Sigh, the media again
I'm commenting on this article. It's an AP article about the first Hispanic candidate to the Supreme court.
I seem to remember a long time ago, at least it is rumored to be so, that the press reported the facts as news.
'Facts' meaning confirmed by multiple sources, people on the scene, references to other articles, and a general consensus of what is accepted reality. (Strange that I'd need to define 'facts', but there it is.) Let's also say reality filtered by perception but told as best as one honestly sees it.
Whew. To the gist:
Why bring up race and gender at all? I don't give a flip if Sonia Sotomayor is a green gender neutral alien from planet Zort, I just want to know where she stands on the issues and how she's going to uphold the Constitution. Nothing against the Zortians, they're good folk.
Oops, the article didn't mention any of that sort of thing, just some touchy-feely stuff about her hard childhood, race, gender, American dreams, opportunities and experiences, etc.
I'm not knocking the lady, just the 'reporting'.
I'd hope by now we can see past race, gender, social strata, etc. but the article highlights that, and mostly ONLY that, and I guess we're supposed to judge accordingly somehow. If we choose 'yea' based on that, we're wrong, and if we choose 'nay' based on that, we're wrong.
What's even funnier is that she was nominated as a federal judge by George H.W. Bush but it's already assumed I guess that she will be opposed by the Republicans. I'm not sure on what basis except a reported conservative 'they' describing her as "a judicial activist who would put her feelings above the Constitution". Seems like a fair reason to oppose someone if it's true, so call me crazy.
Useful facts please? Or is that too much to ask?
And now back to the lighter side...
I seem to remember a long time ago, at least it is rumored to be so, that the press reported the facts as news.
'Facts' meaning confirmed by multiple sources, people on the scene, references to other articles, and a general consensus of what is accepted reality. (Strange that I'd need to define 'facts', but there it is.) Let's also say reality filtered by perception but told as best as one honestly sees it.
Whew. To the gist:
Why bring up race and gender at all? I don't give a flip if Sonia Sotomayor is a green gender neutral alien from planet Zort, I just want to know where she stands on the issues and how she's going to uphold the Constitution. Nothing against the Zortians, they're good folk.
Oops, the article didn't mention any of that sort of thing, just some touchy-feely stuff about her hard childhood, race, gender, American dreams, opportunities and experiences, etc.
I'm not knocking the lady, just the 'reporting'.
I'd hope by now we can see past race, gender, social strata, etc. but the article highlights that, and mostly ONLY that, and I guess we're supposed to judge accordingly somehow. If we choose 'yea' based on that, we're wrong, and if we choose 'nay' based on that, we're wrong.
What's even funnier is that she was nominated as a federal judge by George H.W. Bush but it's already assumed I guess that she will be opposed by the Republicans. I'm not sure on what basis except a reported conservative 'they' describing her as "a judicial activist who would put her feelings above the Constitution". Seems like a fair reason to oppose someone if it's true, so call me crazy.
Useful facts please? Or is that too much to ask?
And now back to the lighter side...
Comments