I am not sure to even pay attention any more. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought out the incomprehensible yet again. As I have stated in previous blogs, we need more then one party to have serious debates about issues. But as events unfold in our political landscape it becomes clearer that the other major party has no interest in providing intelligent discussions. Outside of the political sphere on this issue are the usual blowhards, Limbaugh  ("Look, bigotry is bigotry.  Racism is racism.  Superiority is superiority.  Contempt for people beneath you is contempt for people beneath you.  Thinking you're better than everybody else is thinking you're better than everybody else.  This woman has all of this.  There's not a whole lot of humility here". Has he listened to his own show. Full transcript)  Glen Beck ("Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You're empathetic ... you're in!") to name but two. Now comes another group throwing their hat in the ring. The head of the so called Center for Immigration Studies comes  out with this beauty, "Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pronunciation of Judge Sotomayor's name (and a couple griped about the whole Latina/Latino thing - English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?). But a couple said we should just pronounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, including one who pronounces her name "freed" even though it's spelled "fried," like fried rice. (I think Cathy Seipp of blessed memory did the reverse - "sipe" instead of "seep.") Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.

That's Rich coming from Mark Krikorian. As a tangent here, the CIS is "... animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

Funny how the staff (or their progenitors) of this Center would probably have trouble entering this country as per their own mission statement.

Center Staff

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research
Cynthia Owens, Director of Administration
John Wahala, Assistant Director
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies
Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy
Stephen Steinlight, Senior Policy Analyst
Jerry Kammer, Senior Research Fellow
Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst
Thomas P. Redding, Research Associate
Bryan Griffith, Communications Associate
Karen Jensenius, Demographer
Alex Coleman, News Editor
Tomika Herrien, Project Assistant
Patrick McHugh, Publications

Center Fellows

Don Barnett
Michael Cutler
Marti Dinerstein
John Miano
Stanley Renshon
David North
Jan Ting

The Republican Party is spiraling out of control. This country needs serious debate about many issues. Instead, all the opposition party seems to offer are personal attacks. The latest is the gender attack on Nancy Pelosi. For all my Republican friends out there, before you judge whether or not she has done something wrong, first look at how the RNC has chosen to depict her in this video. (I also wonder if they paid Monty Norman royalty fees for the music.) Also, read this story and tell me where all the stand-up Republican Senators and Congressmen are defending her, not as the Speaker, but as a citizen, against the gender biased and insulting attacks from radio jocks. And if this is a strategy, 

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, “I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we’d see she’d be embarrassed.”,

 it is clear that the strategy is not to debate issues but to slander. Slander doesn't create policies for health care, fixing a financial crisis or providing energy solutions. If this is what our national debate has turned into we are in real trouble. Remember the cry for "family values"? I guess in light of this recent turrets like outburst from Republican strategists, and mouthpieces, it was all a cover for "woman should stay at home and let the men handle the work".  As a member of any organization that used these tactics against an opposing view, I  would want to distance myself from those culpable, and also defend my opponent in the face of what is just. I am waiting for someone to step forward. 

Looking out for US

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is one of the elected officials looking out for the American people.

While the Senate was drafting a bill to help protect the public from Credit Card predatory practices, he though it would be appropriate (and I am guessing, would agree to vote for the bill) if the bill also contained and amendment "To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges." In other words to allow people to carry firearms in our national parks. That amendment is S.Amdt. 1067 attached to S.Amdt. 1058 and to H.R. 627 (Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009)

I am not sure what carrying firearms in a National Park has to do with protecting Credit Card holders from paying 30% interest rates, but I am glad there are smarter people than I in the Senate to figure these things out, because as you can see from the statistics below our National Parks are a haven for violent criminals.

You can read about the votes here.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00188