Monday, July 13, 2009


I promised screaming if it ever came down to this. Well, it's come to this. Michelle Malkin reports about an op-ed piece in the Seattle Times which raves:

"Sotomayor's nomination is historic also because she is living successfully with diabetes."

I'm going to show you some really tasty bits from the pile of manure. Let me tell you something else before we begin: as a type 1 diabetic, I. Am. Pissed.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has made diabetes a factor in the confirmation process. Diagnosed at age 8, she is the first nominee to have the disease, and the position's life tenure has raised valid questions about her health while also giving her critics an opening.

Except no one gives a rip about her diabetes. Except the idiots who wrote this, and now me because they brought it up. What we give a rip about is the fact this woman has a axe to grind and she's taking it to court with her.

"I believe that that a wise Latina woman, in the riches of her experience, would come to better conclusion then a white man who hasn't lived that life."

If that's not word for word, it's pretty dang close. Any 'white man' who said it would have that would have been run out of town in a hurry. Why is this witch given a free ride because of her skin color?

Type 1 diabetes is a disorder in which the immune system destroys the body's insulin-producing beta cells. (The more common form of diabetes, type 2, is associated with weight gain and aging.) No one is declaring victory over diabetes, which is increasing at epidemic rates and imposes huge burdens on patients, their families and the entire health-care system.

But Judge Sotomayor's nomination should be given its historic due. If a Latina would have never been considered for the highest court 40 years ago or even 20 years ago, neither would have a person with diabetes. Workplace discrimination was common; social stigmas flourished; misperceptions were the norm.

Until insulin's discovery in 1922, there was no effective treatment. Your diagnosis was your death sentence. Insulin, however, allowed patients to live by the grace of this miracle drug — making them, as Dr. Joslin said, "the explorers of uncharted seas." But those waters were hardly calm.

When you're done with your hero worship, I'd like to have a word with you. Tell me, oh wise ones, what exactly constitutes living successfully with diabetes? Good blood sugars, perhaps? Remember, none of us have perfect blood sugars all the time, not even her, I would dare to say. Is it because she has an insulin pump? A fancy blood glucose meter? How is this historic? How is she successful? Pray tell, oh wise ones, so poor stupid diabetics like me may follow in her wise example.
Make no mistake, good diabetes care requires financial resources, a qualified health-care team and personal commitment. Too many patients still fall short of their goal and our health-care system is far from perfect. But our improved tools are paying dividends. In a typical half-day clinic at the University of Washington Diabetes Care Center, nine or 10 patients collectively can boast of more than 300 years of diabetes duration. Patients with what was once called "juvenile diabetes" are now Medicare age.

We won't predict what type of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be, but we do know that her health care will be guided by tools and technology that none of us have yet imagined.

You don't have to predict. Us Conservatives have been doing that for awhile now. She can be summed up in one word: racist.

We started off in this op-ed with awe and wonder that this diabetic had been nominated for the Supreme Court, and now we get a lecture on diabetes.

Either way, I'm still upset. She's incompetent, preferring to judge based on skin color rather than on the merits of an actual case. That will only lead to trouble if this woman is confirmed. Count on it.

And don't you dare try and play on diabetes for sympathy again.

See Also: What Ricci Says About Sotomayor - And Obama


  1. Sadly, I think we'll need to get used to this. It's the logical result of when liberal categorization takes root. Things like the hate crimes bill, too, do nothing but segment the population into GROUPS that are intended to manipulate and control. Of course, the logical consequence of this sort of GROUPing is that one GROUP will inevitably come into conflict with another, and ultimately someone will have to decide which GROUP will take precedence (i.e. is the bigger victim), and that decision will have less to do with what's right than the personal feelings of the judge making the decision. When the law and social conventions no longer apply equally to all citizens, chaos and anarchy are not far behind.

  2. Unfortunately, I think you are correct. That still doesn't make it any easier to swallow, though.

    Thanks for the comments!