AmeriKan-Dream, American Dream

American Dream, American Hero

American Dream, American Hero

Lets take a quick look at the two American Dreams, one the hyphenated version the other the beautiful real version that has made this nation great.

Example A: American Dream, Frank Ricci Firefighter New Haven Ct.

Mr Ricci is a fire fighter in Hew Haven Connecticut. As a Fire fighter Mr. Frank Ricci is ready to risk his life every day to save the lives and property of the 125,000 or so citizens of the city of New Haven. Here is the demographic racial makeup of New Haven  as per Wikipedia: The racial makeup of the city is 43.46% White, 37.36% African American, 0.43% Native American, 3.90% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 10.89% from other races, and 3.91% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino residents of any race were 21.39% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites made 35.57% of the population.

As you can see, according to the demographics alone , on any given day Mr. Frank Ricci will risk his life to save minorities at a higher rate than  whites. Further more  arson and fire rates are usually much much higher in minority neighborhoods, and  as such Mr.Ricci is risking his life to save minorities at an exponentially higher rate than he does to save whites.  A dedicated hero, Mr.Ricci wanted nothing more than to continue to serve the city and the community founded by his ancestors. Like all who excel in any field Mr. Ricci had the burning desire to help others achieve the same expertise that he has and to that end he sought promotion to a command position.

That promotion, as the whole world knows by now, is based in large part on taking a test and scoring well on it. Suffering with dyslexia Mr. Ricci has a tremendously hard time studying for and taking exams. With the characteristic tenacity and dedication that most firefighters display on a daily basis Mr.Ricci persevered in the face of such daunting odds. He spent his own money to purchase tutorial books to preapare for the exam. To make up for the dyslexia he hired, with his own money, a person to read and record the books so that he could study the material by listening to it and thus somewhat nullify the effects of dyslexia. Never once did Mr.Ricci  request special treatment for his dyslexia challenge.  Even so, getting high marks on the exam meant  often studying thirteen hour days which is exactly what he did . He was successful , and scored the highest grade on that  test.

Obama and Sotomayor Defeated

Obama and Sotomayor Defeated

Sonya Sotomayor’s family came to America from Puerto Rico and ended up living on our dime in New York City’s public housing. Her living expenses and her education were largely paid for by American people, at that time over 89% white. She went on to Princeton University, an IV league school funded at least in part by the same overwhelmingly white American public. Because she was a minority her grades and test scores  did not have to be as good as those of a white kid who was denied entrance so that a much less qualified student, Sotomayor, could get in. Her grades at Princeton were again shall we say, not stellar, and yet , again she was admitted to Yale School of Law, again based on her minority status and again denying a better qualified white student the opportunity.  Her legal career was a mirror image of her – and Obama’s for that matter- scholastic career. In spite of reports form colleagues that she just isn’t all that smart she was  promoted and appointed to higher office by both Republican and Democrat appeasers. The results are evident of her lack of qualifications as she has had a inordinate high number of reviewed judgments overturned. Liberal web sites admit to 60% of the reviewed judgments having been overturned while Judicial Confirmation Network has an add claiming 100% overturn record. Its hard to come up with a number because often Sotomayor displays the typical cowardice of those driven by leftist political agendas and refuses to sign many of the opinions attributed to her, including the Ricci case.

Just as we see with Obama  those who have advanced in school or in their careers as a result of unfair advantages eventually end up a disaster. From Obama to Rice to Sotoamyor, when put front and center on the world stage, affirmative action recipients are found more often than not  very much wanting. On the other hand those like Mr. Ricci who, with dedication and drive overcome real handicaps succeed on their own merit become true inspirational heroes. Mr. Frank Ricci has done just that and more.

If his fight will help us to stave off the election of yet another racist, America hating, incompetent justice on the Supreme Court then this country owes  him a  debt of the highest gratitude. ( After all isn’t Ginsburg enough?)

Response to the Slate hatchet job here

Share

Read these Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.conunderground.com/?p=2068

57 Comments for “AmeriKan-Dream, American Dream”

  1. Dan

    From Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2222087)
    “According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying “he was not hired because he is dyslexic.” The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city’s failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney’s fees.”

    • The left destruction propaganda against a real life American hero begins. I wonder how many articles condemning Sotomayor’s racism were published by Slate or commented on by Dan.

  2. MMH

    “Her grades at Princeton were again shall we say, not stellar, and yet , again she was admitted to Yale School of Law, again based on her minority status and again denying a better qualified white student the opportunity.”

    She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton! How does that indicate that her grades were “not stellar”?

    • Isn’t it amazing how she graduated “suma cum laude” yet speaks like someone who flunked the GED? Isn’t it odd how Obama “edited” the Harvard Law whatever and graduated magna or suma cum laude and yet can’t string two words together and when he does he says things like ” Mayo provides care much more cheaply than ..” or like this
      There’s something rotten in Denmark and its the libit brain

      • MMH

        ” Mayo provides care much more cheaply than ..”
        You picked a bad example; there’s nothing grammatically incorrect about that clause.

        • Oh yeah its down right Shakespearean!

          • MMH

            There is nothing objectively wrong with his statement. That is all that matters when you’re judging his knowledge/use of the English language.
            If you expect poetry or sentences at the Shakespearean level, I guess you were disappointed by W too, right?

          • Don’t you think that the former EIC of Harvard Law Review should be able coomunicate on a level slightly higher than fifth grade English? (Of course Obama is very articulate when the TOTUS or his mentors tell him what to say)

          • MMH

            There are a LOT of people who speak and write in different ways. A huge percentage of the American population can speak properly but can’t write properly. Clearly one has little to do with the other.
            Furthermore, weren’t conservatives the ones who lambasted him for being nothing more than a good public speaker during the election cycle? Now the argument is the opposite?

          • What do you mean? Of course conservatives said that he is a lousy speaker and we are right. His sole talent is that he seems to be able to read quite well form a prompter, as long as it isn’t rolling to fast, and raise his chin like a puppy begging for scraps. I am not sure when exactly did the “conservatives” changed that argument?

          • LMAO aren;t you tired of making excuses for Sotomayor and Obama. One is the president and can’t string ten words together, the other is even worse. She is not applying for a first year associate job at Dowe Robem and How the torts firm at the corner. She wants to be a SOTUS justice and people have to explain to us why she is not a racist and an imbecile? ( by the way her own colleagues have told us otherwise)

          • whozzit

            If you can’t wow people with true facts, at least respect your readers enough to present yourself as someone with grammatical and spelling skills beyond a fifth-grade level, particularly if you choose to slam highly-educated, published authors on their English!

          • Yeah well I have no editorial staff and this my fourth hobby. You get what you get. When I have time I try to edit if not that’s how it stays.
            Can you handle it? If not make yourself feel better by knowing that admin is just a poor uneducated immigrant.
            I am however intrigued about the “other” kind of facts to which you allude. I only know of “true” ones how about you?

      • MMH

        Also,
        Obama is subpar because all he can do is speak to “bamboozle” people without accomplishing anything.
        But Sotomayor’s achievements are unimportant because she “speaks like someone who flunked the GED”?
        Summa cum laude is granted to people who have good speaking abilities (unless for some reason they took lots of classes in public speaking and did well in them); it’s awarded because of high GPA. At my undergraduate institution (much less respected than Princeton), it was for a GPA of 3.7 or higher.

        • MMH

          Meant to say: “Summa cum laude is NOT granted to people who have good speaking abilities…”

        • So what happened between her “suma cum laude” and now? Its hard to be very worthy of laudations when there is no affirmative action to ahem a help you along.

          • MMH

            We probably have very different opinions about her career, which I think is quite accomplished. I’m not going to try to convince you to agree with me.
            My only purpose in posting was to request that you not be so biased that you post inaccurate facts: if you think she’s had a crappy career/been a crappy judge, then say so, especially if you have opinions to cite to and cn articulate your reasons for disagreeing with her rationale. But don’t say that her grades from Princeton were “less than stellar” when there is significant evidence (her summa cum laude designation) to the contrary; being intentionally misleading does nothing but detract from your argument.

          • How is it that she graduated Suma Cum Laude ” from Princeton and then confessed this about her scholastic achievements there with respect to her Yale acceptance? Care to take a guess?
            “With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,”

          • Speaking if her career, I’m just curious how many other SOTUS nominees were overturned by the SOTUS while in the nomination process?

          • MMH

            Where did my completely logical description of why the 2nd Circuit decision would be overturned during her nomination to SCOTUS go?
            I was willing to look up dates and everything!

            Too many facts for this website?

          • I’m pretty sure you only posted such a thing in your own mind. ,. Heck if you want and it makes sense you can publish an entire article with credit ( Or a nom de plume if you so wish)

          • MMH

            Alright. So I’ll post it again (although I’m sure I saw that it was “awaiting moderation” just before it disappeared).

            The fact that SCOTUS reversed the 2nd Circuit’s opinion during Sotomayor’s nomination is that appeals take a long time. I’m 99% certain that the petition for certiorari was filed before Sotomayor’s nomination was made. (And I’ll look up dates if that will make you believe me.)

          • MMH

            Here’s a link to the petition for certiorari:
            http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/07-1428_pet.pdf
            You’ll notice that it was filed with the clerk’s office in May 2008.

            That’s a full year before Sotomayor was nominated to SCOTUS.

            Then, there was a second petition for certiorari:
            http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/08-328_pet.pdf
            You’ll notice that it was filed in September 2008.

            That’s more than 6 months before Sotomayor was nominated.

    • Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.

      • Judge Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were sub-par — “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public.

        • electioneered

          Considering your inability to parse the difference between ‘grades’ (as in grades from an actual class) and ‘standardized test scores’ (as in SAT, LSAT, MCAT, GRE, etc. scores), it really doesn’t seem like you are qualified to be commenting on Ms. Sotomayor’s educational laurels.

          • There is a big difference between the two, the latter cannot be so easily “racially skewed”

          • MMH

            Actually, by and large, standardized tests are still written by white men. Academic research exists that suggests that standardized tests are de facto discriminatory due to this, which results in minorities scoring lower because of the way the test is written.

          • The SCOTUS disagrees with you as does history. How many latino or African countries put satellites in orbit? It must be the result of those racially biased tests LMAO!!!

  3. Rags

    I LOVE this stuff !

    Keep it up guys, the longer you spout this tripe the longer you’ll stay utterly irrelevant.

    Man, I love you guys !

    • At conunderground we are not into man on man love but I appreciate you taking the time to comment. As far as relevancy goes I direct your attention

  4. jondo

    Understanding culture bias in a test can be difficult . Understanding this admin’s
    bigotry can also be difficult, but to another bigot, I am sure he makes complete sense

  5. Mike Leghorn

    Admin, I appreciate your close involvement in this discussion. Can you please clarify a few things? According to what I’ve read,
    1) you’ve said that Sotomayor’s grades at Princeton weren’t “stellar”.
    2) someone pointed out that she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton.
    3) you replied with something like, “OK, so what” and “Obama ‘edited’ the Harvard Law whatever and graduated magna or suma cum laude and yet can’t string two words together”. (Why is “edited” in quotes?)

    My questions to you:
    1) Were Sotomayor’s grades at Princeton stellar?
    2) Can you explain what you mean when you say Obama can’t string two words together? Last I checked, Obama was a published author. Can you refer us to some of your published works so I can make a comparison?

    If you can make sense, and come off sounding brilliant, I might be more receptive to your points — just an FYI.

    Thanks!

    • You know you might have a point there. I am not sure that its the point that you are trying to make but nonetheless a point and I may have to reconsider the quotation marks that you mentioned.
      EIC of Harvard law review is a job that even The Blessed one could possibly pull off. Its not a position that requires anything other than being voted in and Obama, a born charlatan, is good at bamboozling liberals into voting for him and thus feeling oh so integrated. After that what the heck does he do as EIC? Not a hell of a lot, At other lesser schools the EIC’s main function is to solicit articles from legal experts for publication in the journal. At Harvard that can’t possibly be a problem can it? They probably have a lot more then they can use. The work is done by the other editors -God bless the notes and and articles editors at law reviews everywhere. What’s left is usually done by the managing editor, so The Blessed one probably did what he does best, raise up his chin and fake that thousand yard stare of his.
      On the other hand here is ample proof that even that job was probably way over his head.

      • MMH

        Actually, articles submitted for publication have to be reviewed (and edited) quite a few times before they can be printed in an issue. The EIC is in charge of the process–communicating with the authors (some of them are very resistant to their work being edited), leading the team of editors and spaders, and completing the final edit before the work is sent to the printer. Additionally, depending on the organizational structure of the publication, the EIC may be the person who formats the entire publication before sending it to print. This can take a LONG time, depending on the publication’s length and standard formatting.
        Also, the Harvard Law Review is one of the partners involved in publishing the Bluebook, a guide to legal citation. A new edition was published the fall after Obama was EIC.
        Out of curiosity, how many law reviews have you been on?

        • How is it that she graduated Suma Cum Laude ” from Princeton and then confessed this about her scholastic achievements there with respect to her Yale acceptance? Care to take a guess?
          “With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,”

          • MMH

            Um, she was talking about her standardized (SAT, LSAT) scores, not her grades.
            Nice that you reply to me with something wholly unrelated (Sotomayor’s admission that her standardized test scores weren’t good) to what I posted (standard responsibilities of an EIC on a law review). I guess it’s just much easier to post the same statement over and over again than it is to be relevant to a conversation, huh?

          • I see so she got these great grades at Princeton and graduated SCL and yet she is too stupid and uneducated to score well on the LSAT? Hmmm Makes one wonder how exactly she got those grades at Princeton?

          • MMH

            Do you have any idea what the LSAT is like? It doesn’t test your substantive knowledge in any area (like an exam in a class does), but instead gives logic puzzles and reading passages and then asks questions about them. There is also a writing section where (if I remember correctly) you’re supposed to take a position on something and then argue your point.
            Overall, it’s very different than anything you prepare for in undergrad.

          • Yeah I have an idea, but what’s your point that she’s naturally a moron? I mean she doesn’t know the difference between Providence an provenience so you might be right

          • MMH

            No, my point is that the LSAT isn’t something that all intelligent people do well at. In fact, there are some people who are very intelligent but do poorly on tests of all kinds–my high school best friend, who’s now an RN, comes to mind.
            Clearly, and by her own admission, Sotomayor did better on her class assignments and exams than she did on standardized tests. Does poor performance on standardized tests mean that she’s “uneducated”? Not at all.
            There are probably also lots of people who go on to become good lawyers who didn’t do well on the LSAT–look at any local attorney near you who went to a law school ranked below the first 100 in the country.

          • I don’t know any dummies that do well on the LSAT , ROFLMAO! But she didn’t mention the LSAT in their statement just “grades” I guess its too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee be able to speak clearly even on this one tiny little topic. I guess its just another thing about Sotomayor that needs explaining.

          • MMH

            Your argument is: “I don’t know any dummies that do well on the LSAT”

            My argument is: there are smart people who do not do well on the LSAT

            Those are two entirely different, and uncomparable, points. Why?
            Your point starts with those people who do perform well on the LSAT and your conclusion is then that none of the ones you know are dummies.
            My point starts with people who are smart and my conclusion is that you can be smart and not do well on the LSAT.

            I believe what you’re trying to jump to is that only smart people do well on the LSAT, therefore, if you don’t do well on the LSAT you’re not smart. And that is a logical fallacy.

          • OK lets have it your way. It kinda makes you wonder why law schools place such a big emphasis on it6. They should listen to you and only admit people who score under 160
            But yeah its true if you can’t get a decent score on the LSAT you are either an idiot or didn’t study.

          • So she can’t speak properly, admits that she got her grades because of her race, stands by her racist remarks, tell us that she chooses which facts to see, tells us that she finds it just about impossible to be impartial, gets overturned by the SCOTUS as a matter of course and tanked the LSAT! Oh yeah for an RN Sotomayor would make a head of a SCOTUS Justice ROFLMAO!

          • MMH

            “So she can’t speak properly, admits that she got her grades because of her race, stands by her racist remarks, tell us that she chooses which facts to see, tells us that she finds it just about impossible to be impartial, gets overturned by the SCOTUS as a matter of course and tanked the LSAT!”

            She didn’t admit to getting her grades because of her race–she admitted to getting ADMITTED into Princeton because of her race.

            I think you’d find that all judges “choose which facts to see.” Sometimes you just can’t tell which side is telling the truth, and there is a lot of lying that goes into court briefs!

            I think you’d also find that all judges have a hard time being impartial. That’s the human condition.

            Getting REVERSED (“overturned” is when a new case has opposing law to an old case; the old case is “overturned”) by SCOTUS is going to happen to any appellate judge. First, there’s not another court that’s going to review the case; the only place to go is SCOTUS. Second, how do you define “matter of course”?

            We don’t know what her score on the LSAT was so I don’t think you can say she “tanked” it with any more authority than I can say she didn’t.

          • I am not aware of any other justice who claimed that he chooses which facts to see. I am not aware of any other justice who declared that its impossible to be objective. I am not aware of any other justice who makes racist remarks in the way that she did.
            She was overturned what, I think 100% of the time on the case that she wrote opinions 60% on cases that just slithered under her desk and refused to write opinions, or is it the other way around, I don’t remember.
            So wait as far as the LSAT goes if you don’t know how she did why did you assume that she doesn’t do well on standardized tests? Perhaps you are prejudiced?
            Anyway don’t feel bad but we’ll call it a night I have to do more important stuff like write a Harry Potter review and complain about all the gay movies that opened this weekend, see if I can finish the “Public Enemies Review” ( a little late but who cares the movie was nothing to write about ), write about the racism of Obamacare and other stuff. See you tomorrow.

          • For the record I really appreciate your comments and I like the way you make your arguments.

          • I’m curious why you decided to mention the LSAT?

          • MMH

            I’m assuming you were asking me that.

            I mentioned the LSAT in response to this:
            “I see so she got these great grades at Princeton and graduated SCL and yet she is too stupid and uneducated to score well on the LSAT?”

            And because, having taken the LSAT, I know how a little bit about how it’s formatted.

          • That was in reply to you.

          • Gosh, I wish I would have had that ifnmoration earlier!

  6. Peter Flyer

    Wow. Is this stuff for real? or some sort of extreme parody designed to caricature conservative reaction to Ricci & Sotomayor?

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image

Search Archive

Search by Date
Search by Category
Search with Google
Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes
Marquee Powered By Know How Media.