Sonia Sotomayor

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124343590838058789.html

Nominating Sonia Sotomayor as a candidate for the Supreme Court has ignited more than a little controversy. My own impression of the Wall Street Journal is that it leans to the conservative side on political issues, and this article has a hint of pessimism about Sotomayor, airing a lot of the grievances against her. Overall it seemed to hug the center pretty tight, however.
The authors definitely do not seem to have jumped on board the Sotomayor bandwagon. It is interesting and somewhat refreshing to hear opposition arguments toward Sotomayor, but their long list of caveats gives the article a somewhat pessimistic tone while refraining from ringing alarm bells. They point out Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," and examine the reaction to it. Also mentioned are conservative special-interest groups' complaints, such as questioning Sotomayor's commitment to equal justice and painting her as an opponent to gun rights. Interestingly enough, little to nothing is mentioned of Sotomayor's background that would merit her a position on the Court, while plenty of controversies are dug up and broadcast. This combination casts her as a racist radical, which is most likely far from true. I would have appreciated more insight into her qualifications and judicial background to make the article more informative.

Congress

I have become convinced that members of congress do not want the office because of the potential for raw excitement. Looking at a day in congress written out has proved my impressions of the way congress operates to be false. Not that I ever pictured sessions of congress to be an adrenaline rush, but it actually turned out to look more dry than I imagined. All that effort and money to get elected to a position of authority over very mundane matters. The fact that there are extremely serious matters of national importance occasionally tossed into the jumble of boredom doesn't seem to help; if anything, it makes things worse. Switching gears between designating Postal Service facilities and deciding on the fate of terrorists isn't exciting, it's stressful.
Not to mention points of personal occupational importance are mixed in to seemingly minute details. The writer comments on the "guns in the parks" rider on a bill to which some democrats granted approval, in the author's opinion, to appear pro-gun without consequences. The joke is on them, however. The bill, with strange rider attached, is making progress. I think I would quickly grow tired of keeping track of all the little career-killing/career-making details such as these.

Tazewell County

My home county is Tazewell County, just a short jaunt down the road from ISU. Tazewell was formed in 1827 by being carved out of Peoria county and named after an elected official: Littleton Tazewell, a senator.
The elected Representative from my district is Aaron Schock, a Republican. Mr. Schock is the youngest member of congress at 27 and entered office with experience as an elected official already under his belt, both as a school board president and state representative. He currently serves on the Highway and Transit Subcommittee and Small Business Committee.
One of two Senators is Dick Durbin, a Democrat, who holds the position of Majority Whip. Mr. Durbin was first elected to the House in 1983, and won election as a senator in 1996 and 2002. Some issues Durbin has been involved with have been health care and gun safety. As a member of the House, Durbin authored a bill to ban smoking on airline flights, and he also spearheaded an effort to penalize adults for failing to properly secure their firearms when used by a child for a crime.

"Why Governments Can't Run a Business"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

Government has been expanding recently, and I personally have not been able to find many voices talking about why it could possibly be a bad thing. What caught my eye in this particular piece was how John Gordon was able to elquently discourse on so many subtle points. I found that I was actually familiar with a small number of the arguments he had to make, such as "Governments are run by politicians," but mostly Gordon managed to think the issue through at a deeper level than I have.
I really liked Gordon's comments on how the government has to use taxpayer money. What defines success and the source of resources are completely different when the government and a profit-driven company are compared. A government concerned about courting votes and driven along by set political ideology will run a corporation reflecting those concerns in the way it operates. It's not a recipe for success.
My favorite point is undoubtedly the last. A government is in charge of supervising itself. The US government does not have a great fiscal track record, so it's unclear why government replacing knowledgeable businesspersons is a good idea.

Intro

Hi, my name's Blake and I'm a psych major. My only experiences with government have been voting and being taxed, so I'm expecting to learn quite a bit from taking this course.