Why have we elected a President who started by not providing even the most basic of credentials and making promises that, by simple logic, could not possibly have been kept in four years (or even eight)?

When did basic economics and common sense get shifted aside for pointless sentiment?

Is trying to cure a theoretical (and regardless of its proponents' opinion, HIGHLY debatable) problem in the coming 50 years worth: a trillion dollars in taxes, the rising of the price of EVERY retail good and the potential collapse of the US economy in a lot less time?

At what point is savaging a person's good name the price to be paid for expressing one's opinion?

Just how can people not recognize the difference between one million, one billion and one trillion, particularly when it denotes how much of their money is being spent?

How can so many members of the media either blithely overlook or savagely attack what appear to be glaring flaws in the way government is being run when their job, historically, has been to ask the questions?

Believe me, I've got more of my own questions and will have more still in the future.  And since a healthy portion of those we used to trust to ask questions aren't asking them... it looks like it's up to us.

Primarily, what will be here are questions that I believe need to be asked.  I'll ask, add a few of my own thoughts and maybe with all of us thinking, we can come up with some good answers.

After all, what we think should matter...right?

Here's a good one...

WHAT DOES EMPATHY HAVE TO DO WITH A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

It's been very enlightening to find what everyone thinks Barack Obama's first Supreme Court Justice nominee should be, including Obama himself.  I've heard every minority claiming that THEY should be represented -- and hang the qualifications.  It still amazes me how few people realize that giving someone a job specifically because of a particular trait of race, creed, orientation, et cetera, is not the slightest bit better (read: less bigoted) than NOT giving them the job for the same reason.  But this job, in particular, requires even more color-blindness (pun intended) than most.  Don't think so?  I'll explain in a second.

But just as disappointing are Obama's statements surrounding what he wants.  Quotes abound about a wondrous super-judge with "empathy and understanding" and that justice "(is about) how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." Unfortunately (and even moreso given Obama's claimed Harvard Law Review background) these are precisely the WRONG qualifications for Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's primary job is to determine the Constitutionality (I'm not too sure on how accurate that word is, but you get the idea) of the decisions of the lower courts.  The Constitution is decidedly more cut and dry than a lot of people think -- its meaning has been horribly distorted over the decades, but it's only as hard as you make it.  If a Justice's goal is do their job and not the job of whoever nominated them, the issue of the minorities involved or of "empathy" should play as little role as possible.

Let's use the Carrie Prejean/Perez Hilton train wreck as an example. (Granted, the less I think about this, the less I want to punch someone in the nose for making it news.  However, the best way to educate these days is using real-world examples.  Well, "real world" is getting a fast and loose usage, but I digress.) Everyone who hasn't been in a coma in the last 30 days has heard about this charming little monstrosity, but let's say Prejean wanted to bring a lawsuit against Hilton claiming that her right to freedom of expression was violated and (after everyone stopped laughing) it got to the Supreme Court.  Here's how a model Justice SHOULD look at this case:

Person A (Hilton) asked Person B (Prejean) a question.

Person B's response to that question was inconsistent with Person A's beliefs.

Person A responded to that first by committing an act that cost Person B a promotion.

Person A then repeatedly and maliciously slandered Person B in a public and harmful manner specifically because of Person B's statement.

Has Person A violated Person B's right to freedom of expression?  Are Person A's actions discriminatory and punishable as set down by the lower court?