HONORABLY DISAGREE

One might argue that the above blog caption is a true oxymoron - not unlike the funny ones recently referenced.

There are many hurts - some real/some imagined - that cause us to repond to a person or a situation with considerable vitriol. ( think scathing rebuke).

Sometimes it's absolutely on the money, but oft times it's like sports talk shows. Just a lot of people carping about this team or that, some ballplayer with whom they find fault - or a coach/manager who the talk show participant is convinced made a boneheaded decision.

Politics is a lot like that as well. Much had been written about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. A good bit of the communicaation had to do with a decision she made about army recruiting at Harvard when she was Dean of the law school.

From what was written and quoted it was difficult to determine whether the criticism was about Kagan or more about a certain philosophy held by the critic.

Two things I read in The Washington Post ( a source recommended by brother Jim) were written by people with whom there has been much disagreement from this quarter. However, they seemed to coalesce at just the right time for this old timer.

The first was by columnist David Broder. The second by Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina.(Don't you wish some time the media would eliminate the political affiliation
of the subject just so you could see if you guessed correctly?)

Broder wrote about Kagan's presumed elevation to The Supreme Court - thus assuring that for the present - the Court would have a 1/3 female representation. He likened it to the difference he observed in newsrooms since 1961 with the introduction of more and more female reporters.

In brief, he saw the latter as a positive. He felt it brought a different philosophy and a more comprehensive interview result. They asked in-depth questions men feared to ask.

I could support Broder. It never made much sense to me that while the Freshman college enrollees were mostly male, it appeared the 1950's high schools females comprised most of the valedictorians and salutatorians . (When I looked up my misspelling on the latter I was referred to "better food choices in school cafeterias".)

Why weren't they better represented as Freshmen? Just a re-reading of that sentence should have resolved the conundrum. It was only slightly more than 30 years before (1920) women were allowed to vote. I found the ones who "squeezed" through college enrollment were not just bright - but, funny as well. The two traits often seem to go hand in hand.

Elena Kagan has a great sense of humor as was demonstrated by her response to her whereabouts on Christmas when the "mad bomber" was attempting his own celebration.

Lindsay Graham, on the other hand may be a true "oxymoron". How can this (supposed) Republican have endorsed not only Kagan but Sotomayer - another Obama nominee? I mean, "Lord, what was the man thinking?".

The answer is in the question. He was "thinking". He was not a lemming jumping off cliffs. He was also not any other animal whose herd mentality have been often preserved in print to the point that the myth becomes the reality in which we believe.

Unfortunately, many in his party cannot see the difference and claim that Grahams upstart tendencies are in direct correlation with the fact he is not running for office in November.

While, I often found myself "honorably" disagreeing with Graham's views when he appeared on the Sunday interview shows - what he said to the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted in favor of Kagan's nomination made sense.

He wondered aloud what it was that the 21% of members of Congress were doing right that earned them a positive approval rating. He spoke of the criteria of "being smart" as one that was important for any Supreme Court nominee. He saw the wisdom of an independent judiciary.

Graham appeared to understand why Kagan would be foolhardy to respond to baited questions on subjects such as "same-sex marriage" an issue upon which she may be required to take a position in the very near future.

He made one comment that has been the keystone of many opinions written in this blog: "Are we taking the language of the Constitution that stood the test of time and basically putting a political standard in the place of a constitutional standard? That's for each senator to ask and answer themselves."

Finally, he stated, "What's in Elena Kagan's heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy I disagree with."

I'm convinced if we can do that in both our business and personal lives, we can look over any cliff and not feel a irresistable urge to jump off.

The Amish have a saying that covers that quite well: "We get too soon old - and too late smart."

Of course, you may "honorably disagree".