APPOINTMENT or ANOINTMENT?

Ok, call me a skeptic, but I, for one, am getting a little leery of this so-called appointment power.  The now-available Blagojevich Polygraph and Patterson People Finder (sold in Illinois and New York respectively) have exponentially increased my discomfort.

In estate law, appointment power typically allows the will's writer to determine who will have the authority to disperse specific property in the event of the writer's death or impairment.

In judicial terms, the executive branch holds appointment power for judges who are then to be confirmed by the legislative branch.

In regard to elected office, appointment power is used when there exists an unexpected vacancy  (see "Obama, B." -- although one could make a case that the vacancy of his previous office was not unexpected, popular as he long seemed to be).

Previously I would have assumed that in each of the aforementioned circumstances, the appointment would be given to the person deemed most qualified for the job.  However, I am beginning to find greater truth in the colloquial assertion that "to assume" makes only a "you-know-what" out of "u" and "me."

Should we ask what makes a person qualified for a desired position?  Obviously, it is not "in-name-only" (sorry, Caroline), or Pete Rose, Jr. would have found his way out of minor league baseball.  Let's be certain, too, not to throw Andrew Cuomo's candidacy into the "name-only" mix; he has a well-respected name but has also earned his own, individual, solid credentials.

So what makes a person qualified?  Let's try this again:

One, a commitment to public service.  Putting the public's best interest before any individual opinion, best observed by decision-making in previous public service positions.

Two, a history of courageous leadership.  Providing trustworthy guidance for those whom you have been called to lead, specifically in regard to economic, social, and security issues.

And three, a resume of resounding character.  Fulfilling each of life's roles with honesty and integrity (Gov. Blago might want to look into this one when he has a bit more spare time on his hands...  I hear that is coming...  sometime...  hopefully...  much to his supposed chagrin).

I am uncomfortable that government appointments have seemingly become more about who you know or raised money for than about items one, two, and three above.  "Who we know" is not an appropriate resume listing.  Being a loyal fundraiser does not justify advanced, political positioning.  But with disturbingly increasing frequency, we are witnessing Republicans and Democrats alike -- at local, state, and federal levels -- appoint persons who do not first exemplify a commitment to service, courageous leadership, and resounding character.  As evidenced so alarmingly in Illinois, we are appointing people for all the wrong reasons.  How often is this happening?  In how many of our states has this outrageous practice become accepted protocol?  Are we appointing or anointing?

To anoint means to consecrate or make sacred, typically in a ceremony that includes the application of oil.  Unfortunately, it appears there exists little sacred in the current process of government appointment.

AR