As sure as many of us would like to see the debt limit not increased, I believe this to be highly impractical, given the enormous size of the Federal Government. Obviously, the debt limit and the size of the Federal Government go hand-in-hand, but, by taking the approach of forcing the government to scramble to avoid a default, there will be many unintended consequences. On the other hand, an increase of something like $2T would be reckless, and deservedly doom the Republicans. The primary reason for not wanting to extend the debt ceiling (other than the obvious fact that we’re out of money), is that most of us don’t have the confidence that our elected officials will follow through and bring the government back to fiscal sanity. An approach is needed that ties the hands of the spenders, and puts the debate into a context that everyone can understand.

Most people understand the value of a dollar. If you go into Dollar General Store, you will get a handle on this concept immediately. Most people also know the value of $20,000, in that this amount of money will buy a reliable car. Most people can deal with $150,000, as this will buy a townhouse or house in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, as the value gets to $1M, $1B, and $1T, the connection with understanding money evaporates. Our elected officials are getting away with thievery, because they are speaking in a language that is incomprehensible. Any new strategy to deal with the country’s debt needs to be brought back to the terms of the common American.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives initially had the right idea with respect to the FY2011 budget. The strategy was to produce short-term CRs that contained cuts that were difficult for the Senate to reject, and that would be difficult for the President to veto. Unfortunately, they abandoned this strategy, and, instead tried to put in riders that would never make it through the process. The result was unsatisfactory. I’m looking for real results, not political statements, even if I agree with them.

The best way to bring the debt into control is to put it in the face of the country frequently. The way to do this is not to extend the debt ceiling for a specific period of time, but, to extend it for a specific amount of money. I propose that the debt ceiling be raised by no more than $100B at a time. The $100B figure translates to about $325 per American, and, at the current spending rate, this amount of money would last for about a month. This is a convenient amount and time duration, in that everyone can see that the government is costing them an extra ‘car payment’ every month. Everyone will understand this.

In exchange for the $100B in debt ceiling increase, the Republicans in the House should add riders that will trim the budgets of various agencies and programs. These bills should not completely remove funding for things like NPR and Planned Parenthood, they should reduce the funding by a small percentage each cycle. Let’s have a 3% cut each cycle in the Obamacare $105B slush fund each cycle. Let’s trim the HHS budget and the IRS budget by 1% every cycle. Even if the percentage of the trimming is in the 1% range, it won’t take long for the compounding of the cuts to be meaningful.

Could the Democrats and Obama be successful in demagoguing this strategy and these levels of cuts? It will force them to cry wolf often, and Americans will never see the wolf show up. Will the markets gain confidence in that this problem is being addressed every month? I think that this approach builds far more confidence than seeing another $2T in debts accompanied only with a list of empty promises from the government. Will Americans tire of seeing a new “car payment” show up every month with no car to show for it. You betcha. Let’s measure the politicians by how long they can stretch out the debt ceiling increases.

I was excited to be going to see Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. I had just read the book for the first time last year, and it became one of my top favorite books. I shrugged off the ultra-low rating at RottenTomatoes, expecting the film critics to just be reflecting their bias, and I went with my family and friends to see the movie. Unfortunately, I found the movie to be awful, just like the critics had warned.

What I liked most about the book was how Rand portrayed characters like Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon as passionate leaders of people. Like many of the great CEOs of today, they learned their businesses from the bottom up, they had the overwhelming respect of their better employees, and they displayed a passion and a will to succeed despite overwhelming obstacles. Dagny and Hank are roll-up the sleeves executives. The movie mostly missed this, placing Dagny in stiletto heels and a designer suite while on the job site, and showing these characters in opulent settings, detached from their employees as well as their business operations. They were disappointingly portrayed as eccentric elites, and most people will not identify with them or see them as positive role models.

I also liked how the book portrayed the non-contributors in society. It showed how the power-hungry people with no productive talents worked their way into positions of authority, and how they manipulated the system to ensure that society could not run without their involvement. It also showed how the “cultural” and “scientific” elites feel about normal people, and how they travel in their own sycophantic circles. If the movie had a strong point, this is where it was, but even this area could have been better.

What I liked least about the book was the way in which Rand had the characters convey their philosophy in speeches and tightly-scripted comments. It had the feel that she tried, in places, to merge a textbook with her novel. I felt that the story was strong enough to communicate the ideals without many of the speeches, but, the movie also adopted this style, and it made the characters feel stiff and robotic.

If you’ve read the book, it is worthwhile to see the movie. The movie successfully puts a face to many of the characters and it brings the concept of “Reardon Metal” to life in a gleaming rail line. You will also find fellow fans of the book at the theater. Despite the poor qualities of the movie, you will likely hear a cheer as the credits start to roll like I did at the showing I attended. I believe that this reflects the frustration many of us have with the current direction of society, and how excited we are to see anyone making an attempt, albeit a bad one, to help reverse that course.

President Obama believes that anyone in the world should be able to walk into America and take a job away from an American citizen.

President Obama believes that American citizens should be responsible for paying for the education of the people who violate the country’s immigration laws.

President Obama believes that his Wall Street friends are entitled to their big salaries because they work hard for their money, but that a Small Business owner or a banker at a local bank is a fat-cat who makes his or her money on the backs of poor people.

President Obama believes that anyone who is politically aligned with him (unions, big corporations) should receive handouts from everybody who is not politically aligned.

President Obama believes that raising the country’s debt ceiling is irresponsible, and he believes that raising the debt ceiling is the only responsible thing to do.

President Obama believes that anyone politically aligned with him is entitled to break the law, and he believes in transparency and accountability for anyone not potically aligned.

President Obama believes that authorities should first consider skin color in the enforcement of the law.

President Obama believes that you should be responsible for paying for your neighbor’s abortion.

President Obama believes that you should be responsible for paying for your neighbor’s mortgage.

President Obama believes that you should not be allowed to eat hamburgers and fries, but that it’s ok for him to eat hamburgers and fries.

President Obama believes that gasoline prices are still too low.

President Obama believes that America should import all of its energy resources.

President Obama believes that breeding Delta Smelt take presidence over starving California farmers.

President Obama believes that it’s important for the country to understand his thinking about the construction of his NCAA Basketball Tournament picks.

Interested in further comments about what Obama believes …

The most prominent attribute of a successful presidential candidate, in my opinion, is his or her desire to win. As we saw in the last election, very qualified and popular candidates in the primary fissled out quickly. I’m specifically thinking about Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. I think that most conservatives would have been thrilled to get behind a Fred Thompson campaign, but it was abundantly clear that he did not have fire in the belly for a fight. Likewise with moderates and Giuliani. During the primary, McCain was a pit bull, and he was rewarded with the nomination. I believe that he got worn out in the later stage of the general election campaign, and he started making bad decisions (returning to Washington to “save” the Financial System, pulling back from Michigan, etc.), and he stopped attacking Obama. In short, he lost his desire to win, and he was soundly beaten by a hungrier opponent.

Looking to the 2012 election, I believe that the candidate’s desire-factor should be foremost in Republican/Conservative primary voters’ minds. More specifically that the candidate has a single-minded focus on the task, the energy to run the whole race, and the intestinal fortitude to raise a billion dollars. In a sense, a broken-glass-candidate (willing to crawl through broken glass to reach the Presidency).

Even though it is very early in the election cycle, there are some desire and stamina indicators that are apparent. At this point, you’d expect the serious candidates to have set up a PAC, have started to build a national organization, have built relationships by helping others Republicans get elected, and to be removing all unnecessary distractions. We can also look into a candidate’s background to get indicators on their ability to sustain a fight. It is through this lense that I’m screening the current list of potential candidates. I’ll worry about policy positions within the field of the highly motivated and capable candidates. The list of candidates (by order of PAC money raised):

Jim DeMint

• PAC: Senate Conservatives Fund, $1.1M cash on hand ($9.1M raised)
• Organization: Demint is a darling of the Tea Party movement, and would quicly garner their support if he ran. He has not done any significant organizing, though.
• Focus/Desire: Demint has explicitly stated that he is not running, with statements like: “It’s not something I desire”, and “No intention, no plans”. He seems to be focused on the role of kingmaker.

Mitt Romney

• PAC: Free and Strong America, $1.1M cash on hand ($3.6M Raised).
• Organization: Romney retains much of his organization from 2008, and is spending money on this further building this organization and on helping other Republican candidates. Romney has not made significant inroads with the Tea Party organizations (he backed Bennet over Lee in Utah), which may limit his 2012 viability.
• Focus/Desire: Romney’s singular focus seems to be on winning the Presidency, and he is working on this largely behind the scenes. He has no family distractions, he has enough money to be a full-time candidatee, and has not involved himself in other distracting activities.

Rick Santorum

• PAC: America’s Foundation PAC, $41K cash on hand ($2.6M Raised)
• Organization: Santorum is using his PAC money to build a national donor base, and to a lesser extent a national organization. His organization is focused on social and national defense conservatives.
• Focus/Desire: Santorum seems singularly focused on the 2012 Presidential Race, and is doing the majority of this work behind the scenes. He is young, and likely has the stamina necessary for a long race.

Sarah Palin

• PAC: SarahPAC, $928K cash on hand ($2.1M Raised)
• Organization: Palin has focused more on making political friends within the Tea Party movement, and increasing her public profile. She has focused less on building out a national organization or on building support within the GOP establishment.
• Focus/Desire: Says she’ll run if there is no other candidate who can carry the Conservative flag. This run-by-defaul position indicates that her heart isn’t fully engaged yet. Palin has added more distractions: FoxNews contributor, Television Show, books, and providing commentary on almost every topic through Facebook. It seems that she is focusing her efforts on bolstering her family’s finances at a pace that would be consistent with preparing to run in 2016. If she does decide to run, she has demonstrated that she has the stamina for a long race (frequent trips to the lower 48, survived a book tour, and she’s an athlete).

Mike Huckabee

• PAC: HuckPAC, $195K cash on hand ($1.77M Raised)
• Organization: Huckabee was not strong on organization in the last presidential primary, but still finished an impressive second. It’s not clear that he’s focusing significantly more on organization for 2012, and instead he is again relying on his likeable personality and his connection to the Evangelical community.
• Focus/Desire: Huckabee has numerous distractions, including a TV show, Radio Show, a band, and many speaking engagements. He did demonstrate a strong desire in 2008, as he hung on in the primary far beyond what was practical. For 2012, he has yet to transform himself into a full-time candidate, leading me to believe that his desire has waned some. He seems to be having too much fun being a celebrity.

Tim Pawlenty

• PAC: Freedom First PAC, $884K cash on hand ($1.28M Raised – PAC started in late 2009)
• Organization: Building an organization with establishment players in both organization and fundraising (Vin Weber, William Strong).
• Focus/Desire: While Pawlenty is definitely serious about this presidential run, he recently tipped his hand that, perhaps, he isn’t quite ready. Pawlenty expressed regret for not running for a third term as governor, because of the change in the makeup of the Minnesota legislature. If Pawlenty was indeed laser-focused on the White House, I’d expect he would barely notice that home-state opportunity. Pawlenty remains a serious candidate, but, his eye isn’t completely on the ball.

Haley Barbour

• PAC: HaleysPAC, $390K cash on hand ($1.07M Raised)
• Organization: Barbour is a sitting Governor, and is in good standing with the Republican establishment. As a successful chairman of the Republican Governors Association, he has the ability to quickly build a nationwide organization. If he is successful at building support from the Tea Party organizations, he will be a formidable candidate.
• Focus/Desire: Barbour has not yet committed to running. He appears to be more of an opportunist (seeing an opening with a weakened Obama) as opposed to looking to fulfill a lifelong ambition. His age and his lack of physical conditioning brings his stamina into question.

Newt Gingrich

• PAC: American Solutions PAC (different than the 527 of the same name), $80K cash on hand ($705K Raised)
• Organization: Given Newt’s connections within the Republican Party (and his 527), it isn’t important that he start building an election organization this early in the process. If he gains traction with his candidacy through the debates and by pressing the flesh in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be able to quickly assemble a strong team.
• Focus/Desire: For the past year, Gingrich has been a tease, taking his own advice to draw out the decision to help him stay in the limelight. He states that this time around he is very serious about running, though this seems like he’s backing into the race as opposed to busting down the door. His desire seems to be based on the weakness of Obama, not due to an insatiable desire for the White House. Gingrich also routinely states: “Calista and I will make a decision probably at the end of February.” The visual on this is a man hiding behind his wife’s skirt. Newt has many outside distractions (books, speaking engagement, commentary, etc.), but there is no doubt that he has the ability to quickly drop these and focus on a campaign if he’s so motivated. His stamina might be in question due to his age and his lack of physical conditioning, but, I think that a grueling schedule is the norm for him, and that has the ability to be vibrant thoughout an entire campaign.

Michele Bachmann

• PAC: M.I.C.H.E.L.E PAC, $200K cash on hand ($625K Raised)
• Organization: A favorite of the Tea Party, Bachmann has a significant constituency, though no significant organization at this point. She was instrumental in assisting Tea Party candidates in the last election.
• Focus/Desire: Given the overwhelming challenges she has taken on with her family (5 children, 23 foster children), she clearly demonstrates that she has the endless energy necessary for a national campaign. She has not tipped her hand, yet, on her level of seriousness.

Mike Pence

• PAC: Principles Exhalt a Nation PAC, $56K cash on hand ($615K Raised)
• Organization: Pence appears to have no organization.
• Focus/Desire: Pence’s supporters seem to have more ambition for his career than he does. He was encouraged by Bill Crystal to run for Senate, which he didn’t. He as also encouraged by others to run for Minority Leader in the House, and he lost. He is now being encouraged by others to run for President, and he is starting to explore this. I believe that his ambition should be strongly questioned at this point.

Gary Johnson

• PAC: Our America PAC (not clear that it has significant money)
• Organization: None that is apparent
• Focus/Desire: Johnson is a former New Mexico Governor (term limited out). There is no doubt that he has the physical stamina for a race, as he is an athlete, and has successfully climbed Mount Everest. One of his “principles of good government” is to be willing to do whatever it takes to get your job done. This demonstrates that he knows it’s important to finish any fight that he starts.

John Thune

• PAC: Heartland Values PAC, $173K cash on hand ($807K raised)
• Organization: Thune has a national donor base that he attained during his race against Tom Daschle. Thune also has good connections within the Republican establishment. Outside of this, he doesn’t appear to have built a significant organization.
• Focus/Desire: At this point Thune is just testing the waters. He seems to be more opportunist as opposed to singularly focused.

Ron Paul

• PAC: Liberty PAC, $114K cash on on hand ($183K raised)
• Organization: Paul is supported by a very motivated group of libertarians. He has not cultivated the support of establishment Republicans.
• Focus/Desire: In previous elections, Paul has been singularly focused on pushing his agenda of returning the government to its constitutional mandate. He has focused less on the retail politics necessary for a successful run. As of now, he has not decided on a run in 2012. But if he does decide to run, I feel that this will be more of a decision to “participate in the primaries” as opposed to running to win.

Rudy Giuliani

• PAC: Solutions America PAC, $0.1K cash on hand ($6K raised)
• Organization: Giuliani has many political connections, though he doesn’t appear to have started organizing yet.
• Focus/Desire: In the 2008 primary, Giuliani waited until the Florida primary to compete in the race, which turned out to be a disasterous move. It’s not clear that he’s being any more aggressive in this election cycle.

There are many potential candidates mentioned, who I don’t believe deserve serious consideration from the standpoint of a demonstrated desire: John Bolton, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, George Pataki, John Cornyn, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Judd Gregg. Many on this list have shown that the are motivated to play on the national stage, but, they have not taken tangible steps that show us their inner motivation.

I believe that Obama will not be as formidable of an adversary as he was in 2008. I see him appearing to the electorate as more like President H. W. Bush did during the 1992 elections. When Bush checked his watch during the debate, he communicated that he was detached from the election. Obama, I believe, will come off even worse, seeming aloof, entitled, and an elitist. Also, Obama thrives on adulation, and I don’t believe that enough adulation will be there to hold his interest. The only thing that might motivate him is if he smells the blood in the water from a Republican candidate who is still unsure about winning. This is why I’m focused at this point on finding a candidate who is in it to win.

Having attended two Tea Parties in D.C., and having watched the Restoring Honor rally on TV, I was anxious to compare how a rally staged by the Left in the same venue would compare. I drove in from Maryland, and spent from noon till 1:30PM observing the crowd. Based on what I saw, I got the feeling that the Left is trying to adapt their message to meet a changing environment, but it’s still a work-in-progress. It’s hard to see how this rally will be impactful in any way.

My first sense of the One Nation rally is that the organizers understand how powerful the message from the Right is resonating in the country, and that this power eminates from a strong sense of patriotism and love of country. This rally attempted to coopt those feelings by cloaking itself in patriotic and religious themes. The rally started with the Pledge of Allegiance (including under God), and a beautiful rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. The tone at the beginning of the rally had the feeling of a Southern Baptist revival meeting, though strangely with John Lennon’s “Imagine” as an introduction. The crowd was very polite and peaceful. I saw no overtly offensive signs.

The crowd was much different than the Tea Party crowd, in that it was made up of several clearly defined factions. It was easy to identify most of these factions by the color of the t-shirts, and some by their signs. The factions included various unions (jobs not bombs), gays (marriage is a right), anti-war protestors, socialists, open-borders advocates, and teachers (invest in public education). I did not see any interaction between the different factions, not even between members of different unions. If you saw a maroon t-shirt, it was surely surrounded by other maroon t-shirts. The crowd was not huge (I’ve got a great picture of 100 yards of open grass next to the reflecting pool taken at 12:40PM).

Ed Shultz delivered his speech in a loud and aggressive tone, but, he had difficulty riling up the crowd. The most notable part of his speech was a not-so-veiled attack on our Representive Republic form of government, and specifically a threat to the 40 Republicans in the Senate. He railed about how, out of the entire country, only 40 people were responsible for ‘holding up progress’. Outside of this threat, Shultz’s speech was like all the others, listing off a half-dozen seemingly-poll-tested issue phrases with no apparent substance. There were large gaps between speakers where music was played, which made it seem like the rally was lacking in organization.

The rally had a very-manufactured feel to it. When you saw a group of people walking to the rally, they all had the same color t-shirts, i.e. almost everyone was bussed in (I had no problem parking on 21st Street, 5 blocks away). Almost every sign that I saw was professionally produced, and the signs covered the same themes. The most enthusiastic people that I saw seemed to be the ones that were taking advantage of the free bus ride to do a little sight-seeing away from the rally. There were several groups who sat at a distance from the rally in the shade (it was a beatiful and cool day) who were seemingly uninterested in the message of the speakers, and who had the look of ‘I’m putting in my time’.

The crowd had a noticable lack of energy, and apart from isolated people who had specific grievances, it seemed like most people were just following orders (wear this, walk this way, hold this sign, repeat what the speaker says). The crowd was comprised of a few true believers and a mass of followers. It is difficult to understand how this coalition can be held together for very long with these messages. Surely, the Socialists couldn’t have been happy with the patriotic and religious themes presented at the rally. It’s also hard to see rank-and-file union members getting excited about open borders bringing in cheaper labor. The only topic that received an overwhelming response was Universal Health Care.

For me, it turned out to be a great day. Even though I live close to D.C., I had never visited the World War II Monument, which is at the other end of the Reflecting Pool from the Lincoln Memorial where the rally was being held. At the Monument, there were a few World War II veterans with t-shirts saying “If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran”. It is a very beautiful monument, and I was very moved by the thought of America’s role in making the world a better place. It was a little strange transitioning between the two areas, and even stranger to think that the heros of World War II had given their lives to uphold these protesters’ rights.

President Obama has called the Afghanistan war against the Taliban the “War of Necessity”, yet, as we recently learned, he has spoken to his chosen Commander, General McChrystal, only once in the last seven months. Instead of working with the military at a critical time in the war, when troops are being killed at an increasing rate, President Obama has decided to take a misguided trip to Denmark to secure an Olympics bid that is seven years away.

All “strong defense” conservatives must loudly demand that President Obama makes this “Olympics” trip meaningful by diverting his return flight from Denmark to stop in Afghanistan to visit the troops and to determine first hand what the situation is. He must meet with the Commanders to understand more thoroughly what they face and why they are asking for more troops. He must use this opportunity to build a policy that will ensure a successful completion of this war.

Wink-Wink, if Republicans don’t seek out cameras tomorrow to voice these demands, their protestations about Obama’s trip to Denmark will look mighty foolish in three days!

Mike Rowe, from “Dirty Jobs” fame, is currently advocating for more social acceptance of blue collar jobs.  He documents the shortage of high skilled trade jobs like welders and pipe fitters (the WSJ has also covered this – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910464115051361.html), and he believes that one of the reasons for this is that society paints this type of career path as the consequence for not completing college.

If you read the text of Obama’s speech, he perpetuates this elitist attitude that not going to college should be considered as a failure. If you’re planning on reading the speech, you might consider reading it as if you were a high school junior or senior who is excited about becoming a tradesman. I can’t see this speech playing well with the 75% of the population that hasn’t completed college.

It’s great that Colin Powell said yesterday that Gates was in the wrong and that Obama shouldn’t have commented. What was interesting, though, was that Powell used his own situation to explain why Gates may have overreacted. Powell explained that, in National Airport, he was not recognized by Airport Security, even though he was the National Security Advisor. He said that he was just seen as a another black guy. In other words, he was speculating that, like him, Gates was upset about not being recognized. It really had nothing to do with race.

The lesson to be learned here, though, is that bureaurocracies treat everyone the same, i.e. as an annoyance. What Powell’s hero, Obama, is doing though, is building bigger bureaurocracies. So, Powell can expect more of the same.

If it’s ok for Iran to develop nuclear plants, ostensibly for domestic energy production, why isn’t it ok for the US to build new nuclear plants? Seems like we’re striving to become a 3rd world country?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060200947_pf.html

An attempt will be made throughout the Sotomayor nomination process to connect her to the common man. This will undoubtably be done through her connection to her baseball ruling. In Obama’s introduction, he stated:

During her tenure on the District Court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994-1995. (Laughter.) In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce, a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere — (laughter) — she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball. (Applause.)

This will be repeated ad nauseam throughout the coming months, and many people will accept this as proof of her “common man touch”. Whereas this story is compelling, baseball also presents an opportunity to explain her judicial philosophy in a way that most can appreciate, and in a way that condems her nomination.

Baseball is a game of rules. But, it is a game that must be officiated, because the rules cannot be enforced through automatic methods (as can be done in a game like Blackjack). Officiating is also required in baseball, because it has no legacy of honor that compels its players to enforce the rules upon themselves, like in golf. In a nutshell, baseball is a microcosm of society, competitive in a way that the boundaries are constantly pushed, and filled with both scoundrels (Pete Rose) and saints (Cal Ripken).

So, I’d like to see at lease one line of questioning at the hearings go something like this:

Judge Sotomayer, you’ve been credited by President Obama with saving baseball, so, I’d like to take the opportunity to pursue a line of questioning using baseball to explain your judical philosophy and views. In baseball, the umpire is the judge, responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rules of baseball. The rules are just like laws.

Judge Sotomayer, President Obama has stated that one of his highest goals for seating a new judge in the Supreme Court is that the judge rule with empathy, and he has indicated that this is consistent with your judicial philosophy. Can you explain this in baseball terms? Would you, for instance, take into account the salary level of the two teams playing, and adjust your ruling to benefit the poorer team? Would you widen the strike zone for a pitcher who had came from a disadvantaged upbringing? Would you give more strikes per inning to the team with more minorities?

Judge Sotomayer, you have been captured on video stating that the Appeals Court is the place where policy is made. This is analogous to saying that the baseball rules are made by the group of umpires at each game, not by the rules organization in the league. Are you saying that, in effect, if the umpire feels that some of the rules are unfair, and that they disadvantage the poorer teams, that the umpire shoiuld be free to make up new rules? Would it be fair for the umpires, for instance, to make the richer teams play with less players than the poorer teams, if they felt that that would lead to a better outcome? If a batter had a strong tendancy to hit to left field, might you mandate that the left fielder must stand far away from the left field line to give the batter a better chance?

Judge, you made a controversial ruling regarding the New Haven Fire Department where you allowed test results for a job promotion for 19 firefighters to be invalidated because of the skin color of the firefighters that performed well on the test. In this case, the rules of promotion and the study material was well known by all the players before the test was administered. Again, in the baseball analogy where the rules are well known before the game, do you believe that skin color should, at times, invalidate various rules during the game? Should white players have some of their hits invalidated depending on the skin color of the pitcher?

Judge, you have stated that your rulings are better, because of your Latina heritage, and because you are a woman. In baseball terms, are you saying that, in general, white umpires are inferior to umpires with other skin color? Are you saying that the difficulty in a umpire’s background makes him a better umprire, and that an umpire that didn’t suffer a traumatic upbringing can’t be a good umpire? Are you saying that an umpire’s race gives him an advantage in calling balls and strikes? Are you saying that male umpires are generally inferior to female umpires?

Lastly, Judge Sotomayer, many of the liberal judges are stating that the Supreme Court needs to consider the laws in other countries in their rulings. The baseball analogy would be for an umpire at a game to consider the rules in Japanese baseball instead of exclusively following the rules in Major League Baseball. Do you share this view, and do you think that the laws in the United States are inadequate to form a ruling.

Judge, in baseball, there is no room for umpires who make up new rules on the fly to suit their own prejudices. There is no room for umpires who show favoritism for one interest group over another. Umpires who exhibit these tendencies are not hired, and if they are currently employed by the league, they are summarily fired. I would hope that the Congress follows through on its solomn duty and hires a judge who will be fair to all who come before him or her.