HOW MANY BLACK ATHLETES WOULD LINE UP TO PLAY FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH?

According to multiple sports outlets, it appears that Boss Limbaugh has put in an offer to become part-owner of the St. Louis Rams football franchise:

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday he is teaming up with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts in a bid to buy the Rams, owners of the NFL’s longest current losing streak at 14 and just 5-31 since 2007.

In a statement, Limbaugh declined to discuss details, citing a confidentiality agreement with Goldman Sachs, the investment firm hired by the family of former Rams owner Georgia Frontiere to review assets of her estate, including the NFL team.

Limbaugh also declined to discuss other partners who might be involved in the bid, but said he and Checketts would operate the team.

“Dave Checketts and I have made a bid to buy the Rams and we are continuing the process,” Limbaugh said.

This is a horrible, horrible idea.  In a league where the majority of players are black, it would simply be unacceptable FOR a man renown for spewing racist rhetoric to have a stake in running a franchise (alliteration, anyone?).

Let’s take a look at what Rush has said about black people in general:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.”

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

And we haven’t even gotten into what he’s said about NFL players themselves:

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.  I think there’s a little hope invested in [Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Donovan] McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

There is only one process in which Rush could be approved of as an owner.  First, he would have to sincerely apologize for all of his previous insensitive remarks.  Second, he would have to refrain from making racially inflammatory comments and probably give up his radio show.  What makes us believe Rush would do either?

Why would Rush give up his position as arguably the number one conservative voice in America to take over one of the NFL’s worst franchises?  In the NFL, he would have to be just another owner.  He would have to keep his mouth shut.  He would have to be politically-correct in the more general sense of the term.

Power-hungry Boss Limbaugh could neither be anonymous nor quiet.  It just doesn’t fit his personality.  He would eventually say something that would make a black athlete or two walk out on the team, repercussions be damned.

I realize there are conservative owners of the same magnitude as Rush Limbaugh in the world of sports.  Here’s the difference between them and Rush:  they are quiet about it, and if they do comment on politics their statements are not as ignorantly brazen as Rush’s comments.

Why is this so?  Because they realize that sports and politics shouldn’t mix.

Sports are seen as entertainment.  Politics are commonly viewed as formal drudgery.  When politics creeps into the sports world, sports fans immediately recoil.  The combination is inherently unnatural.  For this reason, I hope there isn’t another baseball steroids investigation launched on Capitol Hill.  Likewise, I hope that Congress continues to keep out of college football’s Bowl Championship Series fiasco no matter how flawed the system appears to be.

Sport has an essence pure in itself that attracts the everyone to it.  It is an escape from the realities of the outside world.  Rush Limbaugh would dilute that purity.  Hell, any loud-mouthed politician would dilute that purity.  Sports and politics must be kept separate in order for the fan to keep enjoying his or her game.

KEEP DOING YOUR THANG, RICK SANCHEZ

A-freaking-men:

Sure he got a little melodramatic towards the end, but his point remains crystal clear: FOX News unabashedly lies.

P.S.– I love how he found the O’Reilly clip.  Priceless.

THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILLS

First, I do want to say that I do want some kind of Universal Health Care. With that being said I have many questions that I want answered about the bills that are out there. There are lies and distortions on both sides, and we rational minded people suffer because of the few. I feel as though this bill is more of this idea that if we throw money at the problem it will be solved. I am going to tackle these questions in a two part way. First showing the problems of the insurance companies, and second asking the questions about what these bills do to solve them.

The Insurance companies are making enormous profits. I do not believe this is wrong, I mean that is what is so appealing to so many people about the United States. The boundary is crossed when in the quest for profits companies lower their moral and ethical behaviors. Insurance companies make profits by insuring vast quantities of people. It is a game of numbers. The more people they cover the more money they can make. However, the more people they cover the more risks they take. They take in profits from people who remain healthy and allocate money to people who fall ill or need medical attention. It is not an overly complicated system to understand. People buy coverage plans in case of emergencies and insurance companies take these risks knowing that they may have to pay their clients in said emergencies. The problem going on now is that insurance companies are refusing to take on high risk clients, which they have every right to do. Why would a business take on more risk than reward? Look at the banking collapse of 2008.

The problem with the insurance companies is that they are now playing a very dangerous game. In their quest for more profits are backing out on their own deals. For example the Washington Post gives us:

The Department of Health and Human Services put a spotlight on that practice Tuesday in its continuing campaign to build support for an overhaul of health insurance.

“When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire,” the HHS said in a posting at HealthReform.Gov. In most states, insurance companies can retroactively cancel individuals’ policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained, “even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time.”

“Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition,” HHS said.

The department cited recent research by the staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which found that three large insurers rescinded almost 20,000 policies over five years, saving $300 million in medical claims. “

This is where Insurance companies go wrong. Though the number (20,000) looks small relatively, think of what you would say if it happened to you or a family member. I am reminded of the movie The Incredibles when I think of what insurance companies are doing to consumers. In the movie Mr. Incredible works for an insurance agency, and when confronted by an elderly patient about why her bills are not being paid, he acts as if he knows nothing. Don’t worry, being the nice guy that he is, he provides her with a confusing array of forms to fill out- an Olympian task for an elderly lady. We live in a world of paper work. Though so much is digitalized now, it is still a confusing task to do. In the way people struggle with the rubix cube, people struggle with the challenges of filling out the correct paper work, and even just finding the correct paper work. Do we need something so complicated for something as simple as checking if someone has the correct plan and just covering it?

A problem with insurance companies is they lack the motivation to improve the care they give to their customers. The companies have no reason to change their practices and so continue to give mediocre care, because they know people have no were else to go. Most people are not in charge of their insurances, as they get it from their work. Companies chose the plans, which they believe, are most affordable and best for their workers and make very few changes in these plans. The health care companies do need more competition, which is why the public option may not be a bad idea. My concerns about the public option idea will be covered later though. Changes need do need to be made I just want to make sure we make the right ones.

Preventative care is praised, but very few insurance companies seem actually practice it. Look at an auto insurance company such as Safe Auto. Many car insurance companies reduce costs yearly for people who: practice safe driving, take safety seminars, and avoid accidents. These incentives encourage people to do better for monetary gains. I see no reason why health insurance companies cannot having many of the same standards. Discounts for people who: stay healthy, exercise, and stop smoking.

In the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, he offers many interesting suggestions for insurance companies to consider. In the chapter “The cost of zero cost,” he presents experiments in which he shows that people are much more willing to go for the thing that is free, even when the alternative may be a better deal. He shows this with Hershey’s Kisses and Lindt truffles. Lindt truffles are much more expensive and trust me, much better candy then the rather ordinary Hershey’s. In his experiment he made the Hershey’s 2 cents for one and 27 cents for the truffle. 73% of the people chose the truffle. In a repeated experiment he made the Hershey’s free and the Lindt 25 cents. The difference was the same and yet this time 69% chose the Hershey’s. In the book you can see that this experiment was done several times and in many different variations to many different people. The idea is simple though: make something appear free and more people want it. Mr. Ariely explains that this is something that could be replicated by the health insurance companies. As he himself says, “Don’t just decrease the costs (by decreasing co-pay). Make these critical procedures FREE!” (pg.62-63). The critical procedures he refers to are checkups such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Insurance companies could increase yearly costs by some small amount, and make most co-pays free. Doing this, along with offering incentives to get these tests done, would make people much likely to go visit their doctors. I recently went for a contact lens exam and the co-pay was around 60 dollars. Now my eyes had no real change and very little was done that necessitated the need for such enormous co-pay.

The business plan of the health care industry is something that I do not get. Doing some very simple things for their consumers creates loyalty, and prevents larger costs in the future. Would these steps crumble the companies? No. In fact, these steps do nothing more than lower the company’s bottom line costs. Catching things early leads to easier treatment and is better for the company and the person. It is a simple concept and the only reason I can think of that they would not want to try new ideas is that they just do not care.

Now for the questions about the health care bills.It is the job of news agencies, Congressmen, and the president to explain TRUTHFULLY what is in the bill. Town halls filled with wildly misinformed people do not help anyone and only anger the people who this bill is trying to help. While Fox News makes excuses for the disrespectful people and spreads the absurd lies, MSNBC also looks at the bill through distorted eyes and tells me it is perfect. What I want is answers to the hard questions. Questions such as:

1. Will the bill be paid for completely? It is hard to believe that it will not cost us a dime, and the government’s own statistics prove that to me. Though Obama keeps saying it will be, the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has cast doubts on just how, and if this could be done.
2. Does this bill look enough at preventative care?
3. Payment at hospitals seems to be out the roof because of things such as hospitals not using generic drugs, having huge overhead costs, etc. Will the bill try to solve any of these problems?
4. Will the option really force companies to compete? Though I understand the option is not a government takeover, I ponder whether it will really force insurance companies to treat their customers better.
5. What regulations are in place to prevent major companies from dropping their coverage and instead just increasing salaries so people can get the cheaper, better government option.
6. What exactly are all the coverage options available, and at what price?
7. Are there really no better options?
8. If there are so many bills, how can we debate the facts when different bills can say many different things. Factcheck.org says that though Obama promises the plan would cover 97% of Americans, only one bill in Congress would actually do that, and the other bills would cover far less.

As I said at the beginning of this article, I truly do want people to be able to get good affordable health insurance. The problem is that this is a very tough issue to tackle, and one that needs people to ask real questions and give real answers. Both sides seem to agree that the health care industry does need to be reformed, but agree against these bills because of their problems with the public option. These bills seem to take on an enormous task, that may just be too tackle in one bill. I do not see why we cannot go back and split these into two bills. Reforming the health care companies will be done in the first bill. This should pass easily if both sides of the aisle stick to their promises and want change. The second will the larger project of creating good, basic options for the people who cannot afford the prices of the insurance companies. Yes, this may take some more time, but for something so serious that would change so much, I think it is time well spent. I am glad a bill was not passed before this break. Health Care is a herculean task to tackle, and sometimes cutting away at something little by little is an easier way to win rather than trying to take down the whole thing at once.

DEATH PANELS, A GOOD IDEA OR A GREAT IDEA? (SATIRE)

“… and who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled of course. The America that I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “Death Panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “Level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care, such a system is downright evil.” – Sarah Palin 8/7/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjUv_Zkb970

I think death panels would be a great idea. I mean just think of the job creation. There are about 19,354 cities in the United States  (figure from the 2000 US Census Bureau). Let us say there are a panel of 9 people per city to “judge” the people on “trial”. That is 174,186 jobs created right there. This does not even factor in the thousands of others we will need for the rural areas. The real problem here is how do we actually go through with it. We obviously cannot just euthanize these people, that would just look bad. We could always just not give them any kind of health care and let them go at their own will. This is the safe route but problems arise as people live longer than we would like, or expect.

Now I am not saying we WANT to do this but it would free up a lot of money, which we could invest in AIG and Goldman Sacs. Those are real winners. Think about what the free market and evolution has taught us. The weak die of and the strong that survive. It is a basic rule of life. What do the sick, elderly and disabled do for us? Nothing but cost us money and time. This is where I believe Palin got it wrong. Think about this, do Insurance companies even cover these people(the sick, the elderly, the disabled)? No, they do not, unless you have one hell of a health-care plan. It is us, the tax payers who take care of most of these people. Medicare and unemployment covers pretty much everyone that Palin mentions. I am a true economist believing that the free market will fix everything. In believing so, I must say that productivity suffers because of this, and money is wasted on such unnecessary things. Now I am not a heartless person, I just believe that productivity decides whether you should live or die. I am also no hypocrite. If I am ever injured to a degree which I may never be able to work or be productive to society again, please euthanize me.

I think of the movie 300 when I think of this. Remember the beginning where they have the crazy old man on the edge of the cliff examining the babies. If the babies had any problems they were, and pardon the expression, chucked. Look at what doing this got them, the biggest baddest army the world had ever seen. Is this not the Utopia that we strive for? Now I have seen most of this bill and sadly there is no death panel. We are in a huge economic mess, and it is ideas like this that let me know America is as innovative as ever. Times like these give us such amazing opportunities to make a better world. Let us dispose of the waste and strive forward as a better society. A better America.

BREAKING NEWS: I’M A NAZI

…Well, according to El Rushbo I am:

I could make an argument that conservatism is closer to Nazism than liberalism, but then I’d be implying that several of my close conservative friends are Nazis and I’d be no better than Rush.  So, I’ll just break down Limbaugh’s obviously heavily researched analysis of the similarities between Nazis and Democrats:

1. Democrats are “against big business”: Clearly.  That’s why the Obama Administration is spending over $700 billion bailing out corporations like AIG, GM, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America.
2. Democrats “opposed Jewish Capitalism”: If the Democrats are not capitalists, I assume he’s implying that we’re socialists.  That would be a valid claim if the government owned just slightly more than 0.25% of the business and corporation assets in America.  And since when did capitalism choose a religion?
3. Democrats are “insanely, irrationally against pollution”: I’d rather be worried about carbon emissions than end up like China.  Being the pro-capitalist mogul that Rush is, you’d think he would realize that the market for new and clean energy technologies might be a boon for the nation and encourage its growth.  Of course, that also assumes Limbaugh is rational.
4. Democrats are “for two years [of] mandatory voluntary service”: First off, “mandatory voluntary service” is an oxymoron.  Second, there are no such plans in the offing for such a requirement.  Critics will cite the GIVE Act, but would 321 congressmen really approve of a two-year forced service?  No.  The bill simply reauthorizes AmeriCorps and replenishes its monetary fund.
5. Democrats “had a whole bunch of make-work projects”: True.  But being in favor of public works programs doesn’t make you a Nazi.  It makes you smart, especially if you employ them in times of economic downturn.  Because we all know how well volunteerism worked out for Herbert Hoover.
6. Democrats are “against cruelty and vivisection of animals, but in the radical sense of devaluing human life”: Democrats oppose war, poverty, and the death penalty but are still accused of “devaluing” human life.  Makes perfect sense.
7. Democrats have “banned smoking”: Um, no they haven’t.  Any smoking bans that have been instituted have come at the local and state levels.  I thought that’s how you wanted it to work, Rush?
8. Democrats are “for abortion”: The Nazi government forced non-Aryans to get abortions in order to “purify” the Aryan race.  The Obama Administration has no plans of “purifying” the American body, at least not in that sense.
9. Democrats are for “euthanasia of the undesirables”: See number six.
10. Democrats are for “nationalized health care”: Some are for it, that’s true.  But the health care plan on the table right now is an option.  You don’t have to take the government plan if you don’t want.  Don’t let these clowns scare you into thinking otherwise.

I don’t know how much of this Rush actually believes.  I’m sure he believes some of it.  But most of me believes he just says these outlandish things to stay in the spotlight.  He wants to be the leader of the Republican Party.  Whether he means it or not, his entire argument is irrational.  If he really cared about his party, he’d shut up and let a politician within the party do the leading instead of catering to his narcissistic desires.

ATTENTION ALL IDIOTS

Here’s the definition of “idiot” according to Dictionary.com.  I’m even going to block quote the definition for you even thought it’s only one sentence.  Heck, I’ll even make it bold.  Here you go:

an utterly foolish or senseless person.

If you believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States then you are, by definition, an idiot.  Here’s his birth certificate.  His birth certificate!  From the state of Hawaii!  A U.S. state!

And if that’s not enough for you, here is Obama’s birth notice in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser published shortly after he was born.  It’s even magnified and highlighted for you:

Congratulations, Lou Dobbs, you are officially an idiot.  Same goes to you, Birther Caucus.

THE PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES STRIKES AGAIN

Another Republican admits to an affair.

The Holier-Than-Thou Party has brought forth another sinner to confess his moral transgressions.  South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has admitted to cheating on his wife:

“I’ve been unfaithful to my wife,” Sanford told a news conference in Columbia, the state capital. “I developed a relationship with what started as a dear, dear friend from Argentina.”

His voice choking at times, Sanford apologized to his wife and four sons, his staff and supporters, and said he would resign immediately as head of the Republican Governors Association. The affair was discovered five months ago, Sanford said.

Sanford’s confession comes less than a week after after Nevada Senator John Ensign admitted to an affair of his own.  Now that the attention has shifted from him to Sanford, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ensign just became the happiest Republican in the party.

But what are we to make of these affairs from famous Republicans?  How can you call yourself the party of family values when you’re taking part in actions that usually result in the breaking up of a family?  How can you worry that gays will destroy the holiness of marriage when you break your own sacred wedding vows?  Ah, I can smell the hypocrisy wafting in the room.

The point?  Neither party should claim to be the party of family values because all humans are imperfect.  For every embarrassing Mark Sanford story, there is an equally embarrassing Eliot Spitzer story.  And what about presidential candidates?  Sure, there’s John Edwards’ gut-wrenching story of having an affair while his wife had cancer.  But let’s not forget about the not-so-glorious affairs of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich.  And, of course, we can never forget about Bill Clinton.

I tend to heap more criticism on Republicans because of how the party acts morally superior to the Democratic Party.  It’s like how FOX News claims to be “fair and balanced” even though the network is a public stage for right-wing extremism.  All networks are biased in some direction on the political spectrum, so there’s no point in claiming you’re in the middle when you’re clearly not.  Similarly, both parties are prone to adultery, so there’s no point in claiming your party is more moral than the other.

Bottom line, it’s another sad day for American lawmakers.  This story will only reinvigorate the contempt most Americans have toward politicians.  Voters will continue to doubt the sincerity of the people they elect to represent them in office.  Not a good day, indeed.

THE RISE OF THE CLERICS

Iranians, including clerics, protest election results.

Incredible news out of Iran.  CNN is reporting that a group of Iranian clerics have joined the masses in protesting the country’s disputed election results.  Why is this such a big deal?  As I explained yesterday, the clerics have the most power in the country and have never been known to publicly challenge the words or actions of the Supreme Leader.  CNN goes on to say:

Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown. What is important here, is the decision to march against the will of Iran’s supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mullahs rule supreme. They are the country’s conservative clerics; the guardians of the Islamic revolution and its ideologies. They’re loyal only to God and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

I expressed that I would be skeptical of any notion of lasting change unless it involved a change in the power structure of Iran or a change in the people in charge.  The direct disobedience of an Ayatollah by the clerics may eventually lead to a full-fledged revolution that could bring about actual change.  I don’t know if a successful revolution would be capable without the clerics, but their involvement certainly helps the cause.

The disobedience of the Supreme Leader is further testimony for the necessary separation between religion and government.  That Iranian distrust of Supreme Leader Khamenei’s proclamations on the election shows a lack of faith in the representative theocracy currently employed.  The people are ready to assume more power from the clerics over the direction of the country.  While a complete separation between church and state is seemingly impossible, especially in the Middle East, it appears time for a government based on popular sovereignty and a man-made constitution instead of the easily (mis)interpreted Word of God and a religious text.

I can’t wait to see what happens next.

THOUGHTS ON THE IRANIAN REBELLION

I don’t even know where to begin on the topic of the Iranian Revolution.

Well, I suppose I should begin by clarifying that nothing revolutionary has happened– yet.  For right now, it can only be classified as a rebellion.  I believe it could become a revolution if there is a fundamental change in the Iranian government or at least the power structure within the same governmental framework.

The power structure in Iran is fascinating in terms of how little power the presidency actually holds in comparison to the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is responsible for directing the domestic and foreign policies of the nation.  He controls the functions of the military and the media and appoints the head of the judiciary and half of the members of the Council of Guardians, who hold considerable sway over the legislative process.  What duties then are left to the president?  He is responsible for negotiating treaties with other nations and guiding the nation’s domestic economic policies among other less important duties.  The president is completely subordinate to the whims of the Supreme Leader.

If this is true, then why has there been such an outrage over a position that holds such little power?  There are multiple explanations.  One, the people do not directly elect the Supreme Leader so the president is the highest profile figure whom they elect.  Connections to candidates are made in the months leading to the election, even if those candidates’ power is only marginally significant in the big picture.  Two, the presence of voting irregularities has become undeniable.  The people cannot trust a government that prevents their voice from being properly and accurately heard.

Which brings up another intriguing point about these protests: the people are acting as if their government is based on a doctrine of popular sovereignty and religious text.  Although government officials claim that a Iran is a democratic republic, it is not designed so.  Governmental power is rooted in religious text, the Quran, and not the will of the people.  The people appear to have lost faith in the clerics who run the government instead of relying on their supposed religious expertise to placate the situation.  Iran is inching closer and closer to a representative democracy.  And most importantly, they are choosing by themselves to head in that direction.

With that said, I do not think the Iranian people will get their wish until the clerics are either removed from power or held more accountable by the people.  The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, a body of 86 clerics elected by the people.  The Assembly is charged with monitoring the actions of the Supreme Leader and removing him is necessary.  The problem is the Assembly has never been known to challenge a decision of the Supreme Leader.  Thus, there has been absolutely no check on Khamenei’s power.  It is my belief that the anger of the people must eventually completely redirect their anger toward the Assembly and the Supreme Leader if any lasting change is to ensue.

Another explanation for the outburst of the people has been the disturbing reports of violence that have surfaced from the country.  Difficult to ignore has been the story of Neda Soltan, a 26-year-old woman shot to death by the Basij protesting the outcome of the elections.  According to the report, the Iranian government had ordered all mosques to refuse her family a funeral service.  Attempts to publicly hold a memorial service for Soltan have been broken up by government militia.  Should the people defy the governmental ban of a public memorial service it will only further prove that the Iranian people want a government based on popular sovereignty.

Which brings us to the ultimate purpose of government: to protect the people.  The Iranian government has failed to do so, despite peaceful gatherings.  A government that cannot protect the people they supposedly serve will always lose their credibility and power if the opposition is large enough.  This appears to be the case in Iran.

I support the Iranian people and their protests, but I will be skeptical of any notion of permanent change unless either the people from the current regime are ousted from their positions or the fundamental structure of the government is altered to give the people more authority.  I will certainly be holding out hope for a peaceful resolution, but I won’t hold my breath.  An end to this struggle is not yet in sight.

NEWT GINGRICH REALIZES TWITTER IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO CALL SOMEONE A RACIST

In somewhat interesting news, CNN reports that former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is backing off his use of the word “racist” to describe Supreme Court appointee Sonia Sotomayor:

“Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words: ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,’” he wrote.

“My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

“With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).”

It’s as I always say, “if you can’t Twitter something nice, then don’t Twitter at all.”

Gingrich may feel some remorse, but I feel this is a purely political move.  With no chance of a filibuster, Republicans seem to acknowledge they are fighting a losing battle.  It’s an attempt to save some face after the American public failed to respond to another negative Republican attack.  You know you’ve botched things pretty badly if even Rush admits he could support anything even remotely tied to Democrats.

Gingrich’s words come from a more lengthy article from Human Events.  I took the time to read the article and I have to admit it is much more eloquent than his Twitter post from a week ago.  It’s amazing what people can write when not confined to 140 characters.  (Then again, it’s amazing what people can write in 140 characters or less.  But I digress.)

This particular passage from a section entitled “No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate” caught my attention:

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy.  And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality — of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all — that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

First, the job of a justice is not to enforce the law.  That is the job of the Executive Branch.  The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law.  And he can’t even blame such a mischaracterization on being “too strong and too direct.”  It’s just wrong.

Second, the less fortunate have benefited the most from judicial impartiality?  I guess that’s true, after the vulnerable and downtrodden have been exploited for a while.  Let’s consider slavery.  Dred Scott v. Sandford?  Great example of judicial impartiality helping those less fortunate.  It only took until 1868 for slavery to be abolished with the 14th amendment.  From that point, it only took until 1954 for the “separate but equal” doctrine concocted by Southern racists to be officially declared void in Brown v. Board of Education.

So, I guess you can say judicial impartiality helps the vulnerable and downtrodden- eventually.  Impartial justice has often been slow to bear its fruit on behalf of minorities in this country.  This seems non-negotiable.

I appreicate Gingrich’s clarification of his words, but his revival has quickly grown old.  Can neither he nor Rush say anything positive about Democrats?  Can Newt even properly define the roles of the executive and judiciary branch?

Boy, do the Republicans have a long ways to go.