The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)

[Bloggingheads]

[harkin]

Sorry but the ones obsessed with race are Dayo and John.

The confirmation hearings were all about equality and being color-blind and Sotomayor vomited all over herself (Dayo: 'said it poorly') with her incredible testimony.

White-people land?? What if a white person referred to an inner-city ghetto as 'black-people land'? The cries of racism would echo.

This is followed by 'I don't want to engage in a sort of ethnic determinism'??? LOL!


I've already posted a few articles pointing out the shortcomings of Sotomayor and how she had to disavow her earlier statements (and Obama's philosophy) in order to not appear a race-based, statist knucklehead, here's another from George Jonas:


"At one point, Sotomayor explained to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn that she was trying to play off Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s observation that, all things being equal, a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman. When Cornyn pointed out that this was the opposite of a wise Latina reaching a better conclusion that her male counterpart, Sotomayor said, hmm, well, yes, you got it, that’s why her words “failed.” They “didn’t work,” although her address, taken as a whole, meant to convey the same message as Justice O’Connor’s. Sotomayor didn’t explain why she kept using failed words that didn’t work speech after speech, and Cornyn was too much of a gentleman to ask.

Anyone bald-faced enough to offer such blatant nonsense would be laughed out of court, but in the Senate Judiciary Committee no one is laughing. Custom entitles a popular president — especially one, like Obama, who has the votes to enforce his choice anyway — to stack the Supreme Court as long as the nominee doesn’t suffer a “complete meltdown,” as South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham put it — that is, as long as she doesn’t deny what everybody knows with such transparent falsity as to turn her stumble into a pratfall. A flaw in the nominee’s judgment does no harm as long as there’s a flaw in her character to fix it. “Hey, Judge, we’re on your side,” senators say. “Just make it sound good.” That’s how things work in the big leagues."

[graz]

Originally Posted by harkin

...Anyone bald-faced enough to offer such blatant nonsense would be laughed out of court, but in the Senate Judiciary Committee no one is laughing. Custom entitles a popular president — especially one, like Obama, who has the votes to enforce his choice anyway — to stack the Supreme Court as long as the nominee doesn’t suffer a “complete meltdown,” as South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham put it — that is, as long as she doesn’t deny what everybody knows with such transparent falsity as to turn her stumble into a pratfall. A flaw in the nominee’s judgment does no harm as long as there’s a flaw in her character to fix it. “Hey, Judge, we’re on your side,” senators say. “Just make it sound good.” That’s how things work in the big leagues."[/I]

And if your pull quote is reflective of the political reality, than I applaud Sotomayor for being "wise" enough and smart enough to play the game to win. Yes, Obama has the entitlement... so it goes. But don't mistake twisting her replies in the conformation process for her actual worth as a judge or legal scholar. Her seventeen years are proof enough. Empathy is for realz.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by harkin

Sorry but the ones obsessed with race are Dayo and John.

The confirmation hearings were all about equality and being color-blind and Sotomayor vomited all over herself (Dayo: 'said it poorly') with her incredible testimony.

White-people land?? What if a white person referred to an inner-city ghetto as 'black-people land'? The cries of racism would echo.

This is followed by 'I don't want to engage in a sort of ethnic determinism'??? LOL!

Let me check the debating manual ... yeah, it says, "When executing the blacks are the real racists move the debater must first establish the appearance of evenhandedness and sympathy (see concern troll). Do not leap to equivalence directly." You shanked it pretty badly, even though it says this move has a low degree of difficulty.

[harkin]

And if your pull quote is reflective of the political reality, than I applaud Sotomayor for being "wise" enough and smart enough to play the game to win.

Applauding someone for dishonesty has never been high on my list, nor has trying to cover for it by attributing same to some form of wisdom. But I do recognize that it's part of the Alinsky playbook.

Let me check the debating manual ... yeah, it says, "When executing the blacks are the real racists move the debater must first establish the appearance of evenhandedness and sympathy (see concern troll). Do not leap to equivalence directly." You shanked it pretty badly, even though it says this move has a low degree of difficulty.

That you chose to employ the ridiculous premise that this equals a 'blacks are the real racists' meme, you show either your ignorance or your disingenuousness. But feel secure in the knowledge that those who consider any criticism of a person of color as a sign of racism will appalud you.

And the only shanking was done by yourself, as I criticized John and Dayo, not all persons of a specific race, as they did with Dayo's 'white persons land' ridiculousness (and McWhorter's implied agreement). I called them individually on their own words/actions, which was completely fair. Use this as a learning moment - step one in this tutorial is to recognize that racists and race ignorant people come in all colors.

And by coincidence the death of Leszek Kolakowski and the tribute by Christopher Hitchens reminds us of the incredible hypocrisy of the left regarding race:

"A second Polish spring in March 1968 was put down with the use of the most crude police tactics and the employment by the Communist Party of anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissent. Forced to leave his homeland, he roosted for a while as an exile professor in Berkeley, Calif., where his experience of the student movement more or less completed his break with the New Left. (Years later he would recall with contempt a pamphlet that described the libraries of the university as being stuffed with "useless 'white' knowledge)."

[graz]

Originally Posted by harkin

Applauding someone for dishonesty has never been high on my list, nor has trying to cover for it by attributing same to some form of wisdom. But I do recognize that it's part of the Alinsky playbook.

Did you ever play charades? They call it a game.
I respect your call for honesty. I also know that you're shrewd enough to know how to play for keeps. Why only cut slack for your heroes or political allies (G.W. springs to mind - if recollection serves)?
Isn't that dare I say, dishonest?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by harkin

I've already posted a few articles pointing out the shortcomings of Sotomayor ...

And we can never have too many of those! Here are some more: "Sotomayor Hearings, Expected Confirmation a Conservative Triumph, Say Rightbloggers."

[eric]

McWhorter admits the reason why the swim club didn't want the kids back could have been there were simply too many kids, and notes the word 'complexion' really raised hackles. But as a linguist he should know 'complexion' has more than one meaning, many are benign. For example, a swimming pool is quite different when there are 60 kids brought in, not with families, but with a handful of adult babysitters. I'm sure that kids being kids, it was relative bedlam. This swim club will probably be sued out of existence, and even the board individuals will probably pay tens of thousands for whatever happened. The 'prima facia' proof of racism consists of reports by the group that they heard racial slurs. Is it possible people at the club were merely offended by the extra rowdy kids, and the kids responded to this umbrage by pushing the right buttons?

The speakers draw from this is that 1) the swim club is guilty of racism based on self-interested hearsay and 2) this incident has broad implications for society. Most people want to brag about how they hate the racism alleged, so won't bother to seriously consider the defense, so this swim club has only a formality of any real defense.

This suggest to me one of the biggest problems in the black community is the obsessive focus on racism in the face of standard slights that anyone else deals with as life merely due to the fact that some people are rude. There are better priorities. This can lead to rational generalizations, and be self-defeating.

[graz]

Originally Posted by eric

This suggest to me one of the biggest problems in the black community is the obsessive focus on racism in the face of standard slights that anyone else deals with as life merely due to the fact that some people are rude. There are better priorities. This can lead to rational generalizations, and be self-defeating.

The distinction between the highlighted "black community" and "anyone" are important to unpack. It is unlikely for the group dynamic at play in this particular case to be addressed by the tough it out approach. It is not a series of individuals facing an inconvenience. Even as an outsider it is easy to grasp the forces at play. It may even be the case that as you suggested it was only a slight or was exploited to maximize results - we can only guess. But to expect that it could be easily diffused is naive.

[pampl]

Originally Posted by eric

McWhorter admits the reason why the swim club didn't want the kids back could have been there were simply too many kids, and notes the word 'complexion' really raised hackles. But as a linguist he should know 'complexion' has more than one meaning, many are benign. For example, a swimming pool is quite different when there are 60 kids brought in, not with families, but with a handful of adult babysitters. I'm sure that kids being kids, it was relative bedlam. This swim club will probably be sued out of existence, and even the board individuals will probably pay tens of thousands for whatever happened. The 'prima facia' proof of racism consists of reports by the group that they heard racial slurs. Is it possible people at the club were merely offended by the extra rowdy kids, and the kids responded to this umbrage by pushing the right buttons?

He wrote about complexion having more than one meaning last week, when he addressed this topic. That's why here he just calls it something like "an unfortunate word" and not an indicator of racism. I find your claims about the club's future to be extremely improbably, and I'm willing to wager a small sum that nothing like it will happen. I don't think making racist statements is a justified response to "extra rowdy kids". I'd like to see some evidence of "extra rowd[iness]" by the way.

[gwlaw99]

While I think generally she is qualified and should be confirmed, the focus should have been more about some of her bad holdings. For example, in Didden v. Port Chester , agreeing that it was OK for a developer to blackmail a landowner to give up half of their property (or pay a bribe of 800k to the developer). When the landowner refused the blackmail; it was ok for that developer to threaten and eventually use his influence in government to have the government take the landowner's property and give it to the developer solely for the developer's benefit (building a different kind of drug store than the landowner was going to build).

Did the circuit court struggle with this issue? Did the court show wisdom through a reasoned opinion? No, as in Ricci, after dealing with procedureal issues, it simply released a terse opinion on the substantive issues. Is that a wise decision based on great personal experience and empathy?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by gwlaw99

While I think generally she is qualified and should be confirmed, the focus should have been more about some of her bad holdings. For example, in Didden v. Port Chester , agreeing that it was OK for a developer to blackmail a landowner to give up half of their property (or pay a bribe of 800k to the developer). When the landowner refused the blackmail; it was ok for that developer to threaten and eventually use his influence in government to have the government take the landowner's property and give it to the developer solely for the developer's benefit (building a different kind of drug store than the landowner was going to build).

Did the circuit court struggle with this issue? Did the court show wisdom through a reasoned opinion? No, as in Ricci, after dealing with procedureal issues, it simply released a terse opinion on the substantive issues. Is that a wise decision based on great personal experience and empathy?

Wasn't that decided based a statute of limitations?

[gwlaw99]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Wasn't that decided based a statute of limitations?

Yes, but the court stated "even if Appellants' claims were not time-barred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London . . . obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted."

In that one line they expanded Kelo to legitimize pretextual takings for a private benefit.

Even the precedural ruling was problematic

"the plaintiffs' property was not condemned at that time and Wasser did not make his extortionate threats until November 2003, after which their property was almost immediately condemned.

Until that time, it was impossible to file a pretextual taking claim because no pretextual taking had yet occurred or even been threatened. Judge Sotomayor’s panel ruled that Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna’s case was time-barred because she assumed that there is no legal difference between the mere declaration of a redevelopment area and the use of condemnation for purposes of extortion. The panel’s seemingly technical procedural ruling was actually based on a serious substantive error about the law of pretextual takings, as described in Kelo."

Here 2nd amendment case was also very problematic. She relied on a case from the 1890's based on the "privileges or immunities" clause to hold the 2nd amendment was not incorporated to the states when for the last 100 years incorporation has been decided based on the due process clause.

[conncarroll]

um Dayo... they did question her about the law. extensively. Sonia just caved at every turn:

Rejecting the Living Constitution: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Sotomayor flat out: “Do you believe the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document?” Sotomayor then flatly rejected the views of liberal scholars and jurists: “The Constitution is a document that is immutable to the sense that it’s lasted 200 years. The Constitution has not changed except by amendment. It is a process, an amendment process that is set forth in the document. It doesn’t live other than to be timeless by the expression of what it says.” She later told Sen. Al Franken (D-MN): “[T]he role of the court is never to make the policy. It’s to wait until Congress acts.”

Rejecting Transnationalist Jurisprudence: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked Sotomayor: “You’ve been fairly critical of Justice Scalia’s criticism of the use of foreign law in making decisions. And I would like for you to cite for me, either in the Constitution or in the oath that you took, outside of the treaties, the authority that you can have to utilize foreign law in deciding cases in the courts of law in this country.” Sotomayor then flatly rejected the views of established transnationalist jurisprudence leaders like Harold Koh: “I have actually agreed with Justice Scalia and Thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with respect to the things American law permits you to. And that’s in treaty interpretation or in conflicts of law because it’s a different system of law.”

Rejecting Obama’s Empathy Standard: Sotomayor even flatly rejected President Obama’s own criteria for selecting Supreme Court nominees, telling Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws.”

[nikkibong]

Conn, TWIB has become unwatchable without you.

Please come back!

no! don't listen to him. please, for god's sake, do not come back.

[piscivorous]

I find it amazing and some what humors, that even with 60 Democratic Senators, this justice nominee finds it necessary to toe the conservative line in her answers to many of the questions. Is conservative jurisprudence now the defacto norm? Or is she lying to conform to the perceived conservative norm? Only her hair dresser knows for sure!

[bkjazfan]

Hello! I am out of the loop on affirnmative action polling. I haven't followed the issue in years. I know awhile back the public in California voted against it in some kind of government hiring or college admissions by 54 to 46 or it could have been a slimmer victory. I can't remember the particulars of it.

Anyhow, what does national polling suggest? Are the majority of all Americans for or against it? I bring it up since Senator Sessions seem to be concerned with it among other things.

John

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Hello! I am out of the loop on affirnmative action polling. I haven't followed the issue in years. I know awhile back the public in California voted against it in some kind of government hiring or college admissions by 54 to 46 or it could have been a slimmer victory. I can't remember the particulars of it.

Anyhow, what does national polling suggest? Are the majority of all Americans for or against it? I bring it up since Senator Sessions seem to be concerned with it among other things.

John

Well, judging on Sotomayor's answers and on the behavior of Republican senators, both affirmative action and the liberal judicial philosophy poll pretty badly.
As Dayo remarked, them Republicans must think they are appealing to somebody. lol

ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW HER BEING LATINO makes her a better judge, never cite examples.

CAUSE THE CASE'S THAT SHE HAS LET HER RACE DECIDED RULINGS, ARE THE ONE'S THE LEFT EMBARASSED ABOUT LIKE RICCI.

and i'm disgusted at how this lady snarks "oh poor frank ricci" and claims to be offended by senators even daring to be upset and bring up Sotomayors minoritys are better judges, and that we should throw out tests if blacks don't do well enough.

everytime you bring up Ricci, so many black liberals like idiotic robots just say "oh ya white males are so oppressed, aren't they?, i guess you forgot about that whole slavery thing"

complete straw mans

ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW HER BEING LATINO makes her a better judge, they never cite examples.

CAUSE THE CASES THAT SHE HAS LET HER RACE DECIDED RULINGS, ARE THE ONE'S THE LEFT EMBARASSED ABOUT LIKE RICCI.

and i'm disgusted at how this lady snarks "oh poor frank ricci" and claims to be offended by senators even daring to be upset and bring up Sotomayors minoritys are better judges, and that we should throw out tests if blacks don't do well enough.

everytime you bring up Ricci, so many black liberals like idiotic robots just say "oh ya white males are so oppressed, aren't they?, i guess you forgot about that whole slavery thing"

complete straw mans

ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW HER BEING LATINO makes her a better judge, they never cite examples.

CAUSE THE CASES THAT SHE HAS LET HER RACE DECIDE RULINGS, ARE THE ONE'S THE LEFT EMBARASSED ABOUT LIKE RICCI.

and i'm disgusted at how this lady snarks "oh poor frank ricci" and claims to be offended by senators even daring to be upset and bring up Sotomayors minoritys are better judges, and that we should throw out tests if blacks don't do well enough.

everytime you bring up Ricci, so many black liberals like idiotic robots just say "oh ya white males are so oppressed, aren't they?, i guess you forgot about that whole slavery thing"

complete straw mans

[metacodger]

dkschwartz said: ...

** %% !!!YEAH MARIA!!! *** YOU gOts Some 'SPLAININ to DO!!!*** :-& !!! *** ! ### !!

[claymisher]

I read McWhorter's post on this a couple of days ago, and given my deformation professionnelle (former lifeguard and swimming teacher), all I could think was, "How big was that pool and how many lifeguards did they have?" Without knowing that you can't really comment on this story.

[breadcrust]

Originally Posted by claymisher

I read McWhorter's post on this a couple of days ago, and given my deformation professionnelle (former lifeguard and swimming teacher), all I could think was, "How big was that pool and how many lifeguards did they have?" Without knowing that you can't really comment on this story.

Two friends of mine who worked as lifeguards were trained to focus on blacks because of their higher rate of drowning than whites: "The fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is 3.2 times that of white children in the same age range."
Is this training standard?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by breadcrust

Two friends of mine who worked as lifeguards were trained to focus on blacks because of their higher rate of drowning than whites: "The fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is 3.2 times that of white children in the same age range."
Is this training standard?

Oh hell no! You gotta watch everybody all the time. The only time I ever had to go in the water was to fish out old people too pooped to grab on the pole. And one toddler who just ran straight over to the deep end, jumped in, and immediately sank. That was a weird one. Little suicide machines, those toddlers.

I'm not going to argue with the CDC stats so I have to figure that has to do with poverty (never getting swimming lessons, unsupervised summer vacations, etc). For kids in the pool with lifeguards around I'm sure there's no real difference.

[breadcrust]

It makes no sense to follow this sentence:

Oh hell no! You gotta watch everybody all the time.

With these:

The only time I ever had to go in the water was to fish out old people too pooped to grab on the pole. And one toddler who just ran straight over to the deep end, jumped in, and immediately sank. That was a weird one. Little suicide machines, those toddlers.

It's impossible to "watch everybody all the time," so you'd profile the old people and maybe the toddlers. Since you say you weren't taught to pay more careful attention to minorities (with their higher chance of drowning) then maybe you lifeguard-ed in some community where that wasn't an issue.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by breadcrust

It makes no sense to follow this sentence:


It's impossible to "watch everybody all the time," so you'd profile the old people and maybe the toddlers. Since you say you weren't taught to pay more careful attention to minorities (with their higher chance of drowning) then maybe you lifeguard-ed in some community where that wasn't an issue.

Good lord, it's as if people are looking for reasons to be bigots. I don't know if you think profiling is teh awesome or what (it's not), but no, you're wrong. You have to watch everybody. Even if I knew that person X was Y% more likely to get into trouble. Anybody can drown. Anybody can have a seizure, anybody pass out, anybody dive head-first into the shallow end. The places I worked what you did is just count everybody in the pool over and over again. It only takes 5-10 seconds.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Good lord, it's as if people are looking for reasons to be bigots.

My reaction exactly.

[breadcrust]

But maybe you can write to the statisticians at the NIH who advocate "targeted interventions" across racial/ethnic groups at public pools and explain to them the idea of the "ecological fallacy."

Everyone has to play the odds. Duh.

[breadcrust]

Good lord, it's as if people are looking for reasons to be bigots. I don't know if you think profiling is teh awesome or what (it's not), but no, you're wrong. You have to watch everybody.

For kids in the pool with lifeguards around I'm sure there's no real difference.

Maybe not:

Results. During the study period, 678 US residents aged 5 to 24 years drowned in pools. Seventy-five percent were male, 47% were Black, 33% were White, and 12% were Hispanic. Drowning rates were highest among Black males, and this increased risk persisted after we controlled for income. The majority of Black victims (51%) drowned in public pools, the majority of White victims (55%) drowned in residential pools, and the majority of Hispanic victims (35%) drowned in neighborhood pools (e.g., an apartment complex pool). Foreign-born males also had an increased risk for drowning compared with American-born males.
Conclusions. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce the incidence of swimming pool drownings across racial/ethnic groups, particularly adult supervision at public pools.

You must think the nerds at the NIH are bigots for advocating "targeted interventions" (which sounds like code for "profiling") at public pools, where "targeted interventions" would help the most black males. Do public pools even have lifeguard-less swimming times? It would certainly put a kink in your "no real difference" idea if all these deaths happened when there were lifeguards around.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by breadcrust

Maybe not:

Results. During the study period, 678 US residents aged 5 to 24 years drowned in pools. Seventy-five percent were male, 47% were Black, 33% were White, and 12% were Hispanic. Drowning rates were highest among Black males, and this increased risk persisted after we controlled for income. The majority of Black victims (51%) drowned in public pools, the majority of White victims (55%) drowned in residential pools, and the majority of Hispanic victims (35%) drowned in neighborhood pools (e.g., an apartment complex pool). Foreign-born males also had an increased risk for drowning compared with American-born males.
Conclusions. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce the incidence of swimming pool drownings across racial/ethnic groups, particularly adult supervision at public pools.

You must think the nerds at the NIH are bigots for advocating "targeted interventions" (which sounds like code for "profiling") at public pools, where "targeted interventions" would help the most black males. Do public pools even have lifeguard-less swimming times? It would certainly put a kink in your "no real difference" idea if all these deaths happened when there were lifeguards around.

Oh hey, I was talking about lifeguarding. I think EVERYONE should learn how to swim plus learn water safety. In the schools I went to and later taught swimming/water safety in it was part of the curriculum. Everybody learned to swim. Two weeks of lessons every year grades 2-6. Even the disabled kids. Even the kids in wheelchairs. (When I was working at the pool the staff was even a little zealous about saving kids, "drowning is a leading cause of death in children", etc). It wouldn't surprise me if city kids aren't always so lucky to get that education.

But I think maybe you were bullshitting me a little bit with that report (thanks for the link btw). Further down:

The majority of drownings among Black non-Hispanic victims occurred in hotel/motel pools. In contrast, White non-Hispanic victims were more likely to drown in residential pools (55%) compared with Black non-Hispanic victims (23%) and Hispanic victims (35%)

Hotel/motel pools represent a particular hazard, because many do not have lifeguards and thus are often the site where Black victims drown ... Hotel/motel pools represent a particular hazard for Black victims, who comprised 71% of these drownings; it is unknown how many of these drownings may have occurred while on vacation among those who did not usually have access to pools

So what's the lesson here? That lifeguards should know that black swimmers are more likely to drown in unsupervised hotel pools so therefore they should pay extra attention to them in supervised municipal pools? That lifeguards should be experts in compound probability and hypothesis testing? That profiling is hard, and if you do it you'll probably get it wrong anyway?

Look, it's simple, if you're a lifeguard, and you watch everybody, nobody drowns.

[breadcrust]

So what's the lesson here? That lifeguards should know that black swimmers are more likely to drown in unsupervised hotel pools so therefore they should pay extra attention to them in supervised municipal pools?

No, if you look at the list more carefully (you didn't because you're only looking for a way to score points, not learn) you'll see that the incidence of black drownings is much higher in almost every category, not just hotel/motel. Notice the numbers in "public pool (camp, church, city)." These are the ostensibly supervised municipal pools. The numbers are stark.

But because I figured you just weren't telling anywhere near the whole story (what with the fact that you're implying the NIH nerds are bigots) I checked for lifeguard scanning patterns. Noting that your alleged method was recommended by Red Cross, I also found through wikipedia the group NASCO, who have this statement in their online text for why black males may drown so much more frequently than others:

While a higher bone density doesn't necessarily indicate how well or poorly a person might swim,
bone density does have an effect on a swimmer's buoyancy. That in turn would affect how long a
drowning victim stays on the surface before sinking to the bottom of the pool and how hard it will be to
bring the victim to the surface during the rescue. This means that a black male with a well-developed body
may sink faster and be more difficult to bring to the surface than someone with a different ethnic
background.

Well, you know that there are obvious average physical differences between those of different races, but I'm sure you'll just say that NASCO is a collection of racists on par with me and the NIH.

And none of this amounts to me advocating blocking pool access to anyone for racial reasons, but paying a little better attention to classes of people associated with a high incidence of drowning... to lessen the risk of drowning as the NIH paper recommends. As for this diavlog: who knows what the hell was going on at the world's most racist pool? All you liberals just assume racism, but you think the same thing about the NIH, so who cares?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by breadcrust

No, if you look at the list more carefully (you didn't because you're only looking for a way to score points, not learn) you'll see that the incidence of black drownings is much higher in almost every category, not just hotel/motel. Notice the numbers in "public pool (camp, church, city)." These are the ostensibly supervised municipal pools. The numbers are stark.

But because I figured you just weren't telling anywhere near the whole story (what with the fact that you're implying the NIH nerds are bigots) I checked for lifeguard scanning patterns. Noting that your alleged method was recommended by Red Cross, I also found through wikipedia the group NASCO, who have this statement in their online text for why black males may drown so much more frequently than others:



Well, you know that there are obvious average physical differences between those of different races, but I'm sure you'll just say that NASCO is a collection of racists on par with me and the NIH.

And none of this amounts to me advocating blocking pool access to anyone for racial reasons, but paying a little better attention to classes of people associated with a high incidence of drowning... to lessen the risk of drowning as the NIH paper recommends. As for this diavlog: who knows what the hell was going on at the world's most racist pool? All you liberals just assume racism, but you think the same thing about the NIH, so who cares?

Did the NIH report says what the odds were of a person walking into a pool and drowning? No. I'm not saying everbody is equally likely to drown. I'm just saying lifeguards shouldn't get cute with theories. As for calling the NIH bigots, I never said that and you know it. And my whole fucking point about my initial post was that I wouldn't call anybody racist without knowing what the facts about the pool were.

You would make more sense if you quoted the straw man directly and left me out of it.

[brucds]

These drowning statistics - I forgot which one of the village racists posted them - tell ME we shouldn't let men into swimming pools...

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by brucds

These drowning statistics - I forgot which one of the village racists posted them - tell ME we shouldn't let men into swimming pools...

Heheh. I can't believe I overlooked that aspect of it.

[x9#z6]

Totally agree with Dayo on the explanation for the "wise latina" context. It's probably what Sotomayor meant, it's part of why Obama saw her as a good choice (i.e. empathy) and it also happens to be true (in my opinion). No need for qualifications...more experience IS absolutely better.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by x9#z6

Totally agree with Dayo on the explanation for the "wise latina" context. It's probably what Sotomayor meant, it's part of why Obama saw her as a good choice (i.e. empathy) and it also happens to be true (in my opinion). No need for qualifications...more experience IS absolutely better.

its not more experience, unless all minorities come equipped with some sort of time/space-continuum-twister device. It is different experience. not more. not better.

the quote was racist. people on the left should just admit it and say - hey we don't care that she made one racist statement, her RELEVANT experiences, as a judge, makes her well qualified -which they do.

[Freshpez]

I'll try speaking for the fat white male conservatives (as I am one, though only 31 years old) and try to outline why we're so touchy when talking about race and affirmative action.

I have been taught since grade school that racism is horrible, and we must treat everyone the same without regard for someone's race or gender. And that we must speak very carefully so that we don't offend someone, and we must not speak of people of different races being different. And I've believed it and lived by it.

And so when Sotomoyer says the wise latina remark, or Frank Ricci is denied promotion because of his race, I always, continually find myself reversing the circumstances and trying to find out what would happen.

And I think, boy, if Sotomoyer was a white guy and said those things, or if Ricci were black and denied promotion, I can't even imagine the hoopla that would ensue.

And so then when I hear Dayo talk about "poor Ricci" it drives me to the rafters. It really gets me going like no other political argument does.

So that's explaining our fascination.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Freshpez

I'll try speaking for the fat white male conservatives (as I am one, though only 31 years old) and try to outline why we're so touchy when talking about race and affirmative action.

I have been taught since grade school that racism is horrible, and we must treat everyone the same without regard for someone's race or gender. And that we must speak very carefully so that we don't offend someone, and we must not speak of people of different races being different. And I've believed it and lived by it.

And so when Sotomoyer says the wise latina remark, or Frank Ricci is denied promotion because of his race, I always, continually find myself reversing the circumstances and trying to find out what would happen.

And I think, boy, if Sotomoyer was a white guy and said those things, or if Ricci were black and denied promotion, I can't even imagine the hoopla that would ensue.

And so then when I hear Dayo talk about "poor Ricci" it drives me to the rafters. It really gets me going like no other political argument does.

So that's explaining our fascination.

When you "reverse the circumstances" regarding blacks do you imagine your ancestors were enslaved for a 400 year period, followed by a century of legalized racism? Do you imagine that the circumstances of your life, forty years removed from the end of legal racism (i.e. still within living memory) have been almost certainly affected to your detriment? Even in the case of Hispanics and others, the circumstances have not generally been equal to that of whites of European descent.

The circumstances are not identical, which is why the response is not symmetrical.