On Tom Watson
To some, Tom Watson’s run at The Open was bad for the game. To others, it was great. Although I find it hard to believe that some would be rooting against him, they were clearly not the majority. Given the competitive nature of any athlete at that level, the loss must be tearing through him. And to think that after a good tee shot on 18, the second shot landing 5 feet shorter would probably have produced a different result. Although I congratulate Stewart Cink for the win and being a class act, my heart sank too.
On Walter Cronkite
Last night CBS preempted 60 Minutes for a tribute show to Walter Cronkite. Now that was great hour about the genuine newsman oozing with integrity.
On Sotomayor
The recent hearings did confirm that Washington is not about the people. Let’s face it, Republicans main opposition is for 2 reasons: the Democratic nominator and the judge may rule against their special interests – similar Democrats previously opposed President Bush nominees. Given the way opposition came out before her nomination, continued a short time after the nomination, and committee senators proclaiming their position before the hearing, one thing is confirmed – the pathetic nature of senators acting in accordance to their special interests.
On Abortion
Abortion is always a hot topic and there’s nothing like a Supreme Court opening to stimulate the emotions; so here’s something to consider. Regardless if Roe v Wade remains or is overturned; regardless of the national or state legislation, mandating morality through either the courts or legislation doesn’t make people more moral.
On a Second Stimulus Bill
Some politicians and economists are considering a second stimulus bill. Even though the economy continues to struggle and unemployment continues to rise, it’s time to chime in. The second would actually be the third; that is if one recalls President Bush’s last one late in his term. Since Congress didn’t come close to my suggestions on the last stimulus, odds of my support would be slim.
On Krathhammer
I enjoy a range of columnists, but I’ve been wondering if Washington Post columnist Charles Krathhammer is sleeping well. Since the election he seems in continual misery with President Obama. Since he’s more of a partisan than a voice of reason, I’ve scratched him from my preferred columnist list.
On Healthcare Reform
What a mess! Unfortunately, there’s probably a decent compromise bill that would work that neither party will support.
On Religion and Evolution
My personal growth on this topic continues. Although I’ve also studied position statements and articles, I’m currently reading Can You Believe in God and Evolution?: A Guide for the Perplexed by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett. The bibliography on this journey is well onto a second page.
A Frank Angle 
As always, I like your Opinions in the Shorts. In regards to the politics of the confirmation, I find it hard to believe that politics will ever be “about the people” with our current system. Instead, it’ll always be about “getting re-elected” which means that what the people need/want doesn’t matter, it’s what the major voting bloc needs or wants that matters… Not many politicians can successfully appease both Democrats and Republicans…which is perhaps why most don’t even bother to try unfortunately.
LikeLike
Chris,
I’m with you on that. Some time ago I heard a former senator say, “If one goes to Washington and does what is right, they won’t get re-elected.” That’s powerful …. and sadly, hit the target center.
Thanks for the comments and nice words.
LikeLike
Chris said, “I find it hard to believe that politics will ever be ‘about the people’ with our current system. Instead, it’ll always be about ‘getting re-elected’”
Someone won a Nobel prize a few years ago for coming to that conclusion. I was thinking that it was economics but a search did not reveal it.
LikeLike
“the judge may rule against their special interests”
What would those special interests be? Granted, I did not watch the entire show but the questions from Rs that I heard were questions about whether she would judge impartially and not base judgements on racial preferences.
Of course, if you believe that the law should be applied with partiality to resolve historical wrongs against people groups of color then I see your point.
LikeLike
Thersites,
To know each party’s special interests, simply follow the money. Hence a reason why the court nominee of one party is many times opposed by the other party.
In terms of Sotomayor, Senate Leader McConnell (R-KY) is opposing her because of bias … yet he, nor any of his colleagues, have produced a court ruling that she has demonstrated bias. Not one! They only point to her lecture comments.
The firefighters case wasn’t bias. Heck, most people don’t realize that she was one of 13 judges on that appellate court. Not only that, others also voted with her; and yes, others voted against her take …. 7-6.
Once again, many senators are aligning their vote around this question: Will the nominee most likely rule the way I want her too? …. just like many past nominations …. and yes, including an Illinois senator during the Roberts confirmation.
Thanks for the comment.
LikeLike