That’s what a supporter of Republican state senator Glen Grothman apparently snarled in the direction of his Democratic colleague Lena Taylor during Monday night’s meeting of Grothman’s Special Committee to Disenfranchise the State’s Minority Population.
Grothman and his supporters thought Taylor was being “disruptive.” You certainly don’t want anyone to be disruptive when you’re busy ensuring that even lower levels of minority students will be attending UW System schools in the future. It’s hard work after all.
I was just glad to hear no one called Taylor “uppity” because, you know, that would have really crossed a line.
Among the items Taylor disrupted the committee from passing was a requirement that minorities “prove” they are at least 25% minority in order to receive any preferential consideration from the UW System or state contracting agencies.
You know, there was a government in Europe in the last century that came up with a system involving arm bands to identify members of minority groups. That might be one solution for the committee to consider if this recommendation comes up again.
Also rejected by the committee was a proposal that racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System demonstrate “knowledge or experience” of their heritage. Not sure what Grothman’s thought there was. Perhaps some kind of essay exam? Question 1: Describe what it means to peel back a wig.
Still, I actually appreciated the “can’t you just shut up?” line, and it's near near perfect encapsulation of the right wing-talk radio-Bush White House rebuttal to any political argument of the last few years. And it’s effective in nearly every situation.
What’s that? You think rape victims should be offered the morning after pill at the hospital? Can’t you just shut up?
Public schools need more money? Can’t you just shut up?
Against the war in Iraq? Can’t you just shut up?
You don’t think Scooter Libby is an American hero who ended the cold war? Can’t you just shut up?
Think state senators should hold hearings on actual problems facing the state instead of imaginary ones? Can’t you just shut up?
See? It’s perfect.
What, you don’t agree?
Can’t you just shut up?
Update: In the comments, someone notes that we could have made a bigger deal about who asked Taylor if she was capable of shutting up. Fred Mohs, the Madison lawyer and former UW System regent is certainly worthy of attention and Bill Christofferson gives him some. Also, we should not leave the impression that Taylor can’t defend herself from boorish behavior. As Seth Zlotocha noted, Taylor’s election night headlock of Charlie Sykes was priceless. Finally, Rick Esenberg defends Grothman’s attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist without telling anyone to shut up.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Unfortunately, so true. They are so single-minded and unwilling to compromise that they get frustrated when people oppose them. Even worse, when those people actually bring up facts that contradict what the "flat-earthers" are selling, they are ridiculed as "educated elites."
Remember - for our current administration and today's common Republican, the dumber you are the better it is for them. Why do you think they hate the mainstream media so much?
I am willing to bet Grothman was cringing during the whole exchange between his subordinate and Taylor. They don't like it when conflict plays out in the open. They'd rather do things under the rocks they live under with their like-minded bretheren.
For pity's sake -- this is not just some "subordinate" or supporter.
Fred Mohs was a longtime UW regent, a Tommy Thompson appointee who left the UW board only recently.
That ought to explain a lot about the UW regents' attitudes toward affirmative action for years here.
Without a requirement to prove one's race, what would prevent anyone from claiming to be one of the races receiving preferential treatment? And if anyone can claim to be one of the races receiving preferential treatment, then what is the point anymore?
Come to think of it, how would one prove their race to begin with? Do they have to provide photos of their parents? What about African Americans with very pale skin whose parents also have very pale skin? Do darker shades count for more? And for that matter, what about a really tan white guy? What happens when he claims he's black? Seems to me that some sort of genetic testing would be required of all claimants to make a true determination.
Doesn't the whole business seem fairly absurd? Of course it does.
Not a big problem.
The downside of being part of an economically, politically, and socially disadvantaged group apparently has been sufficient to prevent people from volunteering to be one -- from "passing" in reverse.
And the economic, political, and social realities of our racist society would suggest that declaring one's "preference" to be so disadvantaged -- on records that follow one throughout life -- is not going to be a problem any time soon.
Interesting how libs (commies) require minorities to identify their race when applying so as to recieve hand outs, but refuse to require they show i.d. when voting.
Libs (commies) toss around the term disenfranchise and it makes me laugh, because these lib wimps are out of their fukking minds.
What really makes me smile is that Blacks hate libs. When given a choice of Hillary of Obama, blacks dump libs like yesterdays abortion.
Post a Comment