The Akron Beacon Journal loves them some George Will. Will's Washington Post columns appear regularly in the Beacon. Recently, the Beacon reprinted one of Will's columns on global warming that included his total distortion of research findings. Will, alleged to be an intellectual, often distorts the facts as he did in his screed, also reprinted by the Beacon, about how card-check (Employee Free Choice Act) would eliminate the secret ballot for workers organizing into a union. Something that EFCA clearly does not do.
Will is back in this morning's Beacon…..and this time he's spreading stuff already disproven yesterday in those, you know, detestable blogs. (Here and here) Quoting the odious Stuart Taylor from the rag, National Journal, Will joins Daddy Limbaugh in suggesting that Obama's Supreme Court choice, Sonia Sotomoyar, will rule on the basis of her racial and gender preferences…..
Taylor has also noted this from a Sotomayor speech to a Hispanic group: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Says Taylor, "Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' — and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.' "
Context is everything here and that's why Will doesn't include it. The lifted Sotomayor quote was from a symposium speech….
The fall symposium is host to the Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture….established by friends, family and associates in memory of the late Judge Mario G. Olmos '71 to honor his commitment to social justice. The endowed lecture addresses issues of justice for people of diverse national, economic, racial and cultural backgrounds.
Sentences leading up to what Will implies is racist….
I intend… to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench….
[O]ne of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum….rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively."…
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group…. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]
You can see why Will, quoting Taylor, left the context out of his predetermined distortions. The context didn't fit the conclusions.
But it's even worse. Consider again this from Will's piece….
"Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' — and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.'
Just f*cking imagine the reaction…..if a white Catholic guy said something about his unique personal experiences and the empathetic approach he would be bringing to the court as a result of those experiences…..
Can you even imagine the reaction to what Judge Alito said? Yeah, crickets. But he's a white male.
The Beacon does a great disservice to it's readers by including the slanted and error-filled columns of the Washington Post's George Will.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
So you are anti-free speech. Your Blog is useless. The AB should be embarrassed by your senseless dribble.
Blue, my boy…I would say he is pro-free-speech and anti-misquote or word chopping. I mean I can take your sentence and make it say something that fits my opinion if I wanted.
For instance…
So…Your Blog is….The AB
You said those words. But you see how I left out anything that didn't pertain to what I was trying point out. Heck I can do the same for the Constitution.
"We the people of the United States….promote…Welfare…"
So there you have it, the founders wanted Welfare, so deal with it.
Hat tip to ya, G-Mann.
Because I said that the Beacon Journal is doing a disservice to it's readers by continually reprinting his columns….columns that have been proven to be misleading and basically dishonest…..I'm anti-free speech?
Do you want your local paper to be printing political columns of knowingly misleading and deceptive political hacks, you know, without, like, warning them first?
I'm not anti-free speech, as G-Mann pointed out, what I'm anti…..is lying, distorting and purposely misleading readers. And it's fine for the Beacon to go ahead and keep printing columns by a known political hack who twists the truth to make it fit the daily Republican talking point……and I'll keep pointing out the ongoing faux-news dynamic of knowingly publishing the distortion of truth.
And blue…..I bet a few people at the Beacon are embarassed by what I blog. But not for the reasons you think.
But "useless"? Come back more often and then tell me that. That's fair enough.
Rev,
But George Will wears those nerdy glasses and that funny bowtie. He must be an Intellectual.
Must be.
I wouldn't worry about the editors, Reverend. As long as you can keep the rants about Joohs and Mexicans under control, I doubt the Beacon monitors the blog too closely.
Well, that was interesting.
Point one – Your link proved that George Will's quote about global warming was accurate.
Point two – Your link proved that the AFL-CIO wants majority signup instead of the secret ballot, lending credence to Will's point that EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot.
Point three – What Alito did not say in the video was that a white man would reach a better decision than a minority, which would have been the equivalent of what Sotomayor said, and was what Will commented about. You missed on that one, too
But had you pursued the argument about GOP attacks on "empathy," you would have scored with that Alito video, because empathy was what Alito was exhibiting, even though he said he was bound by the rule of law.
My condolences on the Beacon Journal allowing those nasty conservatives to write in their newspaper, even though the liberal columnists far outnumber the conservative ones in the BJ. I know how irksome it must be when the BJ occasionally shows the other side of the issues, the side the Rev doesn't like. If only we could get around that whole free speech nonsense.
lighten up Rev,
Do what I do. I take the box scores in the sports section seriously and I read the rest of it to glean the true moments of humor. I espically like the "news" from the McClatchy organization.
It's official then. We have the meaning of words and facts in english…..and the meaning of words and facts in wingnut. As I've said many times, I'm fluent in wingnut, which would make me bilingual so to speak.
Will's column was debunked immediately for the hackery that it was. While Will never retracted sh*t….his editors recognized the problem with the Bowtie's efforts to mislead. That was what was in the first link.
My link proved, and without doubt, that EFCA did not eliminate the secret ballot. You know that, and still want to have it your way by asserting that EFCA, in ESSENCE, eliminates the secret ballot. That's an interpretation…..and not what the bill says. The issue with EFCA is not the secret ballot….that's a diversion. EFCA is all about who gets to choose how workers can organize a union. The workers…or the employer. Simple common sense comes down on the side of the workers…..since they are the ones freaking organizing. Conservatives must support big business….they rarely, if ever, side with workers. I always wondered why that was.
Soto…."our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions."
That's what Alito said concerning his life experiences, specifically, being the son of immigrants. This, also, is basic common sense. Do you not believe that a Hispanic woman, and especially one with Soto's biography, would add a different life-viewpoint to the court? Or do you believe that white men would know more about the life-concerns of Latinos and women of color?
There's no difference at all with what Alito said. Alito suggested, because of his immigration life experiences, that he would be better in certain areas of law than others. That's what Soto was saying.
Finally, I imagine you receive a different edition of the Beacon than mine. The opinion page regulars who I see are Krauthammer, Brooks, Will, Ignatius, Gerson, Broder. I see Krugman and Eugene Robinson occasionally, the only liberals,…..and calling Robinson a liberal is stretching it.
I still have not seen a liberal blogger printed on the Beacon's opinion page. And that's very ironic, considering that the liberal bloggers drive the discussion daily. Liberal bloggers are the only authentic media at this point in the nation's history…..and the Beacon chooses the dinosaurs.
angry….I gave up on professional sports years ago after being an avid fan for 35 years. Watched many of the greats. When I was a little kid, I listened to the Indians game on radio when Colavito hit four homers in one game against the Orioles. Good times. But today's professional sports, like many of America's capitalistic products, has gone to seed.
I actually respect the work of the Beacon. I just don't appreciate their taste in political columnists.
rev,
I was refering to the high school box scores. Why I still check them out every day is beyond me. You must be one old fart to remember that game. I was hiding under my blanket sweating my ass of hoping my mother wouldnt know i was still awake waiting to see if he could get 4.
The Reverand claims that his link proved "without a doubt, that the EFCA did not eliminate the secret ballot". His link was to a blog sponsored by that great arbirter of objective truth, the AFL-CIO. Perhaps it would be useful for the Reverand's readers to look at the actual statute.
The law as presently written, 29 USC section 159(c), provides that if a "substantial" number of employees certify that they wish to be represented by a collective bargaining agent, the employer can either accept said certification or refer the matter to the NLRB which will then conduct an investigation that usually results in an election by secret ballot regarding union representation. In other words, under existing law, the employer can request a vote by secret ballot, rather than merely accept the union's certification.
EFCA bills are pending in both the House and the Senate. Both bills contain identical language that would add a new paragraph (6) to section 159(c). It provides that if the NLRB finds that if a majority of employees have signed "valid authorizations" (i.e. "card check"), then the union will be certified as "the exclusive collective bargaining agent". No secret ballot. No election.
Don't you feel safer, Dear Readers, knowing that the Reverand is protecting you from the "error-filled columns" of George Will?
Rev,
I'm as impressed as always by your "wingnut" argument (not at all), but I wonder if you even read your own links. The one about global warming said the following:
"[The Arctic Research Institute] said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979."
Which is the same as George Will said. Will quoted accurately.
Thanks to Quidpro for destroying your nonsense about EFCA.
And Alito STILL didn't say that white males would reach better decisions than others, which was what George Will was talking about regarding Sotomayor, no matter how much you try to spin it.
As for the ABJ, yesterday's commentary page consisted of four articles – one by the liberal E.J. Dionne, one by a liberal from the ACLU, and two from liberals at the N.Y. Times. 'Nuff said. What the Rev is really objecting to is that about 20% of the commentary articles on the ABJ editorial page are written by conservatives, with the other 80% coming from liberals. And that illustrates the quintissential Rev stilted viewpoint.
Quid….which one of those sentences states that the secret ballot would no longer be available as an option? Was it written in, like, invisible ink? You have no argument here. You're simply mistaken.
King….Yeah, Alito was alluding to being better at immigration cases, because he would bring his lineage experience to the court.
And King doesn't know his columnists.
angry….I confess, I also check out the high school sports info….and there's no doubt, I'm getting to be an old fart. Let's just call it exquisite aging…you know, like whiskey and wine.
So now the Rev is saying that E.J. Dionne, the ACLU, and the NY Times are all conservative ?
There are medications available.
Fun stuff this~ especialy for a girl born of immigrant parents who works in social service (hands on) with a libertatrian view of this country. Rev you are puffed full of the rightgeous weakness of mankind. I believe in people, as Americans & individuals.
Have you ever been proud of yourself when no one is clapping? Are you at peace as a socialist? Do you read what you write?
g-mann & rev both should be ashamed to use handles that are worthy of respect.
Same with frank. He's ruined hot dogs for me forever.
larry d.
You've ruined the Three Stooges for me.
Please read the actual statute, Reverand. Otherwise people might suspect that you are merely uttering noises to fill the void in your brain wherein the faculty of judgment should lie.
"If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] The EFCA would take away employers' present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
Are we clear?
Apparently, blue takes exception to the blog….
"Rev you are puffed full of the rightgeous weakness of mankind. I believe in people, as Americans & individuals.
Have you ever been proud of yourself when no one is clapping? Are you at peace as a socialist? Do you read what you write?"
The "righteous weakness of mankind"??
We all believe in people, blue. What's not to believe in?
Did someone clap? blue, I know who I am, I'm not a socialist, I owned several capitalistic ventures over my working years. My editing process is extremely thorough….and the last thing I do before publishing is reread the post.
I'm thinking, blue, that it's not about me….it's about the material I write. I respect your right to disagree with the substance of each posting. I actually encourage it.
Finally, blue…I've been a pastor, you know, in real life. I use "The Reverend" with a sense of irony….because I now am an atheist. That's what that's about. G-Mann is an independent thinking and intelligent person whose comments I appreciate….even when we disagree. And, after all, they're only names.
By the way…E.J. Dionne is a centrist Villager. Nice man and all, but not really a liberal.
The ACLU defends the Constitution of the U.S. I'm not sure how that is strictly a liberal quality. Don't conservatives and moderates want to defend the Constitution from all threats?
The NY TImes is the paper of record and the paper of Judith Miller and her "Curveball" Cheney propaganda. Not sure how promoting a war of aggression can be considered liberal.
In truth, there are very few true liberals in Congress. And there are even fewer true liberals printed or aired by corporate media. We are graced with a stable of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and moderates…..but rarely does a liberal break through the Village gates.
That one was actually a little funny, frank!
Rev says, "E.J. Dionne is a centrist villager…not really a liberal"
LOL. Brother, you are just gone with the wind.
In addition to his WaPo job, Dionne is a member of the liberal Brookings Institute, a contributor to liberal NPR, and a columnist for Commonweal, a liberal Catholic publication. Prior to working for WaPo, he worked for the N.Y. Times, the leading liberal newspaper in the country. His books were – "Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era," "Stand up Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and Politics of Revenge," and "Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right."
Is that "reality-based" enough for you ?
Btw, Sunday's Beacon Journal had four articles on the commentary page – one by liberal Eugene Robinson, one by liberal Paul Krugman, one by local liberal Tom Allio, and one by conservative Charles Krauthammer.
Between friday and sunday, that makes the tally: seven op-eds by liberals, and one by conservatives for the ABJ.
And I bet the Reverend is all pissed off about that one by conservatives. How could the ABJ be sooooo biased against liberals ??? LOL.
The actual problem we're having communicating here is over your comprehension of the word, "liberal".
You see guys like Dionne and so-called think tanks, like Brookings, as liberal, when they are, in reality, moderate….centrist. The reason we didn't take control of our energy problems in the 80's (and probably aren't going to now), is because liberal policies are rarely ever considered.
Liberal would be a country with non-profit, single payer health care for all. Liberals would have ended all faith-based programs and kept church separate from state. Virtually all of the media and the majority of elected officials are against single payer and keeping church and state separate.
Liberals, if they were dominating power, either in media or government, would interpret the 2nd amendment like it was intended.
Gay marriage, trade, corporate regulation…..all of it….liberal policies are never given serious consideration….because, you know, they're liberal.
Thank you, Reverand. Clarity is a virtue and you have enunciated your position on what constitutes true liberalism with bracing clarity. According to you, "Liberalism" would require the abolishment of private property. the repeal of the Bill of Rights, and the imposition of fascism. You are right. These "liberal policies are never given serious consideration". Thank God.
And thank you Quid…for mischaracterizing each and every point. I'm thinking the reason you did that was because you knew that I was right. Liberal policies are rarely considered, just like I said. But the history of America proves that we eventually embrace these liberal policies…..it just takes 50 years or so.
Blacks are considered equal, women can vote, abortions are legal, gays can marry in 6 states, embryonic stem cell research continues, and we still have Social Security. Conservatives hated each and every one of those liberal policies….but they eventually were accepted.
Conservatives, by definition, by creed, are always behind the times on freedom and justice. Liberals get impatient, you understand.
Do you even read the words you post, Reverand? The readers can make their own decision as to whether I have mischaracterized your bleatings.
"Conservatives hated each and every one of those liberal policies." Wrong on two counts. Remember that it was the Party of Lincoln that, at enormous cost to this nation, freed the slaves over the oposition of the "liberal" Democratic Party. It was the Southern Democrats (Remember the "Dixiecrats", Reverand?) who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It passed only because those "mean conservatives" in the GOP joined in a bipartisan coalition and voted for it. And it was Wyoming and those other conservative Western States that celebrate the freedom and individualistic values of America that lead the way on women's suffrage.
Liberals can claim "credit" for the holocaust of abortion, the abomination of same-sex marriage, and the canibalization of human embryos. Have they no shame?
Okay, Rev, I get your definition of liberal now.
Nationalization of industry. Repeal of the Bill of Rights. No religion.
By liberal, you mean communist.
No wonder you think everybody is a right winger, even liberals like E.J. Dionne.