Sonia Sotomayor's ENTIRE statement about "wise Latinas" and "white males"

On May 14, The New York Times published the entire text of the 2001 speech in which Sonia Sotomayor spoke about her hope that her experience as a Latina would enable her, more often than not, to come up with better judgments than white men who lacked that experience.

Dan Froomkin, in the Washington Post, also linked to the entire speech in his White House Watch yesterday.

It's a lot longer, and more complex and nuanced than most television and cable commentators seem capable of understanding. It also completely refutes the "reverse racism" crap that REAL racists like Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, et al are throwing at it.

Except for (predictably) Ketih Olbermann, I have yet to see ANYONE on the major network or cable news programs cover the entirety of Sotomayor's speech. Chris Matthews, for example, let Tom Tancredo continually interrupt Bill Press on Tuesday with the same slander. Not once did The Great Interruptor cut Tancredo short to cite the rest of Sotomayor's statement.

More About Denialism: Dissecting the Inner Logic of Deniers

One of my favorite blogs is Denialism, currently ranked #13 on the 100 Best Science  Blogs list.

The bloggers, Mark and Chris Hoofnagle, have been not so much debating or debunking the arguments of globing warming deniers (and similar junk peddlers) as dissecting the inner logic that drives deniers. The basic premise of denial is that seemingly settled issues are not settled at all, and that they are still open to debate.

A few years ago, the Hoofnagles published something called the Denialists' Deck of Cards, a quick guide to the rhetorical tricks and traps that deniers employ to encourage sustained doubt over major issues.

At a time when people like Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, James Inhofe and others seem unfazed by reality, this is one of those postings that remain permanently relevant.

It's new to ME! How "Denialism" works

This is a few years old, but like a repeat television episode I have never seen, it's new to me.

Here is a brief quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

I think of Denialism as a strategy but also as a disease. Maybe a better name for it would be Inhofism, Hannity's Syndrome or Malkinosis. Whatever the name, I get extremely frustrated whenever I see an Allegedly Serious News Person discuss Global Warming (or torture, or health care reform, or labor rights, or regulation, or any other serious issue) with a Denier. The frustration comes from the ASNP seeming to challenge the Denier, but actually giving them undeserved credibility.

As those of us who have raised children remember, the problem with arguing with a two-year old is that, sooner or later, you may start arguing LIKE a two-year old. The same problem crops up when arguing with a Denier. The challenger usually attacks the Denier's false facts or defends his own real ones. The first and most serious flaw in that approach is that it raises the Denier's lies to the level of "opposing facts". The second is that it ignores Sun Tzu's dictum: "...the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans..."

The rhetorical tricks used by Deniers are hard for most listeners to detect, and require more mental energy than most people are willing to expend. That's why I keep hoping that a Chris Matthews, or a Campbell Brown, or a Bob Schieffer, or a David Gregory will start regularly dissecting the false logic in what Deniers say to them. The fact that they do it occassionally, and effectively, proves they can do it.