The New Aristocracy

Perhaps the most noble concept to come out of our American Revolution was this concept that one is not noble by virtue of one's birth, but by virtue of one's actions. While our founders and recent American ancestors were, by no means, perfect in carrying out this ideal, it was, nonetheless, this ideal that led immigrants by the millions to our hallowed shores. When crafting our Constitution, there was much discussion as to how our leaders were to be selected. Some called for a king, or kings, instead of a president. This, of course, was squelched by those who recalled the atrocities committed by kings past. We wanted a president, and senators, and representatives. There was much discussion as to how they would all be chosen. Would senators be hereditary, chosen by class or wealth? These were actually discussed; but, again, rejected. These would be chosen by the states from which they hailed. Even later, we chose to make them directly from the people (bad choice, IMHO, but for other reasons). Representatives were always by direct vote. The idea was that aristocratic designations were discarded. In fact, the Constitution clearly prohibits the taking on of titles of nobility. America was to be the land of opportunity where our leaders are chosen by their merits.

There was little to no deliberation regarding how judges, or cabinet or agency appointments, would be determined.

Today, even the most meritorious of minds is not qualified for a position on the Supreme Court, unless that person is born right. Obama made that perfectly clear when describing his ideal candidate. And from his pick, it seems that a person's birth is more determinative than her merits.

Now, I admittedly do not know enough about Ms. Sodomayor to know whether she will perform well on the bench. I have done some research. Here is here biography according to judgepedia.org (check it often, as it is being updated while you read)... and here is an interesting blog that details a certain speech she gave before becoming an appellate judge. But it doesn't matter how much I don't know about her. She was chosen because of her ethnicity. Senator Chucky Schumer's letter to His Socialistness promoting her is very telling.

He begins with the premise that ethnicity should be the President's first consideration:

"Dear Mr. President,

We write to bring your attention to the shortage of representation of Latinos in the Federal Judiciary and strongly urge you to consider the Latino legal community when deciding your first appointment to the United States Supreme Court should a vacancy occur during your presidency....

It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court." (emphasis added)

The good senator expounded upon this last qualification:

"Latinos are a large and growing segment of our society that have gone grossly underrepresented in our legal system. Indeed, while Latinos comprise around 15 percent of the population, only about 7 percent of federal judges are Latino. Moreover, not a single Latino has served on the United States Supreme Court in the history of our country."

Recall that W tried this same approach when he nominated Dede Meiers. He was so proud to have nominated a woman. He just knew she would sail through and everyone would like him. However, after eating humble pie, he made the smart move, and started looking for... wait for it... qualified candidates. His two happened to be white men... very qualified white men. Note that the first description is "qualified".

Diversity is fine... as a result. When we make it our goal, it gets in the way of progress. America can and should be colorblind. We should promote people based on their merits. When you are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States, those merits should first be allegiance to the United States of America, allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, allegance to the laws of the United States of America, knowledge of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and a history of the correct application of that Constitution and those laws to the cases or issues presented.

Ms. Sotomayor may be a fine candidate. She'll be vetted in the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are a few senators who will ask her some very pointed, relevant questions (unlike certain senators in recent previous confirmation hearings... ahem, Schumer) regarding her merits. These will involve asking her to explain a few statements made in a few speeches regarding the respective roles of the judge and the law in the judiciary process. I will be interested in hearing her answers. I hope that she can explain them well.

The Many Sides of Sam

Here's a little story about me in Popular Mechanics. Seems I owned a restaurant at one time. I guess I was a pretty decent fellow.




And here I am at age 19...





To view my biography detailing my experiences as an Alaskan hunting guide...



Here is my resume from when I was a doctor and living on the road to Oz...





And finally... from The Tidings: San Carlos Bay Sail & Power Squadron, April 2008:








Who knew?

Interesting Statistics

Here is an interesting website I found. It is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This link will take you to an inflation calculator, where you will find that in the year I was born, a person could live off of less than $200/week as easily as someone making $1000/week today. When I graduated high school, I could have lived just as easily off of less than $600/week.

This link will take you to the unemployment statistics, broken down by state. For a depressing experience, try setting it to January of 2008 and then forward it one month at a time.

If you look around a little, you will find a few good statistics, at least if you live in the midwestern states. For example, a few of these states have refused to get depressed, and some are even starting to show job growth.

Interestingly (just as a side note, of course), here is a link to a list of states that have Right-to-Work laws. Hmmmmm.

Common Ground

Once again, His Choseness has called for conservatives to find "common ground" on the abortion issue. In his speech at the Catholic Non-Denominational University (NDU), Obama pointed out that we who dare to disagree and stand on moral principles would be less uptight about our positions if we only moved to the common ground offered by those more enlightened than ourselves. He begged that we refrain from caricaturizing him (I guess the big-eared likenesses hurt his feelings) just because we disagree with his positions. Civility, he pointed out, starts on the left and can only be attained when we hard-core, back-woods rebels cross over to the dark side and drink the Kool-Aid of secular socialism.

Obama demonstrated his firm stance on common ground by requiring doctors and other medical practitioners to kill babies on demand. This is the only way we can improve health care for all. I guess he figures that if the woman is too stupid to keep her legs closed, she is too stupid to figure out how to find another doctor when her family practitioner tries to provide prenatal care rather than a butcher knife. The woman can thus choose to abort, while the doctor cannot choose not to perform it. Rather to protect the woman from the natural consequences of her actions than the doctor from the moral, emotional, and mental anquish that would naturally come from performing such a horrendous act.

This is common ground?