Support NeoGAF

[dave is ok]

La Raza sounds so ganglike!

Guess Republicans in Colorado don't need the latino vote.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Guess Republicans in Colorado don't need the latino vote.

Tancredo is awesome because he goes beyond the usual border war Republican mentality and actually delves into a culture war mentality about diluting our essential "American-ness" by letting in all these foreigners.


I love whenever he gets face time because it's like an instant face of intolerance for any issue.

 

[PantherLotus]

I know little about the organization; that said, I can remember some of my four years of high school Spanish, and "the race" is kind of worrisome as an introduction to any organization.

That's like taking the NAACP to task for the use of the word "colored" in their name. In this case, "The Race" doesn't literally mean the scary version from 30's Germany, but rather means the general dilution/tiger woodsian racial blurring over time and is an attempt to honor those of hispanic origins that now fit that mold.

As it is, they're similar to the NAACP, but for Hispanic people. I'm sure they'll be demonized similarly.

 

[besada]

The problem, as is often the case, is one of terminology. There is no group called "La Raza". There are several that use the phrase. The one Sotomayor is a member of is NCLR (National Council of La Raza) which is a Latino advocacy group along the lines of NAACP.

There is also La Raza Unida Party, which is a political third-party started in Texas in the 70's.

Finally, there's MEChA, which is a revolutionary student Latino party that supports irredentism, and has a dynamite wielding Eagle as its symbol.

There are ties and connections, most loose, and most involving overlapping memberships of individuals, but that's too complex for Tancredo to understand.

Suggest the NCLR is like MEChA is like suggesting that Kiwanis Club Members are like the Klan, as their biggest connection tends to be overlapping membership.

 

[dave is ok]

Tancredo is awesome because he goes beyond the usual border war Republican mentality and actually delves into a culture war mentality about diluting our essential "American-ness" by letting in all these foreigners.

I love whenever he gets face time because it's like an instant face of intolerance for any issue.

He urges America to reject "the siren song of multiculturalism".

It's amazing that such hatemongers can hold office in parts of this country.

 

[PantherLotus]

The problem, as is often the case, is one of terminology. There is no group called "La Raza". There are several that use the phrase. The one Sotomayor is a member of is NCLR (National Council of La Raza) which is a Latino advocacy group along the lines of NAACP.

There is also La Raza Unida Party, which is a political party stated in Texas in the 70's.

Finally, there's MEChA, which is a revolutionary student Latino party that supports irredentism, and has a dynamite wielding Eagle as its symbol.

There are ties and connections, most loose, and most involving overlapping memberships of individuals, but that's too complex for Tancredo to understand.

Suggest the NCLR is like MEChA is like suggesting that Kiwanis Club Members are like the Klan, as their biggest connection tends to be overlapping membership.

This is enlightening. It would appear that either the Republican in question is either ignorant or intentionally blurring the groups, hoping for the obvious reaction.

 

[APF]

You're wrong in this instance. You were not attacked in the linked post and you've continued to antagonize. Just drop it and apologize already. Ain't hard d00d.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16039189&postcount=1775

What am I wrong about again?

 

[speculawyer]

I do think he was very involved at the policy level with Bush and he was certainly a target for a lot of liberal anger but that was mainly because he embraced the I'm a genuis role and the "I'm the crazy intelligent puppetmaster" personae.

Nobody likes to get beat and then have it rubbed in their face.

Well, I think a lot of anger directed toward Rove is that he often used really cheap tactics. In theory, an election should be about two candidates that have different policy proposals and the people select the person with the policy proposal they believe will achieve the greater good for the nation. But Rove never ran campaigns based on that. It was more about things like appealing to racism, personally smearing opposing candidates, appealing to people's inherent greed, appealing to fears, etc. Rove is well-known for bugging his own office and blaming it on the opposition and doing the 'Would it affect your view if you knew McCain had a black baby.' push-polling.

Rove had no problem adopting positions that he personally does not agree with if that position would help him get a win. Of course every candidate does that . . . Obama publicly does not support gay marriage. But you know he probably does support it but realizes it will happen eventually anyway and he won't have a chance of getting elected if he adopts that position. Rove would take outward positions hostile to his views . . . he had a gay dad (or step dad) but he would push the US constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

 

[besada]

This is enlightening. It would appear that either the Republican in question is either ignorant or intentionally blurring the groups, hoping for the obvious reaction.

The anti-immigration crowd have been intentionally blurring these lines for so long it's entirely possible Tancredo simply doesn't know any better.

It's very similar to tactics used to conflate the NAACP with the Black Panthers in the sixties. They find a member who belongs to both organizations, find an outrageous quote, and then tar the more reasonable group with the words of one obnoxious member and link them to the less reasonable group.

I'm most familiar with the La Raza Unida group, as it grew up in my back yard, but even there, trying to pin the words of a member of the group on the group as a whole is like pretending that Jesse Helms's views on race were the GOP's official platform. Fun for scoring points in a political shouting match, but a long chalk from being the truth.

 

[reilo]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16039189&postcount=1775

What am I wrong about again?

You're the one that called me a moron. So please, don't cry foul nor play the victim card when somebody actually retaliates.

You're in the wrong. Don't worry, I'm not seeking an apology from you.

 

[PantherLotus]

^ You aren't helping.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16039189&postcount=1775

What am I wrong about again?

Rise above it man.

 

[APF]

Rise above it man.

Oh come on, it's still overcast outside

 

[mckmas8808]

Interesting talk about the la Raza. Wonders what the media will say about this.....

 

[PantherLotus]

The anti-immigration crowd have been intentionally blurring these lines for so long it's entirely possible Tancredo simply doesn't know any better.

It's very similar to tactics used to conflate the NAACP with the Black Panthers in the sixties. They find a member who belongs to both organizations, find an outrageous quote, and then tar the more reasonable group with the words of one obnoxious member and link them to the less reasonable group.

I'm most familiar with the La Raza Unida group, as it grew up in my back yard, but even there, trying to pin the words of a member of the group on the group as a whole is like pretending that Jesse Helms's views on race were the GOP's official platform. Fun for scoring points in a political shouting match, but a long chalk from being the truth.

Another good post. Thanks for illuminating the issue.

 

[scorcho]

I've been told the weather is nicer than it looks!

Tancredo was on the Ed Show last night yelling, literally, that Sotomayor is a racist, something which Gingrich repeated in his twitter feed. I hope mainstream GOP voices carry this argument as well.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I'm generally against any group that's racially defined, I feel their very existence just furthers racism by necessitating that each race have a group to counter the others groups. I really don't like government officials being members of any groups.

But in the grand scheme of things it's something I wouldn't find very important as my position isn't based in any evidence. It's easy for me to sit back and say, "hey if there were no race centric groups we could move past race as an issue and just do what we think is right for the whole," but that could just be wishful thinking on my part.

On the other hand, as far as the race debate goes on whether a Hispanic woman's experiences may allow her to view things differently than a white male, I think the answer is obviously yes and don't understand why that's a fear. Of course she'll see some things differently than a white male, so what exactly? Even white males see shit differently that's the beauty of the world.

I think it'd be interesting if we could have one administration comprised entirely of minorities just to show the last remaining people afraid of them that in the end we all generally seek the same things, the country won't implode and we'll all be ok.

I've been told the weather is nicer than it looks!

Tancredo was on the Ed Show last night yelling, literally, that Sotomayor is a racist, something which Gingrich repeated in his twitter feed. I hope mainstream GOP voices carry this argument as well.

Gingrich's twitter post was like fucking caveman speak, it's really hard for me to see anyone taking its message seriously when I can't imagine anyone but a neanderthal saying it.

 

[PantherLotus]

I've been told the weather is nicer than it looks!

Tancredo was on the Ed Show last night yelling, literally, that Sotomayor is a racist, something which Gingrich repeated in his twitter feed. I hope mainstream GOP voices carry this argument as well.

Nothing like sweet irony to butter the bread of liberal laughter.

At some point they'll be our racist grandparents who we just kinda laugh at and look at funny at the dinner table. Then we'll wipe the drool off their face and wheel them in front of the TV for another Emeril episdoe.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Truly Can't Help Themselves

Here's your next emerging meme. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Blood & Soil) just went on CNN attacking Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to La Raza which he called a "Latino KKK."

As I said this morning, it's painfully revealing how conservatives simply cannot helping going hard on the race front with Sotomayor or, as David Kurtz just put it, can't help imagining that everyone else is as racist as many of them are.

For those who aren't familiar with it, La Raza is basically a Latino equivalent of B'nai Brith or the NAACP. Garden variety and uncontroversial unless you thinks it's a public safety issue if more than a handful of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans get together in one place at the same time.

There's much more of this coming.

--Josh Marshall​

Video.

Tancredo: La Raza is "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZgtxwqGDiQ&fmt=18

 

[mckmas8808]

Truly Can't Help Themselves

Here's your next emerging meme. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Blood & Soil) just went on CNN attacking Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to La Raza which he called a "Latino KKK."

As I said this morning, it's painfully revealing how conservatives simply cannot helping going hard on the race front with Sotomayor or, as David Kurtz just put it, can't help imagining that everyone else is as racist as many of them are.

For those who aren't familiar with it, La Raza is basically a Latino equivalent of B'nai Brith or the NAACP. Garden variety and uncontroversial unless you thinks it's a public safety issue if more than a handful of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans get together in one place at the same time.

There's much more of this coming.

--Josh Marshall​

Video.

Tancredo: La Raza is "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZgtxwqGDiQ&fmt=18

Now he's saying the words "hoods" and "nooses"?! GOT DAMN! Now people are going to ask for proof of how many people they hurt personally.

 

[charlequin]

Tancredo is like a Christmas gift wrapped up with beautiful red wrapping paper.

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm generally against any group that's racially defined, I feel their very existence just furthers racism by necessitating that each race have a group to counter the others groups. I really don't like government officials being members of any groups.

I see what you are saying and I've heard it before. However, I think there's a way to balance identity and heritage with sensitivity. The balance comes from the goals, guidance, and leadership of each group.

I have zero problem with politicians belonging to identity groups, provided that they think as Americans first.

But in the grand scheme of things it's something I wouldn't find very important as my position isn't based in any evidence. It's easy for me to sit back and say, "hey if there were no race centric groups we could move past race as an issue and just do what we think is right for the whole," but that could just be wishful thinking on my part.

Right. This was better put in John Lennon's opus, "Imagine."

On the other hand, as far as the race debate goes on whether a Hispanic woman's experiences may allow her to view things differently than a white male, I think the answer is obviously yes and don't understand why that's a fear. Of course she'll see some things differently than a white male, so what exactly? Even white males see shit differently that's the beauty of the world.

Agreed. The problem is her use of the word "better" which is an obvious misnomer. She meant, or should have said, "more informed." Which means better, but doesn't hurt as many feelings.

I think it'd be interesting if we could have one administration comprised entirely of minorities just to show the last remaining people afraid of them that in the end we all generally seek the same things, the country won't implode and we'll all be ok.

I don't think that's necessary. I don't think most people are conciously racist. I think they say things they don't realize and believe things they don't think about, strategians and wonks aside.

 

[scorcho]

Gingrich's twitter post was like fucking caveman speak, it's really hard for me to see anyone taking its message seriously when I can't imagine anyone but a neanderthal saying it.

twitter helps send message 2 youths! needs no grammar!

On a serious note: I'm somewhat amazed that Gingrich has become a frequent twitterer. He made a big deal of his 2007 debate with Cuomo that, in part, called for more nuanced, substantive political discourse. Now he issues single-line talking points on a communications medium that is nearly anathema to that goal.

Meh, maybe I shouldn't be shocked by whatever Gingrich does.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Tancredo is like a Christmas gift wrapped up with beautiful red wrapping paper.

:lol

 

[polyh3dron]

The GOP is having a tough time shaking that whole racism thing aren't they...

 

[polyh3dron]

Interesting talk about the la Raza. Wonders what the media will say about this.....

"the La Raza"?? :lol :lol

A certain Saint's Row scene applies here.

 

[scorcho]

The GOP is having a tough time shaking that whole racism thing aren't they...

You're wrong. The GOP cares about 'reverse racism', where I assume the former negates the latter? If so they're well on their way to ending racism.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Well, I think a lot of anger directed toward Rove is that he often used really cheap tactics. In theory, an election should be about two candidates that have different policy proposals and the people select the person with the policy proposal they believe will achieve the greater good for the nation. But Rove never ran campaigns based on that. It was more about things like appealing to racism, personally smearing opposing candidates, appealing to people's inherent greed, appealing to fears, etc. Rove is well-known for bugging his own office and blaming it on the opposition and doing the 'Would it affect your view if you knew McCain had a black baby.' push-polling.

Rove had no problem adopting positions that he personally does not agree with if that position would help him get a win. Of course every candidate does that . . . Obama publicly does not support gay marriage. But you know he probably does support it but realizes it will happen eventually anyway and he won't have a chance of getting elected if he adopts that position. Rove would take outward positions hostile to his views . . . he had a gay dad (or step dad) but he would push the US constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

I'm of two minds on this. On one hands I have no problem with Dems labeling this for what it is and aggresively fighting back.

On the other hand there is a problem akin to basketball where historically Dems have been on the receiving ends of some sharp elbows to use basketball parlance but instead of returning some sharp elbows they complain to the refs and lose the game.

You needs a little bit of both to fight back.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Gingrich used to be somewhat level-headed during the early 90s for leading the GOP to taking over Congress, but now........he's just one of them. ONE OF THEM.

 

[bishoptl]

The GOP is having a tough time shaking that whole racism thing aren't they...

Ask LovingSteam.

 

[Oblivion]

Can someone recommend me any good political podcasts? I guess I would define myself as a left leaning moderate/centrist, so something along those lines would be good. Thanks!

 

[reilo]

Ask LovingSteam.

Obviously the number of racists in the Dem party equal the number of racists in the GOP. Everything is equal across the board; everyone's opinion and actions have equal weight. When a Democrat steals a cookie, it's the equivalent of a Republican committing a crime of embezzlement and stealing millions of dollars.

Spoiler

I'm being sarcastic fyi

 

[Arde5643]

Obviously the number of racists in the Dem party equal the number of racists in the GOP. Everything is equal across the board; everyone's opinion and actions have equal weight. When a Democrat steals a cookie, it's the equivalent of a Republican committing a crime of embezzlement and stealing millions of dollars.

Spoiler

I'm being sarcastic fyi

Not to LovingSteam.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I find it odd that when someone asks LovingSteam for a source, he says "Well, this is what people are saying on the streets..." :lol

 

[scorcho]

Can someone recommend me any good political podcasts? I guess I would define myself as a left leaning moderate/centrist, so something along those lines would be good. Thanks!

NPR All Things Considered
Slate Political Gabfest
NPR Economy
CFR The World Next Week

 

[Killthee]

Check out Obama's response to LGBT protesters yesterday:

A gaggle of sign-waving protestors milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president’s eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd.

“One of them said, “Obama keep your promise,’ ” the president said. “I thought that’s fair. I don’t know which promise he was talking about.”

The people in the audience – who paid $30,400 per couple to attend – laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ong-the-stars/?scp=2&sq=beverly hilton&st=cse

Shades of Bush with this delivery. Absolutely shameful.

I was pissed about this too when I first read about it this morning, but then I saw the video and listened to the rest of his statement and it seems to me like somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here's the full quote:

"There were some protesters out here. I could hear them-vaguely. I don't know what they were protesting. I think there was a group of them. But one of them started to chant "Obama, keep your promise" and I thought, that's fair. I don't know which promise that he was talking about. But I thought to myself, you know, I like that."​

Sounds nothing like Bush IMO. Then I heard that there were several groups protesting different issues in the same spot in front of the Beverly Hilton and the claim that he was mocking the gay rights protesters started to sound baseless. The gay rights protesters were protesting DoMA, DADT, & demanding marriage equality, Code Pink & ANSWER L.A. were protesting the war, and The Armenian Youth Federation were demanding he keep his promise of recognizing the Armenian Genocide (video of one of them starting to chant "Obama, keep your promise.") all at the same spot. I can understand how he might have been confused by the protesters if he was only able to hear them vaguely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely on his side. I'm really disappointed by his inaction and silence on LGBT issues and its frustrating, but his statement last night is not something to get furious over.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I was pissed about this too when I first read about it this morning, but then I saw the video and listened to the rest of his statement and it seems to me like somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here's the full quote:

"There were some protesters out here. I could hear them-vaguely. I don't know what they were protesting. I think there was a group of them. But one of them started to chant "Obama, keep your promise" and I thought, that's fair. I don't know which promise that he was talking about. But I thought to myself, you know, I like that."​

*snip*

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely on his side. I'm really disappointed by his inaction and silence on LGBT issues and its frustrating, but his statement last night is not something to get furious over.

Agree on all counts. It's pretty clear that

1) He has no idea what the protesters were protesting
2) He agrees with the protesters that he should be held accountable for his campaign promises - even if he wasn't sure which one the guy was referring to

It's a non-story.

 

[PantherLotus]

Agreed. Without video of either the protests or the comments in question, I have no problem at all with his comments.

I think the "shades of Bush" thing is coming from a perspective of somebody that expected an immediate constitutional amendment to repeal DADT and to disallow restrictions on gay marriage. I don't disagree for a moment that both should eventually happen, but I hardly think he's automatically another Bush.

I UNDERSTAND why people are upset. But "shades of Bush?" Really?

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

his statement last night is not something to get furious over.

Don't try to use logic and reason with Mercury Fred over such things. It only makes him angrier and more irrational.

 

[Diablos]

Obama picked Pittsburgh for the G-20 summit!

Sweet! My city is doing something cool for once

 

[Arde5643]

Agreed. Without video of either the protests or the comments in question, I have no problem at all with his comments.

I think the "shades of Bush" thing is coming from a perspective of somebody that expected an immediate constitutional amendment to repeal DADT and to disallow restrictions on gay marriage. I don't disagree for a moment that both should eventually happen, but I hardly think he's automatically another Bush.

I UNDERSTAND why people are upset. But "shades of Bush?" Really?

Meh, same thing with people thinking that Bush Jr = Hitler or Obama = Stalin/Hitler whatever it is.

Now, if anyone ever argues to you that Cheney did the things he did for the betterment of USA, you have the fullest agreement of everyone here to deck said person.

 

[reilo]

I was pissed about this too when I first read about it this morning, but then I saw the video and listened to the rest of his statement and it seems to me like somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here's the full quote:

"There were some protesters out here. I could hear them-vaguely. I don't know what they were protesting. I think there was a group of them. But one of them started to chant "Obama, keep your promise" and I thought, that's fair. I don't know which promise that he was talking about. But I thought to myself, you know, I like that."​

Sounds nothing like Bush IMO. Then I heard that there were several groups protesting different issues in the same spot in front of the Beverly Hilton and the claim that he was mocking the gay rights protesters started to sound baseless. The gay rights protesters were protesting DoMA, DADT, & demanding marriage equality, Code Pink & ANSWER L.A. were protesting the war, and The Armenian Youth Federation were demanding he keep his promise of recognizing the Armenian Genocide (video of one of them starting to chant "Obama, keep your promise.") all at the same spot. I can understand how he might have been confused by the protesters if he was only able to hear them vaguely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely on his side. I'm really disappointed by his inaction and silence on LGBT issues and its frustrating, but his statement last night is not something to get furious over.

The media distorts and takes quotes out of context to stir up controversy? I'm shocked.

 

[polyh3dron]

 

[gcubed]

Obama picked Pittsburgh for the G-20 summit!

Sweet! My city is doing something cool for once

they going to hand out masks to people visiting to filter out the pollution?

 

[mAcOdIn]

they going to hand out masks to people visiting to filter out the pollution?

That's a good idea but then the problem still remains about how to protect them from the people of Philadelphia.

Spoiler

Kidding!

 

[gcubed]

That's a good idea but then the problem still remains about how to protect them from the people of Philadelphia.

Spoiler

Kidding!

they are 6 hours away Philly people dont venture that far. I'm bitter because of Pitt's success in sports (at least the Phillies won), so the only thing negative i can say about Pitt is that it has the worst air quality in the US... its a pretty pitiful thing, but its all i got, leave me alone

 

[mAcOdIn]

they are 6 hours away Philly people dont venture that far. I'm bitter because of Pitt's success in sports (at least the Phillies won), so the only thing negative i can say about Pitt is that it has the worst air quality in the US... its a pretty pitiful thing, but its all i got, leave me alone

Argh, I fucked up the joke. Oh well.

Just angry because the only way people know of my town is a shitty restaurant that serves a 72 oz steak that you might see on some food program.

 

[syllogism]

Brooks:

The American legal system is based on a useful falsehood. It’s based on the falsehood that this is a nation of laws, not men; that in rendering decisions, disembodied, objective judges are able to put aside emotion and unruly passion and issue opinions on the basis of pure reason.

Most people know this is untrue. In reality, decisions are made by imperfect minds in ambiguous circumstances. It is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason and not emotion because emotions are an inherent part of decision-making. Emotions are the processes we use to assign value to different possibilities. Emotions move us toward things and ideas that produce pleasure and away from things and ideas that produce pain.

People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.

Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

As Dan Kahan of Yale Law School has pointed out, many disputes come about because two judges look at the same situation and they have different perceptions about what the most consequential facts are. One judge, with one set of internal models, may look at a case and perceive that the humiliation suffered by a 13-year-old girl during a strip search in a school or airport is the most consequential fact of the case. Another judge, with another set of internal models, may perceive that the security of the school or airport is the most consequential fact. People elevate and savor facts that conform to their pre-existing sensitivities.

The decision-making process gets even murkier once the judge has absorbed the disparate facts of a case. When noodling over some issue — whether it’s a legal case, an essay, a math problem or a marketing strategy — people go foraging about for a unifying solution. This is not a hyper-rational, orderly process of the sort a computer might undertake. It’s a meandering, largely unconscious process of trial and error.

The mind tries on different solutions to see if they fit. Ideas and insights bubble up from some hidden layer of intuitions and heuristics. Sometimes you feel yourself getting closer to a conclusion, and sometimes you feel yourself getting farther away. The emotions serve as guidance signals, like from a GPS, as you feel your way toward a solution.

Now your conclusion is articulate in your consciousness. You can edit it or reject it. You can go out and find precedents and principles to buttress it. But the way you get there was not a cool, rational process. It was complex, unconscious and emotional.

The crucial question in evaluating a potential Supreme Court justice, therefore, is not whether she relies on empathy or emotion, but how she does so. First, can she process multiple streams of emotion? Reason is weak and emotions are strong, but emotions can be balanced off each other. Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class.

Second, does she have a love for the institutions of the law themselves? For some lawyers, the law is not only a bunch of statutes but a code of chivalry. The good judges seem to derive a profound emotional satisfaction from the faithful execution of time-tested precedents and traditions.

Third, is she aware of the murky, flawed and semiprimitive nature of her own decision-making, and has she accounted for her own uncertainty? If we were logical creatures in a logical world, judges could create sweeping abstractions and then rigorously apply them. But because we’re emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it’s prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It’s prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.

Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It’s not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it’s how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=1

 

[gkryhewy]

they are 6 hours away Philly people dont venture that far. I'm bitter because of Pitt's success in sports (at least the Phillies won), so the only thing negative i can say about Pitt is that it has the worst air quality in the US... its a pretty pitiful thing, but its all i got, leave me alone

You could also say that the only reason they still have a hockey team is because they're getting a state welfare arena. They also have the most inefficient and inept public transport agency in the country.

Seems like a nice city overall through.

 

[mckmas8808]

Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=1

This is a great article by Brooks. To bad more conservatives don't think like this guy.

 

[gcubed]

This is a great article by Brooks. To bad more conservatives don't think like this guy.

there are, they just dont get elected, they get beat out by minutemen or other such hardliner groups