Acción afirmativa. ¡No!

The backlash has already arrived. In Michigan, California, and Washington, majorities have voted to abolish all racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. […] Opposition to race, ethnic, and gender preferences was behind the thirty-one GOP Senate votes against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. ON the only two previous court nominations by Democratic presidents in forty years, the Senate voted 87-9 for Stephen Breyer and 96-3 for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To conservatives, the Sotomayor nomination was an Obama declaration that affirmative action is forever.

Judge Sotomayor was herself a lifetime beneficiary, who once called herself an “affirmative action baby.” If she gone through the “traditional numbers route” of Princeton and Yale Law, she said, “it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted… [M]y test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates.”

Sonia Sotomayor, said the New York Times, “has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admission, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career.” As a student at Princeton, she files a completing with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare demanding that the school be ordered to hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition that demanded more Latino professors and administrators and “shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.” Alan Bakke was an applicant to the University of California Medical School at Davis who was rejected, although his test scores were higher than almost all the minority applicants admitted. Bakke was white.

[…] In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor rejected the notion advanced by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor that, in deciding cases, a wise old man and wise old woman would reach the same conclusion: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of the experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Tiene gracia que leyera el extracto anterior en Suicide of a Superpower de Pat Buchanan hace cosa de una hora y que cincuenta minutos después me conectara a Internet para descubrir, muy casualmente, pues no suelo visitar Hot Air, la siguiente noticia:

In a stunning 6-2 decision, Justice Steven Breyer joined the conservative jurists in ruling that while the Constitution allows states to use affirmative action for admissions, it does not require states to do so.

[…] The big news here is the split, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.

[…] Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the court, usually a sign of significant displeasure with the result. At 58 pages, her dissent went longer than the opinion and the concurrences combined.

Supreme Court upholds MI ban on affirmative action in college admissions.

En las raíces.

Less respectful of these “religious toys” was Friedrich Nietzsche: “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” His admirer Adolf Hitler agreed, “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” As Eugene G. Windchy relates, in The End of Darwinism:

«[Hitler] thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eight century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arab advance into France. Had the Christians lost, [Hitler] reasoned, the Germanic peoples would have acquired a more earlike creed and, because of their natural, superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire.»

In Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of his years as Hitler’s architect, Albert Speer wrote that Hitler would often say:

«You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?»

Pat Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower.

Intrahistorias.

In the summer of 1999, Bay and Pat were invited to lunch with Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah. “We think it’s great you’re going to run,” Bay remembered him saying on behalf of the House Republicans. “But in no way must you go after George W. Bush.” George Bush was the governor of Texas, and the son of Pat’s old enemy from ’92. “He’s going to be the nominee,” said Cannon. The GOP establishment had lined up all the money and necessary endorsements. They had a timetable for victory in the primaries and they intended to dictate media access, coverage, and message.

“Do you know where he stands on the issues?” asked Bay.

“We don’t care,” Cannon replied. “When he’s elected, Congress will control policy. We’ll just send him the bills to sign.”

Timothy Stanley, The crusader: The life and tumultuous times of Pat Buchanan. (Amazon.)

El siguiente discurso fue pronunciado por Pat Buchanan en 1992:

For the conservatives, the Clintons were the Mr. and Mrs. Mao of the culture war:

“Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. [The audience booed.] And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12 year olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. [The audience gasped.] Well, speak for yourself, Hillary. [The audience laughed.] Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton and Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat. That’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants . It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.”

Timothy Stanley, The crusader: The life and tumultuous times of Pat Buchanan. (Amazon.)

Han pasado veintidós años y el nombre de Hillary Clinton suena con fuerza para la candidatura demócrata a las presidenciales de 2016. Mala hierba nunca muere, ¿uh? En cuanto al cambio, me parece que de eso ya se ha dicho todo lo que se tenía que decir. Un cambio en el que podemos creer, ¡je!

Capitalismo de casino

But as scholar William Quirk writes in his essay “Saving the Big Casino,” our big banks now seem to rise and fall on profits and losses from the trading of “derivatives,” “credit default swaps” and “exotic securities” that not one man in a thousand understands.

Pat Buchanan –el Gran Pat– teme que la mala fama ganada por banqueros y financieros durante la crisis económica mundial en curso contamine al capitalismo industrial que hizo grande a Estados Unidos el siglo pasado.