The Hell's Kitchen Final Four as U.S. Presidents

Hell's Kitchen is one of my must-see television shows. I have not missed an episode since it's inception. While some seasons have been stronger than others, the show remains almost constantly entertaining, largely due to the presence of Chef Gordon Ramsay. What has fascinated me about this particular season has been the fact that none of the contestants has really stood out head and shoulders above the others. Each chef has strengths that are counterbalanced by glaring weaknesses, whether in technique or character. These particular comparisons were inspired by Jay's frequent justifications, and his may be the strongest, though feel free to judge for yourselves.

Jay: Bill Clinton. Jay never seems to be able to bring himself to admit any wrongdoing, even when evidence to the contrary is shoved in his face. A prime example was when Chef Ramsay cooked a frozen entree for the palate challenge. Jay waxed eloquent about how it was fresh and vibrant. After Ramsay revealed that it had been pre-prepared, Jay switched his tune to the meat tasting old. Throw in his spirited pursuit of Holli, and the only thing for Jay left to do is say, "Well, it depends on what your definition of the word chef is." Is Jay able to keep being more Slick Willie than disgraced Bill?

Holli: John F. Kennedy. As one of the better-looking chefs, Holli has been a victim of the classic HK editing with extended glances, bubbly giggles, and superimposed suggestive music. With all that, some may overlook the fact that she has significant culinary talents and has performed arguably the best of all the chefs in dinner services. Some critics dismissed Kennedy as a prettyboy player until he proved that there was something behind the facade. Where does Holli fall on the plane of style versus substance?

Autumn: John Tyler. After having been put up for elimination by her teammates in seemingly every show in recent memory, it is safe to say that Autumn does not have many friends. John Tyler was so despised in his lifetime that he was rejected by not one, but two political parties (the Whigs refused to nominate him for president in the 1844 election, an ironic reversal of Autumn's similar situation). Late in life, Tyler won election as a representative to the Confederate Congress. Will failure in HK cause renegade Autumn to go back to law school?

Benjamin: Calvin Coolidge. For all his bluster about his experience, creativity, and talents, Benjamin usually comes out a disappointing dud in dinner services. Not only that, he is also the most silent chef I can recall on HK. The man simply does not talk to his teammates, greatly to his detriment as Ramsay threatened to eliminate him on the spot recently if he did not start sharing. Coolidge once famously refused to help a reporter win a contest of getting him to say more than three words at a meal with one of the greatest two-word putdowns in history, "You lose." Will Benjamin's laconic ways also cause him to lose?

I plan to keep watching, as I have always done, to find out. The same I cannot confirm for the new show "Master Chef," but that is something for another time.

Thoughts on Elena Kagan

First, a disclaimer. I likely hold several views ideologically opposite of those held by Elena Kagan, so I approach this issue with that bias. Moreover, it appears that she will sail through the confirmation vote with flying totals due mostly to the Democratic Supermajority Less One. Still, I feel there are a few pertinent reasons why Ms. Kagan is not the ideal candidate for the Supreme Court that some have painted her to be.

First, Ms. Kagan has never been a judge. Her supporters continually skirt this issue by pointing to the fact that she has served in other positions traditionally held by Supreme Court appointees: judicial clerk, academia, and public offices. However, this fails to recognize that none of these positions perform the same task as a judge. A clerk is usually told what to do, where to look, and what to search for. An academic can wield significant influence in presenting personal opinions, through teaching and writing, that sometimes go unchallenged. A public servant must represent the views of the government. Even in her current, and arguably most prestigious, post of Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is bound to always argue and support the position of the Obama Administration. A judge must fairly and impartially apply existing law and precedent in evaluating the case presently before him or her. While I have no doubt that Ms. Kagan is far more intelligent than I, lacking a clear record of judicial rulings, it is nearly impossible to trace her fair, impartial legal reasoning. I am not sure how the ABA can deem her "well qualified" in this area aside from mere guesswork and supreme optimism. Simply having been a teacher does not make me "well qualified" to be Secretary of Education and run a government department, but perhaps the ABA would endorse me.

Second, even more glaring in the absence of such rulings, Kagan repeatedly declined to answer questions directly in the nomination hearings. Her supporters repeatedly referred to her as intelligent and possessing a sense of humor. Clearly, what the Supreme Court has lacked all these years is a stand-up comedian. Call me crazy, but I would much prefer to know a nominee's legal reasoning than be entertained by her sense of humor, but if I was a senator I would have been in the minority on that one apparently.

Third, Kagan marks the second straight judicial nomination for President Obama (after Sonia Sotomayor, of course) who is childless. Now, as a man, I am sure I will be barking up the wrong tree here, but it seems to me that it is much easier for a woman who has never been through the birth process to rule that abortion should remain legal. One such nominee is merely interesting, but two in a row suggests a pattern that Obama may continue if given the chance.

Finally, haven't we dealt with such a nominee before? Flash back to 2005, when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers. There were howls of how she was unqualified, how she was a political flunky that would do whatever Bush wanted, and how it was so outrageous. Kagan shares many parallels with Miers (aside from graduating and working in the Ivy League, which is becoming basically a prerequisite for becoming a SC justice, however irrelevant that may be). The response this time? Very few mainstream media outlets have said any of those things about Kagan. I think a major reason that Obama picked Kagan is so that he could have someone on the Court who thinks very similarly to him.

Where is the outrage? Apparently, it was almost entirely spent on the Bush Administration. Though Obama has done several questionable things as well, fewer people are holding his feet to the fire. Sadly, the country will not improve significantly until more people start holding this president accountable for his decisions.

Nothing and Everything

To say John Adams was disappointed in being the nation's first vice president, instead of president, would be a slight understatement. Adams railed against his position as being "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." However, in the midst of his discouragement and perceived unimportance, Adams also saw an opportunity. He stated, "In this I am nothing, but I may be everything."

As a young adult in the Adventist Church, I frequently identify with Adams' view of the Vice Presidency of the United States. Church leaders endlessly talk about how young people are the future of the body, but when push comes to shove, many of them bar the ability of young people to participate in or exert influence in church operations.

In some churches I have visited, it is interesting to see how much of the service shows off the work or research that a pastor, an adult Sabbath School group, an elder, or church staff may be doing. However, accomplishments of younger people are often minimized or completely ignored.

The solution to this is not an elegant one. The proliferation of many church plants or separate worship services geared toward younger people have arisen in recent years partly as a response to the fact that this demographic group feels largely neglected by the church. My activities have been mostly to serve as a deacon, fill-in Sabbath School teacher, and usher. While these duties are important, the fact remains that this is often the most involved a young person may hope to become in church as long as older individuals continue to maintain a monopoly on church operations.

I was afforded the opportunity several months ago to give a sermon. What I regret now is that I did not use that forum to give voice to how my current generation feels about church and why so many of us have made the decision to avoid it. It may be some time before I get another chance to take a platform with similar freedom of speech, but I hope that when it does come around I will be able to say something that makes a difference. It may be nothing, but it could be everything.