Morning Coffee (153)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been too long, by far. I have not been inspired to Brew in a long time, and I hope that my Drinker-ship will forgive my insolence. But I've been working on some other projects here and there. Needless to say, a lot has happened, and there's no way to cover it in one Brew. Hopefully you've checked out Publius's "Observation Post," as he's back up and running as well.

Supreme Court Nomination:
Certainly, you've heard about this SCOTUS nomination business. And I'm sure you've heard that Obama has nominated 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to this nomination, you'll remember that much was made of Obama's alleged desire for a judge with "empathy." But this Brew isn't about whether or not she has "empathy," whatever that might mean for Justice.

Here's an introduction to the news on Judge Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Judge Sotomayor, 2001.

Sotomayor's quote is troubling. For one, it presents false logic. This being the case, it doesn't speak too highly of her intellect, which Robert Gibbs defended the other day by saying that her detractors, who argue that she hasn't the first class intellect necessary to be a Justice, didn't graduate summa cum laude from Princeton. I shouldn't have to point to the absurdity of Gibbs' argument as well, but I will. Very few people in history have graduated second at Princeton. This doesn't mean that they don't get to question the intellect or ability of someone serving for life as a Supreme Court Justice. Let me say that again: For Life. Back to the issue, however, Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her [a Latina's] experience" is an intellectually insufficient explanation for someone's ability to come to any given, or in this case a better, conclusion.

Secondly, and I know that it's very difficult to even get around the inability to present a logical argument, were such a statement made by a pre-Chief Justice John Roberts, or any white male judge, their political careers would be effectively over. This would easily be a racist comment if made by the aforementioned demographic. But in this case, we're told (i.e. scolded) by Gibbs and others that everyone had better tread carefully. Gibbs says, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." Of course, the unspoken second clause to that sentence is, "unless you want to lose any gains you made in securing the Latin American vote, and appear to be a racist." This is a prime example of how you're a racist if you criticize, rightly or wrongly, a minority, but you're lauded if you criticize the "wisdom" of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Interesting double standard, if I do say so.

This is the entire point. Sotomayor may or may not be a so-called "activist judge," but one thing is certain: she was picked partially because to fight her confirmation would be politically inadvisable, or at the very least, must be done so in a very delicate manner. She's a perfect candidate, but maybe not in the usual sense; she's a perfect political candidate. She's a woman, Hispanic, relatively young (remember: lifetime appointment), and if you believe the news reports, has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years (or 100 depending on the source). There are probably a dozen or more candidates who are equally qualified, but very few with Sotomayor's "unique" qualifications such as ethnicity, sex, and Cinderella story. But it's the ethnicity that makes it so hard for Republicans to fight her confirmation, or to do so with any zeal. Too much criticism and they will be labeled racists, and will lose any Hispanic votes they have gained, and will be unable to gain any more. You're seeing this label already.

I don't have a say in whether or not Sotomayor is confirmed, so I have no impetus to research her and make a coherent argument against her, although were she to be proven to have a history of statements like the one above, I'd question her ability to be a Justice. Thankfully, I'm not a GOP Senator, but if I were, I'd be hesitant to dig too deeply, like I might with a white male nominee. No one wants to be labeled a racist. But I will say that to avoid a rigorous discussion, even a heated one, about the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life simply because our elected officials are afraid is absurd. It's another symptom of a broken, diseased system.

I've noticed a trend lately. A number of articles have stated that great discretion and deference is given to a President's choice for Judicial nominees. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative, has said as much, saying that Republicans should:

"Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences."

I agree that elections have consequences. And I respect Krauthammer's ability to write, and I respect some of his opinions (and frankly, he's a far better man to represent the GOP than is Rush Limbaugh). But the notion that the President should be given deference in his nominations is ludicrous. The Constitution says nothing about granting deference to a President in this regard. It doesn't even imply deference. This is what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This clause does not say, "The President shall nominate and the Senate should sorta mull the situation and then confirm the President's first choice." It's the Senate's duty to rigorously investigate any Supreme Court nominee by any President. This means to take the above illogical statement made by Sotomayor in 2001, and consider that in the context of her entire career. Anything less and they've failed us, their employers. Anything less and they're not fit for their jobs as Senators.

This article by David Paul Kuhn describes some of the issues at play with this nomination, but also with what some call "positive discrimination", which is basically white males not getting jobs they're otherwise qualified for were it not for being white and having a penis. One could argue that this happened in the Ricci v.DeStefano, a case upon which Judge Sotomayor ruled.

Speaking of ethnicity and sex, see this article about a group at the University of Chicago called Men in Power. It's somewhat interesting.

Power to the Powerful:
Would you like another sign that our system is showing advanced signs of decay? Read this article.

In it, you'll get to read about how the President (any) travels to political functions, and we taxpayers, or those of us forever in debt bondage, pay for it. This week President Obama attended two fundraising events, one for Harry Reid in Las Vegas and another for a donor dinner in Los Angeles. For those counting, that's two different cities in two different states. But this is all classified as official travel, because in between those events he attended some public event where he spoke about energy. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union (can they organize a strike?) estimated that the "non-public" portion of the trip from Vegas to LA and back cost at least $265,000. This is because the President's travel package consists of Air Force One, the back up AF1, and a C-17.

The rules governing travel are sort of convoluted. The Air Force pays for the cost of operating the aircraft, but the government reimburses for airfare, etc. Strange. Equally strange is the fact that the reimbursements never equal the actual costs. For example, campaign stops by Bush and Cheney incurred $6.5 million in expenses, of which their campaigns reimbursed to the government $198,000. We taxpayers paid the rest, or roughly $6.3 million. We're paying for their reelection, and not through regular political donations. In other words, I am paying the President's bill to go stump for Harry Reid. I'm paying for Reid's campaign, to some degree. Just the same, I was paying for Bush and Cheney's reelection (and other Republicans), despite not giving their campaigns one red cent.

As the article states, "watchdog groups don't suggest that the President shouldn't travel, or even that he shouldn't travel to political events." Well, they might not say it, but I will. Taxpayer dollars should be spent solely for the business of the government. Reelection funds, campaign speeches, dinners, etc, are not government business. How is this so hard for watchdog groups to understand? I don't want the White House to be more forthcoming with travel expenses, as does Pete Sepp's group. I want the President to be legally barred from attending any such events on the taxpayers' dime. If he wants to attend, he can do so out of his own campaign funds or by using his own money, and he can charter a plane to do so. Air Force One should not be used for such things, even if the Air Force is completely reimbursed. I will grudgingly concede that safety is an issue, so if Air Force One is necessary, then the President must reimburse in total. Harry Reid's challengers haven't the ability to have their supporters flown in on taxpayer funded aircraft.

All told, the stops, one of which cost couples $30,400 to attend and was followed by a cheaper event so that the plebeians could also give money to their leaders, pulled in $5-6 million for Reid and the Democratic Party. Not a bad haul; all the President needed to do was make some minor remarks on energy policy and it was all official business.

So Convoluted, Even the President Can't Understand it:
Our government bureaucracy is so mind-numbingly complex that even the Commander in Chief doesn't know about all the agencies which make it up. Yesterday, the President took a trip to a burger joint and had a brief exchange with Walter (LNU) during which Obama asked Walter what he did for a living. Here's the exchange:

Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me...
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh...
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] ...support systems, so...
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.

Intelligence professionals will know what NGA is and what the agency does. I'm conflicted about whether or not a President should know. He is, on one hand, the boss of this agency (and many, many others). Is it important if he doesn't know? Probably not. I just found it humorous, is all.

Personal Reflections:
For those of you who read regularly, you'll know that the Brewer only rarely delves into his personal life. I find that it's generally not important to the task at hand, that is Brewing Coffee. I am also of the opinion that you don't come here to read about me. This is fair, and this is how I'd prefer it to be.

But today I am going to make a brief exception. I would like to talk about my uncle, with whom I have been fairly close most of my life. He and my father were together my heroes growing up. Holidays were complete only after hearing them regale me with stories of youthful bravado; their stories were the stories of my clan; their legacy to me. I would be enthralled, enchanted by hearing them speak of their youth. The three of us spent a lot of time together, around the table talking drinking coffee, mine with milk and sugar. But also outside, hunting and fishing. Virtually everything I know about the outdoors is because of my father and my uncle.

My uncle is also among the funniest men I've ever known. His repository of jokes, many of which are dirty, must number in the millions. I am a poor teller of jokes, for I can almost never remember them. But my uncle can tell them all day long. He captures you in the story, and hits you with the punchline. Rarely has he told the same joke twice, but when he did, it was like the first time you'd ever heard it.

He also loves kids. Far more than I do. And kids love him. Growing up, there were always plenty of kids around, and my uncle always made them laugh. I'll never forget the smile on his face when I showed him a picture of my newest son.

I'm writing though, because my uncle has terminal cancer. He is 59. There really isn't much else to say at the moment. I am not a religious man, and will never pretend to be. But I ask that you might keep him in your thoughts. Pray for him if you like. Sacrifice a pig or a bull if that's what you choose. More importantly, appreciate the time you have with those who you are close to. Build up those fond memories like an unbreachable fortress, for when you must see them off, your fond memories are what remain.

Word of the Day: Iniquitous (adj): Characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

On This Day in History: Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in a duel (1806). The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated (1922). The remains of two unidentified American servicemembers are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery (1958).

"Told me you loved me, that I'd never die alone. Hand over your heart, let's go home. Everyone knowed it, everyone has seen the signs. I've always been known to cross lines. I never ever cried when I was feeling down. I've always been scared of the sound. Jesus don't love me, no one ever carried my load. I'm too young to feel this old. Here's to you, here's to me, on to us, nobody knows. Nobody sees. Nobody but me." - "Cold Desert," Kings of Leon.

Morning Coffee (95)

Good morning, Coffee aficionados. Since the injection of topic headings into the smooth flowing Morning Coffee, writing sufficient introductions has become a challenge. I guess that’s the problem with any digital media; a problem associated with our “have-it-now” attitude. Readers ignore grandiose prose, and wish to delve into the meat. “Get to the point,” they say. No time to enjoy reading for the sake of reading. I suppose the topic headings allow the reader to scan the Coffee (and it’s apparent that scan is all they do considering the amount of time they spend on the actual site) and consume what they want without having to “wade” through any ancillary garbage. In turn, I suppose that’s why topic headings are so inflammatory – they must grab the reader. Thus dies literature, and reading comprehension…

Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault. 

I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience. 

Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?” 

I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner. 

Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god. 

It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible. 

My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue? 

One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible. 

Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does. 

No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.

On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.

“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.