(H/t)
To get an idea of how this goes beyond the realm of offensive to outright inhuman, just imagine how you might react upon seeing a foreign leader whipping out the Blackberry while paying a visit to Arlington National Cemetery, and you might come close to the magnitude of what this was.
But what's impressive is how he's apparently able to so compartmentalize what he "felt" about the experience that he could immediately turn around and scream "racism!" and play politics barely a day after seeing the end result of real racism. You see, when I visited Auschwitz when I was 16, I couldn't even think about anything else for at least a few more days. But not so with Newt, he got over it and went straight on his merry way.
I heard that at the AIPAC conference earlier this month that Newt got a standing ovation. I hope some of those in attendance would be at least willing to consider the idea that it's all politics and pandering to Newt and his cohorts, and that any real concern for Jews or Israel takes a backseat to their agenda.
4 comments:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Is that a racist statement?
No, I don't believe it's a racist statement. She's not saying that a Latina woman will always come to a better conclusion than a white man, only that she hopes she will, at least sometimes. And there are things about which a Latina woman knows more about than you do, Jim.
But that's not the point, and you know damn well that's not the point. If this is what's going through your head as you're going through Auschwitz, then you are a deeply disturbed individual.
The comments were made after he left Auschwitz. Is there a minimum time required before you are allowed to think other thoughts and comment on other news items? How are these time limits determined? Do you have to wait longer after touring the death camps vs. say the civil rights museum? How long after leaving a veteran's cemetary?
My hope would be that all judges would reach the same conclusion based on the written law. My hope would be that judges do not consider race, gender, wealth, or religion when applying the law. I am sure there are lots of things that a Latina woman or any other woman knows more about than I do but that is not the point. She flat out says that more often than not she hopes a person of a particular race knows the law better than other races and would be better at applying the law. That is a racist statement and would be the end of a nomination for any conservative judge regardless of their race or gender.
Of course not all judges are going to reach the same conclusion based on the same written laws! If that were the case, a simple matter of input/output, we could just feed fact patterns into computer programs and voila! Out comes a ruling.
It is impossible for any human to completely set aside all emotion, history, and sense of self and make a decision as to a) what the law, as written, means; and b) how to apply that law to the facts at hand. Even if such a thing were possible, how would we ever know when the law itself, as written by a legislature, is wrong and must be struck down? It's all about reason, and rational thought, and a careful and delicate balance of many, many factors. Learned Hand's ideals aside, our system of law is not a matter of simple equations. It's a complex and interwoven series of overlapping concepts. As such, I can see a lot of merit in the idea that a wise Latina woman, having navigated the difficult terrain of racial, sexual, and socio-economic puzzles in America, might have a lot to say on the subject.
Post a Comment