Is Jay Cutler (and the Chicago Bears offensive staff) reading Degausser?

A few weeks ago, within a blog entry that promoted the allowance of non-citizens into the proposed insurance exchanges, I spoke of the potential success that would arise from Bears QB Jay Cutler utilizing the speedy TE Greg Olsen during 1st-and-goal situations. Since defenses see the typical formation - a clump of Offensive Linemen and/or Tight Ends - as a sure sign of a rush, they become susceptible for a quick slant into the sides of the end zone, provided your offense has a TE that can outrun linebackers and catch a fade-style pass.

In Week 4 versus the occasionally-exciting (thanks to Seneca Wallace) but painfully-mediocre Seattle Seahawks, the Bears put the Cutler-Olsen gambit to the test: (wait until 1:20 into the video)




In addition, when I picked up the September 14 issue of Newsweek, I saw Andrew Romano echoing my claim that we should allow all persons within the US to enter the health insurance exchanges.

His numbers probe into more specifics than my largely DayQuil-hindered lunge at collaring every fact that did not require leaving my couch. However, his reasoning centers on similar stakes:

Consider a few statistics. According to a July article in the American Journal of Public Health, immigrants typically arrive in America during their prime working years and tend to be younger and healthier than the rest of the U.S. population. As a result, health-care expenditures for the average immigrant are 55 percent lower than for a native-born American citizen with similar characteristics. With the ratio of seniors to workers projected to increase by 67 percent between 2010 and 2030, it stands to reason that including the relatively healthy, relatively employable and largely uninsured illegal population in some sort of universal health-care system would be a boon rather than a burden. "Insurance in principle has to cover the average medical cost of all the people it's serving," explains Leighton Ku, a professor of health policy at George Washington University. "So if you add cheaper people to the pool, like immigrants, you reduce the average cost." More undocumented workers, in other words, means lower premiums for everyone.

So to recap - if we open the insurance markets to all, and continue to fling fade patterns to open Tight Ends and Fullbacks, we can reduce the cost of healthcare AND bring a Super Bowl title to the city of Chicago.

And the world can breathe an anxious sigh of relief.

Insuring undocumented immigrants would be a rip-off to taxpayers? You lie!

The 2007 New England Patriots caught my attention for finally bringing sense to the tradition of staid, ho-hum play calling during 1st-and-goal situations. Most pro teams follow the same conventional anti-wisdom when the end zone looms but a few yards away - clump all of your players together, as close as humanly possible, and force a fullback or the QB through their wall, hoping its enough for the TD. The defense already knows what is going to happen, so the offense is gambling that their O-Line, plus the bookended Tight Ends, are stronger than the defenses' 11. Most pro TEs are skilled pass-catchers - why not send one of them in a dead sprint to the side of the end zone, and loft the ball up for them?

Well, when inside the 5 yard line, the 2007 Patriots often did just that. Instead of 3 crappy run plays and the inevitable field goal, the Pats' quarterback Tom Brady threw a crapload of TD passes to Fullbacks, Tight Ends and Offensive Linemen. Football fans would assume that opposing coaches would be suspecting such tricks during the Patriots' ensuing visit to the Red Zone, but NFL skippers, a group that views the challenge of orthodoxy as tantamount to treason (I guess this explains their heavy Republican slant), refused to change their strategy, allowing Brady to pad his statistics to a Tecmo-Bowl-esque 50 touchdown passes. (Jay Cutler, I hope you realize that Greg Olsen was genetically engineered for this).

Coaches will sign players with particular skill sets because they aid in the answering of the wrong question - how do I bust through the defensive wall? In the world of Policy Analysis, we refer to this as the error of the Third Type. Bill Bellichik, coach of the hated New England team, sought the best way to get the six points by asking the correct question - what is the best way to get the ball in the end zone?

This past week, the grand debate centered on whether or not the Democratic health reform plan, which centers on a health insurance exchange, allows undocumented immigrants to participate. South Carolina's Joe "The Heckler" Wilson, among other figures on the right, claim that it does, while Obama, the Democratic Party, and most independent observers claim that it does not.

Like boring NFL offenses, both sides are asking the wrong question. Here goes:

Why shouldn't we allow undocumented immigrants the chance to buy into an insurance exchange?

I will start with - get this - a classically conservative argument. Whatever term you may use, undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens, (I am not a fan of the latter, due to its dehumanizing tone, but I'll occasionally forget and stupidly utilize the nomenclature of the xenophobes, like my last post), we know that someone without insurance will still seek medical attention when something bad happens. Unfortunately, as George Clooney and Eriq LaSalle taught us 15 years ago, medical supplies in an Emergency Room are no less expensive than those provided by a doctor receiving full reimbursement from your benevolent insurer (in a magical land where that might actually exist).

So when a non-citizen that is employed in one of our less-desired occupations catches a bad break and contracts a serious illness, someone will have to pay for the emergency services. Guess who? Those of us with insurance, mostly via the pass-through of higher costs for equipment and care provision. To call this inefficient would be a massive understatement.

"So Wintergarden, you are suggesting that we allow these lawbreakers, these scofflaws, to enjoy the benefits of insurance, something millions of legally-residing AMERICANS do not have?"

Whoa-whoa, ease up on the "Minutemen"-style agitprop. In case you forgot, I want EVERYONE in the US to have insurance, even those with the temerity to ...well, I'll just let the picture do the talking:


Mike Watt and the REAL Minutemen should be allowed to punch these MENSA candidates for misuse of their name, not to mention the English "lanaguage" .


While I will call out the white supremacist tendencies within such groups as the Tea Party "Patriots" and the "Minutemen", I am not advocating this policy because I want to give away health care dollars to the undocumented. In fact, this policy does - get this - the freakin' opposite. YOU HEARD ME!

A basic example: in our current system, a non-citizen is not covered, so they have no incentive to seek the regular checkups and preventative care that most of us citizens often try to avoid (hey, those stethoscopes are cold, and my primary physician's breath smells like onions, man). So as above, a serious ailment is met with a trip to an ER or a clinic with similar capabilities. result - doctors and hospitals pass on the costs to us.

If undocumented immigrants are allowed into the exchange, instead of merely costing the system money, they now are providing money into the system at a rate that comes close to matching any expenses emanating from health care.

Depending on whether you choose to believe the progressive Physicians for a National Health Program, or the conservative group America's Health Insurance Providers, insurers spend 77% or 87% of your premiums on "medical loss" - the industry term for health expenditures incurred by the policyholder. Allowing undocumented immigrants to buy into the exchange will bring money into the coffers of either the insurance companies or the government, depending on who provides the coverage. Will it match what is spent? Even if this amount was far below the cost of care, it would eclipse the current low figure. And it would, you know, serve the compassionate, human ideal of enabling a large group of people - a collective that, like it or not, provides the labor backbone to a massive chunk of our economy - the piece of mind and potential health benefits that result from possessing a decent health insurance plan.

While I could cite studies that claim that preventative care cuts costs, and ones that do not, there is no disputing that SOME money beats little to no money, every time.

And then there's that whole "human" side, too. Perhaps this explains why even the Heckler himself, Joe Wilson, voted for the 2003 Medicare bill that provided government funds for uninsured undocumented immigrants.

One more thing - before anyone fires off missives claiming that we'll become a magnet for Mexican immigrants because of health insurance reforms, take a look at the wealth of studies that discuss why people come to the US. Here's a hint - certain economic realities have been met with a decrease in immigration from Mexico. In other news, I better get back to practicing my job interview skills.

Which means that American companies, by their past offering of jobs that are not "on the level", play a far more significant role in increasing immigration than any reforms of health insurance ever will. We could make these scofflaw firms provide the care, but hey, we already allow them to get away with some serious exploitation. Word is that Obama and Congress will take up immigration reform in 2010. It's about damn time - there is a legitimate balance that can be struck between allowing business to meet their labor needs from our southern neighbor, and preventing corporations from treating their laborers like interchangeable parts to be used until they break down. But that's another post, for another day.

Here's your Participation Trophy, Media. Now don't forget to finish your orange slices.

After witnessing the President finally use the airwaves to correct the myths of Palintology, it became clear to me that ideas matter, regardless of their residence within the realm of reality. H.L. Mencken, a Baltimore legend and perhaps the only person in history to use the nickname of “H.L.”, stated that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” In a less cynical fashion, this sentence can be reworded as “Great ideas and logical conclusions will not find their way to the electorate, they have to be brought directly to them.” The President understood that the dissonance of Daydream Nation has drowned out the truth, and he used the (relative) quietude of an address to Congress as his chance to correct the misconceptions. Sadly, he will have to redouble his efforts, due to the screams of the veracity-challenged Joe Wilsons in our midst, and their insurance industry-backed busloads of “volunteers”. Hey, big money didn’t reach their exalted status by playing it straight with people (just look at Wall Street). In other news, the emotional state of NFL wide receivers tends to lean towards the mercurial.

When the shouting mavens of misinformation hoist foolish terms like “death panels” and the like upon the Villagers (aka, the traditional DC-based media), the accuracy of these claims are not challenged – the lazy stenographers merely state “So and so said that Obama wants to kill your grandmother”, rather than probe the source in a manner that forced them to address their own lies. Case in point – l’affaire Wilson. When President Obama said that his health care plan would not cover illegal aliens, South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson screamed, “You lie!”. Now, when reporters covered the semi-story, did they point out that Obama’s plan specifically states that undocumented Americans are not offered coverage under his plan, therefore, Wilson is in the wrong? When interviewing Wilson, did they have the guts to ask him, “So when you apologized to the President, did you tell him that you are not being accurate? Are you still saying he is a liar?”

No. They merely reported that words were spoken, and offered no challenge to his inaccurate statement. They were satisfied with this - Wilson’s ridiculous BS disguised as a “retraction”:

“My statement to Rahm Emanuel was a general apology to anyone and everyone about speaking out of turn. Period.”

People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts – if someone screamed “you lie!” at a police officer who informed them that the speed limit is 65 on the freeway, would the police officer say “Well, I guess we just agree to disagree.” HELL and NO.

NO media representative has the guts to ask Wilson “You both can’t be right – either the bill says it or it doesn’t. So who is the liar – is it you or the President?” Someone HAS to hold these prevaricators responsible. But I don’t expect it to happen. Welcome to America, 2009.

The Degausser 2009 NFL Preview

Well, not really. However, some events within the region necessitate further examination.

In case you have been in rural Canada for the past few days, there's been some big news in these parts concerning the ol' oblong leather pigskin.




A prominent NFC Central squad has greatly increased its chances at a Super Bowl berth via the acquisition of a star quarterback. Oh, and also the Vikings signed former Falcon/Packer/Jet Brett Favre.

Ha ha! Yep, the Bears mortgaged their next several draft picks for Jay Cutler, architect of 4500 passing yards (plus 200 on the ground!) with a relatively-decent 25-18 touchdown-to-interception ratio. While Cutler is not quite in the Brady-Romo-Manning echelon, his consistency will be a wild shock to a fanbase weaned on such luminaries as Steve Fuller, Jim Miller, Rex Grossman, and Kyle Orton. Hell, even our love of BYU Superhero Jim McMahon was based more upon his personality than what were extremely average numbers (Ol' #9 threw 15 TDs in 11 starts in 1985, easily his peak year). In his 3 seasons, Cutler's yards-per-pass average is 7.3, 7.5 and 7.3. While Orton posted a respectable season as the signal-caller in 2008, Cutler's steady performance (he threw touchdowns in 14 games last season) will be a massive upgrade.

And please, let's just pretend the Grossman Super Bowl never happened.

Rayoscan, Exxon and Obama - Vindication!

Time once again for the ol' "Flashback to Last Fall" Department -


One of my favorite sites is Rayoscan, which features the front page of several newspapers on one scrollable screen. Notable papers on the site include the New York Times, The International Herald Tribune (NYT's international version), Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Guardian, Haaretz, and the Persian Gulf News. Hopefully, this site will allow the user to add other papers, and create a monetized system that automatically withdraws a nickel (or whatever amount would finance the journalistic enterprise) for each .pdf download. But for now, it is totally free. Get there while you can.

On the bottom right hand corner of the July 13 edition of the Wall Street Journal is an advertisement for Exxon, where the first two lines feature the following text:
"American drivers can save up to a billion gallons of gasoline every year by properly inflating their tires, according to the US Government."



(remember, these numbers were released during the Bush Administration.)

And just last fall, a certain two-timing political weather-vane jumped on Obama for his assertion that properly inflated tires can reduce dependence on foreign oil. Hell, the guy even distributed tire gauges with "Obama's Energy Plan" emblazoned upon them. How a once mighty political force has fallen - even Exxon is acknowledging Obama was right.

Coleman Concedes! Welcome Al Franken to the Senate!

"Honey? Why aren't you answering me!!"

After what appeared to be a never-ending series of recounts, appeals, counter-appeals, and public relations gestures, the Minnesota Senate race is finally over. Our erstwhile Supreme court has deliberated, and the decision was surprisingly (to me, anyway) unanimous. Former Senator Norm Coleman has conceded, ending any speculation that his dwindling team would seek a higher appeal within the 10-day window. Poor Norm is forced to seek solace in the awaiting avalanche of offers from lobbying firms, cable news networks and leadership PACs, most of which will provide yearly compensation far beyond the $174K he would earn as a public servant. (Welcome to the thrill of defeat, Normy. How will you sleep at night, as the betrayal of Minnesota values that you call your voting record begins to eat at your conscience? Oh, I know - on a huge pile of money.)

While nary a one of the Minnesota Supreme Court's five presiding justices were appointed by a Democratic governor, Coleman still found himself on the losing end of a 5-0 whitewash. However, what if the case had continued on to the US Supreme Court? Would we have seen similar results from the six GOP appointees?

Just for the record, here are the confirmation votes for the current Court, the presiding Senate majority party, the Prez that nominated the justice, and a prediction for Sotomayor's confirmation vote:

Justice........Vote....Senate Majority.........President
Sotomayor...76-22*..Democratic................Obama
Alito.............58-42...Republican..................W. Bush
Roberts........78-22...Republican..................W. Bush
Breyer..........87-9....Democratic..................Clinton
Ginsburg.......96-3....Democratic..................Clinton
Souter..........90-9.....Democratic.................H.W. Bush
Thomas........52-48...Democratic.................H.W. Bush
Kennedy.......97-0....Democratic..................Reagan
Scalia...........98-0....Republican...................Reagan
Stevens........98-0....Democratic..................Ford
And recent justices...
O'Connor.....99-0.....Republican..................Reagan
Rehnquist.....65-33...Republican..................Reagan

Wow...Scalia was unanimous! Although, I presume the ideological balance of the Court in 1986 was not viewed as precarious enough for a conservative like Warren Burger being replaced with another. Hell, even liberal hero Mario Cuomo supported the Scalia nomination. The remaining conservatives all had substantial opposition, at least within the cloture votes. Here we go:


All that's missing from Roberts' smirk is the placement of his hands together at the fingertips while muttering "Exx-cellent..."

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. It is extremely difficult to visualize either of these four staunch conservatives looking at this case in a similar manner to Republican appointees Gildea, Dietzen or Anderson. Scalia would cite his own writings from Bush v. Gore as a precedent for supporting Coleman's position on uniformity amongst vote tabulation within counties. Roberts would concur, choosing the "Court should give weight to the precedent" side of stare decisis, his malleable astrolabe of judicial guidance. The easy joke is to insinuate that Alito would sycophantically study Scalia's opinion, then rewrite it, save the obligatory modulation of a few lawyerly-sounding words, just to keep it honest. But this is far from a joke - according to SCOTUSblog, perhaps the most authoritative source for Supreme Court statistics, on non-unanimous decisions, "Line-Item" Alito has disagreed with Scalia only 19% of the time. As for Thomas, it gets trickier. Would he view Minnesota's interpretation of the Help America Vote Act within the continuum of his broad view of states' sovereign immunity, breaking the Righty Bloc? (Remember that with Thomas, "federalism" is used as a ringer for "state's rights") Or would he throust aside his orginialism for a strong helping of boilerplate ideological rigidity? If he sensed that his side had the numbers for the majority opinion, look for Thomas to furiously pen a pro-Coleman decision, leading to Roberts, as a nod to Rehnquist's conservative-issue pragmatism, removing the paper from the hands of the 18-year veteran, issuing the opinion himself. Thomas' only recourse - let's just hope that Johnny's wife likes compliments on her attire (I kid! I kid!)

One additional note: If a genetic enginerring case appears before the Court, especially dealing with "man-animal hybrids", as W. Bush would say, look for Scalia to forcefully angle for the chance to write the majority opinion, just so he can hoist the term "lizard people" into the lexicon of SCOTUS lore.

The "liberal" bloc (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor). Stevens would view the completed Minnesota recount as the incarnation of his dissenting opinion on Bush v. Gore (how do you say "I told you so!" in barrister vernacular?) It should be noted that Stevens agreed with the retiring Diamond-Dave Souter at the same rate as the "Scalito" team, odd being that both were Republican-appointed moderates that drifted towards what I view as more healthy jurisprudence as they aged - the "fine wines" of the SCOTUS (Scalia would be the "sour milk"). Ginsburg, who spent the Mad Men years at the University of Lund in Sweden to learn their mother tongue, would concur with Skjerven Gildea, telling Team Coleman "varje röst räknar, jävel". Then she'd cook up some husmanskost for the entire room (she'd be a huge hit here). Breyer, regularly the most deferential to the legislative branch among the nine, would view the recount as a legitimate act of democracy that should stand above the whims of the judiciary. Sotomayor, who would potentially begin her tenure as the case arrived on the docket, is on record as an opponent of voter restrictions (legislative or judicial, making her the anti-Rehnquist), although she would have disallowed any votes that referred to either candidate as a douchebag. Interesting note about Sonia - during her marriage in the late 70s, she went by the name of Sonia Sotomayor de Noonan, maining that all the clueless blowhardisms thrown at her from Newt and Limbaugh were superceded by the harassing taunts she received from Spaulding Smails during putts.

So we are where we thought we were - 4-4. All that remains is...

Kennedy. Perhaps you've heard that he's the Swing justice? Based on the media coverage, you'd think he was the predecessor to Mikey and Trent, although his nothern Califormia upbringing would have resulted in different idylls (Reno, baby, Reno!) The truth? Kennedy, a Reagan appointee approved by a unanimous Senate vote, has far more often disagreed with liberals like Stevens (60%) than conservatives such as Alito (19%) -- see the SCOTUS blog for an awesome graphic that indicates the decision of each case by highlighting the photographs of the justices within the majority opinion. During the last two years, there were 23 decisions that went 5-to-4, and Kennedy was within the majority for 18. For the 16 that broke along the two wings, Kennedy joined the conservatives on 11, so any liberals pinning their hopes on his "swinger" credentials are as futile as blasting crops with Brawndo ("It's got electrolytes which plants crave!")...except for one issue: I think you already know which one. His support of privacy rights leans towards the progressive side, which led to a Walter Sobchak-style declaration when he endorsed Griswold v. Connecticut, claiming that banning birth control is
...A line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go'!



Does this correlate to a different jurisprudential philosophy than he chose in Bush v. Gore? Kennedy did not agree with Scalia, Renquist and Thomas that the Florida Supreme Court, in their pro-recount decision, had acted "contrary to the intent" of the Florida legislature. He did, however, view that the Equal Protection Clause was being violated by continuing the recount. This reads that he would have likely decided similarly had the situation been reversed (Gore been ahead), an opinion difficult for me to imagine being held by the three other conservatives. In my approximation, Kennedy would not overturn the decision of the Minnesota Court's 5-0 shutout, and thus, would have provided Franken with a 5-4 victory.

This leads to two legitimate questions about the Supreme Court:

1. Is it in our national interest that virtually anyone with a decent grasp of politics can accurately predict the decision each justice will make before the Court even hears the case? The judiciary has become so politicized that every major Presidential candidate points to their potential appointees as a central theme of their campaigns. Now there may never be a surefire method to divorce the courts from the shifting sands of politics (and would that even be an optimal result?), but the does the increased significance of the SCOTUS within the laws of the land demand that justice be blind? Is it a hippie pipe dreams to imagne a non-ideological Court? Um, yes.

I do not advocate a "unilateral disarmament" where Obama appoints ideological centrists. Yes, I would love to see the conservative wing all take a higher-paying job with the corporate world they proudly defend in their decisions. and Obama to replace them with enough progressives to re-establish a justice that works for, as a former college wrestler from southern Minnesota would say, the "little fellers, not just the Rockefellers." So I guess I can offer little help here.

2. How does John Roberts become the Chief Justice, despite the presence of 8 judges that were appointed for several years before he was even considered for the Court? I always had trouble with this one. I know how it happens, I am just unsure why the Senate doesn't say "Hey there, Mr. President, I believe that you should look at these other, more experienced justices." Why do I get the feeling that Scalia felt like Tim Pawlenty the day McCain chose Palin to be his veep?

Supreme Court Sonia Part I - "Maria" Sotomayor, Harry Blackmun, David Souter, G Harrold and Dick Nixon - How did we get here?

Ladies and Gentlemen – I interrupt your standard programming to offer this Public Service Announcement to former Arkansas Governor (and Canadian National Igloo dedicator) Mike Huckabee: Her name is Sonia. Sonia Sotomayor. OK, Mike, you can get back to your Walker: Texas Ranger re-runs (I suggest fast-forwarding through the commercials for all that wonderful food you are missing – and Marlboros make a suitable substitute).



Last month, David Souter announced his impending retirement from the Supreme Court. I was proud to see that the Media (I love all-encompassing hyper-general statements) offered at least 3 seconds of reflection upon Souter's judicial career before jumping into predictions of his potential replacements. Before the second-hand reached the bottom of the clock, blasting forth came the right-wing attempt at building a picket-fence of uncertainty surrounding a replacement's (it didn't matter who it was) qualifications for the High Court. One can be sure that the opposition research will combine the integrity of United Healthcare, the historical accuracy of The Babe Ruth Story, and the potential success of a stock tip from Jim Cramer – in other words, a Voltron of Suck. In fact, prominent conservative journalists and legislators have already begun to question the readiness of Obama's choice, even before he made one. Since the proud folks at Degausser are not residents within the world of anonymous hearsay, we merely ask the Republican/conservative movement to base their arguments in the realm of reality, including the Big Truth that states this:

During the past two election cycles, your party dropped over $1,000,000,000 into a highly-coordinated multimedia campaign claiming that the Democratic Party (and their 2008 nominee for President) were – get this – liberals and socialists. And from all accounts, you were fairly successful at doing so.

Yet, you still get the living crap kicked out of you at the ballot box (or mail box)!

Ever considered that someone you consider a "far lefty" is actually a moderate in today's America? Perhaps America chose the Democrats BECAUSE they were liberal. We've seen what conservatism can do, and we didn't like it. Res ipsa loquitur.

So all we ask from you is to stop misdirecting your frustration with American voters by telling them how "wrong" they were by obstructing the progress of the officials THEY elected. Base your arguments against Sonia Sotomayor upon facts and reason, not the humdrum frustrated boilerplate that you pumped out before the choice was even made ("She's not like John Roberts, boo hoo hoo!"). We like integrity here at Degausser, and one day, we hope to incorporate it within our product (hopefully by 2012).


(Despair.com - just trust me)

How we reconcile this lean toward honesty with our blatant attempts to market tobacco products towards kids, I am not at liberty to say. (By the way little Johnny, if you want to impress the older kids with your back-pocket "dip rings", make sure to buy metal-canned tobacco like Copenhagen. Skoal Bandits, while almost as cool, don't leave as prominent a circle – and as we've been telling you for decades, if you want to impress the femininas, you gotta have that dip ring).

Unlike Roberts, who trademarked the term "stealth candidate" beyond any future uses, Obama's selection to replace our favorite George H. W. Bush appointee (emerging past David Kessler by a pack of Lucky Strikes) has a fairly long record of decisions that we can examine. However, some of the early GOP commentary was aimed not at the judicial past of Obama's potential nominees, but their gender and ethnicity, and Sotomayor will be attacked as the "affirmative action" selection. Most of us were prepared for an Obama choice that utilized the talented pool of judges from groups traditionally omitted from presidential shortlists. And why not? According to the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, women now compose one-third of the lawyers in the country. However, they only compose one-ninth of the Supreme Court – no, Antonin Scalia's occasional cross-dressing does not count (I'm only kidding 'Tone, seriously, we're all friends here, right?). According to the disparity calculation model formulated by economist Sandy Darity, women's representation in the SCOTUS compared with their composition of the legal field at large is a tiny 33%. Considering that 50% of all attorneys are those Personal Injury types whose faces are ubiquitously placed on classy locales such as phone-book covers, urinal cakes and commercials for 12 AM reruns of Sex and the City - and almost all of them are men - the disparity is likely to be even larger. OK, that last sentence is an unadulterated lie - it's more like 46% - although you have to admire the entertainment value of an industry where one-third of their commercial time is devoted to a disclaimer (and led to a lyric from Ice Cube's "Wicked", where "Larry Parker just got me 2 million, O What a fcuking feelin!").

In other words, Obama's shortlist was heavily populated with women, and he chose one of them. Most were already within the legal system as judges, although there was one prominent elected official (Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm). Despite the whining from the fading supernovae in the conservative movement, the XX-leaning list is not destroying justice as we know it. There is far more ideological diversity within the justices that appeared on these lists – although neither Sotomayor, Granholm, Elena Kagan, Kim Wardlaw, Kathleen Sullivan, Pam Karlan, Leah Ward Sears or Teresa Wynn Roseboro are as doctrinaire in their liberalism as Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts are in their conservatism. This lack of ideological rigidity expands the pool of potential selections, meaning that the odds of locating quality are much higher than utilizing the narrow focus that was necessary to appease the far right. For those who doubt that Bush's SCOTUS nominees were not meant to "reward" his base, take this test: ask any far-right conservative to list their greatest "accomplishment" of the GW Bush presidency – after some crap about "keeping us safe", I guarantee the second thing they say is "Roberts and Alito".

The hidden story to all this speculation is the potential barriers that will be broken by Obama's appointment. Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic member of the SCOTUS, or possibly the second after Benjamin Cardozo, who was of Portuguese Jewish descent (there is some great debate about Cardozo's heritage meeting the "qualifications" of Hispanic - perhaps he didn't fill out the paperwork?). Roseboro or Sears would have been the first African-American woman. What would have really been a shock to the Rove-style conservatives is an openly gay justice, such as Sullivan or Karlan. Just to reiterate how far society has progressed in a miniscule blip of the country's history, think back to Campaign 2004 (yeah I know, why open old wounds, but stay with me): the American electorate countenanced a campaign so dependent upon fearmongering, even some of Dick Nixon's past acolytes were turned off. Now, we're a political environment comfortable enough for Obama – who despite all the talk of his "audacity", has steered an agenda so cautious that even moderate Democrats are getting ancy – was damn close to nominating the first (known) openly gay member of the Supreme Court?

As Keanu Reeves would say, "Whoa."



Here's a tangent that had no other place: The aforementioned Richard Nixon, the Barry Bonds of American politics, nominated what may have been the first gay justice: G. Harrold Carswell, a one-time supporter of segregation. However, this was not to be, as he was rejected by the Senate, including many in Nixon's own party. It must be noted that all this occurred before Nixon had successfully rebuilt the GOP into its current incarnation: the synthesis of George Wallace's race-baiting, Richard Viguerie's direct-mail religion and Barry Goldwater's free-market fanboy-ism. (Yeah, I know – forget Voltron, this is the MegaZord of Suck). A few years after Carswell got punk'd by the Senate, he was arrested after a failed attempt at soliciting sexytime from an undercover cop in a men's bathroom ("Naughty, naughty!"). While his sexuality was not known at the time of confirmation, there's a chance he might have became more open about it afterwards. Wow, Dick Nixon, civil rights pioneer!

(I had a good friend in college nicknamed "G Harold", although I doubt it was a clever reference to past support of Plessy v Ferguson, or a prediction of Craig v. Minnesota Restroom Officer.)

After the failed Carswell nomination, Nixon made a shrewd move that aimed for the acceptance of the still-vital Northern contingent of Republican Senators by tapping Minnesota's own Harry Blackmun (Dayton's Bluff, St Paul represent!) Figuring that the less-controversial Blackmun would offer a similar conservative lean in his opinions as Warren Burger, a fellow Minnesotan, Nixon watched a Democratic-controlled senate cast nary an opposition vote. However, in a manner not unlike David Souter, Blackmun's opinions began to move away from the Pat Boone-era paleoconservatism he expressed after he was nominated (sample early quote: "I'm here for the purpose of victory in Vietnam, also I am here for the victory of getting the Bible reading back in the schools and prayer in the schools."), and by 1973, he was authoring Roe v. Wade. By the early 1990s, Blackmun's health was fading, but he was dedicated to remaining on the court until a Democratic president could take his place – kind of like David Souter.

-----

Coming Tomorrow - Part II - The Politics That Await Sotomayor's Confirmation