High Court Hysteria

Recently President Barack Obama has announced his first appointment to the United States Supreme Court. As many now know the appointee is United States Second Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor is praised for being an example of the "American Dream". Sotomayor's story finds her growing up in a South Bronx housing project. Her father was a manual laborer who died when she was nine years old. Her mother worked and raised Sotomayor and her brother in the housing complex. She matriculated through high school and made her way to Princeton University where she graduated summa cum laude. From there, she went on to study at Yale Law School. From her mere education background most casual observers would assume she had the preliminary level of qualifications for the job.

She was originally appointed to a federal bench position by George H.W. Bush. This came after she served many years as an assistant District Attorney in New York and after she served as a partner in a corporate law firm. As with all things Washington though, a debate must ensue to see if indeed Judge Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. This debate shall prove to be an interesting one as the critiques being thrown at her may have a bit of legitimacy to them but at the end of the day could be the same gender bias that many professional women deal with on an everyday basis.


Some of the initial critiques against her have included the argument that she uses the bench as a place to bully from. For conservative, libertarians, Republicans and whoever will stand to take issue with this point, let us consider the behavior of justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been consistently one of the most conservative judges often offering the dissenting opinions. While it is his job to offer dissenting opinions, the blantant disrespect he has shown for his peers and those who argue before him can not be described as anything other than bullying. In the event those who are Scalia supporters (who are also likely to be Sotomayor critics) will not acknowledge the bullying from the bench that Scalia does, whatever Judge Sotomayor has done should not even enter the conversation.

Another critique that has initially surfaced about Judge Sotomayor is that she is not the smartest of judges. It will be interesting when her critics discuss her intelligence while reconciling the intelligence of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, who has been called many things, has yet to be called the intellect of the court. One can argue that the opinions that Justice Thomas has wrote have left alot to be desired. Even Judge Sotomayor's colleagues all refer to her opinions as "competent" at the least. Furthermore if the United States is to place such high regard and value to institutions such as Princeton and Yale than the citizens should acknowledge their products as our foremost thinkers. Crowds did not rush to question the intelligence of Justice Alito, and he was a product of those same institutions.

As the debate over the worthiness of Judge Sotomayor to sit on the bench ensues I hope it can stay on topic. I would like to think that the arguments on both sides will be civil and based on the origin, interpretation, intention and application of the law. The Senators in their confirmation hearings should seek to asses whether or not Ms. Sotomayor has the ability to make the best decision based on the information provided. Hopefully the country can engage in this type of debate and not penalize professional women for the same aggressiveness and ambition that men are praised for. I hope during the debate that a woman can have emotions about something without looking overly feminine or not mentally strong enough for the position. If the United States has that type of debate than I'm sure the confirmation or the rejection of Judge Sotomayor will be legitimate.

Dog Eat Dog World

With the release of Michael Vick from federal prison on Wednesday many are speculating as to whether or not Vick deserves a second chance in the National Football League (NFL). The Atlanta Falcons are adamant in their conviction that Vick continue his pro football career (if he still has one) with another team. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says that he must meet with Vick to see if he is truly sorry and remorseful for his actions. With all of this we still wait and see what will happen with Michael Vick's future but above that many will pass judgement on what Vick's place in society as well as football will be.

While we do this though, we must keep Michael Vick's transgressions in context. Michael Vick pled guilty to funding a dog fighting ring. This behavior is inhumane, cruel and malicious. However as a society we have to remember that we currently praise athletes, politicians and citizens who have done far more egregious things. We can start by looking at Sure-fire Hall of Famer Ray Lewis. Lewis is the star middle linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. In 2000 Lewis was involved in an incident that resulted in a man's death. Lewis eventually accepted a plea deal where he admitted guilt for Obstruction of Justice in order to avoid facing murder charges. A year later Lewis was the Defensive Player of the Year and SuperBowl MVP. From there people seemed to only remember the star player.

In that same vein Leonard Little, a defensive end formerly of the St. Louis Rams was driving drunk and killed a citizen. Little was reprimanded by the court but did not face any jail time. After that Little was again stopped for drunk driving. Recently receiver Donte' Stallworth was driving drunk in Miami and he struck and killed a citizen. These are just a few examples of athletes who have done things that most would regard to be a bit more serious than dog fighting. Despite this, none of these men have served jail time to this day. No organization is threatening to picket in front of stadiums where they play and no one is questioning whether or not these men deserve to make a living at something they are extremely talented in.

Athletes are not the only people who make transgressions and the public tends to look the other way. Famed journalist Bill O'Reilly had a sexual harassment claim brought against him for the way he treated a female producer on his show. There were even tapes of his terribly improper and lascivious conversation with the young lady. The matter was resolved by settling out of court. O'Reilly went on air and apologized for the incident and said he didn't want any other mention made of it. There was no mass mobilization of women's group that organized a boycott of Fox News or even of O'Reilly's program. O'Reilly is not alone, as journalist Rush Limbaugh was found to have an addiction to prescription drugs. Despite this being public knowledge he still serves as a voice and authority on social and public morality.

As Michael Vick tries to immerse himself back into life outside the walls of Leavenworth, there is much that he is going to have to get adjusted to. He'll be working 40 hours a week at a construction job, he'll have to check in with federal officials.He will even have to work to reduce dog fighting among inner-city teens. No one has demanded that Rush Limbaugh work reduce the number of suburban kids on crystal meth. Even fewer people have asked Bill O'Reilly to lead seminars on workplace diversity and gender respect. Mr. Vick will have a difficult time resuming his life and resurrecting his career, he doesn't need any hypocrites and cynics biting his tail.

Give Me Back Your Land

The idea of capitalism as practiced by many industrial nations today is in no way pure supply and demand market economics. It is a system of pseudo-meritocracy based on who has the resources to advance themselves and their loved ones. Likewise since Europe's lustful conquest of all black, brown and yellow parts of the world the natural order of ownership has been seriously altered to say the least. Today we see Bolivia and its president Evo Morales undertaking some of the same efforts of land reform thought about or engaged in by leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Between Mandela, Chavez and Mugabe only one is looked at on the world stage (read the west) as a noble figure. That being Mandela. Even with that Mandela is regarded in progressive circles as not having accomplished all he may have wanted to or should have for the apartheid-free South Africans. The other two leaders are looked on by the west as fierce rivals of private ownership. What is also painted in that narrative is the idea that the ownership is legitimate so these leaders are "unjustly" taking land. What doesn't get mentioned in that story all the time is the long term perspective these leaders are bringing to their position of land reform.

Mugabe, Chavez and even Morales of Bolivia are not just seizing land but are seeking to claim land that has vital natural resource that can be of use to all people of the nation particularly poor and indigenous people. With Mugabe, he presided over the breadbasket of the world. A place where the land and climate would allow the terrain to grow almost any crop imaginable. He thought it made no sense that a few privileged families (who gained their privilege from the imperial conquest of Africa) should be the only ones who benefit from the fruit of the land. With all the food that the land produced, Mugabe felt land reform would be great in righting the wrongs of imperial Europe while feeding his people.For this he was demonized. He was made to look like a man with no regard for the individual property of a citizen.

Hugo Chavez has suffered the same fate. As the head of an oil rich nation he seized lands known to have an abundance of oil. He did this in efforts to return some of the profits of the oil rich land to the original and oppressed people of Venezuela. He too has been cast in a light as a man who doesn't care about property rights or individual ownership. The progressive Bolivian President Evo Morales has been making news recently for his government's quest to seize land. His government cites the vast oil reserves beneath some of the lands. Oil reserves that can turn massive profit that would fund many of the social programs his government wants to put in place to ensure the welfare of the Bolivian people.

Sadly those who claim these leaders trample on an individual's property rights seem to ignore the often murky and in some cases blatantly ill-gotten means used by individuals to acquire these lands. Each of the aforementioned leaders represent nations that have been bastardized by the west. In efforts to address the prejudicial economic and social policies, the leaders of these nations are made to look like dictators who have no respect for law. In fact, in many cases they are from the underprivileged oppressed class. Rather than these leaders who having no respect for the law, they have immense respect for history, culture, justice, equality and fairness. Apparently these are things their critics know nothing about.

Politically Incorrect

My grandmother (and I'm sure some other folks grandparents as well) used to have a saying. She would say "you got some nerve".You can pretty much place anything after that statement, but essentially my grandmother was shocked and appalled that I would have the audacity to do a particular thing. My grandmother's words feel more appropriate than ever when you consider recent actions by today's politicians and media. Mainstream media and politicians wagged their metaphorical fingers at Gov. Rod Blagojevich when he seemed to be playing the "politician's" game. The only problem was he got caught.

With Blagojevich out of the news cycle now is as good a time as ever to look back with sober mind to put the actions of the disgraced governor into proper context. His crime was using his position and influence to get a social and/or financial advantage for he or a family member. With that in mind when we look at some recent actions of politicians.Once we examine these politicians and their actions, we may want to rethink the way we casted Blagojevich to lowest ring in the political inferno.

During the Bush presidency many people complained, and rightfully so, about Haliburton receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq. The reason the complaints are so legitimate is because then vice-president Dick Cheney was once the head of the aforementioned company. Most Americans saw this as despicable crony-ism at its highest most disgusting level. Interestingly enough Robert Murtha (the nephew of Congressman Frank Murtha) and his company have also received no-bid Pentagon contracts. These contracts were valued at about 4 million dollars. It seems that Congressman Murtha used his position and influence to get a financial advantage for a family member.

Congressman Murtha isn't alone in using his perverse use of his office. Congresswoman Jane Harmon may have had one of the more embarrassing and disgusting abuses of power in recent memory. Congresswoman Harmon was in negotiations with the powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC. Two Israelis were being prosecuted for espionage by the Justice Department. In exchange for her lobbying the Justice Department to reduce the charges, AIPAC would pressure Nancy Pelosi to give Harmon a prestigious committee assignment. Again this seems like a quid pro quo relationship. According to transcripts Congresswoman Harmon knew what she was doing was so out of bounds she closed her phone call by saying "this conversation never happened".

Clearly foul play is not new to politics but more and more it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. There are numerous cases where there are family members who either individually or as a member of a company reap huge benefits from their relatives political clout. This murky game of politics doesn't seem to be a partisan issue. It affects Republicans and Democrats alike. Politics is a dirty game and the disgraced former governor got caught. The problem comes when other politicians and members of the media stand by shocked to know this "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" behavior is consistent throughout the halls of the United States Congress. It's at times like this when people could heed the words of grandmothers all over the country: "you've got some nerve."