J.C.MacSwell

Exactly. The actual context of the 12 years was the concern of a possible tipping point which could slowly lead to areas permanently flooding, people in many areas displaced and/or at greater risk etc. Very serious, Very needing to be addressed....but nothing close to a threat of imminent demise. Nothing close to an existential threat, which was consistently suggested by many politicians on the left, and often touted as "the greatest threat to mankind", with the most extreme on the left teaching children that the world might end in 12 years. Compare with the real existential threat, nuclear war, and all the people that have already been killed and displaced in wars since that report came out. There was no "nuance" of any accuracy from the loudest from either side (there rarely is), but the claims of the political left were most bizarre. Politically they were left unchecked, often with the usual beat down of anyone attempting to be accurate. They had excuses for doing so, ranging from being fed a misleading interpretation of the report to believing they were morally justified for their lack of intellectual integrity. Compare with Trump's "look it's snowing out...where's the global warming?" or words to that effect...equally stupid...certainly no more helpful...totally inaccurate...but in absolute terms closer to reality. Hopefully you find a third party that finds so much space they can drive right up the middle, start the hard work and make some progress. If I told you that was the extreme right meant in the context of global warming, maybe that might increase your understanding. But I do realize it's quite common to assume that anyone, right, left or centre, holds a package of beliefs consistent with their position on political spectrum. I honestly don't know why, nor do I really understand why there seems to be some degree of truth to it.

In fairness the extreme left can be included as well. The issue with them is that, for example, when they scream we only have 12 years to live, no one on the left corrects them to give context to where the 12 years comes from, and rob the left of credibility in the eyes of any reasonable moderate who is well aware it is a real concern that needs to be addressed. They sit back comfortably in their seat on a jet, knowing they have done their part by screaming the loudest, oblivious to the fact they are almost as bad (that's for INow...I wouldn't want to be accused of false equivalency) as those on the extreme right...which is what they consider everyone to be that's to the right of them.

All Quiet on the Conservation Front? Germany is a prime example of being so (legitimately?) afraid of pushing Putin toward use of Nuclear weapons and at the same time legitimately concerned with the effect an abrupt turn away from their economy's dependance on Russian fossil fuels. So along with many others they continue to fuel the Russian's economy and the war and Russian atrocities along with it by continuing purchases from Russia. It seems to me increased production from other sources should be maximized, especially where it can be increased short term without further excessive commitment to fossil fuels long term, but even turning to more dependance on coal is better than dealing with the results of any use of nuclear weapons. But further to that, a war time fossil fuel austerity program should be put in place to minimize unnecessary fossil fuel use, regardless of source...since all use effects the global pressure on fuel supplies and reserves. Countries like Canada, Australia and the US, that have banned Russian fossil fuels, should participate as well, not just those in Europe and elsewhere that are clearly on side with Ukraine in heart and mind but still paying the Russians for gas and oil. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/could-a-behavioural-change-campaign-save-energy-and-cut-russian-gas-imports Poster circa WW2 shown in the article encouraging saving energy for the war effort: While I wouldn't necessarily call this a win/win for the effort to bolster Ukraine and helping the environment it certainly might be a "less lose/less lose".

I wish it was OT.

Pretty much everyone in this thread has expressed this same opinion. So we don't agree with her on that if that is in fact what she is saying in that 45 second clip. Can we not respect her opinion and consider what might motivate them? Would she feel the same way if KJB had been simply nominated as the best available candidate? You want to encourage people to ask KJB if she thinks she was handed her job because she's a black women? I think a fairer question and on the only real point of contention that seems to remain in this thread would be to ask KJB how she feels about it being announced prior to her nomination that a black women would be chosen.

So toward tying this to the topic at hand Phi, what effort have you made to find out how black women actually feel about Biden's pre-announcement/(announcement of race and gender prior to announcing the pick)? The thoughts of the young black girl in Koti's link seemed to have been set aside pretty quickly. Not saying you in particular did so. I don't think we need to agree with her completely to respect her opinion. Or is simply calling her the right names and gender showing sufficient respect in your mind?

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

I would certainly agree it can be, especially when it's just assumed their opinions should be self serving.

Right. That's a good thing, correct? Even though a substantial majority were against raciallizing and genderizing the selection a majority liked the pick. Maybe many are more principled than racist in their thinking?...and let's not assume the remainder that KJB did not win over were against her due to her gender or colour of her skin. I put it in the form of a question in hopes the keywords I used would have the context I hoped for. "do black women like the way biden handled the scotus pick?" The first thing that came up seeming to have even vaguely the right context was a Fox News article citing an ABC poll, so I went to the ABC article. It had a link to the poll that gets blocked on this computer which has had some issues but I will likely see it tomorrow when I am on my laptop if I choose to look closer. But I obviously didn't find exactly what I was asking for.

Not a typo. I actually misread it. So my numbers are off with regard to how minorities disagree with choosing only from black females. It's 28% not considerably less than that, but my point stands. If it's clear that a considerable number of blacks weren't comfortable picking only from black woman I think it's fair to say that even if a majority of them supported it...it would seem likely they were less comfortable with the way it was handled. But +1 for reading the link and picking that up.

Obviously I'm not going to do that but here is a poll from prior to the announcement that it will be KJB, so no reflection on her: https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398&cid=social_twitter_abcn 76% of Americans polled thought that all candidates should be considered. The breakdown doesn't give the results for black women specifically but it does mention that 28% of whites were in favour of considering only black women...which indicates minorities were considerably less in favour...funny that...seems like they're a principled lot. Am I the only one that does not find that surprising? Given that, even if a majority of black women were in favour overall and happy with the pick, I would expect many, possibly even a majority of them, might consider Biden's approach disrespectful. Regardless of how you measure "better" in politics or sport, respectful and disrespectful can be measured in the same manner.

Imagine if in 1997 it was announced that it had been decided that Golf's player of the year award was going to go to a black man. Obviously this would seem like a joke and take nothing away from Tiger Woods winning the award. Now let's imagine if Woods hadn't had quite the dominant year he had, was a top contender but who was best that year was more debatable and the same thing was announced. I think everyone here could recognize that as being unfair, and especially disrespectful to Woods So what's the difference that it's politics and not sport? You can suspect the motives of the GOP, or at least some of there members. You can suspect the motives of the elder J Petersen. But if can't see his point as described in the OP of this thread you might be suffering from some level of the racism that is said to be systemic... perhaps some mutated variant of Trump derangement syndrome...or simply some politically driven mental block that seems to be polarizing far too many people. The OP: The only thing missing that I think we generally agree on is that being female and being an unrepresented or underrepresented minority can reasonably be considered an attribute given the current makeup of the SCOTUS and the current political climate. Now Swansont might think the analogy is more like having evaluated all the top players and after recognizing that the top choice has come down to a black player, or down to a few that all are black. If that was true then it would have simply been a disrespectful announcement (and no less so if the committee or person making the pick claimed they were fulfilling some promise when getting elected), but if that was true the case certainly has not been made. I've seen no sign of Biden trying to make that case...and why would he not if it was true? Why have his handlers not tried to make that case for him if it was indeed what transpired?

First and foremost, KJB was. Obviously not by getting chosen, but by her race and gender being used for political purposes. But I guess that can be swept under the rug by anyone that feels she benefited from the overall process.

Try again some other day. Today is Windsday...

I will respond to this. I think the thought police thing you seem to have going is particularly cheap. Sorry if it's not a long rant.

Let's start with that. Why would you expect us to?

Then you haven't been reading to understand any of MigL's posts. But I welcome you to show how you came to the same conclusion Swansont suggested.

Yes. Really. I will acknowledge the hyperbole, but this is unquestionably strawman. In fact it's a textbook example. Strawman built. (unless you can show where the claim was made) Strawman blown away!

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept? Can you not see that unnecessary racializing is also feeding the hate. Do you ever stop to wonder why many are tiring of it? Are you at all open to the possibility that blatant racializing, even in the name of political gain, can be unhealthy and have negative effects? Strawman much?

I think it's short term thinking but maybe you are right. We'll see how it pans out in the midterms.

You seemed to recognize that a certain group would feel flipped off by the way Biden went about it and touted it as a good thing. I'm asking how that is a good thing. Not through the pick. Through the way he went about it. How is what you thought was so great helpful...or if not helpful...how is it so great?

This is a very good argument for his choice and no real argument at all to support the way he went about it. It really doesn't address my post. If maintaining polarization of the population is a more worthwhile goal than social progress, Biden's handling of this was right on the mark.

So you're saying giving the finger to the ignorant is good behaviour?

...and how does KJB feel about that finger that Biden projected "on her behalf"? If I was her I think I would have preferred just the appointment...I would think that would be enough of a challenge on it's own....and of course it was not on her behalf at all as it was on Biden's.