Obama Jong-il

As a child, I thought President Reagan was a Mormon. It just seemed natural. He was highly regarded, and spoken of with adoration and reverence in my home and (public) school. I remember my school teacher being excited to vote for Mr. Reagan in 1984. Growing up Mormon, we spoke with adoration and reverence of the prophet and other church leaders. They wore suits and ties, Reagan wore suits and ties. It was a natural connection to a young mind such as mine. Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was very much not a Mormon. It didn't matter, we respected him and loved him. Even years later, I cried when I heard that he had died. I made it a point to watch the elaborate funeral procession.

However, just as we do not worship our prophet, we did not worship the President. We did not build shrines to him, or purchase basketballs, footballs, or tennis shoes with his face or likeness. I do not recall seeing Afghan quilts bearing his likeness hanging prominently over the WalMart fabric section, nor do I recall ever seeing a Time Magazine cover with Nancy's picture being offered as its own print for $15.95. Especially when he was first elected. I do not recall chastisement for speaking of him in a humorous or even derogatory manner.

I remember making fun of Jimmy Carter, with his big toothy smile, but I do not remember being told to hate him, or that he was evil. In fact, I felt honored to listen to his departing speech on a transistor radio... because he was the president, and that was a historic moment. At a young age, I recognized that.

As I matured, I came to realize that Ronald Reagan was a man. A good man, but a man nonetheless. I understood the honor that it would have been to have shaken his hand. I received a letter with his signature (manufactured) in reply to a letter I wrote him about how young teenagers should be allowed to work. I was disappointed that he didn't address that issue in his reply. When he made a decision, it was OK to disagree with it. There was certainly political discussion, and he had his supporters. I respected the President.



But today's climate is something very different. Mere respect is beneath His Oval Officeness. He is to be worshipped, praised, and adored by the masses. He is too important to trifle even with something so mundane as a serious discussion with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. To question his wisdom is blasphemy. To suggest a better way is heresy. He is the great Conqueror of Capitalism, the Hero of Hollywood, The Hope, The Future... The Dear Leader.


Hmmm...

It seems that title and worship has also been designated for another certain leader... a man with spiked hair and sunglasses, whose masses follow him without question, giving everything they have to his benevolent care, trusting that his decisions are always correct and that their lives are better because of his unerring wisdom. They do not see their meager existence as such. No sacrifice is too great for The Dear Leader. They erect massive portraits of him on buildings and in their homes. All they lack now are the basketballs and tennis shoes.

Isn't it ironic that our Dear Leader is condemning their Dear Leader?

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?