Funny thing, though – as firedoglake tells us here concerning the bankruptcy code…
(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall timely pay and shall not modify any retiree benefits….So the retirees come first, and then it’s up to the bondholders to negotiate with the only entity with cash on hand at the moment (if they haven't already done so), which happens to be the U.S. Government. And if they don’t like the deal they got…well, boo-freaking-hoo, people! I’ll hand them the crying towel.
Daniels criticized a Democratic climate-change proposal endorsed by President Barack Obama, calling the House’s climate bill “a classic example of unwise government.”A point-by-point takedown from Media Matters is here.
The legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions would fail to measurably reduce global warming and would burden Americans with high energy costs, he said.
“(The) system known as ‘cap and trade’ . . . will cost us dearly in jobs and income, and it stands no chance of achieving its objective of a cooler Earth,” Daniels said.
Update: I think the Media Matters link is hosed, so try this instead.
The selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor brought (so-called “identity politics”) to the fore again for several reasons. Mr. Obama’s selection process was geared from the beginning toward finding a female or minority candidate, or both. Only one of the nine vetted candidates was an Anglo male, and all four finalists he interviewed were women. One of Judge Sotomayor’s most prominent cases involved an affirmative-action claim. And her comment on her Latina background shaping her jurisprudence provided fodder for opponents.This tells us, among other things, that Thernstrom, the vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under Dubya, launched into a pretty mean-spirited (to say nothing of pointless) attack on former CCR chairwoman Mary Frances Berry last January; we also learn that Thernstrom issued “a thundering denunciation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Public Interest magazine in 1978. She ‘distinguished herself with her hostility toward any method of promoting black and minority representation’.”
“He didn’t pick a post-racial candidate,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a leading conservative scholar on race relations and the author of a book called “Voting Rights — And Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections.” “She’s a quintessential spokesman for racial spoils.”
As far as I’m concerned, Thernstrom is about as qualified to comment on racial issues as Dick Cheney is on matters pertaining to human rights; unfortunately, though, as noted here by Jack and Jill Politics (and Jeffrey Toobin recently in The New Yorker), a case involving Section 5 is indeed before the Court of Hangin’ Judge JR, whose animus towards it is so obvious that you can cut it with the proverbial knife – I’m a bit fearful of the outcome, to be honest.
Update 6/4/09: Let’s see, Sotomayor’s approval rating remains high (check), Repugs divided on how to handle her nomination (check), so what’s left to do? Why, play the “I’m-an-aggrieved-white-person-who-can’t handle-a-minority-so-I-yell-‘identity-politics’” card, of course (here – I’ve already pointed out that Thernstrom is shooting dirty pool in prior posts).
5 comments:
What a moronic post! Does anyone read this drivel?
"Thoughtful and rigorous debate might be the ultimate moral act."
Too bad there's none of that to be found in this post. Calling people names is neither thoughtful nor rigorous.
Oh, goodness gracious me – so “idiots” offends your apparently delicate sensibilities?
My bio states the following:
"I will try to be judicious in my use of language, steering clear of most guttural profanity, but I will respond in what I believe is an appropriate manner to current news and events."
Regarding the post, what else can you call a supposed financial “genius” who predicted that the Dow would hit 36,000, an Indiana governor who tells us that “a cooler earth” will be achieved through more consumption of fossil fuels, and an individual openly hostile to voting rights for African Americans claiming to speak on behalf of Judge Sonia Sotomayor?
And for the millionth time, I get a report every Monday on my page “reads” and “views.”
In the future, try to be a little more precise in your comments so we could actually have an intelligent discussion (assuming that’s what you seek, of course). Otherwise, go away.
I like how you've now switched to moderated comments only, so no one who disagrees with you can post any comments without your permission--which, of course, you're not going to give. That's a nice reflection of your strong commitment to rigorous debate! You're all for it--as long as it's entirely on your terms, subject to your censorship. Good going! Must make you feel like a big man. Can't actually hold up your side of an argument so you've got to silence anyone who disagrees with you.
(By the way, I rejected your second comment because you accused me of not addressing the issues raised by Glassman and Daniels in the first two of the three topics; however, I linked to two posts that did just that – apparently you didn’t click the links and bother to read the other posts. And what Thernstrom said didn’t deserve a response, calling Sotomayor “a quintessential spokesman for racial spoils”…funny how you see ad hominem attacks somehow from what I say, but not from what Thernstrom says.)
Also, I’m more than willing to try and hold up my side of an argument, assuming that it’s in response to something besides name calling (still surprised that this outburst was caused by the post title). Calling the post “moronic” is as unhelpful as anything you fault me for, whether it is deserved or not (and yes, that’s why I re-enabled comment moderation – were I to post a comment like that at another site, I would expect the owner to do the same thing).
Post a Comment