
If I weren’t laughing so hard at the comic hypocrisy and mock seriousness of the thing, I’d cue Jack Nicholson. Fer darn sure I’m not cuing Lyle Lovett.
Texas Darlin’ is loaded with wussies, poorly informed, thin-skinned wussies at that.
Texas is thinking of suing to get its good name unaffiliated with the bunch.