Points to Ponder:

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent. [Napoleon Bonaparte]

Points to Ponder:

Politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2009)]

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

This is an abridgment from a web writing of mine circa nine years ago -roughly two years before the start of this humble weblog. The topic is conspiracy theories and their inherent problems. Without further ado...

[W]hile this author admittedly subscribes more to the conspiracy side of history than the accidental side (because it is human nature to conspire and little if anything happens by accident in world affairs), the extent to which some people will go with this theme is quite frightening. In essence it is trying to do with politics and world events what Protestant Fundamentalism seeks to do with science and theology...To people of this mode of thinking, any degree of mystery or the unexplained (or a realm of comprehension or information that they are unaware of or cannot explain) must be wrong if it does not fit into their narrowly-defined parameters of "correct" or "incorrect."...

To the economically undereducated, the concept of a complex capitalistic system simply must be the "Anti-Christ" or the "Beast" rather than a potentially good concept that is often perverted by evil men. Numerous other examples could be brought forward but the point being made here is evident. Simplistic thinking can be very dangerous and unfortunately most of its practitioners are unaware of the destructive range of this "weapon" if you will. [Written in June 2000]

On the Caritas et Veritate Encyclical:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

On July 9, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI released to the public his third encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate dealing with the subject of "integral human development in charity and truth."{1} I predict that many of particular economic agendas will try to proof-text the pope's words and bend them to their own preconceived notions{2} rather than attempt to understand what is written there within the context of general norms of interpretation.

My purpose in this posting is to call attention to the encyclical and make a few passing comments on what I have seen of it so far. Admittedly, I have not read the text in detail yet. However, my original perusal of it in outline has generated some initial thoughts. But I am aware of how some people as an excuse for trying to dismiss my arguments may accuse me of putting a spin on the pope's words. For that reason, I will before I give my initial musings reference the pope's statement on the role of the church in politics as he enunciated in his first encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est circa early 2006:

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply. [Pope Benedict XVI: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est section 18 (circa January 25, 2006)]

It may sound strange to excerpt the pope's first encyclical letter in a post pertaining to the release of his third encyclical but there is a method to my approach here. For one thing, to a certain extent it is common for a pope with their first encyclical letter to set forth a kind of overview of what they intend to approach. And as the purpose of the pope's most recent encyclical letter is to focus more on specific matters of economic development, it bears noting his previous words of a more general nature on the role of the Church pertaining to these matters.

After all, if the pope's own clarifications previously enunciated on the general scope of the role of the church in politics and economics are not accounted for, there will be those of no small number who read too much into his words. These persons of various partisan bends will try to claim him as an ally in some kind of canonization of one particular school of economic thought over another. Insofar as the general thrust of the most recent encyclical, this paragraph towards the beginning of the text in my mind sums up the overarching intention of the document:

I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence. [Pope Benedict XVI: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate section 2 (circa June 29, 2009)]

Now having situated the pope's latest encyclical in the context of principles he outlined in his first encyclical{3}, it seems appropriate for me to give my own view on the text from what I have thus far seen of it.

As I already said, I have not read the text in detail yet. Nonetheless, my original impression is one of the view that some of the ties it attempts to make are tenuous at best. But then again, encyclical letters virtually never prescribe precise formularies on these kinds of matters anyway. Instead, what they seek to present or re-illuminate in a variety of ways are general principles which can be of no small assistance for those who attempt to find solutions to these kinds of matters. There are a variety of ways of approaching issues or problems: not all of which are of equal merit. It is therefore of importance in such matters to not fail to account for important principles of ethics and morality along the way. That in a nutshell is what encyclicals such as this one intend to help avoid.

I should note also that those who think my representation of what encyclicals or other papal documents are intended to convey in these kinds of areas can consider my description in light of Pope Benedict XVI's own words as referenced above from his first encyclical letter where he touches on the role of the church in politics and the economic factors that go into building a just society. And while I will probably write on these matters as a combination of time, circumstances, and inclination coalesce to facilitate that, at the moment this will have to suffice for the subject at hand.

Notes:

{1} That is the subtitle of the encyclical as it reads on the Vatican's website version of the text.

{2} Particularly the distributivist sorts. I wrote some expository musings on this matter as well as interacted with emailers in the mid spring to late summer of 2007 in a series of postings. Here they are in reverse order:

Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)

"The Empire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 27, 2007)

On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue: (circa May 31, 2007)

On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism (circa September 8, 2007)

"From the Mailbag" on Distributivism (circa September 10, 2007)

In the drafts folder of my weblog is an unfinished response from another emailer circa October of 2007 which challenges some of my statements on distributivism in the series above. In light of the pope's latest encyclical letter, it seems appropriate to set aside some time as I am inclined and finish that thread at some point before the end of the summer. I note it here to put pressure on myself to get to that thread as soon as I can -possibly as soon as the next blogging cycle which runs from July 22nd-August 21st.

{3} His second encyclical was on the topic of hope which is not as explicitly connected with the present encyclical as thematically as his first encyclical so evidently is.

Briefly on Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Confirmation Hearing Strategery:

These were my offhand comments from July 11, 2009 to an inquirer on the upcoming hearings. Their words will be in dark green font.

What's your predictions on this? Think the Senate will confirm her barely or not confirm barely? I get the feeling it's going to be a barely just not sure which end it will be

Since we are replacing Souter and therefore holding serve basically, I do not think this is the battle we want to go all out on. It will suffice to make this a platform for discussing judicial philosophy and thereby having a stronger foundation to go after Obama's next appointee.

Barring something extraordinary coming out, I do not see how she does not get confirmed. That does not means we roll over like we did for Ginsberg though -it is clear the Dems are not gonna stop their character assassination crap so in the words of that great western philosopher Alice Cooper "no more Mr. Nice Guy." We should make it a tough fight but pull a few punches and save our real "bunker buster bombs" for taking down socialized health care and the crap and tax which would both be far more damaging than [Sotomayor] long-term.

Chronicling Sonia Sotomayor's Latest Decision Reversal By the Supreme Court and the Flaws of the "Empathetic" Judicial Philosophy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I will draw from material in the following two articles in sketching this sequence out:

White Firefighters Were Victims of Discrimination, Supreme Court Rules

High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit

Having posted the links, let us review the process of this case before it reached the high court. To start with, we have the suit brought against the city:

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.

In other words, a test designed to measure qualifications for promotion in the New Haven was thrown out because of the racial makeup of the highest test scorers. There is no way objectively speaking that is not a case of race discrimination. Yet here is what happened when the case was brought to the district court:

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

Notice the "logic" of this decision: the test can be scrapped even though they could not find anything wrong with it. On what basis could this be justified rationally??? Oh yes, for some reason a test of qualifications did not result in a desired racial makeup so that supposedly proves inadequacy. Is it at all possible that the reason the minorities scored lower was simply because they were as individuals not as qualified and their race had nothing to do with it??? Oh but that is not the "politically correct" answer so you get judicial idiocies like those of Judge Arterton which are based not on law or statute but instead on personal biases.

That brings us to the 2nd Court of Appeals where Judge Sotomayor was sitting:

The case then went to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, where Judge Sotomayor and fellow Judges Robert Sack and Rosemary Pooler heard the appeal.

But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion."

So it is "thoughtful and well-reasoned" according to Sotomayor and the 2nd Appeals Court to throw a test out that no flaw could be found in because it did not generate the desired racial outcome??? This is far from "thoughtful and well-reasoned" but instead it is both arbitrary and unreasonable.

For rather than provide equality of opportunity this methodology seeks to mandate a required outcome. This is contrary to the very principles on which this country was founded and is also contrary to the most basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics.

This case also shows the intrinsic flaw of the whole "empathy standard" that President Barack Obama talks about when it comes to judicial philosophy and which Judge Sotomayor evidently embodies. For an "empathy standard" is hardly one that is non-normative (read: objective) but instead is of a normative (read: subjective) nature. And such a subjective foundation is very dangerous ground on which to be basing judicial or indeed any kind of philosophy on.

That brings us to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court when it reversed Sotomayor's 2nd Appeals decision:

[T]he court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.

In a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative majority said that is what happened in New Haven.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

That is a very reasoned and logical approach to these matters. But notice what was outlined in the minority view:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court's dissenting liberals and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

The problem of course with "equal opportunity in fact" type arguments is such endeavours cannot be undertaken without discrimination against other parties. It is one thing to use race criteria as one of several factors that go into such an assessment.{1} But in the case of New Haven, that was the sole criteria in which the test was thrown out. Or as the article noted on the court's majority decision as authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Justice Kennedy's opinion yesterday referred to the judgment of Judge Sotomayor and the other two judges only by noting their short opinion. He said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason for the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Justice Kennedy wrote.

In other words, if there was no evidence of discrimination against minorities in the test, then there was no justice in throwing it out. And considering that the original judge admitted that there was no evidence of racial bias in the test, that only underscore objectively the lack of justification in throwing the test out in the manner in which they did.

Readers need to ask themselves which standard of judicial philosophy are they the most comfortable with, one that bases its decisions on reason, logic, ethics, and objective standards or one that is unreasonable, illogical, unethical, and subjective. Because in a nutshell, that is what the difference is between rulings based on law and justice and those based on personal whims and "empathy." In one case Lady Justice wears a blindfold and in the other she does not. Your humble servant for one prefers to see Lady Justice with her eyes covered.

Note:

{1} If it is used as a tie-breaker in cases where there general equality in other ways, that is one thing but that is not what was done.

McConnell Says Time Needed to Review New Sotomayor Material (Roll Call)

I hope he is successful in getting as much time as needed to review all the pertinent data but something tells me that a place like DC where they vote on bills they have not read{1} is not inclined to want to have all the information before they come to an equitable decision on this matter.

Note:

{1} This is one reason why your host has for quite some time been a supporter of the DownsizeDC proposed legislation known as the Read the Bills Act and views the fact that such a piece of legislation is so badly needed is an indicator of no small significance of how bad things really are corruption-wise in Washington DC.

Mariners Do Not Need Bevy of All-Stars to Show Improvement

Jerry Brewer wrote this article the day following the Seattle Mariners completion of a 5-4 road trip against the three best teams in baseball. I concur sufficiently enough with his observations to post it here as generally{1} encompassing how I view both the Mariners as a team this year and the progress they have so far made as well as my views of Manager Don Wakamatsu{1}, General Manager Jack Zduriencik{2}, and the team's heart in general this year in light of what Jerry Brewer outlines above.

Notes:

{1} I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 23, 2009)]

{2} See the material in footnote one as well as this link:

Miscellaneous Musings on Thread of Interest (circa December 26, 2008)

Steele to Palin: Come on In, the Water's Nice (Wall Street Journal)

At least you are showing that you understand the windfall fund raising potential of a unshackled Sarah Palin for the GOP Chairman Steele.

Has Barack been taking lessons from Berlusconi? - World News, Frontpage - Herald.ie

You be the judge folks:

Of COURSE President Obama did not ogle that girl. He also did not bow to the Saudi king, flip flop on closing military tribunals, or promise (i) to have all troops out of Iraq by May 20, 2010, (ii) an open and transparent government, or (iii) unemployment topping out at 8% and "shovel-ready jobs" if the "stimulus" was to be passed. All of that was Bush's fault!!!

Incidentally, French President Nicolas Sarkozy{1} appears quite amused by the spectacle. My guess is Michelle Obama will not be so amused but I digress.

Note:

{1} Married to the very easy on the eyes Carla Bruni.

TIME's Interview With Sarah Palin

I do believe that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin acquitted herself much better in the above interview than she did in her original press conference of July 3, 2009 announcing her intention to resign the governorship. The above article gives more details on her recent and unexpected decision.

I will have to in light of this development re-examine a bit the issue of Sarah Palin's prospects for 2012. Earlier in the year I wrote an expository musing on these matters{1} but that was done presuming that Sarah Palin would if not run for re-election in 2010 at least serve out her term. This recent development will thus require on a few points a fresh examination of probabilities; ergo, let this posting make public my intention to do that at some point in the coming months.

Note:

{1} On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc. (circa April 3, 2009)

Judge Sotomayor
they say she has empathy
just not for white guys
[Written 7/6/09]

Moving the Stimulus Goalposts

The thread above covers one key reason why I insist so often and emphatically that words and concepts be defined as to how they are used. There is also in the above example a key reason why people should avoid being rash in their predictions.

Last week, I was perusing the archives of this weblog some material I published on January 23, 2007 pertaining to the Founding Fathers. The idea was to use that material -which was a series of brief biographical sketches on the Founding Fathers- and simply republish them in the other medium where I planned to use them. The problem was, as is my wont I reread the material and having read detailed biographies of several of the people profiled in that posting,{1} I found myself thinking what was there was not adequate. Considering that I was in the vicinity of July 4th, it seemed fitting to add some material so I started adding material to one biography then another until I finally realized that justice would require me to either use the material as I originally cobbled it together or to flesh out each biography in the interest of not shortchanging any of the figures so portrayed therein.

At the time the original material was published, I was merely interested in throwing together brief sketches which by their very nature would be incomplete as a kind of preface to a variety of Founding Father themed postings that I would write between that point and February of 2009 -though I did not think in January of 2007 that it would take as long to get to everything as it did. But having realized in revisiting those sketches that the entire posting itself required additional material to be a more complete representation of each biography, I wrote roughly 50-60% more total material for the posting including adding eleven new footnotes.

I was thinking of reposting the material as a new posting to Rerum Novarum but then realized it would make more sense to replace the original material with the expanded threads and simply note in the posting itself what I did -a process made much easier by my recent posting touching on the principles I utilize when these sorts of rare revisions to past archive postings are undertaken.

Anyway, that posting was replaced in the pertinent parts by the product published in another medium yesterday and I recommend those who are interested in knowing something of history to give it a read or (if they read the original sketches) a re-read:

Biographical Sketches of Some of the Founding Fathers

Without question I am far more pleased now with how that thread reads than I was when perusing the original material the other day.

Notes:

{1} Particularly Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris of the ones profiled in that series.

{2} Or even that I would write as much in that vein as I eventually did.

Mariners Branyan the Best Bargain in Baseball

Let us see, Mariner General Manager Jack Zduriencik picked him up in the offseason for 1.4 million and he is (i) hitting .293{1}, (ii) has 20 home runs{2}, and has 45 RBI's so far this season. Those are All-Star numbers and the only reason Branyan will not be going is because he plays first base which is a stat-stacked position. But for the money, I do not believe you will find a better deal in baseball; ergo, I concur with the opinion expressed in the article above.

Note:

{1} The article says .303 but it was posted on July 1st and Branyan has played in games since then; ergo my different figures than the article has which were taken from the paper this morning.

{2} See footnote one.

The King's growing command (and demand)

Felix Hernandez is on the verge of being the most dominant right handed pitcher in the American League and he is only 23. He is finally realizing just how good his stuff is after four years of hit and miss{1} on his part and he has been one of the few bright spots on the Seattle Mariners during his tenure there. The Mariners had better not even think of trading King Felix, not now, not any time before 2011, and not after 2011{2} either.

Notes:

{1} Mostly hit but plenty of miss at times too.

{2} He is right now scheduled to become a free agent after the 2011 season.

Points to Ponder:

A fairly large sector of public opinion considers the Catholic Church, despite her former contributions to culture, very narrow-minded in this domain. It thinks she is dominated by attitudes of fear and apologetic reflexes of defense, and that she is on the outskirts of the cultural growth of modern times. The memory of anti-modernistic reactions in the areas of philosophy, history, and the sciences constitutes a wound that has not healed, a source of distrust.

Don't we have a tendency to want to circumscribe the domain of culture too narrowly, and to recogniuze its legitimate autonomy only reluctantly. Don't we practice a kind of dogmatic imperialism that leads us to make quick and empty judgments on all research findings as though faith gave us competence in every field? Don't we identify the theological affirmations of a given age with Christian truth as though theology consisted in lazily and unquestioningly repeating theses established once and for all? Haven't we minimized the pastoral value of human intelligence, that is, the concern for sanctity in intellectual activity?

Don't we still have a morbid fear of rationalism and the critical spirit without recognizing what is good in them?" [Auxiliary Bishop Elchinger of Strasbourg: Floor Intervention at The Second Vatican Council (circa November 5, 1964)]

Revisiting the Subject of Indefinite Detainment:

Since there are going to be those who are angered at President Barack Obama for backpedaling on the issue of indefinite detainment, it seems appropriate for me to defend this practice much the way I did when it was practiced under President George Bush. So with that in mind and accounting for the principle that what is right or wrong is determined by objective standards and not by subjective whims{1}, I will in a footnote to this posting{2} reiterate my position on this matter despite not liking the particular president under whom this practice will now be carried out.

Notes:

{1} On the Difference Between Objective Manifestation and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

{2} On the Indefinite Detainment Complaint (circa April 17. 2007)

Acquainted with the Night:
(A Poem By Robert Frost)

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

Congresspeople to Thank and To Shame:

[Prefatory Note: This was written and published in another medium yesterday. -ISM]

First of all, the easy part is to thank your Republican congresspeople with only few exceptions (I will get to the exceptions shortly). So if the Republicans are not listed below, then call and thank them for taking a stand on this proposed "cap and trade" which even if the "global warming hypothesis was valid{1} nonetheless is highly imprudent to propose when the economy is struggling to right itself. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that with a struggling economy the solution is not to raise taxes and regulations (the latter of which are a hidden tax increase) but instead to leave things alone or perhaps lighten the burden a little. But lest this appear to be a "thank Republicans and shame Democrats" thread, it is not that simple folks.

For there are also 44 Democrats who took a stand against so-called "cap and trade" and whatever their motivations for doing so{2}, you should thank them even if you do not want to.{3} Remember, if something passes the Senate there will be attempts to reconcile the two bills and another vote in both chambers so it is possible to turn some votes between now and then. But if those who took the stand now are not given props for what they did, they could very well be turned on the next vote in the wrong direction and if that happens, it is not a good thing. So I will now list the 44 Democrats to thank:

Bobby Bright (Alabama)
Artur Davis (Alabama)
Parker Griffith (Alabama)
Kirkpatrick (Arizona)
Robert Berry (Arkansas)
Mike Ross (Arkansas)
Jim Costa (California)
Fortney Stark (California)
John Salazar (Colorado)
John Barrow (Georgia)
James Marshall (Georgia)
Walt Minnick, (Idaho)
Bill Foster (Illinois)
Jerry Costello (Illinois)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Peter Visclosky (Indiana)
Charles Melancon (Louisiana)
Travis Childers (Mississippi)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Michael Arcuri (New York)
Eric Massa (New York)
Larry Kissel (North Carolina)
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Pomoroy (North Dakota)
Boren (Oklahoma)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Charles Wilson (Ohio)
DeFazio (Oregon)
Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania)
Christopher Carney (Pennsylvania)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Pennsylvania)
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
Stephanie Hersteth-Sandlin (South Carolina)
Sandlin (South Dakota)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Chet Edwards (Texas)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas)
Ciro Rodriguez (Texas)
Jim Mathison (Utah)
Glen Nye (Virginia)
Alan Mollohan (West Virginia)
Nick Rahall (West Virginia)

Just make sure you preface your thanks on them voting no for every attempted compromise bill that comes along and that you will be watching to see if they change their vote later on. Now for the Hall of Shame folks. In this you can place every Democratic representative not already covered above but also these 8 Republicans:

Mary Bono Mack (California)
Michael Castle (Delaware)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
Frank LoBiondo (New Jersey)
Christopher Smith (New Jersey)
John McHugh (New York)
Dave Reichert (Washington)

It really bothers me personally that Rep. Dave Reichart -who as sheriff in King County{4} was a long time member of the Green River Task Force and who spent twenty years chasing (and eventually catching) the Green River Killer- would turn around and endorse another killer in the form of this legislation.{5} But the roll call record does not lie so I am forced to have an abiding disrespect for Reichart now that I did not previously have and lament that Jennifer Dunn had to retire and give up her seat for election which Reichart won a few years back.{6}

Oh and for the representatives who did not bother to vote on this bill, we have two Republicans:

Jeff Flake (Arizona)
John Sullivan (Oklahoma)

and a Democrat:

Alcee Hastings (Florida)

I am not sure what to do with them but at the very least they are elected to make tough decisions so it seems to me they should not be allowed to get away with the "I did not vote for Cap and Trade" when they run for re-election since they also did not vote against it.{7} But anyway, these are the people to thank and the people to whose political futures should roll like heads from the guillotine. So kindly do not forget to thank those who deserve it and shame those who deserve it in the House before turning attention to the Senate who if I am reading things right will not be taking up this issue until after the July 4th recess.

Notes:

{1} Lets just say I am more than just a little bit skeptical to put it mildly.

{2} I say this as someone who has to be on the same side of a vote with Dennis Kucinich for the first time possibly ever.

{3} A proper political stand is one on issues and not personalities and that means even those you personally cannot stand if they do the right thing, to retain credibility in criticizing them for what they do wrong, you must commend them for what they do right.

{4} The largest county in Washington State population-wise.

{5} And yes, this proposal if enacted into law will kill the struggling economy.

{6} For those wondering how conservative Jennifer Dunn was, she named her eldest son (who is involved in state political movements himself) "Reagan Dunn."

{7} John Sullivan is legitimately excluded in my mind because I have learned he is in rehab (after a relapse) and could not make it to the vote.