Category Archives: Morality

Not-So-Wise Latina

Debt, Ethics, Morality, The Courts

Sonia Sotomayor has a “fail” on FICO. Unless Barack has intervened, her credit score is probably abysmal. How “wise” can this Latina lady be if she’s financially reckless? Moreover, and with all the talk of her extraordinary empathic powers, The American Thinker wonders how Ms. Sotomayor will be capable of “empathizing” with “tens of millions of Americans who do have investments, 401Ks, and personal savings,” since “after so many years of highly paid professional work, [she] has no savings or investments”:

“Sotomayor’s annual earnings come to $196,000 a year ($170,000 a year as an appeals judge and $26,000 for part-time teaching). She has served as an appeals judge for 17 years. This service was preceded by lengthy tenure at a corporate law firm of Pavia and Harcourt, where she was a partner, and presumably was well compensated.

Yet after a career that has spanned 25 years, Ms Sotomayor only has one thousand dollars in net savings. As reported in the New York Post, Sotomayor’s bank account holds $31,985. Her credit cards debts are $15,823, and she has $15,000 in unpaid dental bills. That leaves her with $1,162. Sotomayor’s total assets, revealed as $708,068, consist almost entirely of equity in her Manhattan apartment. The judge’s financial filing does not disclose what percentage of this figure is unrealized gain, but it must be sizable. In other words, other than home equity, Ms Sotomayor is essentially broke.”

Updated: ‘He One Holy Roller’

Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Federalism, Individual Rights, Iraq, Law, Morality, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans

Another of my archaic titles (it hails from the Beatles’ “Come Together“).

Speaking at Notre Dame, “America’s leading Roman Catholic university,” President Obama called on the factions warring over abortion to come together and find common grounds.

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

I agree. In their lyrics, the Beatles exhorted, “Come Together Right Now Over Me.” Make it, “Come Together Right Now Over the Constitution.”

There is no warrant in the constitution for or against abortion, adultery, homo-or hetero marriage, etc.

Quaint, I know, but to the federal government were delegated only limited and enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8):

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yet pro-life advocates want to force their way on the rest through a constitutional amendment. And pro-choice agitators wish to compel the country—and their countrymen who oppose the procedure—to pay for abortions.

Obama is no constitutional scholar although he is touted as one. But he should know that the Constitution proscribes his meddling and prescribes, via the brilliant Tenth Amendment, a perfectly good solution: Leave it to the states and the individuals concerned (and let them pay out-of pocket).

Would that pro-life types fussed as much over fully formed, innocent human beings (such as those who’ve perished in Iraq) as they do over fetuses. Republicans sure showed their contempt for life in their enthusiasim for the carnage visited on Iraqis.

Come to think of it, the culture of life never seems to extend beyond a claim of dominion over another human being’s body.

Update (May 19): I’ve posted this Iraq notice before, but judging from the letters received, retention is non-existent. So here goes again:

A note to the neoconservatives who frequent this site, and post their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis the war on Iraq: That war is not going to be adjudicated again here, not ever. I chronicled the invasion of Iraq at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce that war crime. The case is closed! Neoconservative ideologues stand in the dock for aiding and abetting a war crime. The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their maker, or consciences, for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!

Torturing The 'Torture' Issue II

Democrats, Iraq, Law, Military, Morality, Neoconservatism, The Military, War

In the first installment to the ongoing saga of torture under Bush, I asked:

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

The current torture kerfuffle was elicited by Obama’s release of CIA interrogation protocols.

(A note to the neoconservatives who stalk this site, and believe their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis Iraq ought to be featured on my private property: The war against Iraq is not going to be adjudicated again on this site–not ever. That crime I chronicled at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce. The case is closed! The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their makers or consciences for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!)

The Burden Of Barack

Barack Obama, Economy, Ethics, Morality

Tom Knapp @ the Knappster, protests our parasitical prince’s hypocrisy. However, Tom would have done well to make a less egalitarian assessment of Barack’s burden on his “company’s 300 million ‘investors.'” Most Americans are tax consumers. The few taxpayers will be forking-out for The Man:

“I watched the president’s speech last night. … He got in a good zinger about those CEOs and their private jets. For some reason, he decided to hold off on announcing that he’ll be giving up his personal jet — you know, the one he used last week when he flew all the way to Denver to sign a bill he could just as easily have signed on the top of Teddy Roosevelt’s old desk in the Oval Office.”

“Make no mistake here: Barack Obama is a CEO, just like the ones he’s chewing out.”

“Among the perks he gets as CEO of the US government — perks he’s evinced no intention of giving up to set the example for those he’s scolding — are a $400k annual salary, free residence in a palatial home (complete with groundskeepers, cooks, doormen, etc.), a 24/7 personal security detail, transportation to wherever he desires via limousine, helicopter or personal jet, and a “golden parachute,” which includes a pension of nearly $200k per year for life, continuation of that security detail (and the costs of any accommodations required for it to fit into his lifestyle), and his own library.”

“What do we get for the millions of dollars we annually lavish on our golden boy CEO? A definition of ‘fiscal responsibility’ that comes to a $1,600+ annual loss for each and every one of his company’s 300 million ‘investors.’ This, from the guy who assures us that he’s the one who can ‘fix’ the economy. Jee. Zuz.”