Since they had that whole White House "beer summit" thing, I will share at this time a stanza poem I wrote last November, Without further ado...

May the memory of your self always strike a chord in others
May they look upon you fondly as they would their favourite brothers
Even if those lads happen to be sons of different mothers
These things can happen sometimes.

Let your memory be one of cheerfulness, be not a bore
That your friends may in memory raise an Irish toast to days of yore
May you make it to heaven thirty minutes before
The devil knows you are dead. [Written on 11/09/08]

Points to Ponder:
(On Humility and Writing Critiques of People)

[H]umility. You either have it or you don't and you won't find it if you don't have it, unless you have been knocked flat and see why you deserved that. Part of learning how to critique somebody is learning how to accept criticism and understanding the difference between a personal attack and a critique. In order to accept a legitimate critique you have to have humility and less ego which helps you gain perspective on what is a critique and what is an attack. ["pgm 01" via Daily Kos (circa May 07, 2009)]

Mariners, Pirates trade shortstops

Well, its not that simple really. The Seattle Mariners traded young shortstop Ronny Cedeno, Jeff Clement (AAA Tacoma player and major prospect), and three smaller prospects to the Pirates for former All Star shortstop Jack Wilson and right handed pitcher Ian Snell. This is a good trade that has the potential to become a great trade for the Mariners and the Pirates could do pretty well on it too particularly if Clement lives up to his potential. And yet again, I do not have any criticism of how Jack Zduriencik conducted himself. Hopefully he will pull off another trade in the next 24 hours for a big bat because the Mariners sure will need it if they are to be contenders this year in the playoffs or even (perhaps) to make the playoffs.

Please pray for the eternal repose of the souls of Thomas and Mark Girard and if you can help out their family in any way, please do what you can.

[Clarification: I intended to post this last year but for some reason it was not tended to. I am therefore posting it a year later because those who believe in the efficacy of prayers for the departed can still benefit these men in prayer. -ISM]

We present the majors leaguers with the least trade value

I found this thread to be of particular interest. A few points to note here:

15. Yuniesky Betancourt, Royals

Total left: $7 million through 2011 (includes $2 million team buyout and Mariners paying part of salary)

He can't hit, can't field, can't run, doesn't hustle or seem to care at times ... wait, you say the Royals actually just traded for this guy?

More like new Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik fleeced the Royals. He not only traded a guy with no plate discipline (someone who if he could would swing at other batter's pitches) but he did so for the Royals number one pitching prospect (read: someone who could be a starter for the M's in as soon as a year or two) and also another prospect who could turn out to be a solid bullpen left handed specialist. All of that for agreeing to buy part of Betancourt's salary out. Of course we had Yuni in our starting rotation because he was a project of former GM Bill Bavasi but Yuni that is Kansas City's problem now.

14. Kenji Johjima, Mariners

Total left: $18.64 million through 2011

Anybody want a 33-year-old catcher with a .299 on-base percentage and little power? Didn't think so. Congratulations, former Mariners general manager Bill Bavasi, you signed the first two guys on our list!

Meanwhile ESPN rubs salt in my wounds...

10. Dontrelle Willis, Nate Robertson, Jeremy Bonderman and Carlos Guillen, Tigers
Total left: $73.5 million (Guillen signed through 2011, others through 2010)

Congratulations, Dave Dombrowski, you've had so many bad signings recently that it's easier just to group them all together (and we considered including Miguel Cabrera, who will earn more than $100 million through 2015, but he's at least young enough to keep producing big numbers).

Note: Total payment increases $500,000 if Willis or Robertson win the Cy Young Award next season.

Sorry Kevin, I had to post this one because misery loves company. But just so you do not feel as if things are much worse out in your neck of the woods in this area, I remind you of this:

4. Carlos Silva, Mariners

Total left: $28.63 million through 2011 (includes $2 million team buyout)

On the bright side, Mariners fans, this contract was so stupefyingly awful, it led to the long-overdue firing that ended the incompetent reign of Bavasi. The deal was for $48 million and Silva has gone 5-18, 6.77 with the Mariners, is on the disabled list and quite likely to have thrown his last major league pitch.

So for others reading this, if you want to know why (i) I want to do to Bill Bavasi what Clubber Lang did to Rocky in their first fight and (ii) Kevin Tierney will probably watch Tigers games the next few days not far from a shotgun, this link explains it all.

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

The essence of the article can be summed up in the first paragraph; namely:

Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Maybe I need to consider moving to Galveston or something...

Why Obama Care is Sinking (Charles Krauthammer)

The first paragraph sums this whole article up nicely:

"What happened to Obamacare? Rhetoric met reality"

Or to quote from that great western philosopher Neil Young,"your Cadillac...has got a wheel in the ditch, and a wheel on the track!!!"

ACTION ALERT: Protest Chuck Schumer Support of Health Care Rout!

I will not be there for the event but I did design flyers for one of those involved in putting the event together. If you are out in New York City tomorrow evening, stop by and help out a bit if you can. The address is at the link above.

WATERLOO: Is Obama’s Presidency Imploding?

I plan to muse on this possibility in the coming days{1} by using historical examples and analogies to postulate this very possibility. In the meantime, the above thread is worth your time to peruse.

Note:

{1} I started drafting a thread on the matter five days ago and hope to have finishing touches on it by the end of the week.

Fingerprint Scanners Help Companies Track Workers

This link is about sixteen months old{1} and missed being posted at that time but since the issue at hand here is one that will quite possibly become more prevalent over time, it bears reflecting upon from time to time.

Speaking for myself, I view this as an unnecessary invasion of a person's privacy and one example of how technology can be used to enslave people in an Orwellian fashion rather than improving their lives.

Note:

{1} It was originally going to be published in March of 2008 then when I found it in a stack of unpublished threads earlier this year, I scheduled it for March 27, 2009. But it was overlooked at that time as well; ergo my reason for posting it at this time.

House healthcare talks break down in anger

God Bless the Blue Dogs. Too bad my waste of DNA Rep. Jay Inslee (and my senators Maria Cantvotewell and Patti Byrd-Murray) will be wasted phone calls. Oh well, time to continue calling the Blue Dogs to offer them support including those in this article.

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them

I am going to have to ask my amigo Kevin Tierney what they are drinking in the water out in Michigan. Observe:

"“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Then maybe, just MAYBE you should not write bills so long and convoluted that you guys can neither take the time to read them or know what they mean anyway. What morons!!!

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)