<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sotomayor a racist? Oh, the stupidity!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/</link>
	<description>An Atlanta blog with a little bit of opinion about a whole lot of things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:44:24 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tynyrxym</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-61226</link>
		<dc:creator>Tynyrxym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-61226</guid>
		<description>dl3jEr comment4 ,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dl3jEr comment4 ,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten - D.Gray-divinityNET</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-52756</link>
		<dc:creator>Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten - D.Gray-divinityNET</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-52756</guid>
		<description>[...] that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a &quot;racist.&quot;  All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a &#8220;racist.&#8221;  All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Political Jib.com &#187; Elizabeth Hemmerdinger: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-51601</link>
		<dc:creator>Political Jib.com &#187; Elizabeth Hemmerdinger: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-51601</guid>
		<description>[...] From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a &#8220;racist.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a &#8220;racist.&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: will</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-49089</link>
		<dc:creator>will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 07:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-49089</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s time we throw out the white guys like Jay Bookman and get some minority perspectives in the mainstream media.  Too often these white bread male journalists are able to cling to the white male power structure even while they pretend to espouse a political perspective that&#039;s (oh so condescendingly) sympathetic to the struggles of true minorities. Step aside Jay and let&#039;s let some people of color have a turn.  You guys have had your chance and look what you&#039;ve done with it.  Step aside!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s time we throw out the white guys like Jay Bookman and get some minority perspectives in the mainstream media.  Too often these white bread male journalists are able to cling to the white male power structure even while they pretend to espouse a political perspective that&#8217;s (oh so condescendingly) sympathetic to the struggles of true minorities. Step aside Jay and let&#8217;s let some people of color have a turn.  You guys have had your chance and look what you&#8217;ve done with it.  Step aside!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N.J,</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48245</link>
		<dc:creator>N.J,</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 19:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48245</guid>
		<description>Everyone who says they are a &quot;Strict constitutionalist&quot; tends to really not be so.  Because a strict constitutionalist pretty much has to legislate and make judicial decisions based on what is IN the Constitution and if its not mentioned there, it isnt to be legislated at all, but remains a private right to be kept by the people.  Even when it comes to STATE legislation, the states can have POWERS not granted to the federal government in the constitution, but they cannot pass laws that address the giving or excluding of rights not MENTIONED in the constitution at all. 

That is, the States can make marriage laws, but they are constrained to make them under the terms and rights given to the people in the constitution and cannot make laws that deny rights that are specifically granted to the people IN the constitution.  

So the idea of gay marriage is NOT at all discussed in the constitution, but neither is the idea that you can totally EXCLUDE a particular group from having that right. The best a state can do is set parameters around a right, based on traits share by ALL individuals. They can set age barriers. You cant get married until the age of. But they cannot set other barriers that deny one group TOTAl access to the legal condition and allow it to others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everyone who says they are a &#8220;Strict constitutionalist&#8221; tends to really not be so.  Because a strict constitutionalist pretty much has to legislate and make judicial decisions based on what is IN the Constitution and if its not mentioned there, it isnt to be legislated at all, but remains a private right to be kept by the people.  Even when it comes to STATE legislation, the states can have POWERS not granted to the federal government in the constitution, but they cannot pass laws that address the giving or excluding of rights not MENTIONED in the constitution at all. </p>
<p>That is, the States can make marriage laws, but they are constrained to make them under the terms and rights given to the people in the constitution and cannot make laws that deny rights that are specifically granted to the people IN the constitution.  </p>
<p>So the idea of gay marriage is NOT at all discussed in the constitution, but neither is the idea that you can totally EXCLUDE a particular group from having that right. The best a state can do is set parameters around a right, based on traits share by ALL individuals. They can set age barriers. You cant get married until the age of. But they cannot set other barriers that deny one group TOTAl access to the legal condition and allow it to others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N.J,</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48243</link>
		<dc:creator>N.J,</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 18:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48243</guid>
		<description>Actually wrong again. The largest single demographic of hispanics in California, between 18 and 29 voted AGAINST prop 8 by 59 percent:

By age: 
59% of Hispanics age 18-29 voted no; 61% of 18-29-year-olds voted no. 
60% of Hispanics age 30-44 voted yes; 55% of 30-44-year-olds voted yes. 
57% of Hispanics age 45-64 voted yes; 54% of 45-64-year-olds voted yes. 
There was not enough data to compare Hispanics 65 and over to all voters 65 and over.


The average age of ALL Americans is being slowed by two groups. Hispanics and Asians, who have a much younger average age than that of other populations. The median age of Hispanic Americans in the United States is 27.7 years of age. The median age for the ENTIRE population is 36.5 years old. Almost a decade difference between the average age population we are looking at.

This means that HALF of the Latino population in the United States is BELOW 27.7 years of age, and 59 percent of that HALF voted AGAINST prop 8.

There is no way Republicans can somehow twist non support of prop 8 into a plus for their ability to attract Hispanics NOR turn it into an issue that will make them LEAVE the Democratic Party. A rather LARGE chunk of that 64 percent of Democrats who voted against prop 8 (64 percent against it) are Latino.


The Demographic for Latino Democrats since 2004:

Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004


This growth occured largely in the bottom half of the Hispanic Demographic. That is the part that is BELOW the age of 27.7. and also the portion between 27.7 and 29 years of age.

Simply put the same portion of the Latino vote that is now Democrat rather than Republican voted  FOR prop 8. There were not enough Hispanic voters older than 65 to actually COUNT in the prop 8 votes and exit polls.

What is occuring is that the Hispanic vote is slowly abandoning the Republican party as the younger voters register as first time Democrats. Once a party affiliation is established, it is pretty rare that an individual will switch affiliations. This is the reason that California&#039;s share of Democrats is so much larger than at the national average. Younger Hispanics are registering Democrat, voting against conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage, and lets face it, those at the other end of the scale are getting closer to handing over their voting rights to the Grim Reaper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually wrong again. The largest single demographic of hispanics in California, between 18 and 29 voted AGAINST prop 8 by 59 percent:</p>
<p>By age:<br />
59% of Hispanics age 18-29 voted no; 61% of 18-29-year-olds voted no.<br />
60% of Hispanics age 30-44 voted yes; 55% of 30-44-year-olds voted yes.<br />
57% of Hispanics age 45-64 voted yes; 54% of 45-64-year-olds voted yes.<br />
There was not enough data to compare Hispanics 65 and over to all voters 65 and over.</p>
<p>The average age of ALL Americans is being slowed by two groups. Hispanics and Asians, who have a much younger average age than that of other populations. The median age of Hispanic Americans in the United States is 27.7 years of age. The median age for the ENTIRE population is 36.5 years old. Almost a decade difference between the average age population we are looking at.</p>
<p>This means that HALF of the Latino population in the United States is BELOW 27.7 years of age, and 59 percent of that HALF voted AGAINST prop 8.</p>
<p>There is no way Republicans can somehow twist non support of prop 8 into a plus for their ability to attract Hispanics NOR turn it into an issue that will make them LEAVE the Democratic Party. A rather LARGE chunk of that 64 percent of Democrats who voted against prop 8 (64 percent against it) are Latino.</p>
<p>The Demographic for Latino Democrats since 2004:</p>
<p>Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004</p>
<p>This growth occured largely in the bottom half of the Hispanic Demographic. That is the part that is BELOW the age of 27.7. and also the portion between 27.7 and 29 years of age.</p>
<p>Simply put the same portion of the Latino vote that is now Democrat rather than Republican voted  FOR prop 8. There were not enough Hispanic voters older than 65 to actually COUNT in the prop 8 votes and exit polls.</p>
<p>What is occuring is that the Hispanic vote is slowly abandoning the Republican party as the younger voters register as first time Democrats. Once a party affiliation is established, it is pretty rare that an individual will switch affiliations. This is the reason that California&#8217;s share of Democrats is so much larger than at the national average. Younger Hispanics are registering Democrat, voting against conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage, and lets face it, those at the other end of the scale are getting closer to handing over their voting rights to the Grim Reaper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N.J,</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48234</link>
		<dc:creator>N.J,</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 18:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48234</guid>
		<description>Difference between La Raza and the KKK is that they dont wear hoods or commit terrorist acts against non hispanics. La Raza is rather more like the &quot;Daughters of the American Revolution&quot; than the KKK.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Difference between La Raza and the KKK is that they dont wear hoods or commit terrorist acts against non hispanics. La Raza is rather more like the &#8220;Daughters of the American Revolution&#8221; than the KKK.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: N.J,</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48231</link>
		<dc:creator>N.J,</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 18:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48231</guid>
		<description>I remember George HW Bush, when he nominates Clarence Thomas for his position on the Supreme Court, citing his &quot;empathy&quot; as one of the primary reasons for nominating him. What a difference a generation makes.

My favorite is the current Republican judicial blather about having empathy for women who have abortions and how it might effect them later, and so it is necessary to protect women from these emotional consequences by banning the procedure entirely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember George HW Bush, when he nominates Clarence Thomas for his position on the Supreme Court, citing his &#8220;empathy&#8221; as one of the primary reasons for nominating him. What a difference a generation makes.</p>
<p>My favorite is the current Republican judicial blather about having empathy for women who have abortions and how it might effect them later, and so it is necessary to protect women from these emotional consequences by banning the procedure entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel Maddow Zaps Rush Limbaugh&#8217;s &#8220;reverse racist&#8221; remark ::</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48129</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel Maddow Zaps Rush Limbaugh&#8217;s &#8220;reverse racist&#8221; remark ::</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 16:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48129</guid>
		<description>[...] read a viewpoint opposing Rush&#8217;s go here.   Categories : Current [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] read a viewpoint opposing Rush&#8217;s go here.   Categories : Current [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Copyleft</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/05/27/sotomayor-a-racist-oh-the-stupidity/comment-page-7/#comment-48113</link>
		<dc:creator>Copyleft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 16:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/?p=1101#comment-48113</guid>
		<description>Number 1: And if it were true that La Raza is the equivalent of the Klan, they might even have a point!

Of course, it&#039;s not, and they don&#039;t. But don&#039;t let that stop you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Number 1: And if it were true that La Raza is the equivalent of the Klan, they might even have a point!</p>
<p>Of course, it&#8217;s not, and they don&#8217;t. But don&#8217;t let that stop you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
