Genocide In India: The Logical Conclusion When Life Is Devalued
Saturday, November 14th, 2009I’ve written about this before [read here] and received this comment today from Rita Banerji:
I lived in the U.S. for many years and I was and am still pro-choice. Yet, when I returned to India as an adult even my pro-choice mind could not comprehend the absolute horror of the fact that in less than a century India has eliminated more than 50 million women from its population. It is targetted elimination and by definition a genocide. That’s when I started the 50 Million Missing Campaign. Our website is www.50millionmissing.in
And you are absolutely right Melissa. There is a big block in the west regarding female genocide in India. It is not an anti-abortion issue. The Soroptimist International just last week took on this cause. And I hope other feminist and human rights groups will.
More so it is not just about female feticide. There is infanticide, dowry murders, under 5 mortality rate and abortion related MMRs (1 woman every 5 minutes in India). I just published an article for the Australian journal Intersections. Here is the link:
http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue22/banerji.htm
At the link [Go read the whole thing]:
The public reservation, however, is with the actual likelihood of such a mass-scale elimination occurring. Occasionally one reads in Indian papers about baby body parts being found in a well in the compound of some clinic, or a young woman dying of burns under suspicious circumstances due to a supposed kitchen accident, but there is nothing in the news that suggests a blood-bath on the scale of a genocide. To drive home the point to my Rotary audience, I put up on the overhead a two columned table relating to the annual rates of female homicide in India. This slide included the means of elimination, and the estimate for the annual rate for each category.
Table 1. Annual Rates of Female Homicide in India
Female foeticide approximately 1 million[5]
Female infanticide approximately 25000 in the State of Kerala alone[6]
Dowry-related murders approximately 25000[7]
Preadolescent mortality 1 in 6 dies before 15 yrs (CRY)[8]
Mortality rate 40% higher for girls under 5 than boys the same age (UNICEF)[9]
Maternal mortality rate (MMR) 136,000
(1 woman dies every 5 minutes due to pregnancy-related causes) (WHO)[10]# The number one means of elimination I pointed out, is female foetal abortions. An estimated 1 million female foetuses are selectively eliminated in India each year, and that number is expected to rise to 2.5 million within the next few years.[11] Method number two is female infanticide, a practice that has a long history in India. So far there has been no national average estimated for female infanticide, largely because it is difficult to track down with there being no administrative compulsion for citizens to register births. Nevertheless, existent data gives an indication of the scale of the practice. In the state of Kerala, one of India’s most progressive states, with a literacy rate of over 90 per cent, it is estimated that about 25,000 new born girls are killed every year.[12] In other states like Bihar, where the issue of gender bias is plainly discernable, one survey reveals that mid-wives interviewed admitted to being paid to kill almost 50 per cent of the baby girls they delivered.[13] As the number three method of elimination I listed dowry murders, also known as ‘dowry deaths.’ Despite the fact that a majority of dowry-related homicides of young married women in India are never even filed with the police, in the late 1990s it was estimated that at least 25,000 young married women were cold-bloodedly murdered by their husbands and in-laws in dowry extortion cases.[14] That number has continued to rise, as the practice of dowry itself spreads to communities, like tribal groups, that traditionally never had the custom of dowry.
What happens when an evil element of a culture meets up with technology? Genocide.
There is a disconnect for Western women. Because of cultural relativism and their own desire to have the power of life and death over another human, they avert their eyes when the same motivation is used on a grand scale to engage in the most misogynistic of ventures: killing women because men are better (and, in India, cheaper).
But the choice to eliminate a life for gender seems like just one reason among many to have an abortion. 90% of mongoloid children are aborted in America. In America, that child is viewed is dysfunctional, less than, and wrong. In India, women babies are viewed that way. It’s just a different culture. All over the world, people want the “useful”. In India, women aren’t very useful. In America, retarded children aren’t very useful.
At some level, mostly unconscious, Western women know they are little different than their Indian counterparts which is why they stay silent in the face of the biggest female genocide in history.
What Is Sarah Palin Up To?
Friday, October 23rd, 2009In my editorial at Pajamas Media today, I talk about Sarah Palin’s decision to endorse the conservative, rather than the Republican candidate and what it all means:
With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman, the conservative (not Republican) candidate, Sarah
Palin sends the Republican Party a very clear message. She will be using her considerable fundraising ability to fund candidates who ideologically match what it used to mean to be a Republican. Since the Republican Party, from its toes to its nose, has difficulty identifying candidates with those credentials, she’ll help them do it.
The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to antagonize those who vote them into office or they can start paying attention. They mistakenly buy the D.C. bubble philosophy that moderation is the way to find good candidates. What they’re seeing is a base willing to lose if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways.
I also talk about identity politics and how it is blowing up for the Republican party. The love the party has for Sarah Palin has less to do with her beauty or gender than her beliefs and ideology. So the Republican party, while looking for women candidates needs to remember what’s most important: the beliefs. The base is sick of people who pay lip service to ideas like small government and fiscal responsibility and then turn around and govern like drunk liberals spending other peoples’ money.
Liz Cheney….Please Run For Something, Oh, And You, Too, Mary
Monday, September 28th, 2009Liz Cheney spoke at the Smart Girls Summit in Nashville–alas, I missed it. But I’ve seen her interviewed and she’s got her daddy’s smarts and her mama’s grit. (Her mom is smart, too.) She was featured by the New York Times:
Liz Cheney is “a red state rock star,” declared Rebecca Wales, one of the organizers of this event, the “Smart Girls Summit.”
“The future of the Cheney message,” added a conservative blogger who goes by the name of Fingers Malloy (a rare man in this crowd, and even rarer, one with a Mohawk). He also called her “one of the fresh faces of our movement.”
It is a source of debate whether “Cheney” is an asset or a liability for this 43-year-old lawyer and former State Department official who keeps turning up on TV, at lecterns and in discussions about future Republican candidates. There is also the question of whether the “Cheney message” on national security — which essentially translates to an aggressive and interventionist approach — is something the Republican Party should be trumpeting, or burying.
What is clear is that Ms. Cheney, at a minimum, has become a rallying point for conservative views on national security. In a broader sense, she is being promoted as a rising star of the Republican Party, one who is hardly shying from the Cheney brand. (She is married to the lawyer Phillip Perry, but uses her maiden name.)
Ms. Cheney’s resolute national security positions seem to differ not at all from those of her favorite vice president. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz’s and my father’s views,” said her younger sister, Mary Cheney. “It’s not because she’s been indoctrinated. It’s because he’s right.” Mary Cheney was prominent in her father’s vice-presidential campaigns but has drawn fire from some conservatives for having a child as part of a same-sex couple.
Well, I say go Mary and go Liz. Your folks raised you Right. We need plain-spoken, honest conservatives running for office. We need more conservative women running for office.
Wayne Elise: The Modern Dale Carnegie Explains How To Talk To Women, Tech & Dating, And Sex V. Sensuality
Thursday, September 24th, 2009A persistent complaint in the male-dominated political blogosphere is the difficulty getting a woman. Guys like Ace and Allah have made their hard luck in love laments part of their schtick. Well.
Wayne Elise makes his living helping men find women. I suggested to him that we should have a lonely hearts male blogger meet-up, video tape it and see how good he really is. I personally wonder if the male bloggers protest too much and actually have healthy personal lives or if they’re in dire need of his services. Wouldn’t it be fun to find out?
Anyway, we also talked about the culture and how it’s affecting dating. He noted that women are getting much more aggressive, that sex is talked about more but there seems to be less of it, and that mystery is gone, too.
At the end I discuss Obama v. Palin. Hope you’ll listen!
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
Why Are Women Unhappier Than Men? An Answer
Monday, September 21st, 2009It’s statements like these that get my co-blogger John Hawkins in trouble:
It’s not choices that are causing problems for women, it’s expectations.
Women are no longer merely expect to act like women. Now, feminism, liberalism, and Hollywood says they’ve got to be able to do everything women used to do AND everything that men still do, and then some.
The old feminine ideal was the woman who got married to a good man, stayed home, took care of their house, took care of the kids, and took pride in making the whole family function.
Now, look at the messages women get from popular culture: Dress like a fashion model, cat around like the women from Sex in the City, get married, have a beatiful house, have 2.5 kids, have a career that’s every bit as successful and fulfilling as your husband’s, and still look like a professional actress, even when you’re 60 years old.
There are only so many hours in a day, days in a week, and weeks in a year and there just isn’t time for most women to do all that. Granted, there are a few who manage to pull it off — or at least seem to do it to the outside world.
But, the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill — women, in part because of their emotional natures, are just made to feel worse about not living up to the hype of what modern feminism says a woman should be.
Oh boy.
Where I agree: Yes, women have more expectations now and that can make life difficult. That is, women both internally and societally are expected to do the whole female progenitor life-cycle thing within the male-defined work-cycle. A woman who doesn’t “work” is often viewed with suspicion both by modern men and women who work outside the home.
As a working, professional woman, I can tell you that the expectations grate. I’ve had women judge me for working (a female patient said to me once, as I was taking the practice for my husband who had sprained his ankle), “You’re not leaving your children at home, are you?” I’ve had women judge me when I took time to take care of my babies and then, home school my children one year. Men, too.
So the nearly impossible standards applied culturally–Oprah, Martha Stewart, Rachel Ray–can make a woman feel “less than” no matter what she decides to do.
Where I disagree: This statement rather breezily dismisses the untapped potential of women: ” the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill”.
Really? Without the biological imperative, men have a freer time of fulfilling their skills, abilities, and desires. What are they denied? Gestating, birthing and nursing a baby is what they’re denied. That’s a huge trade-off, one, as a woman, I would never give away. Still, the reality is this: since I value myself and my children, and how I’m wired and made, I decided to focus on my children for a few years. That, by necessity, slowed my career roll during what would be considered peak professionally creative years. Ten years later, I’m jumping in with both feet while still balancing my child raising concerns–working around a school schedule and cutting hours to be with my pre-school age child. Childhood is fleeting, and I want to be there for it.
Still, I do not have the dichotomy that only a stay-at-home mother can be a good mother. That’s just patently false. Both fathers and mothers can parent a child, even a baby. There are wonderful care-givers who raise children even better than parents. For generations, children have had nannies, grand-parents and other care-givers and most survive just fine. I am not, however, a fan of huge day care centers, but there are even good versions of those.
This all being said, a woman with talents and gifts does NOT have to subsume them to motherhood in order to be a good woman, or a good Christian woman. That is just nonsense. It should be an affront to all men and women that a woman’s talents, gifts and desires can be dismissed as an acceptable trade for a housewife life.
Many women find a way to incorporate their gifts into their family life. Having stayed at home, I can testify to the challenge of managing a house and kids. It is no lie when people say it’s the most difficult job and so many elements of it are beyond a person’s control. That is, a child may cry inconsolably, the house is perpetually being “undone”, dirty laundry self-generates, and all of these things are out of a person’s control. And in today’s society, a woman is alone at home. She can be socially disconnected. The internet has been a huge gift to stay-at-home parents. It’s a connection.
Social isolation and lack of control contribute to unhappiness. Read up on psychologist Seligman’s work in this regard. That’s a stay-at-home parent’s whole lot in life. There is a good reason women at home might be unhappy and the unhappiness increases the more kids a woman has. More kids equals less control. Also, she may be frustrated at her unused talents.
Before the post-war generation, women often worked with men–in the fields, in the tavern, in the store, etc. A woman was not June Cleaver. The industrial age changed a woman’s role. Tasks became divided. A man changed the oil and mowed the lawn. A woman cooked and cleaned. Exclusively.
In this new generation, women are working and rearing kids and doing many things. They may be unhappier than men, but that in no indicates that a woman should be only in the kitchen. Now, if that role fulfills her (and I know that for many women, this is the case) she will contribute mightily to the household.
More women these days are like me. Moving in and out of the workforce around children and going back to work when the kids reach school age. Is it more challenging? Maybe. Not maybe. Absolutely, it is. But would women trade this? I can only speak for myself, but the answer is a resounding “no”.
I have the pleasure of writing, doctoring and being an online activist while also being a mother. I love it all. And many women embrace the freedom to choose these roles.
It should also be noted that with loosening societal strictures, men, too, are becoming more involved in the household tasks and child rearing. That’s all to the good. This too, is not a new phenomenon. In the pre-industrial world, kids knew what dad did because at a certain age, kids helped dad do the work. Kids bond with fathers just as surely as they bond with mothers. It has a different quality, of course, but it’s just as real and necessary.
This is a lot of words to say that I think it’s wrong to dismiss the loss to the individual woman and to society when a woman doesn’t use her gifts and talents just as I think it is a loss to the individual man and to society when a man doesn’t involve himself with his child’s life.
That men would discourage women from using their gifts is patently wrong. That women would discourage men from child-involvement is patently wrong.
If there is one gift the feminist movement gave to society, it’s this: women have the freedom to pursue developing their talents. This societal shift forced men to become more involved (or, it put more burdens on women who don’t hold a man’s feet to the fire). Both men and women have benefited.
The Name Rule
Friday, August 21st, 2009Robert Stacy McCain wrote a slice of genius the other day. He writes of names and relationships and psychology:
All Girls Named Tonya, the title of that childhood memoir no publisher will ever pay me to write, derives from a principle of human psychology first postulated by a genuinely evil little bastard who became one of my dope buddies in 10th grade. That title is 67% of what I call Art Hembree’s Law:
All Girls Named Tonya Are Sluts.
If your name is Tonya, I apologize on my old friend’s behalf, but as a lowlife trying to score some easy action circa 1978-86, I can testify that Hembree’s Law proved amazingly reliable.
Well, he swapped momentary, if unfulfilled pleasure with Tonya, for a lost lifetime of love with Amy, but I say he got lucky.
If all girls named Tonya are sluts, then all girls named Amy are mean gossips. Now, I’ve lived long enough that the rules have had too many exceptions to be valid, but I’m still suspicious when I meet an Amy. She has a threshold of niceness that she must scale that Anns (they’re smart) just don’t have to.
Don’t forget Susans. To a person, they’ve all been smug, self-righteous smarty-pants. Is there a Susan who is a C-student? I don’t think so. Is there a Susan who isn’t a competitive-better-than-you ball of high achievement? Haven’t met her yet.
My sister says all Melinda’s are fat. That’s not true.
I like John’s. They are unoffensive.
Have to be careful with Michael’s. They can go either way–mean or nice. They are usually smart.
Do names determine behavior? I wonder.
I know a Chiropractor named Dr. Bone. I know a Proctologist named Dr. Butts. No, I don’t know a Gynecologist named Dr. Vagina, but you get the idea.
Anyway, Stacy needs to let it go. He dodged a name bullet. I hope his wife’s name isn’t Amy.
Why Liberals Don’t Support A Burqa Ban
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009It would make sense that Feminists would oppose burqas because they are a tool of oppression for women: that is, burqas are specifically made to make a woman persona non grata. A burqa’s very purpose is to hide the woman and make her invisible as an individual. She is just not there.
But feminists, and liberals in general support the burqa. The woman has a “right to choose”. Just as liberals support abortion even though it’s used as a tool for gender genocide (gendercide?) against women in places like India and China where boys are valued over girls.
In both cases, gender suppression is valued over a misguided notion of “choice”. The baby obviously doesn’t have a choice. And the women in the Islamist cultures have little choice. People who know the religion know this:
“We don’t want to see burqas in Denmark. We simply can’t accept that some of our citizens walk around with their faces covered,” Naser Khader, a Danish member of parliament of Syrian-Palestinian extraction who was recently appointed spokesman for integration issues for the Conservative Party, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
In comments published on Sunday, Khader said the burqa is un-Danish and oppressive towards women and should be completely banned. He and his party say that what people do in their own homes is their business, but as soon as they walk into the public domain, one should be able to see their faces.
And interestingly, supposedly chauvinistic right leaning politicians see the problem with burqas:
Denmark is not the only European country where politicians have proposed a ban on burqas. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, while France’s urban regeneration minister, Fadela Amara, told the Saturday edition of the Financial Times that she was in favor of the burqa “not existing in my country.” The Netherlands has also considered a ban on burqas.
The logic that liberals employ to support abortion and burqas actually encourages oppression of the weak and helpless. And the weak and helpless are often women and children.
So, the “right” to abort, the right to wear whatever one wants, obliterates the rights of the unborn child and the Muslim woman. A non-existent right becomes a way to oppress the very ones liberals wish to liberate. Isn’t it always “for the children” and “women are 2nd class citizens”? With liberals, children are expendable and women against oppressive burqas should just shut up.
Sexist Leftist Of The Day: David Letterman
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009Maybe there should just be a regular post highlighting the Leftist sexist, racist, whatever is not p.c.-ist of the day here. Goodness knows the list would be filled. Today, it’s David Letterman.
David Letterman made news for spewing sexist tripe about Sarah Palin, but more than that, making jokes about Palin’s 14 year old daughter–because, you know, it’s okay to talk about statutory rape if she’s a conservative women. They’re not people!
John at Powerline says:
Malia Obama will turn fourteen during her father’s term in office. What do you think the chances are that Letterman (or anyone else) will make obscene jokes about her on network television?
Tommy Christopher says a few interesting things and I’m quoting him extensively here. He says:
Now, I need you all to stay with me here while I make a small distinction. There are some who would try to hang Letterman’s attack on “the Left.” I’ll get to “the Left” in a minute, but Letterman is no more a liberal, in the political “team sports” sense of the word, than Guy Cimbalo is. They are not conservatives, but they are also basically apolitical. Their words are owned by a popular culture that is hostile to conservatism, but also to liberal ideals (of feminism as well as others). They are a third column.
Bill Maher is a guy who straddles the line between the Left and pop culture. As a liberal, I don’t claim ownership for what he says, but there is a clear argument to be made in favor of this. When he makes “retard” jokes about Sarah Palin, which I’ve heard him do frequently, he deserves nothing but scorn from all sides.
I include them with the Left, Tommy, and for one simple reason: how they vote. They vote Democrat. Every. Single. Time. They are on the Left. Like the major media organizations, they like to pretend at “being above” or “transcending” party affiliation. Bull crap. They are Democrats. They vote Democrat. They’re the Left. And as their worship of President Obama (and in the comedians cases avoid poking fun of him altogether) demonstrates, their politics most definitely influences how they report.
On to the Left, Tommy says:
This is where the Left comes in. While they might not own what these entertainers say, they do have a duty to dis-own, a duty born of their desire to condemn Mel “Sugar-tits” Gibson et al, a duty that I’ve found them shirking for the most part. Instead, the tendency is to engage in “Yeahbut.” You know, “Yeah, but x conservative said y horrible thing…” (a curious exercise that essentially lets people you view as scumbags set your boundaries for you), to excuse it, or to ignore it altogether. It is here that the Left takes ownership.
When Keith Olbermann launched a sexist attack on Carrie Prejean, unless I missed it, there was silence from the Left, or agreement. On the Playboy article, with the exception of HuffPo, the Left’s reaction was to excuse Playboy and smear me. Even the National Organization for Women had to be prodded into a statement, but one which they didn’t feel compelled to put anywhere on their website.
The entire world is hostile toward women, but you don’t get to lay claim to being the good guys if you don’t believe in protecting all women, especially when it’s this obvious.
Feminism is not about equality for women, it is about promoting abortion and creating a special class for Leftist women. Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.
Remember, rape is used to shame and silence. There was little to no outrage for Playboy’s cyber-rape, and there won’t be about David Letterman by the left either because these people want Sarah Palin shamed and quiet. They want the conservative women on that list shamed and quieted.
Brace yourselves, readers, because it’s not over yet. This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”
No it ain’t over. It never was over. The Left uses their “isms” as a hammer to silence their opposition and employs the methods they deem offensive because their used to silence the “right” people. Hypocrites.
More at Hot Air, Jim Treacher, Pirates Cove, and Dan Riehl .
By the way, please note that it’s MEN who are outraged. And well they should be. Double standards are really about silencing them, too.
The Strange Lives Of Political Wives
Monday, June 1st, 2009My friend Stephen Kruiser has a strange case of Tourette’s Syndrome. Every time the news gets too anti-Obama-heavy, he yells, “DELTOIDS!” That’s the press’ mantra to sooth themselves in tough Obama times….a nice, puffy piece about Michelle Obama’s striking physique.
But think about it, this woman is a lawyer and a mother. How lame must it be to be reduced to her muscle definition? How sexist. How racist.
My latest Pajama’s Media column is about the Strange Lives of Political Wives:
Political wives. Can you think of a worse job? Married to type A personalities with more than a little bit of a narcissistic streak, these women — often educated and accomplished in their own right — must present a subservient demeanor and a sunny picture of their spouses or risk their spouses’ success. In addition, they often play a big part in their husbands’ careers by campaigning or crafting strategy. It is a rare politician whose wife operates outside the inner political circle.
For the article, I interviewed a political wife at the very beginning of her journey. After talking to such a nice woman and mother, it made me wonder why anyone would seek politics. What a nasty business it all is.
Ms. Sotomayor: The Compelling Story & Why Must I Be The Only Feminist & Other Rantings–UPDATED
Saturday, May 30th, 2009Already posted this YouTube to Twitter, but thought I’d add it here because the whole thing is still annoying me. So Judge Sotomayor is sorry she revealed her racism and sexism. Yeah, I’m sorry, too. I’m sorry that a woman feels that way and I’m sorry that she’ll glide through to the most important job in the land unopposed for the same reason she was nominated: She’s a woman and she’s a Hispanic Puerto Rican.
You know that thing called feminism? Why must I be the only feminist around here and expect a woman to be able to handle the tough questions? Robert Gibb’s threat just pisses me off. Why had we better go carefully? Because Democrats did with Miguel Estrada or Justice Thomas or Robert Bork? Hmmmm….?? We can’t ask because she has ovaries? We can’t ask questions about her belief system because Hispanics might not understand that this woman is being put into the highest court in the land?
Who is racist again? Who is sexist again?
People should be treated the same no matter their gender, color, ideology. But not so with Democrats and now the willy-nilly D.C. Republicans who’ve drunk the MSM’s Koolaid.
NOTE TO REPUBLICAN SENATORS:
You do realize that every question you ask, no matter how trivial and soft-ball will be portrayed as a tough, penetrating and unfair question? You do get that right? Might as well take that tail between your legs and ….dare I say it, woman up and ask a useful question. Hells bells, if the Republicans had the balls of Nancy Pelosi, they wouldn’t be reviled so. Good grief.
And as to all you hypocritical dumbass Democrats, I don’t want to hear one more word out of your mouth about the mistreatment of women and minorities. Not. One. Woman after woman has cried foul on your side before a punch has been thrown. If you can’t freaking take the fight, Get. Out. Of. The. Ring. If you need a moobed guy like Robert Gibbs to run interference for you, you should be back in the kitchen baking cookies with Hillary Clinton. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Nancy Pelosi fumbles around like a deer in the headlights at a press conference about torture and she’s the toughest politician DC has got. That says something.
And since I’m ranting…you know who I miss? I’m going to miss the bloviating Joe Biden and his pompasity asking stupid questions that guys 10x smarter than him are going to have to answer with seriousness. I’m going to miss old ornery Arlen Specter for the same reason. Wow. The Judicial committee just won’t be the same without these towering intellectual giants explaining things for the judges and the rest of us dummies.
Someone will stand in the self-important, aggrandizing gap. Who will this genius be? I can hardly wait.
In the meantime, watch another American tell his sad American, come-from-nothing compelling story. I’m freaking sick of compelling stories. We’ve all got a compelling story. We’ve all experienced life. Shut. Up. About. The. Compelling. Story. We’re Americans. We all come from somewhere and we all walked uphill both ways. In snowdrifts. Barefoot. Big freaking deal.
We’ve become a nation of self-pitying, identity-politicking jerks where character and accomplishment matter less than genetics, gender and cultural identity. Blech.
UPDATED:
And now, top Republican strategist kvetch to the Huffington Post. Is anyone worried about what this woman actually believes? Her comments about her gender and race make the law about her and not the law about the law.
Does she believe the Constitution should bend to her experiences? Is the Constitution still relevant? Is it a timeless document embodying timeless values? Or, does Ms. Sotomayor believe that the Constitution should be a living, breathing document that expresses her own views? How does she feel about states rights? How would she have decided Kelo? How would she have decided in the LA child rape case? THAT’s what I care about.
And what I am afraid of is that tough questions won’t be asked because she’s a woman and Latina. And any tough questions would be perceived as racist and sexist. And I view the withholding of tough vetting as racist and sexist. The job is too important to get lost in compelling life stories.
That the Democrats are playing this game is utterly predictable. That Republicans play along is tiring and frustrating.
