We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Websites like ours and AVI's have a deep respect for the power of tribalism in the human psyche.
For better or worse, it seems like an inevitable human force for birds of a feather to flock together regardless of our basic biological similarities.
Early Colonial America had very few tribes: The evangelical and intolerant Protestants, the crazy Dutch entrepreneurs, the various warring Indian tribes, and the small handful of welcome Jews in Rhode Island and Catholics in Maryland. And African slaves in both the South and North (and some free Africans in the North).
Today, we have all sorts of tribes all over the place, from all over the world. In a way, I can view the Sotomayor affirmative-action nomination as a nod to the tribalism that we acknowledge here as being a powerful force.
The "progressive" identity politics of the Dems meets primitive tribalism. Politics gets very strange when the shape of your genitalia and your ancestry determine your career and power. Full-circle to primitivism.
America seems to be a deeply divided place these days. It would seem appropriate for a woman to make the grade given how few actually get the chance in this role and assuming she is qualified? But quite why there is a need to play gender and race cards at every opportunity and assert it as the b all end all of defining American success is bizarre. It would seem totally UNAmerican to place so much emphasis on tribal divisions. It scares the crap out of me just how far this is pushed in America. And as a consequence in Britain.
I think, Meta, that 'we' may be a generational phenomena. I mean, after all, if this quote still holds, which it does for me;
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Then it might be the times that is driving the appeal to more tribalism. In the past we've been able to integrate those huddled masses as Americans first, tribe second. The problem is that that notion has been turned on its head by the purveyors of multi-cultureism and also the sheer numbers involved.
No debate, Luther. I guess I'm just not one of the 'we'. I go with the 'force' in the psyche, but that's just for upbringing and identity until you walk out and begin to live in this country. You do that with an open mind and people all look the same.
I guess I'm just disgusted when I hear people defined by race or religion or any other defining factor that belies the human being beneath the billboard notations. Can't help but think we're a bunch of adolescent girls until we can communicate without a tribal preface before a name. Time for all of us to grow up or change Lazarus' poem to: "Give me your tribes, your poor - Your huddled asses yearning to break free....
I think I broke my psyche. Oh, look... a Spic might be on the Supreme Court...... I'm so tempest-tossed and wretched...
I left my vagina beside the church door.....
Yes, Meta, but now you're talking about 'us', not 'them', when speaking of an open mind. There are many whose identity is only validated by being part of their tribe. And as I mentioned above they don't necessarily consider America first when considering the priorities of their loyalties. And actually this transcends gender or ethnicity. It can be your average far lefty or righty who believes that his/her political/cultural beliefs outweigh those of the great middle. And who then withhold their participation or actively work to undermine our great experiment. But please understand I'm not saying that I don't agree with your views, as I do agree with them and try my best to live them. But we can only control ourselves, not others. Oh... be careful where you leave that thing, you wouldn't want it to turn up missing. :)
So sorry. I suppose I allowed previous experience to bleed over into that remark. Coming from those times when there was that pointed finger... and the words "you want to do WHAT with that thing. But trust me... I would never denigrate the center of the universe, the reason for existence, the great Yoni. I can only bow in awe at its awesomeness. The center of the circle upon which the world revolves.
Luther. You're gross. "... bleed over into that remark."
I like the rest, though. Except the 'great Yoni'. What/who is that? And you forgot 'capital/capitol of the world'. Who is the 'you' in 'you want to do WHAT with that thing'? And what is 'what'? Inquiring minds want to know.
Luther. How come you know that stuff? I'm thinking you are the mystery here. Your soft-spoken, reasoned, fair minded commentary belies a real animal in the sack. I bet you're the kind of lover who puts a Sham Wow beneath your receptacle's fanny and then tells her, "It'll be all right, honey bun.... Enjoy the ride."
Ah, Meta. If I could befoul the laws of time and space I'd join you in an instant, but alas we exist only in this temporal and digitized world. As to my knowledge... lets just say that we all have our varied interests and of those some I pursue with passion so as to realize their true worth.
ooh.. Do tell. What passions have you pursued and found worthy of the value of the pursuit? You said you'd drive your tractor here. 2300 miles will take about a year. Goody. I can do some strengthening exercises because I think I'll need them.
Meta: "Luther, will you make me toast in the morning?"
Luther: "Meta, I'm going to make you toast right now."
You forgot one thing. It's not just your vagina, or your parent's birth place, it's also that R next to your name.
Remember when Bush nominated Estrada? Oh yeah, historical, uh huh. And what about Gonzalez? He got all the breaks from the tribalist crowd. Hispanic lawyers also need be a bit red to get along with the white power structure of the Democrat party.
I happen to like Sotomayor. Her opinions, aside from the one about the firemen, are fairly moderate or even conservative. She isn't an easy "fits in the LIBERAL" frame kind of candidate, nor is she a stealth candidate.
She has a track record that is not altogether abysmal. She seems to have a very strict way of viewing the Constitution.
With regard to the ruling on the Fire Department, it's worth noting her ruling (while obviously stupid) was right in line with precedent regarding affirmative action and public jobs. It's not the way I'd go, typically, and it's not really the best solution....but at least she wasn't trying to blaze a new path.
She can hardly be called an activist judge.
She has one or two unfortunate comments, but none that should automatically exclude her from consideration.
I see her becoming more moderate, even somewhat conservative, while on the bench. I DO NOT see her becoming Obama's pet - in fact, quite the opposite. Should the Republicans withhold their vigor, she could become very friendly to some of their viewpoints. That has typically (until the last 15 years) been the way of the Supreme Court.
Souter is really the last judge that surprised everyone by altering his views significantly...but Sotomayor could very likely be the next.