Between working 50+ hours/week, finishing my Bachelors (yay!!), doing the yard work, (helping to) raise two teenagers, blah, blah, blah; I just really haven’t b-logged since last june. Good thing nobody reads my site – or pays a subscription!!

FWIW, and for whomever cares, I hereby solemnly pledge to ramble through more postings in the near future. Lord knows there’s plenty to go on about.

If anybody DOES care, go ahead and comment. It’ll let me know you’re there.

Peace all.

“”He found all of those things with her, including his goal of selecting someone with the empathy factor — real-world, practical experience and understanding of how the law affects real people.” (Hamby, Henry and Malveaux)

    This ‘empathy factor’ has drawn considerable criticism. Many have decried empathy as a trait counter to the ideal of ‘Justice’. That is, an empathetic judge is oxymoronic. This avenue of critique is wide of the mark, and can be viewed by supporters of the President’s nominee as an ad hominem. Further, it ignores the constant declaration by the President himself that “words matter”, and I feel has missed an extremely subtle point.

    Presumably, all are familiar with the imagery of the blindfolded Lady of Justice. The availability of “fairness, equality” (Robinson) were and are the absolute fundamental underpinnings of the grand experiment that is America. That availability to all – without respect of persons – defines the American justice system as briefly and succinctly as any other description, of any length. Moreover, it is precisely the availability of justice for all that “the dreamers who thought America into existence” (Carlson) considered worthy of pursuit and establishment, and strove to institute.

    What is the role of a judge? In our justice system, the unalterable maxim is innocent until proven guilty. Evidence is presented against an accused, testimony is given on behalf of the aggrieved; be it a single individual, a group of alleged victims, or a representation of the community-at-large (‘the State’). The accused is then permitted opportunity to reexamine evidence already presented, present further evidence, refute previous testimony, or to introduce new testimony that supports their innocence. It is here that the notion of blind justice quits being a notion and becomes actionable. We as a society then trust a select few to balance the case against the accused. If the case is found lacking (or has a shadow of doubt), the innocent are declared as such, and set free. If the innocent have indeed been proven guilty, they are no longer declared innocent, and an appropriate penalty must then be adjudicated – hence the term and title ‘Judge’.

    To this point it is essential, actually sacrosanct, that Justice – the determination of guilt or innocence – be blind to all considerations other than the case against the accused. That is, the determination must be solely, unequivocally, and explicitly based on nothing other than the case as presented. Outside factors must not be a basis upon which the verdict is rendered. Social, economic, demographic, political, religious or any other dynamics cannot have any bearing. In other words, it is a binary decision: has the accused been proven to be anything other than innocent, yes or no?

    If the case does prove guilt, then and only then, could an argument be made that the need for the Blindfold of Justice has served its purpose, and may be laid aside. That argument contends that the facts and circumstances of each case are utterly unique. Therefore, the adjudication of a penalty may rightfully consider something as ethereal as an ‘empathy factor’ as expressed in a recognition of “how the law affects real people.” This argument may have merit; supposing that empathy for the guilty is balanced with sympathy for the victim(s). It may be that there is room is the justice system envisioned by the Founders for such a concept as compassionate justice. I’ll choose to walk away from this proposition and return to the pursuit of a more subtle point.

    So far, our legal system appears to mimic most every system that came before. Our Founders did not leave it as merely a copy. They chose to make it more hardy, more robust, and self-correcting. While not unique strictly to America, our justice system incorporates what I’ll refer to as a second tier. The first ‘tier’, I’ve described above. It is here where the case against the accused is presented, and innocence or guilt is determined. However, our second ‘tier’ is the appellate system – or subsystem, as it were. It is this secondary series of courts that does not place emphasis on the concrete elements of the case: evidence and testimony. Rather, the appellate courts examine whether the process and procedure for the determination of guilt or innocence was seemly, fair, and legitimate: was Justice blind?

    Many tests exist for confirming that the verdict was arrived at through permissible means. Stated conversely, there are legion ways that Justice can be swayed inappropriately, and thus be perverted. Evidence can be mishandled. Witness tampering or perjury could lead to false testimony. Inappropriate procedures can (and do) readily lead to a conviction being overturned. These ‘technicalities’, while cumbersome and frustrating, serve a higher purpose: that justice truly be equal for all. Likewise, corrupt processes can lead to corrupt justice. Inadequate/improper instructions to the jury, a lack of impartiality of court officers, imposition of preconceptions or prejudices (root meaning: judge in advance) all taint the fairness of the trial. That taint extends to and calls into question the outcome of the trial. For all these (and others) reasons, these infractions are impermissible: Justice must be above reproach and impropriety.

    This need for the inviolate purity of Justice gives reason to the appellate court system. Just as the determination of guilt or innocence is binary, so too is the question that forms the basis for an appeal: was the process that determined innocence or guilt fair, yes or no? Yet, there exists a dilemma with allowing trial courts to be ‘second-guessed’. By what standard is ‘fairness’ to be defined; how is it possible to clarify what makes a trial process ‘seemly’ – what makes a trial ‘legitimate’? Are these lofty, yet nebulous, terms to be determined by each appellate court acting on its own? What if the appealer still feels aggrieved by the ‘system?’ Is it possible to appeal an appeal?

    The Founders provided a grand solution to this dilemma and its subsequent questions. The solution is the Constitution of the United States of America. While this sacred document may not provide a black-and-white, ready-made direct answer to each and every question about the legality and legitimacy of court proceedings, it is the basis upon which such questions are to be tested. In short, trial courts determine innocence or guilt; appellate courts determine the constitutionality of the laws, the trial courts, their procedures, and the rationale for the verdict (was it based on the merits of the case, or outside influences).

    At last, we come to the aforementioned ‘subtle point’! Mrs. Sotomayor has an established history as a judge. Among many other notable life activities, she has been an Assistant District Attorney, a U.S. District Court judge, as well as serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Her rulings and writings are available, yet they do not speak to the point I raise. With the selection to fill an opening on SCOTUS, Mrs. Sotomayor is not being nominated to be a judge: she is being nominated to be a justice. Is this merely a semantical splitting of hairs, or a valid distinction? I prefer to accept at face value the phrase that ‘words matter: words have meaning’.

    As a justice, Mrs. Sotomayor will no longer be the decider of guilt or innocence. A justice of SCOTUS does not adjudicate penalties for the guilty. She will no longer be allowed to entertain the notion that Justice can remove the Blindfold and consider circumstances or how the law ‘affects real people’. In point of fact, by definition, SCOTUS justices must not remove the Blindfold – to do so is antithetical to the purpose of SCOTUS. Rather, SOUTUS exists solely and exclusively to consider one question and one question only: does a given law or process meet the criteria of ‘being constitutional’? To do so demands that there be no expression of empathy, sympathy, or emotion. Further, there is no higher court to which to appeal a decision by SCOTUS – it is the Supreme Court.

    The differentiation between judge and justice is a much more compelling reason by which to oppose the confirmation of Mrs. Sotomayor. By stating that the principle goal of the President was to select a candidate who exhibited “the empathy factor”, President Obama stated the principle means of dis-qualification. The SCOTUS is inherently and patently un-empathetic. If empathy is Mrs. Sotomayor’s primary qualification, it is therefore the primary flaw in her nomination to this particular office. SCOTUS is to evaluate – blindly – the validity of a law or process based entirely upon the Constitution: not social whim, international sentiment, a personal emotion or notion of fairness, or even for that matter the effect(s) of its constitutionality. That is, how can SCOTUS perform its constitutional test in the presence of anything other than the Constitution?

    The Scale that SCOTUS is to use has two platters: one for the Constitution, one for the naked law or process under consideration. There are no allowances for a ‘tare weight’ in the form of empathy, emotional consideration, or personal prejudices. It is to be a brutally diametric examination. This is true irrespective of the person (justice, nominee, or President), or the political philosophy to which they subscribe. To suggest that Mrs. Sotomayor’s empathy factor is anything but an encumbrance to her suitability to sit on SCOTUS is misleading, disingenuous, shows a fundamental lack of understanding the role of SCOTUS, or all of the above mixed with purposeful intellectual dishonesty.

    One last point for consideration: is there a number or percentage of rulings that have been reversed that demonstrate a given judge’s inability to rightly discern constitutionality on their own? Even without conducting exhaustive research (because it’s, well… exhaustive!), Mrs. Sotomayor has been reversed on more decisions that made it to SCOTUS than have been upheld. At what point does it become evident that Mrs. Sotomayor need not be placed in the court of final appeal – precisely because there is no further arena to pursue redress? While I do not presume to believe or know that there is a ‘hard and fast’ number or an exact percentage, I do submit that it is an extremely salient point to consider. Such reversals may point to a judge’s consideration of circumstances rather than facts, or the imposition of pre-held beliefs which colored the outcome of the case even before it was presented. Either of which are inadmissible in the determinations of the highest court of the land.

    While Mrs. Sotomayor may have a long, fruitful record of service from the bench, I find ample reason to oppose – or at a minimum, deeply question – her nomination and appointment. While the nomination by the President at the advice and consent of the Senate is an absolute prerogative of the President’s office, I find that the distance between the stated goal of an ‘empathy factor’ and the requirement to administer blind justice alarming and disturbing. True, this flaw is to be found in President Obama and not in Mrs. Sotomayor, it should nevertheless be applied to the subject of the nomination – Mrs. Sotomayor. Likewise, that Mrs. Sotomayor has not refuted the assertion that she possesses an empathy factor, or that this factor augments her qualification, makes her either complicit in the flaw or unaware of its existence. Neither compels belief in her competence to faithfully execute this particular constitutional office.

Works Cited

Carlson, Douglas E. “Liberty & Justice.” January 2007. The Eco-Logic Powerhouse. 6 June 2009 <http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/carlson-107.html>.

Hamby, Peter, et al. “Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court.” 26 May 2009. CNNPolitics.com. 6 June 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html>.

Robinson, Matthew B. “Issue in Depth from Justice Blind.” 2002. Justice Blind. 6 June 2009 <http://www.justiceblind.com/issue.html>.

Criticism of President Hope for his handling of the economy is way wide of the mark. Statements about his lack of knowledge concerning historical context and his ineptitude are flat-out wrong. Those that denounce his protest his actions on grounds that ‘socialism doesn’t work’ are being bedazzled by his true brilliance. Somehow, I have come to the position of defending our Transformational President. That in itself is a sign of the severity of the situation, and an acknowledgment of his superior skill, charisma, and sheer talent.

hOpeBama knows exactly what he’s doing: he is doing it with flawless aptitude and execution: and (seemingly) absolutely NOBODY has the slightest inkling of how amazingly successful he has been thus far.

Hey – give credit where due! Bravo, Mr. President. Really!!

Having been so fortunate to inherit the current economic situation, BHO has been given an inexhaustible scapegoat. There was an illustration I heard while in training for becoming a network engineer:

A guy is hired as a network engineer for a really large company somewhere. His first day, he meets with his out-going predecessor and the discussion naturally revolves around the current status of the network he is inheriting. After looking through the maps and documentation of the network, the new guy asks the old guy many, many questions – which are answered fully. The in-coming engineer gains a thorough understanding of the ‘ins and outs’ of his new responsibility and feels fully able to manage and maintain it.

Finally he asks, “Is there anything else you think I ought to know before you go off to enjoy your retirement?” The old-timer looks at him sagely for dramatic effect and says, “I remember the day I took this network over from my predecessor. I asked him the very same thing. I learned a lot from him and it’s only right that I give you the same benefit of experience.”

“There are two envelopes in the top drawer of the desk. I know that you’re extremely qualified to take this job – I sat in on the interviews and you were clearly the top choice. But, you know how it is: computer networks are complex. Just like I did, you’ll have a few stumbles along the way. You’ll handle them just fine. BUT…

“Eventually, you’ll do something that really buggers things up, and the Boys Upstairs will call you on it. When that happens, be calm. Take a breath and open the first envelope. You’ll get out of hot water – I promise. Sometime later, you’ll end up doing something else that gets you called Upstairs. Again; breath, and open the second envelope.”

Well, the new guy thought it was strange, but graciously accepted the advice and saw the man out. Sure enough, he ran into a few glitches over the next few weeks, but handled them all – some cost him a little extra time in the office, but nothing he couldn’t deal with. A couple of months go by, and he begins implementing some changes to the network. Then, it happens. He crashes ALL the servers, and the network is down for 4 days!

Once the dust settles, he finally gets The Call he’s been fearing. Remembering the old man’s advice, he takes a look in the drawer and pulls out the first envelope. It has a short, hand written note that says, “Whatever happened, blame it on me. You’ll be fine.” He goes Upstairs and – yep! It works like a charm!! He’s back in good graces, now that he’s ‘patched up’ the ‘mess the other guy left behind’.

Fast forward a couple more months. Somehow, he crashes all the servers again – this time, for a whole week!!! Business has ground to a halt, money is pouring out, workers are frustrated, and ‘The Call’ comes again. Thinking back to how well the first envelope worked, he whisks it out of the drawer, not even bothering to sit down this time. The note, hand written again, is slightly longer this time. He reads it several times – even looking on both sides, holding it up to a light – hoping there’s more to it. There’s not. He sits down. It says, “Start writing two envelopes for your successor. With any luck, you’ll be asked to sit in on the interviews.”

The Greatness In Chief has this guy beat to the punch line. I would bet the farm (if I had one) that hOpeBama has heard this story before! Not only does he know that he can use the ‘Blame Bush = get-out-of-jail-free card’ he knows that Big Media has got his back – they have to, after having invested so much in his ascendancy!!!

Knowing that “it’s all Bush’s fault” will resonate for years to come with the Drones is only part of his Brilliance. He also knows that, historically, recessions come and recessions go. There is a cyclic nature to the economy (stupid), and he thinks he’s got a handle on how long they typically last – about 15-18 months. Still with me?

So, here’s the plan:

• Spend a couple of trillion dollars RIGHT NOW. This will give the patriots something to fume about. Of course it’s going to have an impact on the economy, how could it not?!? He’s said it himself: comments about it being “the right scope“. Who cares what’s in it? Just get it passed and get it spent. More importantly, keep the Conservatives (*spit*) off balance and distracted.
• Keep the economy from recovering naturally. Talk the economy down daily, and spread uncertainty as far as the eye can see. Delay, delay, delay. If it normally takes 15-18 months to recover, back-date it from the next election cycle. If everybody’s fine BEFORE November 2010, Bush didn’t mess things up enough to keep getting blamed. Better to keep the masses depressed until, say… January/March 2010. Lord knows, if it started improving at all during 2009, it wasn’t deep enough for people to remember in the polls.
• Timing is essential!
  • That trillion dollar crap sandwich includes ‘infrastructure’ spending. That translates into ‘construction’. Once the shovel-ready programs start, they’ll have to be followed-up with projects that are only now in the pipeline, or The Plan may unravel. By the end of 2009, we’ll have orange cones coming out our ears. Great – right? To be sure, the construction workers and associated trades will be rebounding nicely (and, honestly, good for them; hard work should be rewarded). But the dark side is that once a building/roadway/whatever is built, the workers are back to looking for work. In essence, theirs are temporary jobs: long-term perhaps, but they have an end date built into them.
  • The various bailouts/handouts have to start now, in order to serve as a backdrop. Regarding the argument of ‘rewarding bad behavior’, BHO doesn’t care what the money is used for. Actually, the more irresponsible the recipient – the better! This assures that people who made bad decisions can (financially) live another day to make more bad decisions: hopefully worse than before!!! Why: to give the voters a reason to view Barry the Beneficent as the Savior of The Masses. The Helper of The Common Man. Our Voice for Change! Yes We Can —- Yes We Did!!!!!!!!! Only Barack delivered us from the evils inflicted on us by CheneyBush. Bow down and adore him. Selah.
  • At all costs, prolong the pain until it is absolutely associated (think Pavlov) with Republicans. What was it, 2006 when Big Media began beating the drum, hoping for, praying for a recession?! Heck, if they thought there was a rain dance for recession, it would have been the new Macarena! Again, if the economy recovers too soon how can the open, transparent, most ethical congress in history possibly take credit for it? No, it must not begin to uptick until early 2010.

Why the obsession about timing?! It’s the hinge of the entire deal!!

The Bush Legacy has to be firmly etched into America’s memory – he, like, wrecked the economy for
years. Dude. The beloved Democrats then can lay claim to whatever recovery happens: regardless if it is natural albeit postponed. But only if was Bush’s fault to begin with (cf: Dodd/Franks/Waters/et. Al)

Anyone who has ever watched a magic show should clearly understand the art of redirection. What else could explain so many ‘missteps’ by such a brilliant, Chicago-trained politician? Law breakers as Cabinet appointees, free money for Bozos, no lobbyists – except for ones that are ‘uniquely qualified fairness doctrine, nationalize this/that/the other, hugs and kisses for terrorists, winks and nods for the KGB, a trillion here a trillion there – then you’re talking real money. On and on…

I mean, really: such a simple plan. Are we too simple to even see it, or just awestruck by a Master Performer? Well done, Commandeer-er in Chief. (ha – thot that was pretty clever, must work better when spoken instead of read)

You wanted change? I used to have dollars, now change is all I got left.

Sounds like a good bumper sticker to me!

I’ve had a change of heart. As a victim of the ice storm in Kentucky, at first I sought to place the blame on the Bush administration. The way I saw it, he and Cheney caused the suffering of hundreds of thousands. I mean, anything that was bad in America had to be Bush’s fault: economy, the ‘lost’ war, overcrowding in prisons, late mortgages, flat tires, pot holes… – whatever.

It’s common knowledge that Bush used all of the money he made from Big Oil to contract with Halliburton to create a weather machine. He then used that machine to make Katrina destroy New Orleans and target all the blacks who lived there. I was waiting for someone in the media to make the connection and realize that our ‘president by selection’ had used the same technology to unleash ruin, pain, and suffering on Kentucky in the form of the ice storm. Of course, he did this just to live up to the Prophecy of Biden: that there would be a generated crisis to test our new leader, Messiah, and Deliverer.

How disappointed was I that no news outlet had picked up this story – not even the most trusted name in news? Seriously, a chance to knock W, and they let it slide?!?

Then the light came on. Well, first the power came on and then the light came on. This from American Thinker showed me the error of my logic, and resolved the lingering question of ‘why no news coverage’ all in one fell swoop.

The Chosen One wanted to make an example of a rogue Red State. In a display of force, he secretly stole the weather machine from the evil Bush establishment and created the storm that left so many in the dark and cold. Two purposes were served: 1) BHO showed what happens to states that don’t vote for him 2) he gets to punish white people. What a master stroke! As CEO of America, he orders a freeze (no pun intended) on federal response – FEMA – and leaves us gun-and-religion-clingers to die as a testament to the error of voting Republican.

The Obama was so wise to attack the Red State Kentucky so quickly after his ascension. The evil, stupid Bush gave the Democrats days of warning by opting for a slow moving hurricane. There was no time for the stupid Kentucky Republicans to gather all the school buses, evacuate cities, put up flood gates, check the pumping stations, or even advertise an escape plan. As proof of The One’s brilliant plan, the quote by Kentucky’s governor mirrors the Honorable Mayor Nagin’s famous “biggest disaster” exchange. Totally flat-footed.

Meanwhile, it’s been nearly a week since the first snowflake, and still, FEMA has not shoveled my sidewalk, brought me hot chocolate, given me a generator; FEMA hasn’t even offered to do my laundry or jump-start my car!

Of course there’s been no news coverage of this angle. The One knows that word-of-mouth is much more persuasive than using the polit-bureau for dissemination of veiled threats.

All I can say is, I’ve learned MY lesson. You can bet I’ll vote Democrat next time!

Victory, as defined by Microsoft Encarta:

Victory, as defined by Hamas:

Israel did not kill every last one of us – we live another day to kill more Jews.

What planet do we live on? A group of people indiscriminately fire rockets –hundreds of rockets – at a neighboring nation and seeks the destruction of any entire race, then declare ‘victory’ when the retaliation of that race decimates their ability to continue firing rockets, destroys their terrorist infrastructure [such as it was], and eliminates many of their top ‘officials’.

 “…Israeli strikes destroyed all of Hamas’ security compounds and most government buildings.” 

Yet,

 “We are in control and we are the winner,” Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri declared this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303066.html.

The world sat by while Egypt allowed the infiltration and permeation of the Gaza Strip by Hamas. The world as a whole was silent when Hamas won elections, and thereby seemed legitimized – the Arab world celebrated and cheered. The world sat by while Hamas took pot shots at the Zionists.  Again, the Arab world celebrated and cheered.

Israel seeks a peaceful existence. They do not seem to demand that their neighbors like them, convert to Judaism, or hold Invite-a-Jew-to-Tea parties.  For their dream of life, they are rebuffed and scorned.  Hamas’ existence appears to center around the destruction, elimination, and annihilation of the entire Jewish race. For this, they are praised, supported, and applauded – most loudly from the Arab states.

Ignored by the screaming rhetoricians is the complicity of Egypt to blockade Gaza.  Ignored are the Israeli dead and bombed-out buildings. Hamas targeted Israeli civilians, then bemoaned civilian casualties caused by unintended (albeit, regrettable) collateral damage.

Israel sends text messages to people living near the big, brave Hamas warrior compounds (read: schools and hospitals) warning them to bug out.  Hamas sends zealots wearing bombs to shopping malls. Suicide bombers, I don’t recall, have ever expressed the ‘peace’ of their brand of religion on Israeli military bases – always places crowded with civilians.  However, the big, brave Hamas warriors hide behind women and children to shoot their roman candles. 

From the same article (emphasis mine):

Israel and Egypt, which have kept Gaza’s borders closed since Hamas seized the territory by force in June 2007, say they won’t open the gates unless Hamas relents.

[...] For now, most Gazans seem to rally behind Hamas, united in their anger at Israel [but not Egypt?!?!], though there are some murmurs of discontent.

“Hamas fought the Israelis. No one else did,” said Samir Summad, 66, whose four-story house was damaged during an air strike last week that killed Said Siam, a top Hamas leader.

At the time, Siam was in the house next door, and the massive bomb flattened the building and dug a deep crater into the sandy ground. On Friday, new cinderblocks were already stacked at the scene and a bulldozer pushed aside the remaining rubble.

Summad would not say whether he resented Siam for putting the neighborhood at risk [out of fear of Hamas killing him?]. Siam was visiting a brother at the time of the strike. “If I had known he was there, I would have run away,” said Summad, adding that five of his family members were wounded in the attack.

To summarize, suppose:  Canada was infiltrated with some militant off-shoot of the Hindu faith.  These militants sought the utter destruction of the United States.  To achieve their goals, they brought in missiles acquired from some rouge nation – say, India – and fired them blindly due south from their militarized positions in nursing homes, daycare centers, and shopping malls.  The whole world does nothing, except ‘urge restraint’ by the US. 

Eventually, after 10-15 years of ‘restraint’, the Americans launch a retaliatory strike to destroy the missile silos. The world’s reaction is to condemn the US for their unjustified attempt to ethnically cleanse Hindus, kill the young and elderly, and destroy Canada’s shopping infrastructure. Meanwhile, Canadian civilians are quoted as saying that “The Hindus fought the evil Americans.  No one else did”.

Following the retaliation, the expressed purpose of which was to terminate the Hindu’s ability to fire missiles, the US pulls back its forces and unilaterally declares a cease-fire. After achieving this goal, the Hindu military infrastructure has been decimated.

The conclusion to this supposition is: all non-Christians world-wide rejoice in the Hindu ‘victory’.

If you’ll pardon my saying so, but WTF??????????