one word: PARENTING. that is all.

if jay-z ran the college board: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/200...7:39&out=17:49

If Mr McWhorter, or anyone else out there, would like to persue their concerns about was it a knee jerk reaction in Ricci v. DeStefano this SCOUTSBLOG synopses of Judge Sotomayor's opinions would be useful. (edited forgot to create the link)

I like the new girl. Very good find.

Or at least read someone who has read it who defends it (which is all I've done). According to Hilzoy (at Political Animal), the issue at hand was actually NOT to throw out the test. New Haven threw out the test because the existing law gave them reason to throw it out (because they could be sued given the existing precedents in interpretation of the law if they simply went forward with the results). The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.
Now, she could have overturned the precedents, but maybe she didn't see reason to do that -- if she were going to overturn, then she would have needed a longer argument. But if you are going to uphold existing precedent, you don't need a very long argument. It is pretty dangerous to look at court decisions without knowing exactly what was really at issue in the decision.
Of course, Hilzoy could be wrong, but it John nevertheless seems to assume that Sotomayor threw out the test herself, rather than saying that New Haven's decision to

John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan. I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan.

I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.

I am not a frequent visitor to Sailer's site but I have read some great pieces by him. His articles possess an amount of provocation that would be celebrated by the left if they leaned that way, but they are always backed with facts that the left usually ignore, like his column on interracial marriage which was attacked as racist when it was anything but. In some ways he reminds me of Larry Summers when LS presented facts on female scientists and asked for answers.....hounded for even asking a question. And he just may be the world record holder for being quoted out of context. Imagine if Sailer had written: "I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian

It's unworthy of McWhorter to misrepresent Sailer, but what makes this dialogue so comically dumb is that Farai shows up completely unprepared to say anything substantive about Sotomayor (she's earthy and vibrant!--and she sounds very articulate, no doubt) and hasn't even read the postcard-sized opinion on Ricci which was a blatant punt. McWhorter (who is very unreliable) actually gets to the crux of the matter--pro or con, this is an issue that demands further discussion before the judges decide to manufacture an outcome that pleases them, and Sotomayor was fine with giving it the affirmative action rubber stamp. The most likely explanation by far is that she did it to preserve her career path to the Supreme Court, i.e. it was a craven political calculation. The strikingly dingy Farai also seems to forget that we already have a justice on the court with an admirable, up-from-poverty background: Clarence Thomas. But I understand that he doesn't think correctly on the issues so... And by the way, having read the full "wise Latina woman" speech, I can say it is one of the worst examples of identity politics in action that I can

John asked about whether Sotomayor would ever side with power over the disenfranchised: the answer "yes" She was instrumental in overturning a case, decided by jury, that awarded damages to a victim of a police officer's abuse of power. (jocks vs. tavierner) The real question about sotomayor is whether she would ever stand-up for the disenfranchised. I have not seen any evidence that she would - outside of explicitly race-based cases. EDIT:
http://www.doublex.com/section/news-...yor-sides-cops link to an article about this decision

What John can't do is read Sotomayor's mind. It will be interesting if she addresses or evades this in her confirmation hearing. John's concerns about the validity of test taking are still in play though. New Haven threw out the tests due to Title VII. And as Farai mentioned regarding "testing the test" generally, I hope that the issue will be litigated or examined in the Supreme Court ruling. We may never know or be entitled to a complete understanding of Sotomayor's position on Ricci or test taking particularly:

The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomay...ect/#more-9634

Quoting harkin:
"I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian kids being as brilliant as they can be, without black or latino people within 50 miles."

I'm sure the people who consider him a racist would add this to the list of supposed SS racist rants.
\

This is has got to be the most obtuse line yet - parrotted, as always, by Gingirch, Harkin et al. - against Sottamayor. (The whole "imagine if a white male" had said that malarkey.) The comments (i.e. the remark about a "Latina woman with the depth of her experience" etc.) would be normatively different if a white male had made them. Consider the historical and structural disadvantages that minorities have sufferred in this country! A white male making similar comments would be a case of the advantaged kicking the disadvantaged, which is objectively different than what is happening here. Moreover, Sottomayor was clearly not making a "racial" point; she was making a socio-economic, and experiential point; that people's life experiences lead them to different perspectives. What could possibly be "racist" about that? Then again, the idea that Newt Ginrich (Redneck-Georgia) is crying "racism!" is so risible as to light up my day.

The only thing embarrassing is the posting of retard comments like this.

Quoting popcorn_karate: John asked about whether Sotomayor would ever side with power over the disenfranchised: the answer "yes"

She was instrumental in overturning a case, decided by jury, that awarded damages to a victim of a police officer's abuse of power. (jocks vs. tavierner)

The real question about sotomayor is whether she would ever stand-up for the disenfranchised. I have not seen any evidence that she would - outside of explicitly race-based cases.

The real question for the republican minority is will she make the law rather than interpret it. Instead of worrying the minority so, just let them go free. Dismantle the federal system. Allow the states individually to establish laws which set the racial composition of local fire depts.

Nikki, her statement was racist and sexist. how can you even question that? she stated that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male" if its too hard for you to do yourself, i will go ahead and do the word substitution for you to see how the statement reads using different racial/sexual signifiers: "a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman" obviously, the second statement would disqualify anyone from a supreme court nomination. so why the double standard? do two wrongs make a right?

Just for context, here is a bigger picture. Apologies to nikkibong for bringing Sullivan in:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...n-context.html

I really enjoyed this BHTV. And I wanted to agree with John on Stotomayer, I read her opinion on Ricci and its quite brief. The dissent slices and dices her. And "professional Racists" are really a nonfactor - the idea of purging or hiding data so as not to give them "ammunition" is not just stupid - its rather creepy. But that kind of thinking is typical of the left. The ends always justify the means. As for having Sailor on BHTV, by engaging him in discussion and exposing him, Sailor's arguments could be destroyed. It could be a interesting discussion - if tightly controlled and conducted in a polite, professional manner. But it will never happen - Bob would never allow it. Given his obsessive hatred of Ann Coulter - you can imagine his feeling toward Sailor.

I think, first, that Sottamayor was clumsily attempting to make a socio-economic and experiential point; she was not claiming that there is something essential to "ethnic" Latinas that makes them wiser than "ethnic" Whites. (Whatever "white" means; the collapsing of all "white" ethnicities is an extremely recent development.) But, more than that, I would say that while you and Gingrich's counter-example would indeed be objectively racist in the same way Sottamayor's statement is, I would say that we live in a world of moral grey areas. Because of the historical advantages that "white" males have traditionally enjoyed, there is something normatively worse about white racism directed at blacks and Latinos than the reverse. So the counter-example really doesn't mean anything in a moral sense.

so you either think a) two wrongs make a right, or b) it is simply not wrong to be sexist against males or racist against whites. I think A and B are both objectionable. I concede that the moral force would be greater in the reverse situation given the history, but I think those of us on the left should also step-up and acknowledge that this type of speech is offensive and wrong coming from people of any gender or race. I don't think this should disqualify her, but i really see a lack of intellectual honesty when left-ish people give her a complete pass on this statement and refuse to engage with
those that are offended by it.

the context helps, a bit... if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.

Quoting popcorn_karate: the context helps, a bit...

if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.

If you take her words literally they are damning. How else does one take words? Well, contextually. The phrasing attracts the criticism, but the underlying sentiment may be true. It seems, as nikkibong stated, a simple experiential point and not "Latina Power" and superiority to the exclusion of others point. Obviously not everyone agrees with this interpretation, case in point:The White guy's lament, but it doesn't seem overly generous.

Very happy to see Farai here. I was a fan of News and Notes, and very sad to see it go. Long live BhTV. Education: The only advantage I believe I ever had is that I came from a quiet house, with pictures on the walls, and books on shelves. After that, tests didn't seem to matter very much.

Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag). Anybody who starts off in poverty and makes it to the Supreme Court has an admirable story. But in the case of minorities, they also had to deal with legal and unspoken obstacles specifically based on their ethnicity, gender, etc. This does not diminish the achievement of the white male who puts himself through college and succeeds in his field and raises a healthy family...like my dad. But it also doesn't make his story exactly the same as Sotomayor's, Barrack Obama's or anyone else who also had the color thing going against them in less tolerant times.

The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.

So it sounds like she basically did her job. Outrageous! Liberal activism! Reverse Racism! Hear my fauxtrage!!

Quoting rcocean: And "professional Racists" are really a nonfactor - the idea of purging or hiding data so as not to give them "ammunition" is not just stupid - its rather creepy. But that kind of thinking is typical of the left.

I don't read all the blogosphere, so maybe I missed typical left thinkers advocating that, but with regards to Saletan it's impossible to call his arguments "typical of the left". Most of his blog entries criticize pro-choice positions, reproduction-related science and technology, and the assumption of sexual and racial equality. It's like citing Christopher Hitchens or TNR as examples of how liberals think.

Quoting pampl: I don't read all the blogosphere, so maybe I missed typical left thinkers advocating that, but with regards to Saletan it's impossible to call his arguments "typical of the left". Most of his blog entries criticize pro-choice positions, reproduction-related science and technology, and the assumption of sexual and racial equality. It's like citing Christopher Hitchens or TNR as examples of how liberals think.

I don't think Saletan is a bigot or a complete idiot, but he often checks himself so hard that he might as well be. He's the epitome of the TNR/Slate cutesy contrarian. Last year or so he reached a new low, equating anti-racism with creationism. Really! That is way too fucking cute. He took all back eventually when it was pointed out to him that all of his scientific evidence came from racists. Ezra Klein had a good take on it. OK, maybe Saletan is a complete idiot. Anyway, if he's on the left's team he's a shitty team player.

Quoting claymisher: I don't think Saletan is a bigot or a complete idiot, but he often checks himself so hard that he might as well be. He's the epitome of the TNR/Slate cutesy contrarian.

Indeed. Read, for a good example, how a real lefty -- Doghouse Riley -- views Saletan's latest piece of nonsense on the abortion issue. The nut:

... facile dishonesty masquerading as the point of view of anyone who's being reasonable.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag).

there you have it, the sneer of the identity politician a dyslexic like Ricci who worked his ass off to do well on the test? privileged white male! not a member of the right ethnic group! back of the line with you, swine! contemptible, really, and as Sailer points out the status signaling couldn't be more obvious

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The real question for the republican minority is will she make the law rather than interpret it. Instead of worrying the minority so, just let them go free. Dismantle the federal system. Allow the states individually to establish laws which set the racial composition of local fire depts.

Hi Steve, when you insist on calling republican voters a minority, you go against Limbaugh's advice stated in his renown speech you can find here: Because we're not a minority. (...) But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority.
I guess that makes you a conservative dissident. Which is fine with me as long you don't cross the line, which you haven't. But predicting permanent liberal majority is much too early. Democrat regime turned too many principles Americans hold dear on its head. Are Democrats going to make socialist economics work? Everyone else failed. Why would it be different this time around? Can racist policies that target racial majority last in a majority-rule democratic system? Can mass media survive once they lost credibility in population, since they abandoned all pretenses of fairness and neutrality? You think situation where

I'm not sure President Barack Obama ever really experienced racial intolerance. I think people have been wanting him to succeed since day one of his existence, especially white people.

I'm not a fan of identity politics, but we do live in America so what can you really do about it? She seems like a strong-willed, fire-breather of a judge. Good. The Supreme Court needs strong minds, conservative or liberal on the court. She'll probably be wrong on some issues and she'll probably write some obtuse opinions, but that is how it goes with the Supreme Court. If she really is a gender-centric/race-centric liberal, her views will be discredited in the long run. What is interesting is that she seems to have some legal views that will end up allying her to the conservatives on the court on certain issues (abortion and federalism). Totally interesting choice by President Obama. I don't see her confirmation being stopped. Republicans don't seem to be wanting to stop her either.

Quoting osmium: Education: The only advantage I believe I ever had is that I came from a quiet house, with pictures on the walls, and books on shelves. After that, tests didn't seem to matter very much.

Lovely point.

nice! content free fauxtrage and knee-jerk hyperbole! you're right up there with rush limbaugh in intellectual capacity in this post, uncle eb. try reading what i wrote (you may notice that i said nothing like what you made fun of) and then respond. Imagine that a well-intentioned person was trying to have a conversation with you about actual events and ideas and respond to that instead of to the fox news clip you have running in your head.

Quoting Lyle: Lovely point.

It's a conventional point of view and it has been proven wrong many times over by behavioral genetics.

So better to grow up in a rowdy house with no books?

Quoting Lyle: So better to grow up in a rowdy house with no books?

No. No better, no worse. The same.

Quoting JoeK: Hi Steve, when you insist on calling republican voters a minority, you go against Limbaugh's advice stated in his renown speech you can find here: Because we're not a minority. (...) But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority.
I guess that makes you a conservative dissident. Which is fine with me as long you don't cross the line, which you haven't. But predicting permanent liberal majority is much too early.

what is the line you refer to? Even the mightiest of republicans cannot make the country well again from the massive debt and decimated industrial sector that this democrat regime will leave in its wake. The population is afraid and unsure of all economic systems. They likely can be convinced that what the democrats offer is not working, but I dont see the huge population of retiring boomers embracing entrepenurial capitalism. And even if republicans are able to convince the majority that free market captialism is the true way and are able to get the country back on its feet ... it is only a matter of time before the

Farai Chideya mentioned that Sotomayor has drawn criticism from Jeffrey Toobin. I believe she meant to reference this article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085) by Jeffrey Rosen.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I don't think this should disqualify her, but i really see a lack of intellectual honesty when left-ish people give her a complete pass on this statement and refuse to engage with those that are offended by it.

There IS something troubling and self-contradictory in her statement. First she denies that there is a universal definition of "wise." Then she says that a "wise" Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male (try substituting "man" here: the statement becomes embarrassing): "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.” "Wisdom" is certainly a fuzzy concept, but if you deny its "universality" it is rather difficult to know what wise means

Quoting Lyle: I'm not sure President Barack Obama ever really experienced racial intolerance. I think people have been wanting him to succeed since day one of his existence, especially white people.

Every time I think an earlier post by you contains the stupidest thing anyone could possibly say, you somehow manage to drop the bar lower. Congratulations, I guess.

PK- I was actually responding to the White Man's Lament link, not anything that you wrote. Sorry, I should have clarified.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The population is afraid and unsure of all economic systems.

You should at least look at the headlines at some other places besides Rush Limbaugh's web site. Couple of examples:

U.S. consumer mood highest in 8 months: survey

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Optimism over the U.S. government's stimulus programs to combat the recession lifted consumer confidence in May to its highest level in eight months, a survey released on Friday showed.

The gradual healing in consumer confidence, which hit a 28-year low in November, has been seen as a sign of an economic rebound from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

Poll: More Say U.S. Moving In Right Direction

WASHINGTON (CBS) ― For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.

Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Mr. Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.

cool. thanks for the clarification.

Quoting Francoamerican: The traditional symbol of justice is a blindfolded female figure holding a pair of scales in her hands.

I have always understood the blindfold as representing justice weighing the facts of the case, not picking a side because they see a litigant who they favor. That is, one should try the case, ideally reaching the same conclusion on the basis of the evidence and principles involved even in complete ignorance of the specific identities of the particular parties. This would not indicate that the fullness of experiences of the judge would not inform the wisdom with which they attempt to do that weighing. A certain amount of hysteria over the "wiser decision" sentence in Sotomayer's speech is probably inevitable given the lockstep response typical of members of some political groups (and some scanners of these forums were likely amused at one recently admonishing another for deviation from Rush's Party Line). Those so inclined are of course free to pick over whatever subject they chose, and given the furious spining involved there are few indeed who, were many of their life's words available for

Quoting nikkibong: ... Consider the historical and structural disadvantages that minorities have sufferred in this country! A white male making similar comments would be a case of the advantaged kicking the disadvantaged, which is objectively different than what is happening here. Moreover, Sottomayor was clearly not making a "racial" point; she was making a socio-economic, and experiential point; that people's life experiences lead them to different perspectives...

Yes had the actors in the sentence been reversed the howling from the left would be deafening and your strawman argument about the advantaged kicking the disadvantaged is the cry that is always used to excuse racist rehtoric from a minority member. Even in context there is no hint of it being about "socio-economics". This doesn't mean that I believe she is a racist, I've now read enough of her writings, to be fairly confident that is not the case; but racist BS is still racist BS whether it comes from a white skinhead or a "wise Latina woman".

Quoting popcorn_karate: so you either think

a) two wrongs make a right, or

b) it is simply not wrong to be sexist against males or racist against whites.

I think A and B are both objectionable. I concede that the moral force would be greater in the reverse situation given the history, but I think those of us on the left should also step-up and acknowledge that this type of speech is offensive and wrong coming from people of any gender or race.

Popcorn, I think we actually agree more than you realize. I don't support "racist" speech coming from any ethnicity. I'm merely saying that, on a normative level, "racism" coming from historically oppressed groups is less bad (but somewhat bad nontheless!) than from members of groups which have historically been on top. Both are not "right" - it's just that one is worse than the other. Another thing I'm sure we can agree on: it's on days like today that it's great to live in the Pacific Northwest! Gorgeous . . .

I was with John until he cited Michelle Rhee. Lost me there.

Yeah, I caught that too.

1) For the first time in history millions of Americans have someone on the highest court who can literally speak their language. 2) Getting to the Supreme Court from the projects of the Bronx is something all Americans should celebrate as a milestone in overcoming: a) racism, b) sexism, c) classism. 3) Having a SC with 8 of 9 members male -- and none Latino - was a national disgrace. Good job, Barack!

Haha... ridiculous.

She probably meant Jonathan Turley. He's another liberal, along with Rosen, who has criticized her.

Lets have every group represented on the Supreme Court while were at it. Give us a gay, give us a liberal black, give us more women, give us an Asian, give us a Native-American (talk about underrepresented), give us an African (not Afro-American), give us a Muslim, give us, give us, give us. Boo, boo, boo.

Quoting Lyle: She probably meant Jonathan Turley. He's another liberal, along with Rosen, who has criticized her.

Only a wingnut would call Jeffrey Rosen a liberal.

What intolerance has Barack Obama experienced? He got a good primary education didn't he? He was financially secure thanks to his grandmother wasn't he? He grew up in racist Hawaii right? Occidental, Columbia, and Havard didn't admit him into their institutions because he was colored right? If you like pretending, go ahead and pretend bjkeefe.

Quoting Lyle: What intolerance has Barack Obama experienced?

Just keep digging, Lial.

The TNR is a Democrat weekly. Centrist, but it's definitely not a Republican mouth piece. Watch the name calling, follow the path of Obama and Wonderment and respectfully disagree with people bjkeefe.

You don't have an example I guess. Aww.

Quoting Lyle: The TNR is a Democrat weekly. Centrist, but it's definitely not a Republican mouth piece.

Of course it is, Lial. They have a few liberals working there, but overall, it fills the niche of "even the liberal New Republic says ..." It provides pseudo-intellectual cover for wingnut welfare rags. You'd know this if you weren't so stupid, Lial.

Quoting Lyle: You don't have an example I guess. Aww.

I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get you to acknowledge reality, Lial.

Didn't you just repeat what I said? Haha. Rosen and Turley, two Democrats who don't have the hots for Sotomayor. Aww, Democrats picking on Democrats. Oh no... oh no. I think Sotomayor is a good pick by the way. Republicans won't fight her too hard. They'll make hay of the Latina/white man comment, but that's about it unless some other bombshells explode.

Quoting Lyle: Didn't you just repeat what I said?

It's not at all surprising that you couldn't pick up the irony in "even the liberal New Republic ..." Or that you would pretend to be unable to, Lial.

Blah, blah, blah... Barack Obama ain't a progressive. Praise Jesus. Although in your case I guess it's, bejesus I voted for a centrist.

Quoting Lyle: Blah, blah, blah... Barack Obama ain't a progressive. Praise Jesus. Although in your case I guess it's, bejesus I voted for a centrist.

Nice to see that you've added non sequiturs to your arsenal of comebacks, Lial. [Added] Since you probably need the help, I'll be explicit and tell you that when I said "Nice to see ...," this was another example of irony. Okay, Lial?

President Obama... keepin America centrist.

Quoting Lyle: President Obama... keepin America centrist.

Glad to hear you admit it, finally. Now run off and tell your little wingnut friends that it's safe to breathe. The concentration camps for conservatives won't be opening anytime soon.

Quoting Lyle: Haha... ridiculous.

You are one of those people who look stupid when they laugh.

It wasn't fair to insult Sailer. The guy is bright and has the facts on his side. Invite him on.

Quoting bjkeefe: Glad to hear you admit it, finally. Now run off and tell your little wingnut friends that it's safe to breathe. The concentration camps for conservatives won't be opening anytime soon.

A weak bjkeefe burn...never thought I'd see one (again)

Haha... admit it? I've known this about Obama before he was even elected. He's turned into the President I thought he'd be. I'll start worrying when Jane Hamsher or the like becomes President. She probably would try to put conservatives in concentration camps, haha (just kidding Jane, I think). Partisans will always be partisan though. I can't stop them.

Quoting Wonderment: 1) For the first time in history millions of Americans have someone on the highest court who can literally speak their language.

2) Getting to the Supreme Court from the projects of the Bronx is something all Americans should celebrate as a milestone in overcoming: a) racism, b) sexism, c) classism.

3) Having a SC with 8 of 9 members male -- and none Latino - was a national disgrace.

Good job, Barack!

ugh, my identity group isn't correctly represented...thank you, I'll NOT be reading the opinions and judging them on their merits...now excuse me I have to go back to being a fat failure who rages about my life

Quoting Lyle: Haha... admit it? I've known this about Obama before he was even elected. He's turned into the President I thought he'd be.

Whatever you say, Lial.

Quoting JoeK: It's a conventional point of view and it has been proven wrong many times over by behavioral genetics.

On second thought, I agree. I have succeeded because I am a far more superior human being than most people. See you at the sociobiology conference, you krazy kats.

Quoting JAShapiro: Farai Chideya mentioned that Sotomayor has drawn criticism from Jeffrey Toobin. I believe she meant to reference this article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085) by Jeffrey Rosen.

Thanks for clearing that up. That seemed wrong. That's not Toobin's style.

Quoting graz: What John can't do is read Sotomayor's mind. It will be interesting if she addresses or evades this in her confirmation hearing. John's concerns about the validity of test taking are still in play though. New Haven threw out the tests due to Title VII. And as Farai mentioned regarding "testing the test" generally, I hope that the issue will be litigated or examined in the Supreme Court ruling. We may never know or be entitled to a complete understanding of Sotomayor's position on Ricci or test taking particularly:

Good catch. I think McWhorter's terrific, but he lapses into mindreading too often.

Quoting Francoamerican: "Wisdom" is certainly a fuzzy concept, but if you deny its "universality" it is rather difficult to know what wise means in "wise Latina woman." Is a judge wise by virtue of her ethnicity and the richness of her experience, or by virtue of her expertise in matters of the law, her impartiality etc.? The traditional symbol of justice is a blindfolded female figure holding a pair of scales in her hands.

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain ...

Cragger, I fully concur with everything you say. A single statement taken out of context and without regard to all the other relevant evidence about the person is almost inevitably going to generate more heat than light. If justice is "blind" (=impartial, applying equally to all), the ethnicity and life experiences of a judge should be irrelevant to deciding whether he or she is fit for the job. Of course, the Supreme Court has by now become so thoroughy involved in righting injustices to minorities that I suppose it is inevitable that ethnicity should enter into the equation.

Really? You've seen me laugh?

Quoting claymisher: La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain ...

Well said. Anatole France, I believe. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that it is better for judges to be impartial than partial?

Quoting Username: ugh, my identity group isn't correctly represented...

Feh. How utterly disingenuous. Only one "identity group" was represented at all for most of our history. Dismissing the concerns of people who have rarely or never seen somebody with a similar background to their own at this level is solipsistic self-love taken to an absurd level. Quit whinging.

Such vitriol for a wonderful Diavlog. I enjoyed it and find that the only person who has "no ability to form a cogent sentence," is yourself.

Quoting Francoamerican: Well said. Anatole France, I believe. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that it is better for judges to be impartial than partial?

Of course. The simple point that Sotomayor was making was that for centuries the best legal minds came up with crap like Dred Scott and Plessey, bullshit that any black person would have seen through at the time. That any black person could have avoided colossal blunders like that scores a point for diversity. Julian Sanchez has the goods here. Not that the rah/boo ranters care, but her actual record is pretty boring:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that

Quoting claymisher: Not that the rah/boo ranters care, but her actual record is pretty boring:]

Thanks for the links. The fuller context reveals a lot that I was unaware of. I certainly have no illusions about the Supreme Court. In fact, I find the reverence in which some Americans hold the institution slightly ridiculous. There have been a few great justices, but many, many intellectual mediocrities and even a few moral midgets.

Wow, great Sanchez link. The death blow:

Look, it’s not racist to oppose a Latina judicial nominee, or to oppose affirmative action, or to point out genuine evidence of ethnic bias on the part of minorities. What we’re seeing here, though, is people clinging to the belief that Sotomayor has to be some mediocrity who struck the ethnic jackpot, that whatever benefit she got from affirmative action must be vastly more significant than her own qualities, that she’s got to be a harpy boiling with hatred for whitey, however overwhelming the evidence against all these propositions is. This is really profoundly ugly. Like Yglesias, I don’t think I’m especially sensitive to stuff like this, or particularly easily moved to anger, but I’m angry. I don’t think Republican pundits really appreciate the kind of damage they’re probably doing, for no reason I can discern given the slim odds of actually blocking the nomination. Which, perhaps, goes to Sotomayor’s point: They really have no idea how they sound to anyone else.

Quoting claymisher: Not that the rah/boo ranters care ...

Also for the same audience (the non-RBRs): have a look at Daniel Larison's post. (h/t: Balloon Juice, who thought it was so nice, they linked to it twice.) ========== On another note (do not read if you are tired of the RBR noise) ... In defense of the rah ranters, let me just point out that for at least some of them, their hand was pretty much forced by Greater Wingnuttia. I know I had planned to say nothing about this pick. The first impression I had of her ("seems fine" and "no surprise") combined with the irritating memories of the endless kabuki that has been the SC nomination/approval business the past few picks to make me think, "I'm consciously not going to pay attention to this one." Then I read TBogg (greatest caption ever!) saying the same thing, and that cinched it. Then, of course, the howler monkeys started up, which in and of itself would have been also easy to ignore (cf. Dijongate, Kidneyfailuregate, The Cult of the COLB, OMGMICHELLETOUCHEDTHEQUEENOUTRAGE!!!1!, Jesus-Chrysler,-does-no-wingnut-know-anything-about-statistics?-gate, etc.. etc., etc.), but then the ever-lovin' So-Called Liberal Media started treating this as a "both sides" story (seriously, why the fuck does fatuous toad Newt Gingrich keep getting asked on TV?) and

Dismissing the concerns of people who have rarely or never seen somebody with a similar background to their own at this level is solipsistic self-love taken to an absurd level. Quit whinging.

Or as Obama would say, "Start empathizing."

And why are we even having this conversation... It is so wrong on so many levels.

Quoting bjkeefe: In defense of the rah ranters, let me just point out that for at least some of them, their hand was pretty much forced by Greater Wingnuttia. I know I had planned to say nothing about this pick. The first impression I had of her ("seems fine" and "no surprise") combined with the irritating memories of the endless kabuki that has been the SC nomination/approval business the past few picks to make me think, "I'm consciously not going to pay attention to this one."

That was my angle on it too ... the whole kabuki is pretty boring, Obama's going to pick another unremarkable Breyer-type anyway, etc, but the winguts have really gone to 11 this time and that drew me in. Turns out Sotomayor has a lot going for her! She reminds me a lot of Obama: careful, sober, and sane. Brad DeLong has a great post on Sotomayor too.

The BS is so reflexive in most things touching on politics/party identification. I see Obama and company have (of course) said that in vetting and talking with Sotomayer abortion was never discussed. I have thought these ritual statements were politicians and nominees lying through their teeth for the last several new justices now, and have to wonder if the same is true in this case. Abortion and affirmative action are both obvious hot buttons, though beyond those who feel that automatic outrage is incumbent on them by nature of their political identitification the latter doesn't seem to be all that central an issue for most people, especially in light of the influence of the Supreme Court on the law as a whole taken over a jucicial career. Emily Bazelon's latest in Slate considers a case regarding police/govenment power vs. individual rights and basic justice, from her take since I haven't gone beyond the article in exploring the case:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/ From the few cases she was involved with that I have seen discussed so far by at least reasonably rational folks, it seems at least as likely that she

Now that a blogginghead has described Steve Sailer on the site as "a professional racist," it does seem a matter of elementary fairness to give him a chance to offer an account of his ideas and a response to this charge. I'd suggest the most productive approach would be a "Science Saturday" beginning with the subjects Sailer treats in his FAQ on race (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/071216_race_faq.htm ) and IQ (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/071203_iq.htm ) and then taking up the way those issues have figured in recent discussion.

Quoting jeffpeterson: [...]

Now that a blogginghead has referred to the shape of our planet as "round," it does seem a matter of elementary fairness to give the Flat Earth Society a chance to offer an account of their ideas and a response to this charge.

actually the earth is not round, a fact that any unbiased individual should recognize as scientific truth.

Quoting piscivorous: actually the earth is not round, a fact that any unbiased individual should recognize as scientific truth.

Strictly speaking, you're correct. But as a first approximation, it is far more accurate to say the Earth is round than to say it is flat. [Added] Also, it would be a fine discussion to have on how the Earth's shape differs from a pure sphere, why this might be so, and how and when the deviation from the first approximation must be accounted for, lest the errors become unacceptable. It would not, however, be much of a worthwhile discussion to hear some crank say, "Aha! Because you admit that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, my view that it is flat is Just As Valid!"

Quoting bjkeefe: Now that a blogginghead has referred to the shape of our planet as "round," it does seem a matter of elementary fairness to give the Flat Earth Society a chance to offer an account of their ideas and a response to this charge.

I missed that segment; but surely the best way to dispense with a Flat-Earther who had acquired a following would be to put them in debate with someone who controlled the relevant data and could expose their errors, right? Seems like they called this "dialectic" back in Philosophy 101 and told us it was the way that we advance asymptotically in the direction of the truth.

Quoting jeffpeterson: I missed that segment; but surely the best way to dispense with a Flat-Earther who had acquired a following would be to put them in debate with someone who controlled the relevant data and could expose their errors, right? Seems like they called this "dialectic" back in Philosophy 101 and told us it was the way that we advance asymptotically in the direction of the truth.

No. There comes a point at which a belief is just entirely crazy, and the only ones who still hold it are cranks, and there is no persuading them. We have only a limited number of slots available for airing discussions, and it's a poor use of any of them to waste it entertaining someone who is not going to be persuaded of his own goofiness, no matter how substantial the rebuttal might be. Let Steve Sailer yammer on at VDARE and Stormfront and wherever else that tiny fraction of like-minded people care to listen to his insanity. Being an unabashed racist is being an unabashed racist, no matter how much pseudo-intellectual dressing is draped around the core hatred.

Quoting bjkeefe: Being an unabashed racist is being an unabashed racist, no matter how much pseudo-intellectual dressing is draped around the core hatred.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to identify the "unabashed[ly] racist" statements in Sailer's FAQ, which I posted above? This would help me as I am unable to identify any such on those two pages.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Perhaps you'd be so kind as to identify the "unabashed[ly] racist" statements in Sailer's FAQ, which I posted above? This would help me as I am unable to identify any such on those two pages.

The people on this board aren't idiots. Go back to Stormfront, racist.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Perhaps you'd be so kind as to identify the "unabashed[ly] racist" statements in Sailer's FAQ, which I posted above? This would help me as I am unable to identify any such on those two pages.

Do you believe that the answer to the question "Does Sailer's FAQ contain racist statements?" would have to be the same as the answer to the question "Is Sailer a racist?"

Quoting AemJeff: Do you believe that the answer to the question "Does Sailer's FAQ contain racist statements?" would have to be the same as the answer to the question "Is Sailer a racist?"

No, but I do believe the charge "Sailer is a racist" requires clear evidence before one would be justified in accepting it; I'd be glad to consider the evidence if someone could be troubled to produce it. (I'm unfamiliar with the website that another intemperate commenter mentions; what I've seen of Sailer's stuff at VDARE doesn't justify charging him with "the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc. specific to that race," as the New Shorter Oxford defines racism.)

That's a pretty bad definition of racism. If someone believes that all black people are intellectually inferior, but that there aren't really any racial differences between Serbs and Croats, they aren't racist? If someone believes in a strict racial hierarchy but allows for extremely rare exceptions, then it isn't racist? I'm pretty sure by that definition there has never been a racist

Quoting jeffpeterson: Perhaps you'd be so kind as to identify the "unabashed[ly] racist" statements in Sailer's FAQ, which I posted above? This would help me as I am unable to identify any such on those two pages.

Request denied. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about why Sailer is a racist with someone who is a fan of his. I'll leave you to imagine why that might be.

You sound rather hysterical there, BJ. And you've gotta be joking when you say there's a "limited number of slots available" on Bloggingheads. It ain't broadcast TV, you know. It's the Internet. From the beginning, I thought that, outside of simply trying to keep a non-profit-generating endeavor afloat, cooking up interesting content was the main problem for Bloggingheads. Having Sailer debate McWhorter would have an absolutely positive effect on increased viewership. It would be a mistake to stage it immediately. Properly done for maximum effect, the impending debate should be ridiculed and castigated in the most vitriolic manner possible, with threats to send complaints to the ADL, SPLC or Attorney General Eric Holder's office. I'm sure you and other commenters could do your part with the bitching and moaning. Naturally Bob Wright and Micky Kaus would have to mention it during one of their conversation, with Bob saying to Micky, I know you don't like to comment on viewer comments..., which Micky would affirm, then offer an opinion anyway. Perhaps he'd even allude to the brouhaha at his "blog" on Slate, which would be great! The uncertainty of the debate actually taking place should be used as the main

Quoting cousincozen: You sound rather hysterical there, BJ.

You need a new dictionary.

Quoting cousincozen: And you've gotta be joking when you say there's a "limited number of slots available" on Bloggingheads. It ain't broadcast TV, you know. It's the Internet.

Uh-huh. Then please explain to me why we have one diavlog per day (M-F) and three on the weekends, with an occasional monovlog from Bob, and virtually no other exceptions.

Quoting cousincozen: From the beginning, I thought that, outside of simply trying to keep a non-profit-generating endeavor afloat, cooking up interesting content was the main problem for Bloggingheads. Having Sailer debate McWhorter would have an absolutely positive effect on increased viewership.

Yeah, we'd get a bunch more howler monkeys lurching out of their wingnut cocoons making a one-time appearance on this site. I'd call that "positive" in strictly transient numerical terms only, and damaging in all other respects. Go watch Fox News if you're not getting enough racist propaganda on this site.

Quoting cousincozen: It would be a mistake to stage it immediately. Properly done for maximum effect ... [fap fap fap] ... It would be a watershed for BH!

[No comment necessary.]

Quoting cousincozen: And BTW, how is it that a lamer like you is making officious pronouncements about Bloggingheads scheduling? I thought you were just

"I'll leave you to imagine why that might be." Jeff, I think I'd have to go with pompous douche.

Quoting cousincozen: "I'll leave you to imagine why that might be."

Jeff, I think I'd have to go with pompous douche.

I think you lose the thread.

Man, I hope I never get you on a jury; to persist in labeling Sailer a "racist" (whether the Shorter OED definition satisfies you or not) while refusing to examine two (2) FAQ pages summarizing his contentions about race and IQ is, well, stunning. As far as I understand Sailer's principal claim, it's that ON AVERAGE human races vary in the aptitude they exhibit for different tasks. For example, "men of West African descent appear to be stronger performers _on average_ in basketball and football"; "certain common black _mental_ advantages over whites [yield the result that] . . . in the NFL most offensive linemen, who diligently execute the coach's plays, are white. Most defensive linemen, who instantly devise their own responses, are black"; "whites seem less often able to meet modern basketball's demands for creative improvisation and on-the-fly interpersonal decision-making" (emphasis original, all quotes from a National Review article linked from the "Race" FAQ, http://www.isteve.com/blackath.htm ). Incidentally, I wouldn't describe myself as a "fan" of Sailer so much as one who finds him worth reading (same way I feel about Kant -- or at least some portions of Kant), in part because (as in the quotes above) he's willing to state his understanding of data relative to race straightforwardly, albeit with an indelicacy that drives people nuts who

I was suggesting to JeffPeterson that the answer to why that might be is, BJKeeke is a pompous douche. Do I have to spell everything out? I thought everyone was supposed to be extra-smart here.

Quoting cousincozen: I was suggesting to JeffPeterson that the answer to why that might be is, BJKeeke is a pompous douche. Do I have to spell everything out? I thought everyone was supposed to be extra-smart here.

Well, no you don't need to spell everything out. In fact, it might be better if you didn't feel the need. I'm certain nobody's misunderstood anything you've said. I don't recall the claim that anyone here is "extra-smart," but we do like our snark delivered with a soupçon of wit - which is why you lose the thread.

I'm just starting to listen to this but McWhorter is out to lunch in criticizing Sotomayor for a one page opinion and the other lady sounds silly trying to rationalize McWhorter's iteration of what Sotomayor did, proceeding from the same absurd premise. Truth is that Sotomayor did not author the appellate opinion but was part of a 3 judge panel which issued an en banc (of the court as a body) one paragraph opinion which adopted and incorporated by reference the reasoning in toto of the 48 page trial judge decision. That opinion as affirmed can be seriosuly argued about, but what's with parading a knowing critique when you really don't kow what the hell you are talking about: something I'm noticing McWhorter does more than I thought he did. Itzik Basman

Quoting cousincozen: Do I have to spell everything out? I thought everyone was supposed to be extra-smart here.

You should have read "Claymisher" before making that (wrong) assumption.

Quoting rcocean: You should have read "Claymisher" before making that (wrong) assumption.

Thankfully rc is here to help prop up the mean.

Have parents who care and set an environment that encourges those habits of mind and will which are good for academic success. With that as a foundation, and barring just plain dysfunctional schools, it matters not what school a kid goes to, what all the pedgaogy is, whatever the educational fad of the day is, at the end of the day, ability will out, be it at a public or private school Montessori or P.S. 169 and a kid will do as well as he or she can or needs to or wants to. And finally, academically, university will be the great equalizer where rote learning advantages no one, and where sheer academic ability and will, tell the story. I know all this I have lived it. So have my kids. So have my friends who like me started lower middle class/working class and wound well to excellent academically and in what flows from that. Itzik Basman

Just for my elucidation, not being a lawyer, I was unaware that the term en banc could be applied to just the 3 judge panel. I thought that it referred to hearing of the full court.

Quoting basman: Have parents who care and set an environment that encourges those habits of mind and will which are good for academic success.

With that as a foundation, and barring just plain dysfunctional schools, it matters not what school a kid goes to, what all the pedgaogy is, whatever the educational fad of the day is, at the end of the day, ability will out, be it at a public or private school Montessori or P.S. 169 and a kid will do as well as he or she can or needs to or wants to. And finally, academically, university will be the great equalizer where rote learning advantages no one, and where sheer academic ability and will, tell the story.

I know all this I have lived it. So have my kids. So have my friends who like me started lower middle class/working class and wound well to excellent academically and in what flows from that.

Itzik Basman

You are not an authority on the question what makes you and people you know (and are related to) the kind of people you are. That knowledge is not accessible to you via introspection and does not

Quoting osmium: On second thought, I agree. I have succeeded because I am a far more superior human being than most people. See you at the sociobiology conference, you krazy kats.

It is not sociobiology, nor is it evolutionary psychology. They posit psychological unity of mankind and stay numb on questions of individual and group differences, with the exception of certain differences between men and women.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: what is the line you refer to?

Oh, it was just a rhetorical line, deployed for the amusement of our liberal friends here at the forum.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Even the mightiest of republicans cannot make the country well again from the massive debt and decimated industrial sector that this democrat regime will leave in its wake. The population is afraid and unsure of all economic systems. They likely can be convinced that what the democrats offer is not working, but I dont see the huge population of retiring boomers embracing entrepenurial capitalism.

And even if republicans are able to convince the majority that free market captialism is the true way and are able to get the country back on its feet ... it is only a matter of time before the pendulum of power swings left again. People dont want to argue across the partisan divide for eternity. Better to undo the federal system and allow the states to function independently.

Things do look gloomy right now, but I don’t think the American electorate had a choice. Republican Party went astray and had to be kicked out of

Quoting rcocean: You should have read "Claymisher" before making that (wrong) assumption.

What does that mean?

Quoting kidneystones: jeffpeterson writes...[...]

I think this an eminently reasonable request. The problem is that there is very little debate among geneticists about what 'race' might be.

Sailer's definition of race -- actually of a "racial group" -- as "an extended family that is inbred to some degree" is among the most useful I've seen; the main reason I was initially interested in his writing on this subject is that in advancing it he convincingly skewers the intellectual conventional wisdom that "race does not exist" (http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/presentation.htm, again linked off the "Race" FAQ that it's too much trouble for Sailer's critics to read).

Quoting kidneystones: Steve also wrote something extremely injudicious about 'blacks behaving badly' that got him banned from most right-wing sites, so it's not like he hasn't worked hard to create the impression that he is a 'racist'.

"Blacks behaving badly" is an example of the verbal indelicacy I mentioned above (and, incidentally, the sort of instantly memorable phrase that on any subject except race, and maybe also gender, gets one recognized as a good writer); googling the phrase, one can see that in substance Sailer's point (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050911_new_orleans.htm) has a lot in common with the analysis of the black family that

Quoting piscivorous: Just for my elucidation, not being a lawyer, I was unaware that the term en banc could be applied to just the 3 judge panel. I thought that it referred to hearing of the full court.

I am a lawyer. You are right. I am wrong. En banc is the full court. The phrase I should have used was per curiam. My apologies: good eye. More subtsantively, I'd add that apart from the panel's adoption of the lower court's judgment being per curiam, when the court sat en banc to hear a motion to reconsider the original panel's decision, they voted 7 judges to deny the motion--and affirm the pane's decision affirming the lower court decision and 6 judges, dissenting, to reconsider the appeal. That adds weight to how Sotomayor was in a lot of company and not acting flippantly or carelessly contrary to what McWhorter says. Also, it was Cabranes writing for the six dissenters who issued the stirring dissent that it is said animated SCOTUS to take the case. Itzik Basman

joe k Osmium whomever he is can speak for himself. I'll speak for myself. That said, I don't know what you are talking about. I am saying given a good, stable, uprbringing that emphasizes learning and education, then all the educational theories, fads, whatever and other folderol--I am married to a retired school principal, so I know something about something, plus I have an unused certificate to be a high school teacher--mean s.f.a Put one such kid in Groton and the other in a Manitoba one room school house, no one wins; and by the time they get to university where real intellectual ability is the clincher, the winner, all other things being equal, will be the more able student, previous schooling notwithstanding, barring sheer dysfunction. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: [...]

Itzik: I am in general agreement with your views, but I would differ on one aspect: I think a good teacher makes (or can make) all the difference in the world. What makes a "good teacher" will be different for different students, and not all students will agree about who is a good teacher, and often, the goodness of a teacher is realized only in retrospect, but still, this is a real catalyst separate from the home environment that I strongly believe exists.

Quoting claymisher: What does that mean?

It means that he often cannot understand what you have written, so therefore, you must be to blame.

Invoking Bob Wright's High School meme, I bet you're the type of little pencil neck that got the sop stomped outta him regularly. I don't have a TV as such; I do have a TV card installed in my machine, but it's not hooked up to cable. Also, I'm not religious, though I don't parade my irreligiousness, like the Liberal effete do. I think Christianity has turned poisonous for the European-derived founding stock of this country, and has been for decades. I'm more of a devout adherent to the Church of Cause-and-Effect. Back to the alleged dearth of "air-time," Bloggingheads could post as many diavlogs as possible, the only constraint being arranging a conversation between two interesting people. I think McWhorter and Sailer fill that bill nicely. I'm certain visitors to this site pick and choose what they want to spend several minutes of limited time watching and don't watch every single diavlog anyway. Your flat-Earth analogy is so pathetically lame and disingenuous, but of course you dreamed it up. I think a more apt comparison, if you fill the need to conjure one up, would be Galileo and the Church...who, if you'll recall, conceded among themselves that the Earth really wasn't

Quoting cousincozen: Invoking Bob Wright's High School meme, I bet you're the type of little pencil neck that got the sop stomped outta him regularly.

Your fantasies of beating up, or more precisely, having other people beat up, people you do not agree with is instructive.

Quoting cousincozen: I read VDare daily ...

No further questions.

Quoting JoeK: It is not sociobiology, nor is it evolutionary psychology. They posit psychological unity of mankind and stay numb on questions of individual and group differences, with the exception of certain differences between men and women.

I completely admit to getting my information for this post from wikipedia, but--at least according to my good friend Wiki P. Edia--evolutionary psychology uses the four questions of Nikolaas Tinbergen to explain the macro-micro way genes effect behavior. Two of these operate at the species level and two operate at the individual level. If I really wanted to give good value here as a forum post, I would need to go to the literature and read up on this to make sure I know what I'm talking about. However, I cannot find anything on the ultra-correct-and-authoritative wikipedia to suggest that the field is numb on individual behavior. I could be wrong, of course. Every story I hear from evolutionary psychology is something like "women are highly invested in their limited number of eggs so they choose sexual partners carefully," which, although I know it is supposed to apply at species level, sounds an awful lot like individual behavior to me. I mean, I guess

Quoting bjkeefe: Itzik:

I am in general agreement with your views, but I would differ on one aspect: I think a good teacher makes (or can make) all the difference in the world. What makes a "good teacher" will be different for different students, and not all students will agree about who is a good teacher, and often, the goodness of a teacher is realized only in retrospect, but still, this is a real catalyst separate from the home environment that I strongly believe exists.

Brendan, we don't differ on this point, and you refine helpfuly what I am trying to say, but to stay true to my underlying point, I'd be inclined to argue that the good teacher is as likely to crop up in the one room school house as in the fancy shmancy private school, in a Montessori school, or wherever. (And to be abundantly clear, I'm excluding dysfunctional schools.) Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Brendan, we don't differ on this point, and you refine helpfuly what I am trying to say, but to stay true to my underlying point, I'd be inclined to argue that the good teacher is as likely to crop up in the one room school house as in the fancy shmancy private school, in a Montessori school, or wherever. (And to be abundantly clear, I'm excluding dysfunctional schools.)

Itzik Basman

Yes, that's probably true, although it does seem to me that the odds are better that students will encounter good teachers at better schools. I acknowledge that you are "excluding dysfunctional schools," but at some point, that gets to be a little convenient; i.e., when educational policy is up for debate, you can't justifiably say, "Nothing matters about any decision to do with schools, as long as we ignore the ones that aren't working."

Quoting JoeK: The explanation that you and Osmium gave us is just a hypothesis. There are other hypothesis that explain the set of empirical facts you enumerated. I wouldn’t mind so much if you people are familiar with the alternative explanation, but disagree with it. It annoys me very, very much that you and Osmium and Lyle appear not to be aware of the alternative, which also happens to be a scientific theory as oppose to the folk developmental psychology you came up with.

I'm sorry it annoys you very, very much. I am aware of the alternative, and didn't know we were arguing on a topic of mutual exclusion. I said I had an advantage growing up in a peaceful environment, and you replied that was a conventional (agreed) and disproven (?) sentiment. Fine, if I misunderstand, then teach me. Do genetics and environment not interact? Seems to me you are saying environment is completely unimportant in an organism's development. Say the word science all you want, and that's fine--we can talk science, I'm in science mode now. My first post was just a fluffy sentiment. However, when we drill down here, I am certain my sentiment is rock solid at its base. Tell

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, that's probably true, although it does seem to me that the odds are better that students will encounter good teachers at better schools. I acknowledge that you are "excluding dysfunctional schools," but at some point, that gets to be a little convenient; i.e., when educational policy is up for debate, you can't justifiably say, "Nothing matters about any decision to do with schools, as long as we ignore the ones that aren't working."

Again not much argument. Dysfunctionality is a discrete issue and I wasn't dismissing it or even ignoring it as such. I was just making a different point. Surely you can find something we can fight about! :-) Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Again not much argument.

Dysfunctionality is a discrete issue and I wasn't dismissing it or even ignoring it as such.

I was just making a different point.

Surely you can find something we can fight about!

:-)

Itzik Basman

LOL! Nope, not this time. But even in agreement, I'm an incorrigible nit-picker and a big one for belaboring the obvious. 'Pologies.

Quoting claymisher: ... the whole kabuki is pretty boring ...

So we should be thankful the MSM does its level best to manufacture controversy, right? And be sure to note how deep into this the rePubOLITICO has been.

After many hours of Googling and searching Nexis and combing through television transcripts, I can say with complete confidence that not only did most news organizations fail to include context for the "Latina woman" quote, but it was the absolute iron-clad rule. Providing even passing context for the quote was basically banned. The Village Did. Not. Allow. It.

Politico, for instance, failed to provide context for the quote here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yeah, all those heres are links in the original piece. Thank the FSM for Eric Boehlert ...

Quoting claymisher: Brad DeLong has a great post on Sotomayor too.

... and Brad DeLong, too. Thanks for the link.

BJ, When I read this, I thought of you. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3951
"The good intentions of the squishy West stem from biblical morality so mainstream that a sermon in a random Western church or synagogue sounds like induction into the Body Snatcher creed." (You'll have to do some back-reading in order to glean the definition for "Body Snatcher creed.") Cheers