New Justice, N. Korea, California, and a Follow Up

Today, Tuesday May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayer for the vacancy on the U.S. Surpreme Court. If confirmed, she will become the 1st hispanic, and 3rd woman, to serve on our nation's highest court. I personally don't know much about her. I've read how she affected the Major League Baseball lock-out in 1995, but other than that, she's a unknown to me. It will be interesting to see how this hearing process plays out over the next few months. It will also be interesting to see how the Republicans handle this. Let's the games begin.

Why does North Korea think that what they are doing is helping their cause any? So far, most of the civilized world is alarmed by the stupid things they are doing with their nuclear program. Even now, their greatest ally, China, is even starting to become concerned. What are they thinking? Do they think they can hold the world hostage? Do they think they can spread whatever form of communism they operate under? What do they want? What is their aim? It really makes you wonder if their leader is insane? This is a problem for the whole world, not just the U.S. This needs to be dealt with!

The Surpreme Court in California today said that they cannot overturn the vote of the people in the Proposition 8 vote. They said the vote changed the Constitution of the state of California, and therefore it was Constitutional to ban gay marriage. Basically, they were saying that since the people voted for Prop. 8, under the state's laws it became a Constitutional Ammendment for California, and that the Court of California could not find it to be un-constitutional under California state law. This sounds a lot like the Pledge case we studied today in Government class whereas the court wouldn't change the law. Ironic, huh? Obviously, the next step will be the U.S. Surpreme Court to decide it there.

Now, a follow up to a previous post. It was brought to my attention that one of the reasons that the Dixie Chicks could've recieved so much flack was because of their gender. The comparison was made between what the Chicks did and what Don Imus did. Was gender a part of it? Maybe. But, I also think this is a case where we are talikng about a racist comment vs. a idealogical one. In Don Imus' case, it was a racial comment. Once he made peace within the African-American community, as did another famous racial crap spewer, Dog Chapman, they were allowed back on the air. They made the effort to ammend themselves for what they said. And, many in the African-American community forgave them and decided they deserved another chance and allowed them to come back without protest. But, in the case of the Chicks, it was a huge group of mostly President Bush supporting, military loving, country music lovin, middle of America, salt of the Earth people that were insulted. It wasn't a race, it was a idealogy. There's the difference. These same people don't have much of a use for other liberals such as Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, or George Soros either. They decided that they didn't want the Chicks back. Without their blessing, it would be professional suicide to try to force them down people's throats. If no one listened to your station, and bought from your advertisers, then where would you be? Without a job I imagine. Anyway, in the case of the Chicks, they also had said some nasty stuff about Toby Keith, Reba McEntire, and others that hurt them within the country music community. I think that that is the primary difference and why I can't really say how much gender played in it. Was there? Maybe. But, I think it was a lot more idealogical than anything.