More on the Supreme Court appointment
I am with pustelnik - there should be "a few diabetic role models that are not athletes or musicians". There was a governor of Louisiana, I think, with type one diabetes, but - judging by some former holders of that office - that is a dubious role model for anyone (no offence to him!).
I enjoyed the discussion in the comments - would such an outpouring of opinion be even remotely likely with the appointment of a British Law Lord? Can you name one? I cannot.
On non-diabetic issues: Given the anguish the abortion issue still causes in the US (reflected in comments to this blog) it is strikingly cool of Obama according to this piece - not to have asked about it when he interviewed her!
Hello, I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
The reason Obama didn't ask about the abortion issue is precisely because it's still a hot topic. He knows that any candidate for the Supreme Court will avoid saying anything about an issue which may come before the Court which would indicate prejudgement of the issue. In the Judiciary Committee hearings the subject will be broached, but very carefully. They will talk all around the core point which matters to people who care: will you uphold or overturn Roe v Wade? without answering it.
Complain about this comment
The Republicans, who in past history were fiscal conservatives, have been taken over by the religious right. The Republican agenda is a social agenda, much like the Taliban, do what we say, think like we say, act like we say or else we will attack you. The curtailing of individual freedoms over the last 8 years has been shameful and hidden behind the cloak of fear. The expediential growth of government with the accompaning bureaucracies infest themselves in every aspect of our lives. As we have seen with the financial crisis, they are handmaidens to wealth and power and operate with two sets of rules, one for us and one for them. Governments must change with the times and the accumulation of power, or abdication of power by citizens, always leads to abuse. This has always been the foundation for revolution. Emotions cloud the intellect and that is why the Republicans make abortion an issue. Civil discussion of important issues does not accur in politics. The current political decisions of "free rounds, on the house" will only encourage future financial thieve to plot once again. If abortion is the primary test for the Supreme Court we are certainly in trouble as things such as can financial institutions and their boards of directors be held on criminal charges for violating basic accounting principals and disclousure laws, or can the government listen to my phone conversations and read my e-mails, or since the banks and corporations are now primarily public owned, how is the public represented in the decision-making. What exactly does Taxation without Representation mean? I was never high on having "In God We Trust" on money, but at this time there is no one else.
For those Republicans who would like to challenge the nominees' intellectual abilities: please present your votes on the efforts to regulate hedge funds and other derivative financing during your tenure.
Complain about this comment
I don't know why you keep talking about diabetes as if it were a rare disease.I have 3 friends and 4 cousins,2aunts,one of which did died of complications because of diabetes and not taking proper care of herself diet or her insulin.It's not that rare many people have it and do many things.Some even live fairly long lives.And the last reason a supreme justice should be approved or disapproved because of diabetes is silly.I am sure there are many lawyers and judges with diabetes.And I don't think most people care either which way,it isn't an issue for them.
Complain about this comment
But is this remotely healthy?
In the US court stacking is the order of the day depending on which side is in power.
It is a corrupt method, justice should not be about pleasing the faction in power - that is mob rule.
In the South law enforcement many officials, elected to power, often became agents for the rascist, sepratist majority - any notion of fairness went out the window.
Complain about this comment
I will be honest I don't really care if Abortion is legal or not.I think it should be because of medical reasons both for complicated pregnancies as well as the fact women will get them any way by who knows with what by whom.And because of personal freedoms that the constitution guarantees to New and natural born citizens if you ain't born your not a citizen.Enough Said.
Complain about this comment
Justin:
Since Sotomayor will be confirmed unless she is another Obama apointee with tax problems.
The interesting point is the divide.
On one side are those who oppose her because she is Obama's pick or resent her statements on the superior analysis a latina woman would provide
On the other side are her supporter who cry racism if you bring up any questions on her judicial philosophy.
Complain about this comment
strikingly cool... not to have asked about it
I wonder what phrase you would have used if George W. hadn't asked the same question, allegedly (not that you would have accepted at face value such a statement from a Bush-era spokesman, of course). "Strikingly stupid"? "Strikingly fence-sitting"? "Strikingly voting present"?
But as we all know from the BBC, where Bush was stupid, forced to compromise, buffeted by events, and weak, the narrative demands that Obama - in similar circumstances - be portrayed as intellectual, willing to compromise, pragmatic, and strikingly cool.
Complain about this comment
Abortion does, indeed, remain a litmus test for many Americans, not only insofar as Supreme Court nominees, but candidates to other public posts as well. Gay marriage is another hot button issue that carries a lot of weight in conservative circles.
Interestingly, and is spite of her many rulings and legal opinions, there is nothing in her record that reveals her position on these issues. I suspect that in addition to the anticipated, and understandable angst shown by conservatives since her nomination, there are probably many liberals biting their fingernails. The probability of a "Hispanic" Catholic being pro-life, hopefully in the true sense of the term, is very high. The question is, will her cultural and religious convictions influence a vote against the right to privacy?
Obviously, conservatives would not be too disturbed if she turns out to be a social conservative, and I am sure they don't object to her rulings supporting the right to free speech and assembly, what I suspect worries many is the probabilty that she may be in favor of restricting gun laws and protecting civil rights.
Complain about this comment
Yes, there are some dubious role models in the links provided that would not do well in todays media environment, but Huey Long and Edwin Edwards were the type of men the state government needed at the time. Huey Long probably prevented a socialist revolution, while Edwards spared us all from David Duke. These men were powerful Democrats who quite frankly successfully governed as an alternative to the Democrat establishment in a one party state.
Complain about this comment
#2, ghost, to echo what you have said, I heard on NPR that none of the
justices on the bench has any real-world experience in the business world.
There is nothing like having to meet a payroll to sharpen appreciation for
financial risk.
If the Chrysler bond holders bring about a court action, I wonder if the
judiciary will be up to the task of sorting the mess out.
Now, Justin, as far as your comparison of the vigorousness of the debate
about the SC appointment, I submit that this is evidence of our comparative
litigiousness.
Complain about this comment
Diabetic role model? What nonsense! She is to be a Supreme Court justice. If whe were fat would she be an obese role model? If she were dyslexic, a role model for dyslexia? How about if she were mentally retarded? Really, Justin, you should be able to come up with something better than this.
Complain about this comment
RE 2
That's not a comprison that most republicans want to hear, but sadly it is a comparison that is farly accurate. The Republicans do not want to admit this, but there is an elemant with in their Party which is vary similar in terms of ideology to the Taliban. It's sad, but it is true.
Complain about this comment
No doubt that if a white male said that his opinion would be superior to a Hispanic female - his nomination would be "toast" on arrival. I really don't understand why her comment implying that her judgment would be superior to a white male should not disqualify her from being a simple judge .. let alone a Supreme Court Judge.
How about picking someone who makes decision without racial/sexist prejudices.
Complain about this comment
Mods: I see my comment has been referred. I would love to know why. All I did was question the validity of diabetes as a role model vis-a-vis becoming a justice of the Supreme Court.
Complain about this comment
Ref 13, Cynic
"No doubt that if a white male said that his opinion would be superior to a Hispanic female - his nomination would be "toast" on arrival."
The comment made by judge Sotomayor during a conversation about the plight of minorities reflected the obvious. A person that has suffered discrimination and had to overcome barriers that make it difficult to achieve what is available to the average citizen has a better understanding of that topic than one who only read it in a newspaper or heard about it on TV or the radio.
If a white nominee had asserted that he would be better suited to discuss problems in suburbia than someone who grew up and lived his entire life in the inner city, I doubt he would be questioned, let alone disqualified.
The difference is the fact that the comment was made by a Hispanic female and such audacity can not be tolerated by those whose views of what is acceptable and what is not remains in the pre-civil rights era. If in doubt about what a white male can get away with, listen to the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Complain about this comment
14 -
What Justin means, I believe, is that it would be nice for children with diabetes to see that those with the disease can live long and prosper in professions other than sports and music, and perhaps not worry they will be discriminated against because of their condition. I can see how Ms. Sotomayor could very inspirational to children with diabetes.
Complain about this comment
RE 16
If that is what Justin means thhen I support him. Diabetes is a terrible disease which can lead to death if not treated properly. Having said that, I still do not believe it is relavent to who should and should not serve on the the Supreme court, it is as relavent as how many career homeruns Byron White hit for the Pittsburg Pirates and how many interceptions he had for the Steelers.
Complain about this comment
Ref 6, Magic
"On the other side are her supporter who cry racism if you bring up any questions on her judicial philosophy."
The problem is that what is being brought up against her has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy, rulings or opinions. What we have is a lynch mob calling for the head of a woman who had the audacity of saying that a minority is a better judge of problems afflicting minorities than a white man. Not surprisingly, her comment, which is right on the money, has elicited charges of reversed discrimination (whatever that is) and calls for the withdrawal of her nomination before the hearings even begin. I reckon it is still dangerous for certain people to be disrespectful to Bwana.
Complain about this comment
cynic555 (#13) "I really don't understand why ... "
The reason you don't is because you have mischaracterized her remarks. On the preceding thread I posted a link to an article which quotes her remarks on that subject more extensively than the snippets (some of them incorrect) which are being bandied about. You might want to read it.
Complain about this comment
17 -
The diabetes is relevant only in that it is part of the empathy thing that Obama said was important. Living with a chronic illness, I would think, would give someone empathy for those whose lives are difficult. And I for one am tired of decisions in this country being made by people who have no idea how the "other half" lives. Perhaps justice is supposed to be blind but that does not mean it has to be thoughtless and heartless.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe I'm saying this...but it could be that BHO actually made a considered decision about appointing someone who will sit on the court long after he has left office? At the very least, he does not need a bloody and bitter nomination battle on his hands, given everything else on his plate. This reality would tend to push him toward appointing centrist justices, would it not? FDR nearly crippled his administration in the 1930's by attempting to 'pack the court', and stage an end run around the constitution.
One of the factors that helped propel the appointments of Justices Thomas and Scalia was their 'story'--the rise from humble beginnings to nomination to the highest court in the land. This is not a new thing, and yes, people who live those lives tend to bring singularly forged points of view to the job. As long as it is not a deeply held grudge, a point of view is not such a bad thing.
I remember clearly how the Democrats poisoned the political culture of the country during the nomination hearings of Justice Thomas, and Judge Bork before him. They acted shamefully, and were remembered for it.
If there is not some compelling reason revealed in this nominee's record that would indicate she is unqualified for the post, would it not be prudent(for the sake of the body politic) to have this nomination go through smoothly? Of course questions can be asked, and should, because it is the role of the Senate to examine appointees. Should the hounds be released in order to sniff out any person in her past that she crossed swords with, in order to blacken her reputation with some implication of scandal? I think not.
That sort of behaviour is best left to the Democrats. They're experts at it. The GOP needs to locate the high road again.
Are there other, more conservative individuals people such as I would prefer? Absolutely, but BHO and his party decisively won the last election, and elections should have meaning; which is something both parties seem to forget.
Oh well, at least WE get to have elections, unlike some parliamentary democracies we can name...
Complain about this comment
re: 1 Gary A Hill
Jeezus, Gary, did you have to wrap it up with the first post? Not much to add to that.
Just this link discussing a recent poll regarding Roe v Wade.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
OldSouth (#21), it sounds like you've cribbed from Ed Rollins, but I'll give you credit for arriving at that conclusion independently.
Complain about this comment
Diabetic, of Hispanic origin, and excellent legal mind. I this order. Just got to be a winner! But wait... How about crippled in Vietnam,one legged survivor, with Spanish surname and equally formidable legal record? Couldn't find one? Well, how about epileptic, I stick with Hispanic (impressively large minority group), legal warrior with good judicial record? Could not find either? Only white Caucasians, mostly of Jewish faith? Well, let stick then with the first find, Sotamayor. She seems to genuinely love her mother.
Complain about this comment
#3. faeyth: "I don't know why you keep talking about diabetes as if it were a rare disease."
Because Justin's young son has been diagnosed with it and, with all respect, he considers it to be a life altering situation. From the comments made here, it would appear that it is very manageable. Youngsters have all kinds of medical problems and diabetes does not equate with the horrors of thalidomide, not forgetting cancer, colostomies or polio. Also, mumps during puberty can render a male sterile - so Type One Diabetes seems to be relatively benign by comparison. However, Justin uses his pulpit in order to elicit sympathy. A number of people here suffer with cancer, but they don't make it a point of mentioning it; we are sympathetic to diabetics, but it would be better if it were not a feature of his blog.
Complain about this comment
This Supreme Court nominee is one place Obama can feel safe that he will get his way. A lot of people are telling him to go to hell lately if not in so many words. North Korea's leadership just has. Iran's Ahmadinejad demanded an apology when Obama stretched out a hand for negotiations to him. His own director of the CIA publically admonished him about releasing the memos and forced him to retract the photos he was set to release. His own party in Congress has revolted against his plan to bring some of the GITMO prisoners to the US. Israel's new Prime Minister told him Israel would continue expanding its settlements. Meanwhile Obama has no permanent staff in place yet to deal with the crisis in Korea. Iran is taking advantage of his weakness stalling for time while it works on a nuclear weapon of its own. Pakistan is in real danger of falling to the Taleban and al Qaeda along with its nuclear arsenal. His steps to fix the economy aren't working, at least not yet. His plans to help save Chrysler and GM from bankruptcy have failed.
Let's see how much worse it will get in the next hundred days. At this rate by that time we'll be in a nuclear war with somebody.
Complain about this comment
A person that has suffered discrimination and had to overcome barriers ....
Obviously the person who wrote this doesn't understand that in the US today being a Latina Woman with a disability is not only NOT a barrier, it gives her a huge advantage over ANY qualified white male. It's like winning the trifecta, ethnic and female and a disability. If she announced she is a lesbian and atheist she would be perfection itself and could write her own ticket. Bigotry is more than ok in the current ruling class of the US as long as the right groups benefit from it.
Complain about this comment
"On non-diabetic issues: Given the anguish the abortion issue still causes in the US (reflected in comments to this blog) it is strikingly cool of Obama according to this piece - not to have asked about it when he interviewed her! "
It's about how we handle our diversity. At its political and legal core, this is about states' rights, about the right of different cultures to coexist amicably by maintaining mini-cultures according to the opinions and cultures of their community, and allowing others the same privilege. I have seen more than one of our European contributors express puzzlement or astonishment at our tolerance of parochial variety among our states - but it gives us great flexibility and the greater personal freedom to find a place where we can have it more our own way. You may not understand or entirely trust those folks in Idaho, Utah, California or New York, but if they leave you alone, they're OK.
Abortion laws belong to the states, as do marriage laws, incorporation laws, some voting laws, and laws concerning a host of other matters. Activists throughout our history have pressed to make their opinions the rule throughout the nation by fixing them in federal law, the federal constitution, or by a decision of the federal judiciary that must inevitably be confirmed by the supreme court.
Some of these usurpations of the states' prerogatives have been accepted by nearly all of the country - civil rights and the abolition of slavery, for example, although the latter brought us to our only civil war as offended states seceded rather than submit. (Not the only cause, I know...) When those who are comfortable with the innovation predominate in all or nearly all states, the change is accepted and applauded. When the innovation leaves majorities or even significant minorities in several states injured, angry and offended, the divisions in the country get deeper as it is apparent that one faction is forcing it's will on the another. Examples of this causing a reversal would be the prohibition of strong alcoholic drink in the 1920's, and the movement to stop capital punishment in the 1960's and 70's, which has withdrawn in many states in recent years.
Clearly, abortion is still abhorrent to large parts of the country, and various states handle the issue in various ways. The effort to write a uniform rule across the country has not been accepted everywhere. Should it be, or should local resistance be tolerated out of respect for our differences?
Today it seems that the strong effort by the religious right through the last few decades to reverse Roe vs Wade so that abortion might again be banned across the nation, has failed to persuade the nation. They (we) have failed to persuade our neighbors on a number of issues that we thought were of national importance and clear moral consequence. The debate is not over, but the tactics must change with the aim of forming a coalition of willing agreement, rather than using political tools to force a minority opinion on an unwilling majority.
The lack of consensus and vigorous controversy surrounding the issue of abortion means that nominees as well as sitting justices must not pre-commit themselves to one side or the other. That would be activism of the sort that would destroy the credibility of the court. The president ought not ask for such a commitment - no president, senator, or national leader should try to force a pre-judgement when the facts of an individual case, and we must always begin with a specific case, are not known.
Again and again the justices of the supreme court have surprised, astonished, and even angered the nation by ruling against their expectation. That is a very good thing, so long as his or her integrity remains intact, and they judge the law without favoritism. No interest group, ethnic group, class, or region should have confidence that they will get special consideration over and against the rest of the nation. Shame on you if you ask for it.
with respect for the process,
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
A Supreme Court Justice "should" only be considered on qualifications in and understanding of federal and constitutional law. Any other side issue makes good press, but I'd rather have an armadillo on the bench that deserved to be there than a pick that's trendy, believes in my pet cause, etc...
The reason politicians have always used the court to change law is that, even though are admittedly imperfect system was made to correct itself and grow in time to become better, the number of amendments over our history proves how hard the act actually can be.
The law Obama signed into force regarding equal pay for both sexes, for example, is only the latest attempt at getting ERA era ideals put into reality one at a time as society saw fit to change.
Thankfully, despite all of the hot air, for the most part, our Supreme Court has had a remarkable history (by and large) of carrying its heavy burden, even at times "biting the hand that fed it" when not voting the way it was supposed that they would.
Could be it's because politicians are only jockeying for position in the next election, while the Supreme Court knows full well their grandchildren will have to live in the nation they help create?
Complain about this comment
27. At 04:32am on 29 May 2009, Arizona_Girl wrote:
"Obviously the person who wrote this doesn't understand that in the US today being a Latina Woman with a disability is not only NOT a barrier, it gives her a huge advantage over ANY qualified white male. It's like winning the trifecta, ethnic and female and a disability. If she announced she is a lesbian and atheist she would be perfection itself and could write her own ticket. Bigotry is more than ok in the current ruling class of the US as long as the right groups benefit from it."
I certainly hope that was tongue-in-cheek. By this statement, you seem to be showing that ... 'Bigotry is more than ok in the current ... US as long as the right groups benefit from it.' Although I respect all the groups you list as fellow members of our pluralistic society, to say that a stereotype trumps 'ANY qualified white male' is bigotry and unreasoned prejudice of the most blatant sort.
We are all, first, individuals and not mere examples of some stereotype or other. Our individuality is what we all have in common and it must be respected or none of us have any freedoms. As presented, that was a positively ill-liberal comment.
KScurmudgeon, fuming
Complain about this comment
Well put, KScurmudgeon, fuming
Unfortunately (or fortunately), even the most abrasive and hateful speech is protected if we are to protect our own right.
The only alternative to freedom is absolutism, and the extremists always get there first.
Complain about this comment
#30. KScurmudgeon: ref Arizona_Girl "I certainly hope that was tongue-in-cheek."
I don't think so. Even the suggestion that the judge is a "Latina" is offensive to many - what about other ethnic groups which have been overlooked? Isn't there an Armenian or Polish person who would be as well qualified? If a white male was described as "Anglo" there would be howls of protest. Although Mrs Sotomayor fits all the currently fashionable criteria, is she really the very best that America has to offer? That's the bottom line, not her racial profile, gender, medical situation or her upbringing. If someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth, in perfect health and was actually better qualified, surely that would be the most important thing - not the rest of the CV (resume). From my perspective (and Arizona_Girl's) there does seem to be a whiff of pandering to a certain part of American society - it's all too pat for my liking. Rather like Senator McCain's choice of Mrs Palin, this nomination appears to have been made in haste - there's a lot of truth in the saying Act in haste, repent at leisure.
Complain about this comment
25, David.
"Because Justin's young son has been diagnosed with it and, with all respect, he considers it to be a life altering situation. From the comments made here, it would appear that it is very manageable."
My husband's family produces diabetics and my husband is one. The only things that will kill a diabetic, from what I can see, is poor medical care, or not following the required regimen. Life expectancy in his family is about the same for diabetics and non-diabetics.
Complain about this comment
32. At 06:53am on 29 May 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
" Although Mrs Sotomayor fits all the currently fashionable criteria, is she really the very best that America has to offer? "
That is a good argument, but I see it differently. I don't think we can identify 'the very best' individual - there aren't objective criteria to evaluate that. We cannot even say who was the very best justice from the past - when we have the complete record of their performances.
And elections should make a difference - the president gets to appoint federal judges, within the context of the majority sentiments that elected him. Justices are not elected, after all, but we do not suppose that they work in a complete vacuum - absent from their culture.
If there are a few hundred individuals who are fully qualified for the position, then the president has the right and responsibility to chose from among them as he or she thinks best, and to shape the court as time and chance give opportunities. Because there are nine justices change is not going to be sudden. In this way the composition of the supreme court is responsive to the public will over time, but not directly. And because these justices serve for life they have an independence that makes any appointment a real gamble on the part of a president who would like to think he is controlling the court - its history is notorious on that matter.
And this is the reason that a judge's intellect, reasoning, and integrity are really the important issues - you cannot predict how they will vote from a political perspective, but you can do your best to put someone there who not make a fool of themselves and damage the country.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Just got back from watching the new Terminator movie, and learned that
we are human because of our circulatory systems.
Chronophobe, read your post on the previous thread - sounds good to me,
I wonder if anarchy actually works. I would believe anything if it actually
worked.
Ms. Marbles, as for your comment on that thread, I can only quote Peter
O'Toole in the movie "The Ruling Class," where, when asked how he knows
that he is God, he replies, "Because when I talk to God I find that I
am talking to myself."
Complain about this comment
How's B. B. King for a cool enough "role model" for diabetics (along with any other "group" you could lump him into)?
Mostly...just a class act in any universe.
Complain about this comment
#35 gunsandreligion
"Just got back from watching the new Terminator movie, and learned that
we are human because of our circulatory systems"
Can we use this logic to determine that embryos aren't humans and all those that use the "abortion is murder" are wrong? :P
Also, could I have your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle?
Complain about this comment
# 27 Arizona_Girl wrote:
"Obviously the person who wrote this doesn't understand that in the US today being a Latina Woman with a disability is not only NOT a barrier, it gives her a huge advantage over ANY qualified white male. It's like winning the trifecta, ethnic and female and a disability. If she announced she is a lesbian and atheist she would be perfection itself and could write her own ticket. Bigotry is more than ok in the current ruling class of the US as long as the right groups benefit from it."
How true, how very true.
Just look at the Senate and House - jam-packed with disabled, lesbian atheists from a minority race. The same for the Supreme Court. And every single State Governor is a disabled, lesbian atheist from a minority race. Obama and Biden? Disabled, lesbian atheists from a minority race. Guess straight white males like me just don't stand a chance.
Meranwhile, back on planet Earth...
I think I asked before, at some stage when a believer was complaining about how 'persecuted' believers are in the USA - is there even one self-professed atheist on the SC, in the House or Senate, or elected a Governor? Not saying there isn't - just that I haven't heard of them.
And of this large group, how many are disabled, lesbians from a minority race?
"Bigotry is more than ok in the current ruling class of the US as long as the right groups benefit from it"
Well, since the current ruling class of the US is overwhelmingly white, male, straight and able-bodied - that may well be true.....
Complain about this comment
Just to comment on postings 15 and 19. Having read the link that was posted on the previous blog the relevant quote seems to be:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice OConnor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding casesI am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life."
It was not a conversation but part of a keynote speech at Berkeley. The issue being addressed is general competence it is not specific to cases where an understanding of the context is important.
Now if what she had said was that: "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a different conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life." then I think not as much controversy would have ensured.
Interestigly no-one has picked the sentence at the begining of the paragraph which suggests that there may be physiological reasons why judgements would be different.
Complain about this comment
Ref 27, Arizona
"Obviously the person who wrote this doesn't understand that in the US today being a Latina Woman with a disability is not only NOT a barrier, it gives her a huge advantage over ANY qualified white male."
Being a member of ANY ethnic minority group, female, and disabled does, in theory, give you an advantage when applying for a job in the USA. Unfortunately, there is a difference between theory and reality. As John in Dublin pointed out, a casual look at the ethnic makeup of Congress, the Supreme Court, and just about every corporate board in the USA would show you how far those "attributes" and "rights" will get you.
I have no way of knowing whether judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate for the upcoming SC vacancy, but I would say that qualifying for a scholarship to Ivy League universities, graduating on top of her class at Princeton, becoming the editor of the Yale Law Journal, working as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, and a Federal Appeals Court Judge suggest she is more than just an average candidate nominated because of her ethnicity, gender and "disability".
I realize the probability of an ethnic minority being as qualified as a white male is a concept that is very difficult to accept; and that to some the idea of a woman - lesbian or otherwise - being as qualified as a man is simply preposterous, even if some of those wonderful male specimens lauded for their superior intellect spend much of their time chasing male pages in Congress, using rest rooms for other than their intended purpose, or trying to figure out how to use someone else's money to buy yachts or improve their homes...without even realizing they were not paying for what they were getting, of course.
Complain about this comment
27. Arizona_Girl,
Your comment is like a breath of fresh air.
30. KScurmudgeon,
By fuming at that comment you show little understanding of the destructive power of political correctness.
Complain about this comment
I must admit that I find the dismissive comments made by some about Sonia Sotomayor's academic and professional accomplishments quite disturbing. Have people forgotten that they elected and re-elected a "C" average student who almost bankrupted the family oil business and a baseball team? Have people forgotten that they voted for a man who finished second from the bottom of his class at the naval academy and did not hesitate to dump his wife when she became crippled after a car accident and was no longer an asset in the pursuit of his professional goals or libido?
Judge Sotomayor is not being demonized because of her qualifications, the reason she is being demonized by a small, but vociferous, segment of our society is because she personifies the ability of anyone, regardless of ethnicity and gender, to excel in their professions and rise to the top.
Complain about this comment
@18 (StD) "The problem is that what is being brought up against her has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy, rulings or opinions. What we have is a lynch mob calling for the head of a woman who had the audacity of saying that a minority is a better judge of problems afflicting minorities than a white man. "
StD, your first comment is not entirely accurate. While I agree with you that there are plenty of folks on both sides of this issue who are unwilling to discipline their emotions and their tongues, I am also beginning to see reasoned questions raised about her approach to the judiciary, and the law (e.g. the article in the Suffolk Law Review in 1996 was interesting; I recommend that folks read it in its entirety). Those questions should be asked until equally-reasoned answers are delivered.
In your second comment, you approved of Sotomayor's conclusion, stating yourself that "a minority is a better judge of problems afflicting minorities than a white man". Since that is your stated belief, it follows logically that "justice" in our courts should mean that the verdict in a case should be affected not just by the facts in the case and the written law but also by what may or may not have happened to the plaintiff or defendent in events unrelated to the case at hand. Is this what you mean? If not, what DID you mean?
If it is what you meant, then by that definition if I have adhered to the written law it may profit me nothing, if the judge in the case decides that some unrelated condition of me or my opponent may take precedence over my adherence to the written law. Logically, then, if I go to court I should insist on a judge of my race, gender, and approximate economic status, since only they will be best able to judge my problems. You will correctly state that it would be racist for a white male to make such a condition. I will agree and also state that if it's racist for a white male to make such a claim, then it's racist for any other race or gender to make such a claim as well.
@all: Folks, we cannot have this both ways. If you want courts to function as as an impartial bar of justice, then you have to be content for justice to be meted out based solely on the facts in the case and the written law, and you must leave to the legislature the task of adjusting the law to render equity. If you on the other hand want the courts to act with partiality to create equity (by considering things unrelated to the case at hand, and not introduced as evidence), then by definition you elevate the courts to "super-legislative" status. The courts CANNOT assume both roles, and cannot do either role correctly if they are switching back and forth. Pick one or the other and carry it to its logical conclusion, because despite your desires that is where it will ultimately go. For myself, I'd rather have the courts as an impartial bar of justice, and written law as something I can depend on, but others would rather the courts create equity as their first job. Can't have it both ways.
Of course, the Congress loves this, because they'd rather be in the business of carving up the tax receipts to pay off contributors, reward friends, and punish enemies, and leave the hard questions of equity to the courts, but that was not originally their primary job.
Regards to all
Complain about this comment
Former Arkansas governor and recent presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has diabetes.
He recently had a "real cool" interview with former supermodel Kathy Ireland on his television show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzisHrqZAbM
Complain about this comment
Ref 43, Arc
"Since that is your stated belief, it follows logically that "justice" in our courts should mean that the verdict in a case should be affected not just by the facts in the case and the written law but also by what may or may not have happened to the plaintiff or defendent in events unrelated to the case at hand. Is this what you mean? If not, what DID you mean?"
A judge or justice, in my opinion, should reach conclusions based on his or her interpretation of the Constitution, applicable law, and legal precedent. Individuals, on the other hand, can and often reach conclusions based on their education, upbringing, culture, and life experiences.
I have no problem with judge Sotomayor being challenged by the Judiciary because of her legal decisions and performance as a judge, but I think it is demeaning for leaders of the opposition to attack her because of her gender, ethnicity, and political views. It is becoming increasingly apparent that she is a tool being used by the far right to undermine the credibility and judgment of a President they despise. If that is the intent of the savage attacks against her, they should reconsider their strategy as the likely outcome is not only her confirmation, but an increase in President Obama's popularity who is likely to make further gains among minorities and women. At this rate, the GOP may soon become a caption in American history books.
Complain about this comment
@45 (StD): Very good answer, and much appreciated!
"A judge or justice, in my opinion, should reach conclusions based on his or her interpretation of the Constitution, applicable law, and legal precedent. Individuals, on the other hand, can and often reach conclusions based on their education, upbringing, culture, and life experiences. " Your last statement is what I have been instructed to do when being seated on a jury (I've had that pleasure 4 times now, and it's always a challenge).
In your last paragraph, I think that rather being challenged by the Judiciary, you probably meant the opposition. I understood what you meant.
I doubt that the current generation of political leaders will ever give up their misbehavior. They have sown the wind over the course of years, and they will continue to reap the whirlwind.
Complain about this comment
Saint
I agree . I find it saddening that people can dis this accomplished individual and seem to go to great lengths to find some reason to disparage.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon (#34) "That is a good argument, but I see it differently. I don't think we can identify 'the very best' individual - there aren't objective criteria to evaluate that."
I see it your way also. There is no "best." Everyone on the short list should be well qualified by training, experience, and temperament to hold the office. Among, those, the President may choose whomever he prefers.
Complain about this comment
arclightt (#43), Thanks for calling to my attention the article in Suffolk Law Review. I read it in its entirety, as you suggested, and it is clear that Sotomayor is in the "legal realism" camp, exactly what Obama and I want.
I'm still not clear what you want, however. I've been reading your posts, and you seem to have something to say, but your tendency to talk all around the subject without getting down to brass tacks makes your argument somewhat difficult to follow.
Complain about this comment
#34.KScurmudgeon: "That is a good argument, but I see it differently. I don't think we can identify 'the very best' individual - there aren't objective criteria to evaluate that."
You miss the point I was making; the criteria which are being discussed at length (racial profile, gender, medical situation, upbringing) ignore her judicial abilities. They may well be excellent, but the emphasis on the criteria smacks of nomination by quota: all the politically correct boxes have been checked. But how does she compare to other (potential) candidates when those boxes are ignored? None of these qualities should be taken into account, let alone be given as a reason for selection. I would have hoped that the President would have chosen someone simply on their judicial abilities and ignored the rest.
Complain about this comment
People should not consider role models beyond family, friends, and local community. The fact a person is diabetic, Hispanic, woman, or all of the above, are nonissues. If judges merely uphold the law, oppose to reinterpreting it, party affiliation would also be a nonissue. What should be analyzed are past comments and decisions; whether they represent a political bias, racial discrimination, inconsistency or illogical ideology, legal expansionism, etc. Simply, is the person qualified to be a judge.
Complain about this comment
50, David -
I don't think "the rest" should be completely ignored, but can be taken into consideration once judicial abilities have been established. I think it's important to have perspectives other than from white males on the Court, not at the expense of judicial abilities but as an adjunct to them. And I think that is what Obama has done in this case.
When any decisions are being made for the country as a whole and I see a photo of whatever group that is making these decisions and this group is made up solely of older white men, it makes me distinctly uncomfortable. This is not to say that older white men cannot have varied viewpoints and empathy for those not like them, but often blindness to the lives of others can be cured only by that proverbial mile-long walk in the others' shoes.
Complain about this comment
#37, SaintOne, I'm not following your logic on abortion, but as for:
"Also, could I have your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle?"
only if you make a grand entrance. I have to go to work now, but as they
say, "I'll be back."
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#50) "I would have hoped that the President would have chosen someone simply on their judicial abilities and ignored the rest."
I naive hope, I think. Judicial abilities get a person on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Those on the short list, perhaps five candidates, should all be highly qualified. Within that list, the President may choose whomever he likes best, for whatever reason, as far as I am concerned. He said he wanted a legal realist (though in other words), which is what Sotomayor is, so she is a good choice from that standpoint. (Read the Suffolk Law Review article for an explanation of what a legal realist is.) She also will make the Court more representative demographically. This is a legitimate objective and a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Addendum. I think the fact that she's a baseball fan is a good thing, although offset somewhat by her being a Yankee fan. I don't want any of those cricket players on the Court.
Complain about this comment
55, Gary -
Uh oh. Are you being game-ist?
The most important criterion should be: Can the nominee complete the Saturday NY Times crossword puzzle nine times out of ten? Eight might be acceptable but nothing less. Use of references is permissible.
Complain about this comment
Before I go back to the "bit mine," I wanted to post a short article
from the WSJ about legal realism. Her remarks about minority perspectives
do not sound out of context when viewed in combination with this philosophy.
I'm interested in hearing more about how her views might affect her rulings.
Since I'm a fairly conservative guy, I'm somewhat uneasy about this appointment
until I learn more. I tend to believe that if the law needs to be changed,
then Congress should do it - that's why they are called "legislators."
Complain about this comment
42, saintD.
"Judge Sotomayor is not being demonized because of her qualifications, the reason she is being demonized by a small, but vociferous, segment of our society is because she personifies the ability of anyone, regardless of ethnicity and gender, to excel in their professions and rise to the top."
I disagree. She is being demonized because the Republicans decided, long befoe Obama made his decision, to discredit any choice he was likely to make. Politics as usual.
Complain about this comment
ref #42 and 45
Sotomayor will be challenged primarily on her judicial philosphy and decisions.
But her defenders don't want her questioned at all.
In regard to her ethnic background she opened the door with a couple of her comments. Also her association with La Raza is not comforting.
Would Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas been accepted if they were members of the Black Panthers?
Complain about this comment
"would such an outpouring of opinion be even remotely likely with the appointment of a British Law Lord? Can you name one? I cannot."
That's because British Law Lords do not play the same role in the UK as Supreme Court justices do in the US. In the UK, because of the way in which (given that the royal family is now nothing more than a figure head) the real Executive and Legislative branches of the government are somewhat fused together, parlament can, and 99% of the time does make all the decisions on all the contrivercial and complicated issues of the day that face the nation. It is inevitably easier for decisions to be made this way, since as you know, in a parlamentary democracy only one party need be concerned with being united in agreement on an issue. But since the US constitution explicitly demands that there shall be a clear separation of all three branches of government, the parties that make up the Legislative branch of the government are constantly being forced to compromise when passing legislation put before them by the Executive branch. This being the case, they will inevitably only be able to force an agreement on about 50% of the contrivercial cases that come their way, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to handle the rest of them.
The right to have an abortion (an issue which, I wouldn't be surprised if I were to learn of it being so, is probably the most contrivercial issue in the United States when compared to the rest of the world outside of middle eastern dictatorships,) was not an act passed by Congress, it was a 1973 Supreme Court ruling which finally made it legal. In the UK women were granted the right to have an abortion in 1968, (perhaps the earliest of all the western world) through an act passed by Parlament. Similarly, the cattalist setting into motion the desegregation of schools that were once only reserved for whites in the US was a Supreme Court ruling handed down in 1954, stating that it is unconstitutional to have separate methods by which to educate students/puples. I'm not sure of the civil rights history in the UK, but if the issue of abortion was settled by Parlament, then I'm pretty positive civil rights were won via that venue as well.
So if I were you I wouldn't frett to much about the fact that a High Court judge nominee in the UK generally doesn't get as much attention as a Supreme Court justice nominee gets here. Its just a difference in our systems of government that's all.
Complain about this comment
55, gary.
"I think the fact that she's a baseball fan is a good thing, although offset somewhat by her being a Yankee fan. I don't want any of those cricket players on the Court."
Haven't you noticed that all candidates claim to be baseball fans? I cannot picture Sotomayor sitting in front of a TV, watching a baseball game, as though she were a couch potato. She may not even be a beer drinker.
Complain about this comment
51. At 5:24pm on 29 May 2009, QuillanStone wrote:
People should not consider role models beyond family, friends, and local community. The fact a person is diabetic, Hispanic, woman, or all of the above, are nonissues. If judges merely uphold the law, oppose to reinterpreting it,2
I have never understood this, how can one uphold law without interpreting it?
Do those conservative judges on the SC insist that the right to bear arms applies only to firelocks and black powder?
No human being can act on any regulation without interpreting it.
Complain about this comment
#54. Gary_A_Hill: "I naive hope, I think."
What can be naive about hope?
"She also will make the Court more representative demographically. This is a legitimate objective and a good thing."
We must disagree on that - demographics should not be a consideration. I thought the United States had abandoned the "hyphenated American"of yesteryear, but now it appears to have reared its head once more. The judicial qualifications should, indeed must, be the sole criteria for nomination. That might upset some segments of the population, but a quota system in the Supreme Court is not something to be countenanced.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#63) " ... a quota system in the Supreme Court is not something to be countenanced."
We will agree to disagree, then, but nobody is advocating a quota system in any case.
Complain about this comment
63, David -
Explicit qualifications have never been the sole criteria for any position (except Heir to the Throne, and even that has been iffy at times!) at any time, anywhere. Even if unstated, personal likes and dislikes of the person or persons doing the hiring come into play, for positions from the lowliest mail room clerk to the President of the U.S. I doubt it's ever been any different with Supreme Court Justices. Even the supposed qualifications are often a subject of disagreement, because fallible humans are judging them. The qualifications have never been spelled out, so there can't even be any pretense of objectivity.
Complain about this comment
Ref 50, David
"...but the emphasis on the criteria smacks of nomination by quota..."
I agree that the President put a lot of emphasis on her life story and personal achievements, but that is customary and we should not forget that he also emphasized her academic credentials and professional record. He is well aware of how much the American public likes a good narrative about a person who because of his/her efforts and resolve managed to succeed, but I think it is a bit unfair to insinuate that her life story was the only or the most important criterion used by the President for her nomination. President Reagan did the same when he nominated Clarence Thomas, and went to great lengths citing the personal achievements or flaws of individuals every time he tried to achieve a specific goal. Remember the welfare lady that drove a Cadillac to collect her check? Politics as usual.
While I am delighted that a qualified "Hispanic" female has been nominated to the Supreme Court, I believe her credentials for the job must be ascertained. Based on what I have read about her, I think there is little doubt that her academic and professional achievements are remarkable. What is not so clear is her judgment and her position on some issues of great interest to many Americans. Hopefully, all members of the congressional Judiciary Committee will ask the right questions and be able to determine her qualifications, judgment and merit for such an important position.
As far as quotas, I have never been thrilled with them, but considering the injustices of the past something had to be done to ensure qualified minorities had an opportunity not only to be hired, but to be promoted or win contracts. As has been said in previous posts, a casual look at the people that have governed our country since George Washington and the first Congress, those who have served in the Supreme Court, the CEOs and board members of most corporations, and those in high level positions in all facets of life in the USA will reveal that if there is a quota system in the USA the main beneficiaries have been white males rather than women or minorities who are more often than not tokens in the top echelon of government and corporate America.
The part that irritates me is not people questioning her academic or professional qualifications, or her judgment, but those that focus almost exclusively on her ethnicity, gender, and health making claims and insinuations that range from racism, to preferential treatment, or unsubstantiated sexual preferences.
Regarding the suggestion that the opposition always criticizes and/or vote against appointments made by Presidents of the other party, I think it would be worthwhile for those that have that impression to do a little research to determine the voting patterns for some of the conservative judges currently serving in the Supreme Court. All were questioned, as they should have, some were confirmed unanimously, other had some opposition, and a few were rejected.
I suspect the polarization that currently exists in Washington, and throughout the country, may be due in part to the difficulties that the GOP is having in finding viable leaders and a coherent voice to challenge Democrats next year and in 2012. I suspect that some of the attacks against judge Sotomayor are warning shots drawing a line in the sand for future presidential appointments and, perhaps, to undermine the credibility and judgment of a very popular President. The irony is that Sonia Sotomayor may not be as liberal as her critics think, much to the chagrin of her supporters.
Complain about this comment
KScumurjian #28: It tok a civil war which cost the nation 620 thousand lives, more than we have ever spent on any foreign adventure or war before or since, to finally rid this nation of slavory, and those states which were aposed to civil rights being granted African-Americans did not magicly wake up one day and see the light as you suggest. They were forced to "accept" said laws and protection of African-American citizens from persicution through protests, sit-ins, etc etc etc...you know the story. And during that time, many were killed and/or severly beaten within an inch of their lives. Show me one other country on the face of this earth that refused to grant its citizens their most basic of human rights, and when (God forbid!!!) those citizens finally had enough and demanded their rights, tryed to suppress and stop them from gaining them at every turn. Only in America.
Regarding abortion, we don't have to come to a common consensus amongst the states. What are we? The permanent members of the Security Councel of the United Nations? Do we all always have to agree on everything all the time? We certainly don't all agree on how alcohol should be regulated and sold. I've even heard stories of Indianna going completely dry again. The only thing we agree on is that the sale of alcohol should be legal. Not the drinking age, not even the age at which one can legally buy it!! So why must we agree on an issue which is far more contrivercial like abortion?
What would be much better for us to be in absolute agreement on, in my opinion, would be on things like driving licences (perhaps a national driving licence instead of a state one) and perhaps a nation wide bann on capital punishment. After all, it has been proven time and time again that the risks are too great with the death penalty. Once you kill an innocent man, you can't bring them back. As long as Ro V. Wade is not over turned, I could care less what certain states do with respect to their abortion laws. Just as long as they don't deliberitly enact laws to make it virtually impossible for a woman to have one performed like pole taxes were employed during the civil rights era to prevent African-Americans from voting.
bfalcrod1 #29: '"The reason politicians have always used the court to change law is that, even though are admittedly imperfect system was made to correct itself and grow in time to become better, the number of amendments over our history proves how hard the act actually can be."
First, show me a system that is perfect. Second, yes. Our founding fathers deliberitly designed the constitution with the idea of it being as difficult as possible to amend it and needing two-thirds of the House and Sennate and two-thirds of the states' approval to amend it because they believed that what they were writing contained the right amount of checks and balances and protections both against the government and against individual citizens, that no more additions (mostly driven out of haste, greed, and selfishness) were needed. It was ment to force people to think before implementing amendments. It was a very wise move in my opinion. That is why out of the 10,000 or so constitutional amendment propositions put forth over our history, only 27 to date have been adopted.
This being the case, of course presidents, should they get the chance, are going to try and make their impact known on the Supreme Court. The majority of Supreme Court justices now on the Court were selected by Republican presidents, which has inevitably given it a right wing leaning (some on this blog would say a rabid extremeist right wing leaning.) Obama is just trying to tilt it back in the other direction. I see nothing wrong with that. This particular nominee won't change the Court's make-up, but should he get the chance to nominate more, those nominations may very well have a huge impact on future rulings.
John-In-Dublin #38 and SaintDominick #40: Will you guys calm down!! Yes the United States has all but been a flaming hypocrit to its founding ideals for 95% of its existance, and yes that is very, very shameful indeed. But also keep in mind, that today, as it stands, whites still make up 75% of our population. Latinos 17%, and African-Americans 13%. That being the case, while their representation in public office is certainly not commendable, its not as if they make up half of our population yet, so its not necessarily a complete abomination either. What is more of an abomination in my opinion, is that women make up 50% of the population, and there have only been three woman Supreme Court justices (assuming this one gets confirmed,) and as of right now, there are only 16, out of 100, woman sennators. 16!! Now that's something worth flipping out over!
Complain about this comment
i think its a bit naive of us to believe that someone's life experiences will not impact the way they interpret the law. Our experiences influence thee way we see everything in this world and I dont believe the constitution and laws in general are as clear as black and white. If so we wouldnt need lawyers to argue cases.
Sotomayers experiences as a latina woman from The Bronx will influence her decisions just as everyone else's experience will influence them, thats why in the case of the supreme court it is important to have diversity.
Complain about this comment
One of our most distinguished and influential Supreme Court Justices was a child of immigrants (from Bohemia). He was a member of a minority group (our first Jewish justice). He could be described as a "judicial realist" before the term was coined. His experience was entirely as an attorney; he had no judicial experience whatsoever. As a liberal activist, with no experience (and Jewish), his nomination was hotly contested. Was this nomination political? Certainly. Was it motivated by a desire to have Jewish representation on the Court? I don't know. In any case, it worked out well, in my opinion (and that of many others).
This link to a short bio of Louis D. Brandeis is from The Oxford Companion to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Complain about this comment
67 norashdecisions
"as it stands, whites still make up 75% of our population. Latinos 17%, and African-Americans 13%"
This makes a total population of 105% - or are the extra 5% illegal immigrants?????
;-)
PS - great discussion everybody. I've been too busy to join in properly but all the good argument and information is helping me expand my understanding of the US Supreme Court system. That's the main reason I'm here ... apart from the occasional desire for flippant, off the cuff comment.
Peace to you all
Complain about this comment
I think it is time to revisit "Obama v Cheney" or somesuch, Mr Webb... The discussion cannot stop on the Guantanamo ambivalence.
There is now credible reporting of horrific atrocities committed by persons employed by the Pentagone against captives, including women and children, in Iraq.
Those were US tax dollars at work. The American taxpayer deserves much more than the Pentagon's unconvincing denials...
Considering how much Americans are being expected to sacrifice to make up for grave errors committed by their leadership -- including appointees, persons never actually voted on by the electorate -- we deserve to know if actual war crimes also took place.
The overwhelming majority of Americans would never have agreed to atrocities against captives, especially minors. If such took place, as appears increasingly to be the case, this majority of decent Americans is entitled to an open and thorough legal process that will exonerate the innocent as much as convict and punish the culpable.
To avoid such a legal process implies that ALL Americans unhesitatingly approve whatever went down in Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons during the Iraq war.
Complain about this comment
ref #69
Since Jews do not get the benefit of affirmative action(even though we are a minority and do get descriminated against) that is a good question.
Hypotheticly if Bush or another Republican had nominated a conservative Jews, would the left get away with their personal attacks.
Complain about this comment
maria-ashot
That's bloody unfair of you to expect higher standards of behavior of American peacekeepers than of UN peacekeepers showed.
lostallyourmarbles
Finally something we can agree on, I don't want any bloody cricket players on the US Supreme Court, in the US government, in fact I don't want any bloody cricket being played in the US. It's un-American and should be outlawed. We'll talk about the New York Yankees another time.
I look on the bright side, he could have bloody well nominated Hillary Clinton to the SCOTA. What a disaster that would have been. At least Justice Mayonaise will know what she's talking about when she renders unfair decisions.
Complain about this comment
The Elephant in the Room: Obama's election did not end racism in America.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin (#72), I don't know, but my point was that the fact that there are demographic considerations does not mean that quality has been sacrificed. Brandeis was the first Jewish justice and had no judicial experience, yet became one of our most influential (and in a good way, I think) justices. O'Conner was the first female justice and had no federal judicial experience (she was a state judge), yet became a respected and influential justice. Sotomayor will be our first Hispanic justice, almost certainly, but does not have to overcome the burden of being thought to have too little experience. She has more experience in the federal courts than any current member of the Supreme Court had when appointed to it, yet some people are concerned that Obama may have taken demographics into account in her selection. That's a pretty lame complaint, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
MAII (#73), that was my remark about cricket players, not marbles'. It was in jest; I was trying to bait David_Cunard with an inside joke, but he didn't rise to it.
As for your remark about outlawing it, I think you've finally gone so far as to give away your game. That remark is obviously self-parody.
Complain about this comment
The fastest growing racial group in the US is actually multiracials-people who are racially of 2 or more racial groups. It's causing quite a few problems for bureaucratic institutions like public schools that use race quotas and affirmative action for racial parity because multiracials don't fall into any of the traditional groups. Even our current president is emblematic of this trend, seeing as his father is black and his mother is white. I personally think its a good thing that multiracials are increasing because they help bridge the cultural and racial divide that occasionally makes its way into the news.
So how does this relate to the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? It is related because Sotomayor is a Hispanic women and her nomination is being hailed as another glass ceiling being broken by her immense intelligence, judicial experience, and empathy under the law. However, we must not forget that justice must always be blindfolded, so that all may stand equally before the law. I feel that Sotomayor's judicial decision in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano was incorrect because she let her empathy get the better of her. I also believe that she will be reversed by the Supreme Court, something that is not unheard of. I hope that when she is confirmed by Congress and takes the oath of office as a Justice of the Supreme Court that she takes to heart the words of the oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Complain about this comment
RomeStue #70: I never thought to add it up to see if it equaled 100%. I just read the statistics in an article that Justin linked to a while back right after the election and quoted it thinking that the author of the article had already done the adding and fact checking themself. But I don't know. Perhaps they are illegal immigrants. I really don't know. Regardless, my original point still stands true, that whites make up an overwhelming majority of our population, and that as such, its not the end of the world if minorities aren't represented better (for now) in public office.
Maria-ashot #71:: Such an investigation is being caried out right now by Congress, but that of course and quite rightly beggs the question, 'What the hell was Congress doing these last 8 years while all this was going on? I'm just as furious as you are!!!!! We'll never be able to rebuild our reputation abroad after this! Do you hear me? Never!
Complain about this comment
77, bienvenue.
"The fastest growing racial group in the US is actually multiracials-people who are racially of 2 or more racial groups. It's causing quite a few problems for bureaucratic institutions like public schools that use race quotas and affirmative action for racial parity because multiracials don't fall into any of the traditional groups."
The last census allowed you to check one race, or more than one race. I remember one Hispanic family that was quite fair. The parents listed themselves as white. One of the children was quite dark. He listed himself as black. So much of race is subjective. I once read that it was estimated that ony five per cent of the black community was not of mixed race. That sounds reasonable. We all know dark blacks with Caucasion features and almost white blacks with negroid features.
Complain about this comment
Stop all commenting!! Stop all commenting!!! Obama administration trys to strip American journalists of their first amendment rights while simultaneously attacking the British press for daring to hold it to account!
And I thought Bush was bad!
Complain about this comment
How come we never talk of privacy rights,land rights,gun rights,speech,or corporate laws,voting age compared with drinking age,how taxes are collected,property taxes,curfews,freedom of information act etc....but just Abortion and Gay marriage.So sad just a one issue that probably won't be taken up by the courts anyway.We are eroding our freedoms slowly and always the same issue.Any way most kids don't know who the Supreme Court Justices are including diabetic children.More kids want to be Judge Mathias than a supreme court justice.
Complain about this comment
BienvenueEnLouisiana (#77), I agree with your first paragraph. A lof Americans, myself included, would like society to get past the whole "race" thing. Racial ambiguity helps to achieve that. It's an artificial and somewhat arbitrary characteristic anyway.
As for Ricci v. DeStefano, I suggest waiting for the Supreme Court decision. However it turns out, I don't think her position on the case resulted from any favoritism. I believe she tried to achieve the correct result based on the law and the facts of the case. She may or may not have done so to the satisfaction of a majority of the current Supreme Court. Anyone who thinks she did not perform her duty responsibly ought to have some better basis for making such an accusation than merely disagreeing with the result.
Complain about this comment
#80, NRD, are you trying to get Justin stuck in Turkey again?
Although, considering the level of the accommodations provided to
the press corps in that instance, I would volunteer to be left behind
in such a circumstance.
Complain about this comment
Gary-over-the-hill
It will take a lot more than your bloody light comments about bloody cricket to bait bloody Canard. I know, I've been successful at it for years.
Canard is a typical example of a Brit ex-pat who has come to the US because this is just a superior place to live but he refuses to admit it even to himself. He thinks he knows better than the heirs of the society that he has chosen to make his life long home than they do how it should be run. What the bloody fool doesn't realize is that if it were run the way Britain was run, the way he would have it, it would be no better than Britain is. Maybe that is what he really wants, an excuse to go back home to what would be the best of all possible worlds or at least as good as any other. But his kind of pratlings here are taken by most as a bloody joke. Only Brits, Brit expats, and the looney tunes left wing will give him the right time of day.
One legal expert on PBS nightly news claimed Soda-mayonaise will not be an outstanding SCOTA Justice, rather ordinary with no intellectual accomplishments to suggest that she would have any more weight than her one vote and will not be able to really advance the court's intellectual level. He said despite her educational and occupational background, she just doesn't have the intellectual fire power to really qualify, she just doesn't reach that plateau. This has nothing to do with all of the other arguments against her. But I predict she will be confirmed without much hitch. This has become a strictly a political process. Well see what she does once she's in office...at which point it will be too late to undo the damage if it turns out to be a mistake. What is a mistake? That depend on whom you bloody ask.
Complain about this comment
79, mods. I have been referred again. I worked on the census and theefore knew the government standards concerning it. What is there to object to?
Complain about this comment
41. At 12:12pm on 29 May 2009, TrueToo wrote:
"27. Arizona_Girl,Your comment is like a breath of fresh air.
30. KScurmudgeon,By fuming at that comment you show little understanding of the destructive power of political correctness."
Forgive my dullness - so it was in a manner of speaking written with tongue in cheek? That is, not applauding but deploring the power of the merely politically correct? I may have to take it all back.....
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
63. At 6:37pm on 29 May 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
"We must disagree on that - demographics should not be a consideration. I thought the United States had abandoned the "hyphenated American"of yesteryear, but now it appears to have reared its head once more. The judicial qualifications should, indeed must, be the sole criteria for nomination. That might upset some segments of the population, but a quota system in the Supreme Court is not something to be countenanced."
I am surprised how seldom Obama's race is mentioned now, except as a footnote. I think this administration, which is making a great number of appointments 'of color', may be the final stroke in removing the power of hypenation in our public discourse, if not in the workplace. I hope soon they are all judged by their performance, and nothing else.
I agree that judicial qualifications ought to be the sole qualification for judicial nomination, but then we would also be best ruled by philosopher kings, as Plato explained. In the mean time, ignoring politics entirely is a deliberate step away from reality - like demanding that all records of events conform to expectations. People will fudge the record before they change their habits.
I agree, "A quota system in the Supreme Court is not to be countenanced., I dislike the thought of Thurgood Marshall's name being engraved on the back of his chair, or John Marshall's, or Roger Taney's for that matter.
Kscurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
67. At 7:56pm on 29 May 2009, NoRashDecisions:
It took almost a century (99 years) to get a fair civil rights law passed in this country after the Civil War, and another generation for it to take effect. That was, and is, a tortured process. I was aiming for brevity over historical accuracy.
For the rest, you and I seem to be agreeing - we need to cherish out parochial freedom, the freedom to agree to disagree amiably.
yours,
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
81:
If you wish to talk about tax and property laws, I think a discussion can easily be started. Has anyone heard that Obama and a few Congressmen are floating the idea of Value Added Tax on most products in the United States? Europeans who already live with this tax might want to chime in and give their opinion on this development.
Complain about this comment
89, Bien, this sounds like a good way for the Democrats to kill the economy,
prolong this economic downturn, and destroy their own party. Except for the
first two parts, I'm all in favor of it.
Complain about this comment
#72. 9, MagicKirin: "Since Jews do not get the benefit of affirmative action(even though we are a minority and do get descriminated against) that is a good question."
So now the cat is out of the bag. This is the first time that I have read that you confirm what seemed obvious. A veritable Shylock. What Jews are discriminated against? The entertainment industry, the press and other media, my local deli are (largely) run by Jews. There are no pogroms in America. I believe there remains discrimination against Blacks and Gays - but never Jews.
#73. MarcusAureliusII: "At least Justice Mayonaise will know what she's talking about when she renders unfair decisions."
Now that made me laugh (really!) - but such an apt description, unintentionally accurate. Mayonnaise usually consists of of a blend of the heart of an egg (egg yolk) salt, mustard, salt, sugar, pepper, lemon juice and olive oil. All judiciously balanced, the tart with the sweet, the rough with the smooth, but all the time based on the heart.
#84. "It will take a lot more than your bloody light comments about bloody cricket to bait bloody Canard. I know, I've been successful at it for years."
Don't you wish! And it cannot be "years" since I only started to contribute during the primaries. Good to see you make use of such a British adjective.
"(He) is a typical example of a Brit ex-pat who has come to the US because this is just a superior place to live but he refuses to admit it even to himself."
You have no idea of the reason I came to the US to live. In fact I had returned to the UK, but an affaire de coeur brought me back, and forty-two years later we remain together. And never a cross word . . .
"He thinks he knows better than the heirs of the society that he has chosen to make his life long home than they do how it should be run."
Not better, but having been an American taxpayer for over four decades (possibly longer than yourself) I know as much, perhaps more, than "the heirs of the society" you cite.
"Maybe that is what he really wants, an excuse to go back home to what would be the best of all possible worlds."
No. With regret, Great Britain has changed as to be almost unrecognizable. It is over-regulated, over-crowded and overly-expensive. Its institutions do not change although its people do. The coming of "multiculturalism" is unsuited to such a small and historic island. Under the ("New") Labour Government the United Kingdom has pursued Mrs Thatcher's work and the meanness ("there's no such thing as society") she brought with her has become ingrained in government, both national and local. It is said "you can never go home" and with that I agree. Besides, the weather is lousy.
Complain about this comment
Everybody's got an excuse Canard. With you it was an affair of the heart. What happened? One look at merry ole and she said you can have this dump or me but not both, I'm going home to California? If you get homesick for the rain, you can always go up to Seattle. They've got plent of it. A guy who called himself jacksforge used to post here. He was also a Brit ex-pat and he also had an excuse. With him it was his pet who would have to have been kept in quarrantine. That's why he couldn't go back. As I said in my previous posting, they're all the same and never admit the truth, not even to themselves. Canard, what brought you to the US in the first place, a job that paid real money?
So, Britain as a multicultural society is dying, America as a multicultural society is thriving. Britain as a house divided against itself cannot stand to paraphrase Lincoln. Thatcher brought a meanness to Britain it has never recovered from? One person destroyed the whole country? But what about Reagan. He's still revered here even among people who didn't like him when he was President. How odd it must feel being torn between what you know is true and what you wish was true.
Complain about this comment
#92. MarcusAureliusII: "what brought you to the US in the first place, a job that paid real money? "
No, but an escape from the Labour Government under Harold Wilson which instituted a wages-and-prices freeze. In fact I had a very well-paying job (a contract actually) in Britain, making far more than any of my older relatives and probably much too much for a young man. I had a liberal expense account which I was encouraged to use and which I did. Unlike most people of the time, I was able to fly back and forth to the USA to discuss business matters and found that salaries for my position were no more in America than what I was receiving. However, despite my success, an increase in income from a new contract was aborted, simply because of governmental mandate. Frankly, under Labour, there was not a great prospect for a young man.
I did not have employment guaranteed before I arrived; I was given a "Green Card" because of my unique ability in the Arts. Nevertheless, those potential American employers who had liked my work so much reneged on their promises, presumably not expecting a young Briton to actually return - remember, air travel was far less available back then; there were no daily flights from London to Los Angeles and what there were used Boeing 707s, which had to refuel in Canada. Hence my return to the UK. But matters of the heart intervened and I returned - and the rest, as they say, "is history".
"Thatcher brought a meanness to Britain it has never recovered from? One person destroyed the whole country?"
I didn't write "destroyed" but she certainly altered it, never to recover; her legacy is now being debated. I don't think history will be kind to her despite her reputation as "The Iron Lady". Her domestic policies are overshadowed in American minds by her support of President Reagan, but at home, she really was (in my opinion) not a nice person. Ask any old age pensioner, those affected by the poll tax or children who were denied free milk by her before she became prime minister. The Belgrano affair did her no favours either.
"But what about Reagan. He's still revered here even among people who didn't like him when he was President."
Revered? I don't think so. I have known (of) him since he was Governor of California and never thought highly of him, even though many of my professional colleagues thought he was "hot stuff". To my mind, his tenure as President is highly overrated, but you'd be the last person to agree. The present incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is far better educated, has a better mind and is not tied to the past. He doesn't speak as well, but then, you can't have everything.
Complain about this comment
DC, what do you mean by "multi-culturalism?"
Complain about this comment
#94. gunsandreligion: "what do you mean by "multi-culturalism?"
It's a British phrase which, as I interpret it, means that different racial groups may immigrate to the United Kingdom and retain their traditional way of life, language, political and religious beliefs, rather than becoming integrated into British society. One only has to consider the rise of the Muslim community to understand this. No longer a small group of newcomers, but large enough to demand that Sharia law be used for their members. It may be assumed that other groups would make the same demands and further divide British society. Without wishing to appear supportive, it is no small wonder that political parties such as the BNP have risen to prominence - already their members can claim representation in local town councils and the next General Election may even see them seated in Parliament. It's a situation that could not occur in the United States, largely because of the enormity of its geography.
Complain about this comment
David # 63
"We must disagree on that - demographics should not be a consideration. I thought the United States had abandoned the "hyphenated American"of yesteryear, but now it appears to have reared its head once more."
Apologies for the late posting- I fell asleep at the switch.
Allmymarbles # 79 has already remarked about the census she worked on. You can find it here.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(U.S._Census)
Reading the wiki piece above you will be pleased to learn America is planning a new Race Census.
Seeing as how during the last 2000 census many were unsure of their individual positions, and decided either to check a couple of the boxes on the form, place multiple write in responses or decide they were "some other race" perhaps it can not come too soon.
The 2010 US census will possibly contain the proviso :- "In response to a very large percentage of Hispanics' marking "Some other race" (a non-standard category] the 2010 US Census is considering removing the "Some other race" category".wiki.
And I thought the "none of the above" remark was reserved for hollywood comedy movies
This wiki link also gives a little more insight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States.
With America being the great melting pot of the world, it begs the question will the result show a temporary greater diversity of hyphenated Americans [ if that is at all possible], or is there a move to reduce the possibilities at this moment in time?
Hopefully in perhaps one or two more generations, the USA necessity to define race will have dissappeared. White, Black, Yellow, Red and Brown :- we all differ in genetic material by fractions of 1%.
Pity that the same has little chance of occuring in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Complain about this comment
ref #93
In regard to Reagan you have to remember the historical context
Nixon (who was far more brillant than Obama) resigned in disgrace.
Ford was regarded even by himself as a caretaker
Carter was a failure( as a human being still is) and his foriegn policies blunders still affect the world today
Reagan brought the U.S out of the malise and pushed back at some of the entrenched labor interests.
Complain about this comment
86. KScurmudgeon,
Yep, she was deploring it.
91. David_Cunard,
No doubt MagicKirin can speak for himself, but I'm puzzled at your description of him as, "...a veritable Shylock."
The point re affirmative action: I don't recall anyone employing Jews as representatives of a discriminated-against minority, and they certainly were:
It should be pointed out that the discussions about diversity or multiculturalism lead to narrow standards. Only the officially protected minorities and women get favorable treatment. Other groups -- Jews, Irish, Asians, Greeks, Italians, white working class, etc. -- get no preferences, regardless of how much they may have been discriminated against in our past history. So, there is really not a desire for true multiculturalism or diversity; just preferences for those groups that the federal government currently supports.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/when_affirmative_action_is_a_q.html
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Ref 96, Waterman
"In response to a very large percentage of Hispanics' marking "Some other race" (a non-standard category] the 2010 US Census is considering removing the "Some other race" category".
I am not sure if the statement above was made in jest or based on fact, but it addresses a touchy subject for many U.S. citizens regarded as "Hispanic" by our government and society at large who are, in fact, members of different ethnic groups.
Taken literally, the term applies to descendents of Hispania (Spain and Portugal), but that is hardly what the census or our society has in mind or looking for. What we call "Hispanics" encompasses much more than Spaniards and Portuguese people, the overwhelming majority are indigenous people from Mexico, Central America, and South America; Black Africans, a few Asians, and a large number of people of mixed ethnicity. Not only is the term misleading, if the intent is to determine ethnicity, but in some cases it is outright offensive to those who still hold a grudge towards the ones that destroyed their ancient civilizations and dominated all facets of life in their homelands for centuries. Most consider themselves Mexicans or Mexican-Americans, Central Americans, South Americans, or from the Caribbean, with little regard to the color of their skin.
Personally, I would prefer a census that simply counts the number of people in the various states in the Union; the only concession I would make would be gender. We should be looking at each other as individuals rather than members of a specific ethnic group, and judge each other based on our personal attributes, behaviour and what we contribute to society instead of the demeaning stereotypes that currently exist.
Complain about this comment
Ref 93, David
"Revered? I don't think so. I have known (of) him since he was Governor of California and never thought highly of him, even though many of my professional colleagues thought he was "hot stuff".
I agree. The only attributes he had, in my opinion, were his ability to inspire and reassure the citizenry after a couple of very difficult decades for our nation. That was, clearly, extremely important and we are indebted to him for his stewardship in that regard. Aside from that, he was barely qualified to be President, and I am convinced that his domestic policies contributed to a large extent to the economic and fiscal crises we are currently enduring.
Complain about this comment
Canard;
"escape from the Labour Government under Harold Wilson which instituted a wages-and-prices freeze."
"I was given a "Green Card" because of my unique ability in the Arts. Nevertheless, those potential American employers who had liked my work so much reneged on their promises, presumably not expecting a young Briton to actually return - remember, air travel was far less available back then; there were no daily flights from London to Los Angeles and what there were used Boeing 707s, which had to refuel in Canada."
Who are you kidding? The opportunity to make more money, the lifestyle of sunny California, the "love of your life." If life had been better in hail britannia, you both would have lived there. Besides there are plenty of women in Britain. Don't tell me you couldn't have found the love of your life there too. I'll say what I posted before, America is a land of opportunities, not guarantees the way Europe is. If you have guarantees, then there is little chance for limitless success. That is because the cost of the guarantees is paid for by robbing success of its rightful rewards. We don't want people starving to death, living in the streets, going without medical care but we don't want the quality of life of those who fail to be comparable to those who succeed either or there would be no incentive to expend the effort to succeed and having failed, to try again. There has to be a wide gap between the rich and the poor. That is the incentive to become rich. Americans unlike socialists don't resent the rich, they aspire to be among them. Social re-engineering under some absurd notion of social justice or leveling of income is a sure perscription for universal mediocrity at best and a thoroughly corrupt power system exploited by those who administer social justice for their own selfish ends. Voila Britain this very minute. Voila the EU.
The reason multiculturalism doesn't work in other countries is because their identity as distinct countries is based on a shared culture, a shared cultural history, an exclusionary notion based on tribalism. The EU is a failed attempt to unify Europe's diverse tribes. The immigration of Asians and Africans into Europe works to undefine both the individual nation states and this supposed unified Europe because these individuals bring entirely different cultural identities with them. They can never become Europeasns, British, French, Germans, Italians. The United States by contrast is not defined by a shared cultural history but by shared values, something people from other cultures cannot fully grasp because it defies their own experience. So long as immigrants are willing to adopt those vaules, they can become Americans. Complete acceptance of those values in the first generation is never complete as in your case. But the generation that follows, the one that is born here will have them instilled in them from birth. They will be marked as Americans all of their lives because there is no way for them to escape it. By the next generation, all but the faintest traces of their grandparent's culture will be wiped away. The baggage you brought with you from Britain like those of other immigrants to our shores are yours alone. You will not be able to get your children and certainly not your grandchildren to carry them for you. We give them entirely different baggage marked "Made in America" that they will carry with them always. That includes President Obama, Indonesia notwithstanding. BTW, as time goes on, don't be surprised if he starts to look more and more like President Bush. The equipment in their bags for viewing the world gives pretty much the same image and perspective, the tools they use to analyze those images similar results.
Complain about this comment
saintDominick # 100,
The quote comes directly from the wiki page, which link I unfortunately forget.
I wondered if Justin led me astray with his first mention of "hispanic roots" even if he did omit to explain about the branches. I see further mention of Latino and I believe that wiki explains it as an Hispanic-Latino-Spanish origin.
Please forgive my ism on this wonderful sunny day here.
I am completely confused with some of the tone of the debating here.- May I mention the values of a woman that many will feel is denigrating the values of a man. To add her religion I will step on other beliefs or perhaps non-belief toes. Add her specific health problem am I discriminating against able bodied or other health afflicted individuals. All just written with the idea of introducing new information
Invariably up to my neck in it, it is high time I got back on my head.[ Hope you know the old joke].
Yours [ his, hers, theirs, mine, ours ] faithfully and faithlessly, wma
Complain about this comment
Oh sainted one;
"May I mention the values of a woman that many will feel is denigrating the values of a man. To add her religion I will step on other beliefs or perhaps non-belief toes. Add her specific health problem am I discriminating against able bodied or other health afflicted individuals."
Why not just forget about the Constitution and the laws passed by legislative bodies and signed by executive branches. Soda-Mayonnaise can just interpret every law according to how they will benefit Catholic diabetic Latino women. Eight more like her on the bench and the entirety of the United States of America could be run solely for their benefit being of the utmost priority. I guess that would make us about like France or Britain. That's what the loony left here would like. That's what Europeans would like. America being reduced to being no better than Europe because it is no different.
Complain about this comment
104. At 2:29pm on 30 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Why not just forget about the Constitution and the laws passed by legislative bodies and signed by executive branches. Soda-Mayonnaise can just interpret every law according to how they will benefit Catholic diabetic Latino women. Eight more like her on the bench and the entirety of the United States of America could be run solely for their benefit being of the utmost priority."
Good, better than being run for the benefit for far right-wing white male dorks.
Bring it on
Complain about this comment
Ref 104, Marcus
"That's what the loony left here would like."
Since I can only speak for myself, I will tell you that what I hope for is fairness, equality, and competence. Since I am not in the habit of using immature epithets I refer to judge Sonia Maria Sotomayor by her name, and reserve passing judgment on her qualifications until I hear her responses to the questions that the Judiciary will ask her during the upcoming hearings. The only thing I can say at this point is that her academic and professional achievements are remarkable, and that her gender and ethnicity should not be an impediment to confirm her nomination.
If the far right prefer to engage in character assassination, innuendo, and the use of pitchforks, they do it are their own risk.
Complain about this comment
Ms. Sotomayor is 2001 issued a statemnet saying that Latian can issue beter rulings than a "White". Ms, Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico, has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career as a student activist at Princeton and at Yale Law School, as a board member of left-leaning Hispanic advocacy groups and as a federal judge arguing for diversity on the bench. It is apparant that Ms. Sotomayor is one of the EEO appointments who feel she can do and say as she please because she is a "Latian" female. A smart aleck so to speak. She should be shown the door and not waste taxpayer money.
Complain about this comment
ref
Then Saint: If we agree her ethnicicty and gender should not be a determing factor either way.
Would you feel Judicial activism or basing her rulings on feeling/empathy than the law would disqualify her?
Complain about this comment
#102. MarcusAureliusII: "Who are you kidding? The opportunity to make more money, the lifestyle of sunny California, the "love of your life." If life had been better in hail britannia, you both would have lived there."
For a start, I don't care for the implication that I am a liar. You asked a question and I provided the answer. If you can't accept it for what it is, that's too bad.
"There has to be a wide gap between the rich and the poor. That is the incentive to become rich."
It hardly needs to be said that the emphasis on acquiring money just for the sake of it is one of the least attractive aspects of American life. As far as I can determine - and I have known some very rich (and famous) people in the US and UK - the only advantage great wealth confers is that it enables one to be miserable in comfort. Greed and gluttony are two of the seven deadly sins, and in that respect, many will not find their heavenly reward in Paradise. Unfortunately, this acquisitiveness has spread to Great Britain where even members of the left wing (?) Labour Party have been caught lining their pockets at taxpayer expense. I subscribe to the notion that "money is the root of all evil" - increasingly that appears to be a truism.
Complain about this comment
Marcus # 104
Believe you confused the Saints reply with mine but no matter.
You are quite correct in your assessments. We are different. We Europeans are envious of your freedoms and flexibility, but only on the American language front, not in our day to day lives.
Who would have thought that someone could decide in the past to go from "building up", to all intents and purposes constructing something to "building down"- a reduction. What an oxymoron. I hope a President did not come up with that..
Your post suggests forgetting the constitution etc etc yet in all truth you both support and defend it with the view to hiding behind it, and am wondering about the delay in getting Amendment 28 on the statute books. " The right of all Presidents is to individually decide what the meaning of "is" is, and "are" are, especially when the truth hits the fan in any judicial procedure".- Another classic originated by an ex President.
Although Amendment 29 has only just been introduced by Cheyney [ ex vice Pres] on establishing Universal Humane Care for detainees for many to contemplate, my worries are more focussed on your latest top guy. Will Obama as Democrat support Cheney's approach and push the Clintonesque Amendment even further on what the meaning of "was" was or "were" were in respect of the USA and the world obtaining Justice for crimes against humanity. We wait with bated breath, but are learning to live with continual dissappointments. Your language together with your laws are an ever changing phenomenom.
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor could be a breath of fresh air.
Your Soda-Mayonaise sounds a little bit bland.
Sonia originates from Sophia- sophos -wise , Soto is a mining town in Hidalgo, central Mexico, and mayor- a leading figure originating from major. No wonder many are worried. A portion of Chilli peppers getting to the bottom of many unanswered questions will get you all running. I expect many are already on a roll, trying to paper over the cracks and hide from the issues at hand. But the truth will out.
Complain about this comment
89, bien.
"Has anyone heard that Obama and a few Congressmen are floating the idea of Value Added Tax on most products in the United States? Europeans who already live with this tax might want to chime in and give their opinion on this development."
U.K has a value added tax, but they don't have a sales tax, so we are alrready paying a "value-added tax."
Complain about this comment
DC, we have multi-culturalism, but that usually occurs because first-generation
immigrants don't know English, so they locate in ethnic neighborhoods, and
their children are the first generation who are really assimilated.
And, so far, this has been sucessful, but the rate of immigration since
the 1980s has been so rapid that I don't think that we can continue without
some kind of quota system. We want people who come here because they want
to become Americans, not some other nationality who just happen to be here.
Even a country as large and ethnically diverse as the US can only absorb
new people at a certain rate. Living in the US reminds me of the scoutmaster
who, as a prank, found himself waking up one morning with his bed floating
on pontoons in the middle of a lake. In the blink of an eye one can find
oneself surrounded by people speaking a foreign language which one must
learn just to get groceries.
You guys are lucky over there. I think of the UK as a kind of gated community.
After all, someone over there invented golf, so you had a head start.
Crummy climate, though. If I were to build a gated community I would
put it somewhere in the desert southwest, although being on an island
is a definite advantage as far as keeping the riffraff out.
Complain about this comment
111:
From what I'm hearing it sounds like the VAT will be replacing the income tax, not the sales tax. It's still too early to know what exactly the adm. is going to propose, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Complain about this comment
Bien, I would be highly sceptical about using the word "replacing."
Most likely it would be in addition to any other taxes which we are
paying.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Democrats making a major blunder
like this.
Complain about this comment
#112. gunsandreligion: "DC, we have multi-culturalism . . . You guys are lucky over there."
If you had followed the discussions, you would know that I am not "over there"! There is no move to introduce Sharia law into any of the fifty states and the type of multiculturalism found in the United Kingdom is quite different to that in the United States.
"We want people who come here because they want to become Americans, not some other nationality who just happen to be here."
Then that counts me out! In my earliest days in California, people would ask why I was not an American Citizen, and my reply was that I was "better than a citizen - I'm an American taxpayer." I don't think you should ignore the contributions made by permanent residents - what would what television be without Simon Cowell and Mark Burnett? Or sport without David Beckham, although I must confess he's not a very good example; better looking though. As Charlie Chaplin reportedly said, "I've been a very good paying guest."
"I think of the UK as a kind of gated community . . . being on an island is a definite advantage as far as keeping the riffraff out."
It hasn't worked: the moat has been crossed and there is a not-so-secret tunnel to the capital. People-smuggling is not confined to the US-Mexican border. The pity is that the unique British identity is being lost. The politicians who made it possible live in pristine neighbourhoods where the problems created by newcomers (often resented by long-established residents) are unknown. MPs representing constituencies do not actually have to come from them. For example, Tony Blair lived in Islington, a gentrified part of London, but represented Sedgefield, in the north of the country. He wasn't even obliged to move there to be elected. In America they would be seen as carpetbaggers. They create the problems but never experience them first hand. It's the same with many do-gooders: do as I say, not do as I do. By and large, law makers live the good life but rarely experience that of their constituents. I have no proof of course, but my bet would be that most Britons have disapproved of mass immigration and rather wish that their government had followed Australia in order to keep its shores less crowded.
Complain about this comment
DC, I am aware of your locale, but also of your connections to your homeland.
As far as the permanent resident thing goes, you Brits get a special pass.
Look, we even applaud Simon Cowell when he insults us, so that shows that
an extra measure of consideration is extended to Brits and a few other
nationalities which we do not extend to, say, the French. This is in spite
of the fact that the French helped us in our revolution, whereas you Brits,
as I should say, were not so unequivocal in your support of our independence.
Complain about this comment
115, David -
Since most of my "knowledge" of British politics comes from the novels of Anthony Trollope, I assumed it was outdated. I've always found his descriptions of the unknown outsider (mostly Phineas Finn) showing up a day or two before an election to introduce himself to his potential constituency very peculiar, and had assumed this had been changed in modern times. Obviously I was mistaken! I find this very funny.
Complain about this comment
Ref 108, Magic
"Would you feel Judicial activism or basing her rulings on feeling/empathy than the law would disqualify her?"
If there is a pattern that demonstrate a tendency to ignore the Constitution and our laws that, in my opinion, should disqualify any nominee, but making one or two rulings that certain segments of our society find distasteful or that they disagree with is not enough to reject the candidacy of an otherwise excellent nominee. While I welcome the potential addition of another female and a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, I believe gender and ethnicity should NOT be considered when confirming or rejecting a nominee. The GOP over-reached, and it may backfire on them at the polls.
On the issue of multi-culturalism I believe it flourishes in countries with diverse societies such as ours. I agree with Marcus' opinion regarding the difference between the diversity that exists in the USA as a result of the confluence of many ethnic groups in our society and the regionalism that exists in some European countries. In many ways that diversity is a major factor in the successes we have enjoyed for over two centuries.
Complain about this comment
113, bien.
"From what I'm hearing it sounds like the VAT will be replacing the income tax, not the sales tax. It's still too early to know what exactly the adm. is going to propose, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see."
I would love that because I am not a compulsive buyer.
Complain about this comment
ref #108
Than lets have an open hearing.
Almost everyone on this board acknowledge unless there is a last minute revelation she will be confimred.
I have no problem with the diversity as I am multicultural myself. But as her most known ruling has to be explored: The New Haven fire fighters case.
but some(not you) supporters don't even want to have a hearing. Example Chuck Shcumer who has stated that she should be confirmed and suggest reasonable objections are racist.
Complain about this comment
ref #113
Worry about the VAT, it will just be another additional tax.
In Mass the opponents of abolishing the income tax ran a sucessful scare campaign saying that if it passed sales tax and tolls would have to go up.
guess what Mass is going to raise both anyway.
Complain about this comment
bien, Ms. Marbles, here is the article which has exposed the VAT issue.
It would not be "replacing" any tax. It would be another tax on top of
what we are already paying. Just another sign of the creeping social welfare
state that the Democrats want to put in place.
Complain about this comment
122, guns.
"It would be another tax on top of what we are already paying. Just another sign of the creeping social welfare state that the Democrats want to put in place."
Do you happen to remember what Thomas Jefferson said? Even though they were the words of a famous president, if I quoted them here the mods would punish me.
Complain about this comment
Please consider the race/gender issue from a slightly different viewpoint:
Would you approve a policy of NO white males [over 50] need apply?
Would you approve a policy of ONLY white males [over 50] need apply?
Would you approve a policy of ONLY women apportioned by racial group need apply?
Then [as most of you will probably have said NO to all three] consider that policy #2 appears to have been in effect for most of the history of the US, and for more positions than the justices of the SJC. No appointments should be made BECAUSE of race, gender, ethnicity [history shows that unqualified or token affermative action appointments are destructive to everyone], but the appearance of persistant prejudice and discrimination matters and the matter must be addressed at some point. I believe that Judge Sodomayer is more centerist than the left wants and more left of center than the right wants [they would prefer Hannity, Coulter or Limbaugh, maybe]. She has a great deal of experience, the major part of which is above reproach. Because of these issues, I have to support the nomination even though her association with the racist organization La Rasa does disturb me.
Complain about this comment
As to a national VAT, Massachusetts is about to reacquire it's old nickname Taxachusetts [Europeans and Brits please control your giggles].
Yes our taxes are relatively low compared to Europe's, but the governments, though corrupt, don't dare push the citizens too far [unlike Europe where the people are not consulted], the recent "tea parties" do show that we remember our history and the crooks on Beacon Hill know they could follow the tea into the harbor. We [at least here in Taxachusetts] are taxed so much, they say, because of the economic slowdown requiring austerity, but that "austerity" allows $150,000 jobs to political cronies while firing useful citizens [police, firefighters and teachers].
The point is, let them tax us more and the money will be diverted to pay for their perks and jobs for useless cronies. It's not just Brits getting fed up with theft in the legislature. Too bad Europeans aren't fed up with jobs for cronies in Brussels.
So I'm for reducing not increasing the tax load and it must be assured that the taxes are fair and the money well spent.
Complain about this comment
Ref 120, Magic
"But as her most known ruling has to be explored: The New Haven fire fighters case.
but some(not you) supporters don't even want to have a hearing. Example Chuck Shcumer who has stated that she should be confirmed and suggest reasonable objections are racist."
You can rest assured the New Have firefighters case will be one of several opinions and rulings to be discussed during the hearings. Although judge Sotomayor did not write the opinion on that case, she was part of the panel that heard the case and, therefore, partly responsible for the decision. Don't forget. one of the firefighters who passed the test was Hispanic...
Where and when did you hear Sen. Chuck Schumer say that she should be confirmed without a hearing? I have a hard time believing an experienced senator like Schumer would suggest such thing.
Complain about this comment
Canard;
"It hardly needs to be said that the emphasis on acquiring money just for the sake of it is one of the least attractive aspects of American life."
Who the hell are you to tell people that if pursuing money is their idea of pursuit of happiness, that they should be denied or penalized. Communists would like to see nobody rich. They'd give every last dime someone earned to someone else who is more needy. Taking things from people and giving to other people because they want somthing they don't have has a name...it's called stealing. If Europe had its way, the US would give all its wealth away to the rest of the world. What it doesn't understand is if that happened, there wouldn't be any incentive to create an more of it. Just becuase Europe is an economic wasteland doesn't mean America has to be too.
Do I believe you story about how you would have loved trade sunny California and its lifestyle for dreary London if only "she who must be obeyed" would let you? Not for one second. Oh I'm sure mumsy was certain it would never last but she got used to it and was happy...as long as the checks kept on coming regularly.
Complain about this comment
If there is ever a carbon cap and trade system in the US, it will put a stake through the heart of whatever life is left in the American economy. It is nothing but one monumental tax. Americans CANNOT significantly reduce their power consumption without a major impact on the US economy and their lifestyle. One unintended consequence I thinik will be a major cutback in farm output and mass starvation around the world. For those who still have access to food at all, prices will skyrocket. Food planting, cultivation, harvesting, processing, and shipping is very energy intensive.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
128. At 01:11am on 31 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
If there is ever a carbon cap and trade system in the US, it will put a stake through the heart of whatever life is left in the American economy. It is nothing but one monumental tax. Americans CANNOT significantly reduce their power consumption without a major impact on the US economy and their lifestyle. One unintended consequence I thinik will be a major cutback in farm output and mass starvation around the world. For those who still have access to food at all, prices will skyrocket. Food planting, cultivation, harvesting, processing, and shipping is very energy intensive
Obama is going to turn us into California. Higher taxes will destroy us.
Complain about this comment
The full response has been moderated, I suspect because I criticised the writer. Nevertheless I am re-posting it in as innocuous form as I am able. It appears that a poster is permitted to smear my mother, but I am not allowed to answer back in kind.
#127. MarcusAureliusII: "Who the hell are you to tell people that if pursuing money is their idea of pursuit of happiness, that they should be denied or penalized."
Did I write that they should be denied or penalized? No, I did not. I just think that chasing money for its own sake is pointless. From what you write - and your attitude - it would appear that you have pursued this but failed. There must be something in you background that makes you such an unsympathetic character.
"Do I believe you story about how you would have loved trade sunny California and its lifestyle for dreary London."
To misquote Rhett Butler, frankly Marcus, I don't give a damn about what you believe. You forget that London was considered to be the swingiest place on earth, but you would have only been in puberty at the time, if then. When I was a Mod, I'l bet you were a nerdy youth, no fashion sense, hair slicked back or with a crew cut and wore penny loafers.
"I'm sure mumsy was certain it would never last but she got used to it and was happy...as long as the checks kept on coming regularly."
Crass doesn't even begin to describe you. And you wonder why some people find Americans of your kind distasteful. You haven't the slightest idea of my late parents' financial situation. For what it may be worth, my father never used credit but purchased his house and cars with cash, there being no incentive to take a mortgage. No "tax relief" (deduction) then and no "tax relief now. I never had a "mumsy" or a "mum", but I did have a mother. And she didn't require cheques or other financial assistance from me.
Complain about this comment
Ref 130, Tough
"Americans CANNOT significantly reduce their power consumption without a major impact on the US economy and their lifestyle."
I disagree, we could reduce power consumption if we set our mind to it and sacrifice some of the comfort we enjoy. The problem is we don't want to change our lifestyle and much less invest in ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The problem with California is not high taxes, but the opposite. Since Proposition 13 passed in the 70s Californians government revenues have declined precipitously, while expenses continue to rise. The tax burden for older homeowners who have lived in large houses since the 70s is minimal compared to what their children pay for a small condo. Californians want the best there is, they just don't want to pay for it. President Obama has nothing to do with that mess, and everything suggests he has no intention to lead us there.
Complain about this comment
MAII: "Soda-Mayonnaise can just interpret every law according to how they will benefit Catholic diabetic Latino women"
*************************
Sure you haven't missed anything? :-)
I'm always uncomfortable with anyone's mentioning race and gender when insulting a group (and I do believe what she said was insulting).
My rules don't allow some races and genders to be fair game for insults. Either race and gender are off limits, or they are not. And if they are not, they should be.
Complain about this comment
You know the constitution has an answer for mistakes It's called being impeached so if there is a gross neglect of judgement.The problem is that the House and Senate is the ones never doing their jobs.Isn't that the real problem with our political system right now.Bush and Cheney should be held for war crimes which wouldn't have happened without out congressional approval with crap such as the Patriot Act,federal spending should be cut including military and foreign aid,voting should be made fair so all voters can vote in elections,every child should be able to learn to read and their should be cops in every neighborhood,and we should be creating jobs not shipping them to other countries which by the way doesn't go against free trade,fix my roads and environment not my lungs and weight.And we should stop blaming Immigrants for our problems, they were duped to by politicians and employers to come when the reality is our job growth can't keep up with increases in population.I am not as old a most of you but what I have seen is very little difference from Dems or GOP in Congress to do their jobs but try to pass on the responsibilities and Blame to State Governments(who usually excluding this pass few years work with in their budgets consistently accommodating to stupid federal mandates)and the presidency and judicial branch,never doing there jobs only trying to get a few bucks for their own district costing the rest much more.We have to decide how we are going to spend our money.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I'm quite sure that we could reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels without any negative impact on our lifestyle. American companies are
busy developing technology to produce energy from biomass waste and subsititute
crops.
StD, about the taxes... The story that you may have heard about us being
undertaxed is just not true. Prop 13 limits property taxes until a property
is sold, but our income and sales taxes are very high.
I can't post the link because the blog filter won't process it,
but please paste [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
into the url line of your browser for a synopsis.
It boils down to what kind of taxes you want to pay.
As far as transparency of government spending goes, California is
one of the worst. They refuse to put a breakdown of the budget on
the web, so no one can figure out where the money is going.
Complain about this comment
I don't know why the mods cut it out, but if you search on
the web, you'll discover that Californians pay 11.5% of their
income in state and local taxes, slightly higher than the national
average of 11%.
Complain about this comment
135, guns.
"As far as transparency of government spending goes, California is one of the worst. They refuse to put a breakdown of the budget on the web, so no one can figure out where the money is going."
I'll bet they don't break it down because then you will know how much you are paying for welfare and peripheral welfare services.. I have never seen figures for this huge expense in New York eihter.
Complain about this comment
Ms. Marbles, there is some information here.
But, not for California and New York. Here in California the politicians
tried to raise taxes with a series of ballot measures. The effort was
ill-conceived from my point of view because they actually wanted to borrow
even more money and put us further in the hole.
But, they might have had a chance if they were willing to disclose how
they are spending the money that they are collecting now. It's too bad
that they are dim-witted that they couldn't even figure that out.
Complain about this comment
#134. faeyth: "Bush and Cheney should be held for war crimes which wouldn't have happened without out congressional approval with crap such as the Patriot Act,federal spending should be cut including military and foreign aid,voting should be made fair so all voters can vote in elections,every child should be able to learn to read and their should be cops in every neighborhood,and we should be creating jobs not shipping them to other countries which by the way doesn't go against free trade,fix my roads and environment not my lungs and weight . . ."
There, there, dear; you have a nice cup of tea and calm down, it's the universal remedy for all that ails you.
Complain about this comment
California's budget problems are because their job growth is not equal to population increases.That's why their representatives complain about car companies and emissions but not about oil and coal because they make a lot of money off of those industries.And instead of stopping corporate profits of there companies they go after other states industries plus they are trying to steal the car industry for their own state but has been unsuccessful because of Michigan with domestic and southern states with foreign auto makers and the companies they have tried to make suck because they rely on outdated Detroit electric patents and foreign car companies to manufacture making it unprofitable,so now our state are also competing for agriculture California and Michigan both grow commodity crops California agriculture is even trying to make sugar beets trying to sustain employment without the resources for them which they have also done with crops other states grow.And technology is another thing our states competes over.Michigan has a lot of R and D.The problem is both California and the Great Lakes Regions are Democrats competing for the same industries so we will see how it plays out in Congress.But California and the Great lakes are in need of job creation and until their are more jobs both our states are going to have massive budgets deficits.
Complain about this comment
140, faeyth, I believe that you'll find that R&D pretty much sloshes all
over the country. If a young entrepreneur in California or New Jersey discovers
a way to make a better battery, then I'm sure that car companies in Detroit
will benefit.
They'll certainly be in a better position than if that start-up was bought
up by Toyota.
The rest, such as you describe for sugar beets, is just politics.
Complain about this comment
That's my point states shouldn't be trying to steal employment from each other but try to create new employment for each other.Toyota also has a R&D in Michigan.It just internal state fighting for cash and jobs.The real problem is there isn't enough unskilled labor jobs for people in every state because the are cheaper in other countries.
Complain about this comment
You don't know what your tax dollars are spent on?Maybe you need an amendment to state constitution so they disclose your budgets.we know where our tax dollars go.The public should know where your money is spent.
Complain about this comment
We already have had better battery and alternate energy technology for years.People here know it,we have seen it that's what is depressing.We know our companies can and should be better.That's the sad truth.It's not just cars either.If you go down the list from electric plants,pharamacuticals,chemicals,robotics,medical,military,we make everything and we know that technology is being held back for profits.But the workers aren't in control of those decisions.Stockholders and Politicians are.The companies in our state have been sitting on lots of technology for just about every industry.
Complain about this comment
143, f, I think that they want to hide a lot of stuff. Poking around,
I found that as part of Obama's federal stimulus package, $150 million
is being given to San Francisco to build a Japanese cultural center.
Now, the last time that I checked, the Japanese were not a particularly
poor group in America. They might be one of the most affluent. They
probably own half of LA. And, I don't see how another tourist attraction
is going to help us with our healthcare or energy problems.
California is even worse. I heard from someone whose opinion I value
that half of the money spent on Caltrans is wasted in some way or
another. I know of a highway which goes nowhere which cost several
hundred million dollars which got pushed through because the locals
wanted to "create jobs."
Good point about the amendment. Perhaps we could get it on a ballot measure.
Complain about this comment
Detroit is getting money for Old Tiger Stadium.Why?There are about a million things that city needs before funding a broken down stadium.The new one is beautiful,When I think of all the people in Detroit who need education,jobs,and police department,it makes me so angry.
Complain about this comment
144, f, I have a slightly different take. You see, I happen to be
an entrepreneur. I've always had this aversion to big organizations.
The problem is not that American companies don't have access to
the best technology. The problem is that the people at the top
have never been hungry, don't understand where the world will be
in 5 or 10 years, and don't know what to do with what they've got.
That's how Detroit lost the lead in EV technology; they had a lead
in the 90s, but they just didn't know what to do with it.
You may be surprised that most of the innovation in the US comes from
small companies, because they are more likely to have someone at the
helm who can see where things are going and how to get there.
I deal all the time with big organizations - big government and big
companies, and I can tell you that big American organizations are the
worst of the worst when it comes to adapting to change. But, there
is a glimmer of hope. Ford (IMHO) has developed a better hybrid
system than Toyota, and they switched course before GM and Chrysler,
so that haven't even taken any government bailouts.
Complain about this comment
146, faeyth, I don't know much about Detroit, but it seems to me that
the city is really dependent upon mid-level manufacturing, and that
funding for services like police and health care is really dependent
upon that. One of the good things that I see on the Democratic agenda
is increased spending on R&D.
But, whether they can actually make things work without completely
destroying the economy through pork-barrel spending is up for debate.
The Republicans weren't the sharpest cards in the deck either.
My own approach is to put together projects all over the world to solve
important problems. If you solve a real problem, the money will be there,
and, besides, who wants to spend their life doing something unimportant?
Complain about this comment
145, guns.
"Poking around, I found that as part of Obama's federal stimulus package, $150 million is being given to San Francisco to build a Japanese cultural center."
Who's bright idea is this? Your governor? Pelosi? I would ask my brother, a long-time Callifornian who is involved in finance, but I am afraid the phone would explode.
Complain about this comment
149, I don't know Ms. Marbles. Wasn't there supposed to be some kind
of website where feedback could be registered and pork pointed out?
I guess that this was promulgated before the bill was passed.
Complain about this comment
147, guns.
"I deal all the time with big organizations - big government and big companies, and I can tell you that big American organizations are the worst of the worst when it comes to adapting to change."
I have found that they isolate themselves and only hear their own voices. Durng the Iranian Revolution the Ambassador to Iran called together the American business community for a meeting, looking for some kind of input, Iguess. I attended with my partner (I the only woman, by the way). Most of those there were representing large corporations. These people blathered on with great assurance - understanding absolutely nothing of what was happening in the country. We could have been the lone voices of reality, but the Ambassador, a nincompoop appointed by Carter, was just as clueless. Would anyone have listened if we spoke? Not unless we were from IBM or somesuch. (We had been running a smallish company involved in economic development.) It was frustrating to be there and hear them speak about Mars, but there was no way to penetrate their force fields, so we didn't try.
A bit off your subject, but not really....
Complain about this comment
151, Ms. Marbles, it seems to be a problem in American management culture.
There was an American expert in quality control who tried to get Detroit's
attention for years. His name was W. Edwards Deming. They didn't listen to him.
Toyota and Honda did. The rest is history.
A lot of the blame can be laid to the feet of our academics who hand out
MBA degrees. The academic system often confuses performance with credentials,
and corporate America is the same way. They deserve each other.
To quote Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does."
Complain about this comment
122 & 123:
I think the question of whether the VAT would replace a current tax is still up in the air, let alone if it's even going to happen. Here is a quotation take from your link to the Washington Post, May 27th 09:
"In his 2008 book, '100 Million Unnecessary Returns,' Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else."
There's more on this question near the bottom of the article.
Complain about this comment
Under the Obama administration racism is ok, as long as it is directed at white males. Robert Reich a former Clinton Labor/Sec said basically that the stimulus package shouldn't be used to help White Male Construction workers. (reaction on this racist remark that white males and their families don't warrent help; Nothing done. Even the media hid this.) Now a judge (not a justice of law) who can reach better conclusions of the Constitution's interpetation, due to gender, ethnicity, and or race. I wonder if this Supreme Court Judge is a Roman Catholic, and how that fits in? Double standards prevail otherwise the media would have attacked the comments of this appointee's biased remarks. Or at least asked her to explain!
Complain about this comment
Lastly the stimulus package has added more state inspectors to Dept of Transportation in the state. Because the government worries how your money is spent. I have worked construction for over 26 years now, and have been on jobs where the inspectors outnumber the workers. Now these people hired by the state, earn a pension, healthcare. These new hires qualify at least in my state for better benefits than most average workers. Interesting how many permanent jobs this will stimulate? How does this reduce the deficit spending? Never mind, just spend billions here, in Pakistan, Afghanistan. Obamaism at its best 2 + 2 = 0. Unless you work for the government. Good thing they government don't read the bills that are passed into law. Even Stephen King would have trouble beating this horror story!
Complain about this comment
Last post as a disgusted outcast of the Dem/Rep power elite. I have voted independently my whole life. I refused to be a party hack, or a sheep of the flock. This final act came when the US Census representative walked up to me in my yard. Informing me that he was there from the government (probably hired with stimulus money to drive thru town, in a government vehicle). I took a look at his fancy badge, and credentials to acertain his identity. Said "Very nice, but I don't choose to participate with this current administration." Census taker response "You don't have a choice!" My last response was "As long as I am free, I still have a choice. I have things to do, have a nice day." Then I went back to splitting firewood for heat for the winter. It was a wonderful day, as I didn't waste time on the government, it was an exceptional day.
Complain about this comment
Is the Supreme Court and judiciary independent in USA? Or does it follow orders from others?
Seems fundraising for charity is illegal in USA: raising money for enclaved people and orphans in Gaza. Sentences were handed out to the 'Holy Land Five' last week in Dallas, Tx. The federal prosecutor said it clearly showed USA will not tolerate terrorism. Really? It took the jury over eight days of deliberation. And this was the second trial. The first trial collapsed after that jury spent nearly three weeks, unable to decide. After their convictions, the media said sentences could be up to 15 years, despite NEVER being accused of supporting violence in any way. Why the problem then? Isn't charity work clearly separate from Terrorism? Well, if you are are, let's say, a Dept. Social Worker visiting and checking on the care given to children who've lost their parents, then you are liaising with charity bodies. When an election takes place in your country, suddenly that same Social Worker, who is also a government employee, is now called Hamas. Since Hamas won the election, all government employees are described as Hamas. So the charity is now controlled by Hamas. Here's what the Dallas Morning News said:
"The government acknowledged that ....did provide aid to Palestinians. But the evidence showed that they sent money to Palestinian charity offices controlled by Hamas. U.S. law prohibits any aid, even humanitarian, going to any designated terrorist group." Well yes. They did raise money in USA. And they did send it out to charities in Gaza. And those charities are supervised by Hamas, because thats what government employees do. And the sentences imposed: two were given 65 years each; three were each given 15 -20 years!
(Google: "Holy Land Five." Choose your own sources)
Complain about this comment
Ref 157 continued....
If you'd like to learn more, check out the website they have established seeking the Freedom to Give To Charity and how it affects you:
http://www.freedomtogive.com/?q=why
Complain about this comment
ref #157
considering that Hamas fires missles from hospitals, use ambulances to carry bombs; any monetary support supposidly given to a charity involved with the terrorist group is suspect.
Complain about this comment
So long as California continues to take in 2 billion a year less on average than it spends as it has for at least 30 years, it will dig itself into the deepest financial hole possible and unlike the federal government, it cannot print its own money. It has been indulging itself for decades refusing to confront the reality of its worsening fininancial plight. Now the crisis has reached proportions where it cannot go on any longer the way it has. I know, I lived in California for five years. One big problem is that the state subsidizes illegal aliens who work there. The cost of their medical care, education for their children, emergency housing and food when they are in dire need, police, prisons, is far more than they contribute to our economy. About the only thing that can be said is that they do jobs Americans won't do for wages the are often illegally low. They can be exploited at will because they are always in the shadows and on the run. This only happens in certain industries that cannot be exported. You can't export an American farms or cleaning a building to Mexico, the Phillipines or China. (The Democrats have been fully complicit in not only exporting jobs, factories, companies but entire industries out of the United States. For example, once nearly all consumer electronics sold in the US were made in the US and foreign products were considered junk. Their policy on trade like the Republicans has given the store away.) Wondering how to fix it now is like trying to close the barn door after the horse is long gone. The current worldwide economic crisis is an opportunity. By quitting the WTO and instituting large import duties at the same time as printing massive amounts of money to devalue the currency, the US government could devalue and write down its huge foreign debts, wipe out debt to banks which will go broke and be replaced by new solvent banks, exclude the US market to exports to the US while forcing offshore companies to bring back their industries to the US or face the outside world without competitive access to the American market.
Oh sainted one
The US generates half of its electricity from coal. It has about a 200 year supply. About 20% from natural gas. Off shore proven reserves of natural gas on the continental shelf and in the gulf of Mexico are 420 trillion cubic feet. About 20% is generated from nuclear power plants. (In megawatts and megawatt hours, it's the most in the world, more than France which generates 80% of its energy from nuclear plants. Cutbacks in energy consumption and reductions due to improved efficiency to reduce GHG output for usable energy produced will make a marginal improvement at best. The US should concentrate on technology turning coal and natural gas into substitute fuels for petroleum products. Reductions that are possible without major impact to the economy would not appreciably slow climate change even if China stopped bringing on two new coal fired power plants a week. China and India are only interested in major GHG reductions if the sacrifice is made by someone else. Europe as always is full of hot air and empty words. European leaders have agreed with China and India that the "developed world" should make the sacrifices but Europe didn't even make a dent in its commitments under Kyoto,there is no reason to believe they would keep their commitments under an even stricter follown on regime. That leaves the US to commit economic suicide, the real point of European anger at America for not having knuckled under to its prior demands to reduce itself to Europe's low level. The US actually needs to produce more energy not less as there are already shortages. It also needs more transmission lines, a "smart network" that best exploits its energy infrastructure and is invulnerable to outside computer hackers. It does not and cannot thrive on driving glorified golf carts instead of automobiles the way Europeans can and now some Indians do. The Tata Nano would be a rolling deathtrap on an American highway.
Canard;
As I recall the Queen Mother was affectionately referred to by many Brits including BBC as "the Queen Mum." London swing like a pendulum do? Swingin' in the rain? If Britain is such and attractive place to live, how do you explain that according to a BBC report some years ago, 10% of all Native Brits have chosen to emigrate. How many more would like to if only they could? As with the French, few will admit that there are greener pastures elsewhere. There's always some preposterous excuse instead.
"Did I write that they should be denied or penalized? No, I did not."
The Chinese proverb says that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It seems to me you were just one step short of completing that journey of saying Americans should not be allowed to pursue limitless money. Do you resent Bill Gates? Our world would not be the same had it not been for him. BTW, my own personal finances are none of your beeswax however, I have no complaints or regrets...well one or two investments I passed up that I ahould have jumped into but hindsight is always 20-20.
andreainNY
I'm convinced men and women think by an entirely different process. Here's a typical example I think most men would agree with.
He: "Are you angry at me? I've noticed you haven't spoken to me in four days, does that mean you're angry? Is it something I said or somthing I did? What did I say? What did I do?"
She: "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."
All a man can do is sit in awe and realize that women present a puzzle to men that they cannot solve. But both men and women should realize that a Supreme Court Justice cannot be selected if it means decisions will be influenced by emotion instead of dispassionate analysis. Based on Soda-Mayonnaise's statements, some people are concerned that is exactly what she would do, exercise judicial decisions by what she considers "fair" from her personal perspective, not by what the laws and Constitution say. I'm sure that will be explored in her confirmation hearings. The Republicans are likely to give her a thorough grilling.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,160
Never try to under stand a women,Accept that they are some times a puzzel.
Just love them & be faithful,and befor you know it things will be back were they should be!!!.
Complain about this comment
ukewailee, what do you mean sometimes?
Complain about this comment
Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Is Mrs David Niven still alive? I will say no more in case she is because her name was mentioned in a piece about the late John F Kennedy.
I knew JFK. JFK was a friend of mine. You, sir are no JFK.
Thank goodness I would have said had I known then what is alleged now. No offence JFK and family. But my point is reputation.
I wondered about Mrs Niven - as I watched Pat Buchanan on C-Span just now in my one hours worth on my TV. An hour and a half in fact because I watched the section from 12.00 noon here in Great Britain on Security matters where a General somebody - just gave his report in his new capacity.
Generals. Impress me no end mostly. All the film ones including Custer, Patton, Jackson etc.
Generals are impressive - when they have earned their stripes rather than get them from a Fancy Dress shop. Certain overseas regimes come immediately to mind - allegedly.
Hence my puzzlement why Pat Buchanan failed to answer part of a question that asked exactly what Colin Powell has done wrong? Mr Buchanan is about 12 years older than me by his own math but he is a GOP grand old man is he? I note he answered a few of the other queries put at the same time.
My GOP right or wrong or that well trotted out phrase about changing circumstances that always ends with the query And what do you do Sir? General Powell voted for other than the Republican candidate last time I understand. His choice, no?
Yet Mr Buchanan stuck fast to his friends with some what colourful pasts, Oliver North, Richard Nixon, Watergate personnel and even those friends who served time behind bars.
Fine. Some of my friends still own up to knowing me. Brave souls.
The term lightweight was used very casually about someone nominated to the Supreme Court and a couple of questions that she will be asked was turned into the words All this as if there was a lot rather than what seems to be mostly froth. But she will be asked to clarify things and that is fair.
And it was also suggested on C-Span that racism in the USA was dealt with in the 1950s Mr Buchanan?
When certain media personalities also critics of the same nominated Judge - seems to be so non PC about race you could have fooled me. And mention was made of a now dead gentleman who felt the need to supress completely a mixed race child was it?
Laws against racist behaviour - it may have been written into law but minds prove somewhat more elusive. But goose for ganders and the same sauces are a no no it seems. How quickly they squawk allegedly these geese.
12 years older than me? And it is the middle of 2009 and a question asked of the USA is still awaiting an answer?
But these critics are preferred allegedly to stay in the GOP rather than former General Colin Powell? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff at one time wasnt he? Impressive whatever.
Goodness me. Not cherished by the GOP as a member? As opposed to in my ignorant opinion a rather outspoken radio talk show host?
Right!
I will wait a little longer to see if anyone really is a "lightweight". As I said else where - personal insult is very easy and I try hard not to do it myself too often. You do not know how difficult it is to resist sometimes, Justin. And I truthfully am an intelluctual lightweight.
But I hope I am somewhat more forgiving than some commentators recently heard and or seen.
Complain about this comment
#160. MarcusAureliusII: "As I recall the Queen Mother was affectionately referred to by many Brits including BBC as "the Queen Mum."
What does that have to do with immigration to the USA?
"If Britain is such and attractive place to live, how do you explain that according to a BBC report some years ago, 10% of all Native Brits have chosen to emigrate."
Perhaps they felt, as I did, that governmental regulation (e.g., the prices-and wages freeze) was too stifling. You don't mention whether the figure of 10% is per annum or for all time. It's hardy likely to be for every year, since that would mean that around six million people would depart annually. If you are going to quote statistics, at least get them accurately or provide a relevant link. Otherwise it's just another of your McCarthyesque statements.
"Do you resent Bill Gates? Our world would not be the same had it not been for him."
How do you come to that conclusion? He didn't invent the personal computer. What he did do was to buy someone else's work and then make it available to IBM; he did not develop DOS himself. Had not IBM pursued an open architecture, Gates would have been just another geek. Like the young people who developed Google "in a garage" he didn't work without other financial assistance. I don't believe that chasing money was his motive, and one only has to look at the vast amounts his charities have distributed to understand that.
"my own personal finances are none of your beeswax"
Likewise for myself and my mother, who you characterised as receiving "checks" from me. You can dish it out but cry foul when someone hits back in kind. Typical of the street bully.
Complain about this comment
#163. steelpulse: "Is Mrs David Niven still alive?"
Hjördis Tersmeden Niven died in 1997. Ever heard of Google? If so, why not use it?
Complain about this comment
153, Bien, I would have to submit that this is wishful thinking on
your part. Politicians like to raise taxes because that gives them
power to "do things." By obscuring what the money is to be spent upon,
they can cloak their deeds in righteousness.
Complain about this comment
Canary;
"You don't mention whether the figure of 10% is per annum or for all time. It's hardy likely to be for every year, since that would mean that around six million people would depart annually."
"Ever heard of Google? If so, why not use it?"
10% of the total population. Some problem translating that into Bringlish?
If you must know, I made some of my money the old fashioned way...I inherited it. I made some myself too. Unlike many, I did not lose much in the stock market. I've been mostly out of stocks for nearly 10 years since it has not looked good to me since the recession of 2000. I have no sympathy for those who stood on the train tracks as the train ran them over. Nor do I have sympathy for those who thought they were so privileged to be afforded the honor of being fleeced by Bernie Madoff...and so greedy as to give him their last dime expecting to make more profit on all of it than anyone else could and being so stupid as to have thought he was for real.
All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Was your mumsy mimsy?
"Perhaps they felt, as I did, that governmental regulation (e.g., the prices-and wages freeze) was too stifling."
Maybe they just couldn't find a job. Or could make a lot more money somewhere else in a land of opportunity. Or maybe they just didn't like it there. There are eight million stories in the Naked City. Yours has been one of them. Rather unusual for the husband to live where the wife's family lives and not the other way around I think. Usually the husband wears the pants in the family.
So you do resent Bill Gates. I thought so. I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates was a friend of mine. Canary, you're no Bill Gates. I'll bet you'd tax him into poverty if you had your way. Were it not for him, you'd probably be unable to use a computer since before him, it was a very demanding and primitive process. DOS and UNIX were horrible. Linix doesn't seem to have caught on and Appletalk, well most large companies abandoned it completely in the early 1990s. Do you know he could shut down Europe single handedly if he wanted to just by introducing a new version of Windows that is incompatible with the existing software and refusing to sell it to Europe? Aren't they daring tweaking the dragon's tail.
Complain about this comment
167, MAII, I hate to break it to you, but MicroCruft has been losing
market share quite rapidly since the Vista fiasco. Apple could
probably wipe them out if they made their operating system available
to other PC manufacturers.
The sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads.
Complain about this comment
Ref 154, American
"Robert Reich a former Clinton Labor/Sec said basically that the stimulus package shouldn't be used to help White Male Construction workers. (reaction on this racist remark that white males and their families don't warrent help"
Do you have a link or reference you can produce to corroborate this allegation? I would love to send a message to the Democratic party complaining about such a blatant example of racism, but without conclusive evidence or something credible I can point to I rather not.
Complain about this comment
Ref 147, G&R
"The problem is that the people at the top
have never been hungry, don't understand where the world will be
in 5 or 10 years, and don't know what to do with what they've got."
I agree and would add that many CEOs and business owners are so focused on short term goals that they don't bother to plan for where they want to be 5 or 10 years from now.
Complain about this comment
ref #169
The poster may be refering to this article.
And if people are going to quote MSNBC don't disregard Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/22/robert-reich-keep-stimulus-money-away-from-skilled-workers-and-white-male-contractors/
Complain about this comment
170, the short-term focus that you have mentioned seems to be a
unique characteristic of American management. Part of it is the
revolving door at the top; the other part is the obsession in American
business of being able to measure every cost to death, instead of
concentrating on quality and customer satisfaction.
You have obviously have witnessed these things first-hand, judging
by the remarks that you have made in the past.
Complain about this comment
#167. MarcusAureliusII: "10% of the total population. Some problem translating that into Bringlish?"
You wrote "10% of all Native Brits have chosen to emigrate." That doesn't specify over what period - your implication was that it was recent, but it could be since the 18th century. You still haven't answered the question, but then, you rarely do.
"If you must know, I made some of my money the old fashioned way...I inherited it."
I wasn't in the least interested from where your money comes!
"Maybe they just couldn't find a job. Or could make a lot more money somewhere else in a land of opportunity. Or maybe they just didn't like it there."
Maybe, maybe, maybe. I don't know about others; I can only tell you what brought me to the USA, a narrative you choose not to believe.
"So you do resent Bill Gates."
Where do you read that? It's simply a fact of life that he did not originate the operating system that he made available to IBM; it came from Seattle Computer Products who originated QDOS. In any case, I have always used a Mac and continue to do so. Far less problematical than Wintel machines. Reportedly Gates told his engineers to "make it more like a Mac". Windows didn't suddenly spring from nowhere.
"I know Bill Gates. Bill Gates was a friend of mine."
I note was. What happened to that friendship? If you displayed the characteristics to him which you show here, I can readily understand why you were dropped from his circle.
However, I can't think how any of your statements and questions have anything to do with the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice. When you can't win, you use a diversionary tactic.
Complain about this comment
154:
Yes, she is Roman Catholic. Do you have a problem with that?
157:
"Is the Supreme Court and judiciary independent in USA? Or does it follow orders from others?"
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and does not follow orders from any other branch of the Federal Gov., but Justices may be impeached by Congress. Justices serve for life, but may retire. The Supreme Court does not make law, it interprets the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and executive orders signed by the president. Cases from the lower courts may reach the Supreme Court for a decision if the court agrees to hear the case; most cases from the lower courts are not accepted on to the docket, but the case load has increased over time.
166:
Maybe it is wishful thinking; like you, I am always suspicious of new tax plans, but I was trying to be opptimistic.
Complain about this comment
171. MagicKirin:
At least we know how Reich feels about the white males who dominate construction. They are advantaged and don't warrant stimulus.
It must be tough being in the Democratic Party these days. You never know when you're going to be moved into that "advantaged" category and cut off.
Complain about this comment
Ref 172, G&R
"...the other part is the obsession in American
business of being able to measure every cost to death, instead of
concentrating on quality and customer satisfaction."
My youngest son works for a medium-size manufacturing company. He is highly successful in finding new customers, but loses them shortly thereafter as a result of lousy quality control and inability to meet deadlines. Another problem is reluctance to invest in new systems and technology to improve competitiveness, quality, and meet customer requirements, especially those of some U.S. government agencies. Unfortunately, chinese companies are making inroads in the field he is in, and it will not be long before they go the way of so many other US corporations.
We complain a lot about US corporations moving facilities overseas or outsourcing services to foreign companies to reduce operating expenses and increase profits, which is true, but we seldom reflect on what needs to be done to save what we still have.
Complain about this comment
ref #170
I agree there but I would also add most goverment leaders on the federal and local levals.
The main budget problem California and other places have are these ridicolous compensation and pension packages
Complain about this comment
152, guns.
"A lot of the blame can be laid to the feet of our academics who hand out MBA degrees. The academic system often confuses performance with credentials, and corporate America is the same way. They deserve each other."
It also instills great rigidity. They cannot work without sophisticated backup. That is, they can't rely on common sense. There was one of those jokers working for us in Iran. He came up with a great idea for a mathemtical model. It was based on a severe shortage of protein in the Iranian diet. I looked at him as if he were nuts. I told him to look at the people - workers, tribesmen, the poor. I said that if there were this shortage it would show. They would be dull-eyed and lethargic. He said he was basing the study on WHO statistics (for WHO, substitute god). I said the statistics were wrong. And I proved, much to my annoyance, that they were.
Your comments about the auto industry are mirrored in the rose-growing industry. For ages roses were developed to meet the standards of the society that gave out the awards (I don't remember its name). The results were flowers that did not smell, that were subject to disease, that were leathery and looked like industructable plastic (for the short time they were able to survive). An Englishman sought to restore the rose to its former glory. He came up with beautiful, fragile-looking, 100-petalled blooms with heavenly scents that were disease resistent. The rose society said it was a fad and smirked that they would never win awards. It turned out nobody cared and the new roses made the Englishman (Austin) very wealthy. The large American growers were about 15 years behind when they decided to get on the bandwagon. By then it was too late.
Complain about this comment
176, St. D, what we really need is a new generation of business leaders.
178, Ms. Marbles, the kind of stuff you mention is typical of what I run
into.
Once, someone asked me how they could learn how to be a leader. They
asked me if there were "motivational courses" that they could take,
or "public speaking" courses that could enable them to advance up
"the ladder."
I told them that they needed to get in the line of fire. I don't think
that they liked that answer. That person went off to get an MBA and is
now someone impeding progress in a big corporation.
Complain about this comment
An abortion doctor was shot and killed in Kansas while at church. So much for the selective Christianity of pro-lifers. Hypocrites and murderers!
Complain about this comment
180. allmymarbles:
"An abortion doctor was shot and killed in Kansas while at church. So much for the selective Christianity of pro-lifers. Hypocrites and murderers!"
********************************
Murderers? Calling a group of people "murderers" should have some basis in fact.
How many murderers among pro-lifers are there? Yes, one is too many, but could you be more specific? That's a strong accusation and should be backed up.
Complain about this comment
179, guns.
"Once, someone asked me how they could learn how to be a leader. They asked me if there were "motivational courses" that they could take, or "public speaking" courses that could enable them to advance up "the ladder."
Gloss without substance. He was apparently never taught to produce a superior product.
People like us can't fake it. We have to produce. And the trick is never to get too big. Stay small enough for the demand to be greater than the supply. Then you can make your own terms and stick to your ethics. Many's the time we were told to borrow and expand. We didn't. Once you are in that kind of debt you can't be choosy about the projects you take on.
Complain about this comment
181, Andrea.
"How many murderers among pro-lifers are there? Yes, one is too many, but could you be more specific? That's a strong accusation and should be backed up."
He was not the first. Check the archives.
Complain about this comment
Business leadership cannot, in fact, be taught, and we're kidding ourselves by believing business schools are producing business leaders.
Having gone to business school, I know that accounting and information technology can be taught. And having worked for a management consulting firm, I know that costs and errors can be measured.
Lots of data can be captured, but knowing what to do with it is not guaranteed by graduating business school. There's only so much data-driven decision-making that goes into leadership.
Of course, no data and no leadership is a bad combination.
Complain about this comment
Ref 179, G&R
"...what we really need is a new generation of business leaders."
Absolutely! I am hopeful things will improve, not only in corporate America, but in politics and every facet of life in our country as the intransigent old dynosaurs of yesteryear move on to greener pastures and new blood moves in. Changes in paradigm are evident all around us; hopefully, they are irreversible, deliberate and don't come too late.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard
Quote "Ever heard of Google? If so, why not use it?" Unquote
Whoever you are, 165, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers! - A StreetCar Named Desire.
Google. Google?
I just found it and thanks to the news here on BBC One in Great Britain _ I know why Big Ben is featured today. It was also mentioned on C-Span by a caller to Steven of Scully's programme. Pat Buchanan asked to comment about it anyway.
Dick Cheney cleaning President Obama's clock - allegedly in that debate a week or so back.
There are two cracks in Big Ben too - no two. Give the chimes its distinctive tone. Of desperation. Allegedly.
No offence Mr Cheney. No offence. lol
Talking of two - how about the other wife - David Niven's - stranger? lol
Nah. David_Cunard - just funning you.
Complain about this comment
181, Andrea:
"How many murderers among pro-lifers are there? Yes, one is too many, but could you be more specific? That's a strong accusation and should be backed up."
He was not the first. Check the archives
***************************
I'm familiar with the cases.
How many murders does it take for you to call an entire group of Christian pro-lifers "murderers"? That's a very strong accusation.
Complain about this comment
185, St.D, I think that the social networking thing is going to
be the catalyst for change in the business community, because
it will force more companies to recognize that the bonds between
individuals and the timely adoption of new ideas are more important
than organization charts.
Complain about this comment
Ref 154, American
"Under the Obama administration racism is ok.."
One thing is to criticize specific policies, another to make blanket statements like this, particularly when they do not reflect what is taking place. The overwhelming majority of the Cabinet members and political appointees to key positions, are white. In fact, several are registered Republicans. If there is one thing President Obama has done it is to include qualified men and women to important posts, members of most ethnic groups, and Republicans. I realize that any threats to the old status quo are worrisome, but this is a new world and it requires inclusiveness and pragmatism.
"I wonder if this Supreme Court Judge is a Roman Catholic, and how that fits in?"
Are you scared?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To saint something, go to Goggle, Robert Reich's No White Construction workers. There are several references, including many paper, only mildly covered. There was a video on Cspan2 of Robert Reich. To white male construction workers. They were excluded.
Complain about this comment
Ref 191, American
"...go to Goggle, Robert Reich's No White Construction workers..."
Even though the comments are excerpts from a hearing, and it would be helpful to hear the entire hearing rather than a few remarks, I must say that I find the statements he made very disturbing and inappropriate.
I also thought the comments about not focusing on skilled workers more than just a little disturbing. Hopefully he was talking about things like landscaping because I definitely would not like to travel through a bridge or tunnel built exclusively by unskilled workers, regardless of the pigmentation of their skin!
I believe everybody should be given equal opportunity to get a job or a contract, but the most important consideration must be the qualifications of the applicant for such job or contract rather than gender or ethnicity.
I admitt that I hired and promoted more females and minorities than any other manager in the location where I worked, but I only chose them when white applicants were less qualified, did not exhibit ancillary attributes pertinent to the job, or none applied. I also rejected the only "Hispanic" candidate that applied to a supervisory job in my organization...and gave it to a white woman whose education, experience, and leadership qualities were more in line with what we needed.
Bear in mind that most business owners and managers hire and promote people who are likely to strenghthen the organization and help them succeed in their own jobs. Two thirds of the management and supervisory staff under me were white males, in fact, all my direct reports were white males; the rest were females and African Americans.
One of the problems that happened in the early days of affirmative action was a tendency to meet requirements by hiring minorities and women for low paying jobs. In effect, many met their "quota" by hiring minorities to fill janitorial and clerical positions. I suspect Reich was alluding to that circumstance, but his choice of words was appalling.
Complain about this comment
guns and saintD.
One of the biggest problems in business today, and for which the CEO's are not completely responsible, is the pressure for quick profits. This has put long-term planning (real profitability) on the back burner. You see the same thing on the stock market. The steady dividend-paying stocks have generally lower ratings than the jazzy volitile ones. These ratings reflect the aspirations of the buyers, rather than true value.
Complain about this comment
Ms. Marbles and St. D, one of the benefits a period of great economic
change like the current one is that after all the damage is done, new
leaders emerge which incorporate the lessons of the downturn, and
which have adapted to it.
Just think of it like a global financial influenza epidemic; it's one
big flu shot.
Not that I am happy about all of the people who are suffering, but
there is a silver lining in just about any catastrophe.
Complain about this comment
Is what Ms. Sotomayor indicitve of what is to come? "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 hasnt lived that life, said Judge Sotomayor," If a white man were to say this his words would be taken as meant. But, because of a set of double standards this Latina will fill two quotas for the Democrats and the President 1) A women is hired and 2) A Latina is hired. One person two voids filled. Remember how Thomas and Bork were grilled. Well the same should be done with this imposter.
Complain about this comment
195. At 10:54pm on 31 May 2009, BRIANCM wrote:
One person two voids filled. Remember how Thomas and Bork were grilled. Well the same should be done with this imposter."
So what are you saying, she is not a woman or she is not a Latin?
And her observations are entirely correct.
Complain about this comment
This whole ethnic thing is a trap if the Republicans attack Sotomayor
on that basis. They're already in the doghouse with the Latino community
over the immigration issue as it is.
If they are smart, they'll find something more substantive than a
"sound bite" upon which to base their opposition.
Complain about this comment
187. At 8:50pm on 31 May 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
I'm familiar with the cases.
How many murders does it take for you to call an entire group of Christian pro-lifers "murderers"? That's a very strong accusation."
Well the so-called pro-life brigade are not adverse to flinging around a few insults, and bombs, themselves.
Complain about this comment
"171. At 6:48pm on 31 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #169
The poster may be refering to this article.
And if people are going to quote MSNBC don't disregard Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/22/robert-reich-keep-stimulus-money-away-from-skilled-workers-and-white-male-contractors/ "
Yes. Tell us do you use E Terreblanche's site to get an 2objective" view of the failings of South Africa?
Complain about this comment
#181. At 8:34pm on 31 May 2009, AndreainNY: "Murderers? Calling a group of people "murderers" should have some basis in fact.
How many murderers among pro-lifers are there? Yes, one is too many, but could you be more specific? That's a strong accusation and should be backed up."
It's analogous to saying that all Democrats are Socialist, all Gays are paedophiles or all Doctors who terminate pregnancies are murderers. A sweeping statement that doesn't refer to each and every one. I would have thought you might have understood that!
Complain about this comment
197, guns.
"This whole ethnic thing is a trap if the Republicans attack Sotomayor on that basis. They're already in the doghouse with the Latino community over the immigration issue as it is."
Obama set them up. There is no way they can look good.
Complain about this comment
196, Simon.
You made a reference to Bork. He was perhaps the finest jurist of our time and they vilified him. If I remember correctly, not a single one of his rulings was ever overturned.
Complain about this comment
Gunnysack;
"I think of the UK as a kind of gated community . . . being on an island is a definite advantage as far as keeping the riffraff out."
I think of the UK as a gated island too...Alcatraz. Cunard has managed to escape in a successful breakout along with about 10% of the other inmates. Meanwhile foreign prisoners are escaping their own prisons to the UK because it is a better run prison...although I hear the food is pretty lousy.
Canard;
"In my earliest days in California, people would ask why I was not an American Citizen, and my reply was that I was "better than a citizen"
Typical English elitism. Still considers himself "Upper Class" and above us pedestrian commoner colonists. Reminds me of Hyacinth Bucket to a tee.
Complain about this comment
#203. MarcusAureliusII: "Typical English elitism. Still considers himself "Upper Class" and above us pedestrian commoner colonists."
There is an element of truth to that; after all, American society is not classless as one has been told. It goes without saying that you fit the commoner bracket -and you're envious of those who move in more rarified social circles.
"Reminds me of Hyacinth Bucket to a tee."
I always sympathised with her aspirations to drag herself out of the milieu in which her two youngest sisters remained. Isn't that the American way? The third remaining sister "married well", something not unknown in America - remember Vickie Lynn Marshall?
Complain about this comment
200. David_Cunard wrote:
#181, AndreainNY:
"Murderers? Calling a group of people "murderers" should have some basis in fact.
How many murderers among pro-lifers are there? Yes, one is too many, but could you be more specific? That's a strong accusation and should be backed up."
It's analogous to saying that all Democrats are Socialist, all Gays are paedophiles or all Doctors who terminate pregnancies are murderers. A sweeping statement that doesn't refer to each and every one. I would have thought you might have understood that!
*************************
It's equally ignorant. Analogous in their ignorance is more like it.
Complain about this comment
201. allmymarbles:
197, guns.
"This whole ethnic thing is a trap if the Republicans attack Sotomayor on that basis. They're already in the doghouse with the Latino community over the immigration issue as it is."
Obama set them up. There is no way they can look good.
***********************
Well, she's not exactly looking stellar herself.
Who's really buying Obama's comments that she would have said things differently? Nice try on his part, though.
Complain about this comment
guns, david.
This is all about AndreainNY's vendetta against me.and has little to do with the subjects at hand. Girly-girly nonsense. Coventry now has a new resident. I hope she gets on with Marcus and Magic.
Complain about this comment
207. allmymarbles:
guns, david.
This is all about AndreainNY's vendetta against me.and has little to do with the subjects at hand. Girly-girly nonsense. Coventry now has a new resident. I hope she gets on with Marcus and Magic.
************************
You still haven't answered my question, "girly-girly" though it may seem to you.
On what basis do you call Christian pro-lifers "murderers"?
Perhaps you'd be better off just admitting that it was a dumb comment.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#208. AndreainNY: "On what basis do you call Christian pro-lifers "murderers"?"
Although Marbles can speak for herself, surely you recognise that anti-abortion radicals have murdered professional medical personnel on more than one occasion? If one is too much, as you write, then the plural must qualify as well. You're on the losing side with this one.
#209. MarcusAureliusII: "except in his case for a rare encounter with one of those single soccer moms with fantasies who recognizes him at the local supermarket."
Go to a supermarket? Moi? You've got to be kidding. Don't they deliver in your part of the world?
Complain about this comment
"Bigotry is more than ok in the current ruling class of the US as long as the right groups benefit from it."
So true...and sadly acurate...
I come from a mixed race family and have a mixed race family myself. I want my childred to have the same opportunities as everyone else, but I don't want them have big "NO" stamped on their forhead for having the wrong color skin...This goes for my lighter skin children as well..
When o when can we be judged as an individual and not by a group?
.....Is the dream of Dr. King too much for us to hope for...?
Sadly...from what I see today...Liberals are the torch bearers of govt enforced bigotry and hatred of people with different skin colors...
Complain about this comment
211, curious.
"I come from a mixed race family and have a mixed race family myself. I want my childred to have the same opportunities as everyone else, but I don't want them have big "NO" stamped on their forhead for having the wrong color skin...This goes for my lighter skin children as well."
I think the higher up the financial and educational scale you go, the less trouble you have. Paradoxical, isn't it? There are a couple of mixed race marriages in my family, and I have some friends who married other races. They do not have a problem professionally or socially. The bigotry arises with people they don't know, such as policemen giving them the fish eye, or nervousness on the part of someone renting out a banquet hall to the black member of the family. When the mixed couple is together there does not seem to be a problem. Sort of like having a chaperon to insure your behavior. Unfortunate, but things are so much better than they were, and I have high hopes for the future.
Complain about this comment
Stupid looks and stupid people will always be with us. I don't really care about them...
The thing that seriously concerns me is the GOVT. enforced bigotry and color counting to "right old wrongs"...This only serves to keep animosity alive for a whole new generation of people who had nothing to do with the old injustices
....Its counter productive and just wrong to have the govt say one color is good and one is bad..voting for someone just because of their color is just as wrong as voting against them for their color...Its still race centric bigotry
One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for ALL...not the ones we like or looks like us...
Maybe in another 2 or 3 generations....maybe..
Complain about this comment
213, Curious, you're going to put a lot of politically correct activists
out of business with an attitude like that. God forbid that we should actually
try to get along with each other in our daily lives like the humans beings
that we really are.
Complain about this comment
213, Curious.
Sometimes government is more progressive than the people. Back in the late 40's, when I was applying for college, the state and city run colleges did not ask race and didn't ask for a picture. (These were common practices in private colleges.) Four years yearlier I made application to one of the very special highschools in New York run by the board of higher education (the agency that oversaw the city colleges). We had to take a competitive exam and we were identified only by number - no other information. In selecting us they counted down from the top, starting with the highest score. In my homeroom class were two blacks, and those were the days when the black population in Manhattan was not all that big. I was friends with one of them and she ultimately got a four-year scholarship to Radcliff, the top women's college of the day. No doubt her fine highschool education got her there. The other girl was valedictorian. Not bad for the 40's.
Complain about this comment
214,guns
213, marbles
I am an individual. I don't self-identify as a member of ANY color group.
My wife and I make it a point to make sure that our children look at the world in a color-blind way.
What is color anyway? Where is the country of White? Where is the country of Black. Where is the country of Tan?....
If we are guilty of any discrimination..its the demand to be the best you can be at everything you do and to hang around with people who demand the same for themselves and their children...If only everyone else held these standards...99% of societies issues would be resolved...
I would LOVE to see ALL of the race based talk and policies gone...but I don't think this will happen anytime soon...too many people need it for their personal power and reason to exist...
Complain about this comment
115, Curious.
People are not as awful as you think. A good part of the population is color blind. Didn't Obama get elected? Obviously something was more important than color to the voters. It is politicians who play the race game and feed bigotry. Maybe one day candidates will not woo voters by race or ethnic background. But I doubt it.
Complain about this comment
216, Curious, further.
Also let's not forget intermarriage. That is growing by leaps and bounds. Kind of hard to be bigoted against your children, isn't it. Down the road we will all be beige.
Complain about this comment
218, Ms. Marbles, that's right. In the future we will blend in
with the office furniture.
Complain about this comment
217,218, marbles
If you study history, you will find that people are generally not very good to each other....sad comment...but its the truth of the human experience...
I am married to a awesome woman who happens to have been born in Mexico. She worked very hard for her American Citizenship, which she received after 15 years and TONS of paperwork. We have three incredible children and we work hard every day to push for a better life for them.
I am very libertarian in my politics...and my wife is VERY conservative...Your ears would burn when you hear the spanish news...its very much "in your face" without the PC garbage that we've been suffering in the US...
Bottomline...I want the govt out of my families lives...the more they try and "help" us...they only make things worse...Just leave us alone and stop stealling our money...
Complain about this comment
220, Curious, it's too bad that politics has shifted so severely to
the left. This is a nation which has confused bondage with freedom,
and subservience with responsibility.
Complain about this comment
220, Curious.
"nt the govt out of my families lives...the more they try and "help" us...they only make things worse...Just leave us alone and stop stealling our money..."
I recommend Utopia or Valium.
Complain about this comment
221, guns.
Would you believe me if I said that we had more freedom, and less government intervention, in Iran? People here do not understand what is happening.
Complain about this comment
223, Ms. Marbles, they obviously do not have as efficient a propaganda
machine as our mass media.
Complain about this comment
224, guns.
"they obviously do not have as efficient a propaganda machine as our mass media."
That is part of it. Reliance is on the grapevine, not the press. The other has to do with the nature of the Iranian. They don't like to be pushed aruund. A good example would be when oil prices went through the roof last year. The government raised the price of oil. The people protested. The government didn't listen. So people destroyed the gas stations. The government responded by reinstating the low oil prices. That is something that could never happen here.
Complain about this comment
Ok, I have been trying to avoid posting about the issue of abortion because it has been talked to death on this blog, but after reading the discussion between Allmymarbles, David_Cunard, and AndreainNY about the Kansas abortionist's murder, I feel that I must post something in response. As someone who is pro-life, I feel obligated to say that I formally denounce whoever murdered that Kansas man in cold blood as a murderer who should be locked up for the rest of his life because he has disgraced us all with this senseless and shameful act of violence. He has done nothing but harm the pro-life movement by committing an act that is unforgivable and counter to the very meaning of the phrase pro-life. I ask all pro-life individuals on this blog to join me in condemnation, so that we may make it clear to all people, even those who are pro-choice, that such acts are never to be tolerated in this day and age.
Complain about this comment
224, guns, further.
That rather suggests that we are well suited to slavery, doesn't it.
Complain about this comment
#226
I agree, murdering a medical proffesional, in front of his wife, at his local church, is an act of pure evil. No matter how much you may disagree with what he does, killing him isn't going to further your cause in the slightest. It makes him (the murderer) no different to terrorsits and any number of people I'm sure he looks down on and despises.
Anyone else find it ironic if they give the death penalty?
Complain about this comment
187 Andrea
How many murders does it take for you to call an entire group of Christian pro-lifers "murderers"? That's a very strong accusation.
No one is calling all pro/life supporters murderers, but have we heard all the churches and pro/life movements issue statements condemning this murder, and for the benefits of Chrisitans who don-t get it, explaining that any murder will see you burn in hell for all eternity....?
It-s the deafening silence on these murders from the anti abortion crowd that shocks me. Or are they selective about which lives they are pro?
Complain about this comment
226 Bienvenue
What a sensible comment you make.
I-m sure that none of us on this forum believe that all pro/lifers are would/be murderers, but given the overwhelmingly Christian persuasion of the pro/life movement I would expect more of an outcry against this and other murders.
As you say, it massively damages the pro/life movement, and the silence of other pro/lifers on the issues exhibits a tacit acceptance of the murder of an abortionist.
As with so many things, a few radicals ruin it for everyone else ..... compare perceptions of muslims as terrorists, democrats as socialists etc etc etc.
Bienvenue, thanks again for being a voice of calm reason in a world of shouting.
Complain about this comment
The problem with race is too often whites are targeted, just like the Nato common enemy Russia. Unit the people under the common enemy threat, like Hitler did with the Jews. Once an administration starts painting ethnic, racial, or religious as villains they become targets. I.E. Brasil blaming the blue eyed whites for the financial crisis. Futhermore it is interesting to note that the Obama/Clinton response to NK, and the liberal response sounds like Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy with Hitler. Hmmm, history repeats itself. Merit doesn't work in the Obama social experiment only politics. Joe Biden we love Kosovo, Joe Biden we love Serbia. What a hypocrite. Don't make more Democratic excuses, and play the blame game.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles wrote:
221, guns.
Would you believe me if I said that we had more freedom, and less government intervention, in Iran? People here do not understand what is happening.
I would not believe you. Let me ask you what would happen if someone threw a shoe at an image of Khomeni or another mullah in front of the Iranain Revolutionary Guard.
Then what would happen in the U.S if someone did the same to an image of Obama across from the White House?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref 231, American
"The problem with race is too often whites are targeted"
I think you got it backawards. Even the most casual review of history would tell you that white Europeans have dominated Africans, Asians, and indigenous Americans for centuries, and continue to do so.
The fact that women, many of whom happen to be white, and ethnic minorities are making inroads in America does not mean whites are being targeted. Demographic changes, a greater commitment to education among minorities, the global economy and closer interaction with other nations and cultures are among many reasons for the ability of ethnic minorities and women to compete and succeed.
Considering the fact that there are as many women enrolling and graduating from college as men, there is a good chance they will take over the reins of power at all levels within a couple of decades. Considering the mess we have made, not a moment too soon. Changes are going to take place regardless of how the Jurassic park crowd feels about losing their hegemony.
Complain about this comment
While we are all equal, some of us are more equal than others.
Complain about this comment
229. RomeStu:
187 Andrea
How many murders does it take for you to call an entire group of Christian pro-lifers "murderers"? That's a very strong accusation.
No one is calling all pro/life supporters murderers,
************************
That is exactly what was claimed here.
It is as ignorant to call pro-life Christians "murderers" as it is to denigrate any group, based on its religion, ethnicity or race for the crimes of a few.
I am on the right side of this. It's a shame you cannot admit, Mr. Cunard.
Complain about this comment
234. saintDominick:
It doesn't appear to me that progress among minorities is the issue but rather the targeting of them for special treatment or, in Robert Reich's case, the outright exclusion of them from special treatment (ex., stimulus money).
Your belief that women would make better leaders and your comment about how the "Jurassic park crowd feels about losing their hegemony" shows you to have a bias of your own.
Isn't believing that a woman would make a better anything just as sexist as believing she would be inferior at that thing?
Complain about this comment
Correction: "It doesn't appear to me that progress among minorities is the issue but rather the targeting of them for special treatment or, in Robert Reich's case, the outright exclusion of the majority from special treatment (ex., stimulus money)."
Complain about this comment
Andrea .... I'm not Mr Cunard.
Also if you read my post I agreed that it is not fair to call all pro-life Christians murderers.
You have an issue with AllMyMarbles original post at 180 where she mentionned the "selective christianity" of pro-lifers ..... but perhaps she meant those christian pro-lifers who murder people, and those who tacitly smile with satisfaction that another baby-killer got his just rewards. Look at the big picture please.
However my understanding of Christianity is that Christians believe all killing is wrong (Thou shalt not....), and the deafening silence from the pro-life Christian lobby on this murder leads to people assuming that they are perhaps ambivalent about the murder of an abortionist.
A firm statement from church leaders saying that this is absolutely wrong and that only the blazing fires of hell and the torments of Satans little devils await those who kill, would maybe clarify things for the weakminded individuals who perform these perfidious acts in the name of their belief.
This is a direct parallel with Muslim Mullahs who may not activiely incite terrorism, but neither do they condemn it when it happens, leading many (myself included) to infer that they approve.
Please read Bienvenueinlouisiana above. This is exactly the reaction I would hope for, especially from pro-life christians. Anything else is base hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Ref 237, Andrea
"Isn't believing that a woman would make a better anything just as sexist as believing she would be inferior at that thing?"
I have two sons and a daughter. I want all to enjoy the same opportunities.
Obviously, our ability to succeed does not depend on ethnicity or gender, rather, it is influenced by our commitment to educate ourselves, work hard, remain focused, and have high ethical standards (Yes, I know, Bernie Maddow proved the latter is inconsequential). Although there are certain traits where each gender excels (men are usually stronger physically, women tend to be more cautious) those attributes are not universal and, therefore, it is unfair to say that a woman would always do a better job than a man or vice versa, or that one is more or less intelligent than the other.
My comment, was based on the fact that white men have dominated every facet of life, not only in the USA but in the world, for centuries, and judging by all the wars, economic crises, our inability to eradicate disease and malnutrition in impoverished countries, the way we have neglected the environment, and the many inequalities that remain unsolved I would say that the rise of women to positions of authority may be what we need to overcome many of our problems. I would also like to reiterate something that apparently you missed in my previous post, there are as many women as men enrolling and graduating from college, which suggests their ability to compete and succeed will increase exponentially. The day of women having a substandard education that limit their options, spending the day baking cookies, cleaning the house, and having dinner ready for the old man are a thing of the past.
As I said in a previous post, I was quite disturbed by Mr. Reich's comment, but since I have not heard the entire interview I can not put them in context and reserve judgment until I do. If it turns out that he meant exactly what is in the excerpts I heard, he should resign. I believe in fairness, but suggesting that pertinent qualifications are unimportant and that the only factors to be considered for hiring are ethnicity and gender is simply wrong. Not even our equal employment opportunity laws go that far.
Complain about this comment
239. RomeStu:
"Andrea .... I'm not Mr Cunard." Which is why I addressed my statement to Mr. Cunard.
"Also if you read my post I agreed that it is not fair to call all pro-life Christians murderers. "
And I certainly agree with you. What I don't necessarily agree on is your demand that the pro-life Christian community denounce this killer in order to redeem itself in your eyes. Are you of the belief that Christian pro-lifers actually support this killing?
These shooters/killers are very sick individuals and should not be used to justify a bias against Christian pro-lifers.
Complain about this comment
240. saintDominick: "I would also like to reiterate something that apparently you missed in my previous post, there are as many women as men enrolling and graduating from college, which suggests their ability to compete and succeed will increase exponentially."
**************************
Didn't miss it. Just not sure that more female MBA's, for example, will lead to better business outcomes.
White males have done some pretty impressive things for our country, especially at its inception. I would say other races and females have a tough act to follow and not necessarily just a mess to clean up.
Complain about this comment
239. RomeStu:
This is a direct parallel with Muslim Mullahs who may not activiely incite terrorism, but neither do they condemn it when it happens, leading many (myself included) to infer that they approve.
**********************
One last thought. There is a significant difference between the behavior of "church leaders" here and mullahs in the Middle East. Here, pro-life Christians know that the killer will be tried and punished if found guilty. Our system will enforce justice. It is not dependent upon their voices to ensure that justice is carried out. I think calling it a "deafening silence" two days after the killing is a bit of a stretch.
I've often read of Christians who forgive the people who have harmed them or loved ones and of Christians who actively oppose the death sentence. I have no reason to believe that Christians will behave any differently in this case. I hardly see pro-life Christians supporting this killing any more than they would the killing of an infant.
Complain about this comment
#242
"White males have done some pretty impressive things for our country, especially at its inception."
Plenty of white males have messed up Ameirca too - Bush, Nixon etc etc
And your argument is flawed, greatly in fact. White males, especially from in the infancy of the US, were the only people that could do anything in the country. Women did not have equal rights. Black slaves certainly didn't have equal rights. The reason they have a "touch act to follow" is because white males had a head start!
Complain about this comment
#243
Your grouping together "pro-life Christians" just as someone did earlier and you had a go at. I doubt all Christians forgive people, and I bet some aren't all that fussed the Doctor was murdered. Just as you are sure that they all would not turn to murder to get a point across.
You have not met all Christians, so I would suggest you don't make sweeping statements like that, just as you told others not to do so.
Complain about this comment
Ref 231. AmericanGrizzly
Ref 242. AndreainNY
Ref 190. MarcusAureliusII
Do you read what you have written before you post your comments? You obviously don't realise how it's read by others.
Complain about this comment
The latest cold blooded murder of a physician, apparently because of his decision to perform abortions, is one in a long list of similar acts by the most extreme members of the so called "pro-life" movement. Not every anti-abortion advocate is inclined to commit murder, but some obviously are (this is not the first and will probably not be the last a doctor is assassinated by anti-abortion fanatics), and others rejoice and excuse what took place.
I only support abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, but as opposed to thos who limit their opposition to purposely ending life to zygotes and foetus, I feel the same way about the death penalty, war, and all killings regardless of whether they take place before or after birth, or are made legal by governments and society. In my book, you are either pro-life, in the full context of that term or you are not, and most pro-lifers are not.
Complain about this comment
#236. AndreainNY: (RomeStu) No one is calling all pro/life supporters murderers
************************
That is exactly what was claimed here.
Where did you read the word "all"? The phrase was "Hypocrites and murderers!" not "Hypocrites and murderers all!" You read too much into a declamatory statement.
Complain about this comment
all.. (#202) "You made a reference to Bork. He was perhaps the finest jurist of our time and they vilified him. If I remember correctly, not a single one of his rulings was ever overturned."
Robert Bork was a Judge (on a Court of Appeals) for only six years. If he was never overruled, it is not surprising, because the Supreme Court takes only a very few cases. Most Appeals Court decisions by far are not overturned.
Whether one thinks Bork was "the finest jurist of our time" probably depends on what one thinks of Roe v. Wade. Here is a link to Bork on the subject:
Robert Bork on Alito and Roe v. Wade
Complain about this comment
243 Andrea
If you think I am lumping all Christians, pro-life or pro-choice, together then you are misreading my posts.
My main point is that when something atrocious such as this murder is carried out by a member of a certain group - in this case pro-life christians - then the spokespeople for that group have a duty to publicly censure the action for 2 reasons ...
a) to ensure that others do not judge all by the misguided actions of a few
b) send a tacit signal to other extremists within their ranks that somehow it may be acceptable behaviour.
Hence my call for all pro-life groups to publicly and unambiguously censure this murder. Pro-life is not limited to the unborn.
Incidentally, reading around the subject, Kansas turns out to be one of very few states where late term abortions are legal in certain circumstances. It just surprised me, given that Kansas (and yes I'm generalising) is very "bible belt". Remember the creationism thing in schools.
Why not lobby the state government to change the rules, rather than resort to murder?
Complain about this comment
David (#248), the original remark about "murderers" (in post #180) did generalize from the actions of one person (a murderer) to a group (pro-lifers). Though the word "all" was not used, it was still a sweeping generalization. I expect most persons identifying with the "pro-life" group would repudiate vigilante acts of violence on their behalf.
Complain about this comment
245. SaintOne:
You have not met all Christians, so I would suggest you don't make sweeping statements like that, just as you told others not to do so.
********************
No, but I have read of Christians who... (see above).
Complain about this comment
244. SaintOne:
#242
"White males have done some pretty impressive things for our country, especially at its inception."
Plenty of white males have messed up Ameirca too - Bush, Nixon etc etc
And your argument is flawed, greatly in fact. White males, especially from in the infancy of the US, were the only people that could do anything in the country. Women did not have equal rights. Black slaves certainly didn't have equal rights. The reason they have a "touch act to follow" is because white males had a head start!
******************
Regardless of who got there first, white males did a fine job with establishing our country.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't assume that the suspect in the killing is or is not a member of any particular group. Here is a link to a description of the suspect from a "pro-life" organization:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4194.html
Complain about this comment
#251. At 4:26pm on 01 Jun 2009, Gary_A_Hill: "the original remark about "murderers" (in post #180) did generalize from the actions of one person (a murderer) to a group (pro-lifers). Though the word "all" was not used, it was still a sweeping generalization."
And about which, see my response at #200, last paragraph.
Complain about this comment
254. Gary_A_Hill:
"I wouldn't assume that the suspect in the killing is or is not a member of any particular group. "
*********************
By virtue of this act (if he commited it), he's not pro-life.
Complain about this comment
David (#255), Ok, I checked it. I am still unclear on your position. Are you in favor or not in favor of making sweeping generalizations about groups based on the alleged actions of one individual, who may not even be a member of those groups in any formal sense?
Complain about this comment
256. AndreainNY
Which brings you back to the original point allmymarbles made:" Hypocrites and murderers!" You seem to have gone round in a circle. Never mind, you got there in the end.
Complain about this comment
The Supreme Court has had enough work ruling on the 44 appeals of Soto's cases. Most of which (33), her rulings are overturned.
Marbles 123. Jefferson said a lot. Post a link to the specific statement you reference. The mods should be OK with actual history.
Guns 122. There is no creeping socialism in this administration. It is running full tilt and he still creates the urgency that there is no time to actually read legistlation before voting on it. $1.84 trillion debt this year alone.
Marcus 128. Right on! No consideration for consequences. Now that is "change" to believe in.
ghostoflenin 2. I am Democrat, but firmly disagree with your generalization.
I believe in the Constitution and balance of power. I respect the insight of our Founding Fathers. I respect that the Founding Fathers emphasized the importance of a "moral" nation to make the government work and that religion was the basis of those morals. I respect they forbade the (Federal) state from having a sanctioned religion, but allowed churches to use state property for services when shared fairly between the religions.
Look to the motivations regarding their position on debauchery as it applies to the consequences of reduced morals on the function of our society and our government. Their views were neither Puritan nor Taliban. Look at their justifications and motivations. They are well documented.
With regards to the Supreme Court applicant's intelligence, she has quite a few of her rulings overturned because she did not follow the rule of law. She used her rulings to sway law. Specifically, she interpreted laws tangentially for her own purposes. She discarded precedence because it did not fit her personal views.
Complain about this comment
re: 244. Saint
you have posted rhetoric and apparently feel it has some merit. Please support your view.
Would you mind taking a moment to list Nixon's alleged crimes?
I will take the easy one, "Watergate" and its cover-up. It damaged no one but himself and his own party.
You take it from there.
Please, do not digress to Bush. The rhetoric is too fresh.
Complain about this comment
guns.
Go to YouTube and listen to "Thomas Paine's American Revolution." It is a singular attack on Congress and well deserved. Much in line with the Thomas Jefferson quote that I did not quote. The mods would have punished me. You could say way back when, what you can't say now.
Complain about this comment
248, David.
Congratulations on your understanding of the English language.
Complain about this comment
Off topic, but something to be watched. The stock market, defying all reason, is rising sharplly. It looks like we are headed for another bubble. Maybe that is why precious metals are rising.
Complain about this comment
261, Ms. Marbles, I love it!
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Ms. Marbles, it does not surprise me that the mods would have
punished Thomas Jefferson. After all, they are Brits!
Complain about this comment
#257. Gary_A_Hill: "David (#255), Ok, I checked it. I am still unclear on your position. Are you in favor or not in favor of making sweeping generalizations about groups based on the alleged actions of one individual, who may not even be a member of those groups in any formal sense?"
Whether I am in favour or not isn't the point; Marbles made the same type of statement that many do - skinheads are Nazis, Jews are money hungry, Gays are predatory, Blacks are unintelligent, Latinos are unlawful immigrants and on and on. Sensible people know that is not true of all, any, or even most of them, but nevertheless it's said and/or written. I think it's being pedantic in the extreme - the word "all" was interpolated by another poster, not the original writer.
Complain about this comment
266. David_Cunard:
"Marbles made the same type of statement that many do - skinheads are Nazis, Jews are money hungry, Gays are predatory, Blacks are unintelligent, Latinos are unlawful immigrants and on and on.
********************
Yes, she did, and it was equally ignorant.
Complain about this comment
263, Ms. Marbles, a typical bear market rally, also called a "bear trap."
I must let you know that the nation's gdp suffered a slight dip this morning,
because after I viewed the youtube video you recommended, I got side-tracked
into watching one which you can find on that site entitled,
"In a Yugo - A liberal guy n gal buy a Yugo (In the Ghetto)."
Complain about this comment
David (#266), then I suppose we agree, except that I think it is the point. I find the digression into the semantics of the particular statements to be unhelpful, and distracting from the substantive question. The substantive question is, I think (and you seem to agree), whether the indictment of an entire class of people ("pro-lifers", a term which applies to a few hundred organizations) in post #180, based on the act of an individual (or even several individuals), is reasonable. I think it is not, and consider "allmymarbles" remarks to be intemperate nonsense. "AndreainNY then (in post #181) objected to this sweeping generalization, quite reasonably, I think. From there, the discussion rapidly went downhill, and it seems to be that the essential point (which you mention in your post #200) is lost. That is because you seem more concerned with how Andrea phrased her objection to the preceding post than the fact that her objection was well-taken.
I'm not defending the "pro-life" position, by the way. I'm not a member of any "pro-life" group or "pro-choice" group, and prefer to stay out of that debate. I am in favor of rational discourse, however, and post #180 is irrational.
Complain about this comment
#267. AndreainNY: "Yes, she did, and it was equally ignorant."
If that is so, then just remember your words next time you criticise Democrats or Obama supporters. No sweeping statements for you m'dear! And we shall be checking to ensure you don't violate your own limitations.
#269. Gary_A_Hill: "I find the digression into the semantics of the particular statements to be unhelpful"
Then blame the poster from New York who objected. I felt she was far too sensitive.
Complain about this comment
249, Gary.
You may be misunderstanding Bork's position. He is a strict constitutionalist. He does not see the Supreme Court as a legislative body. Therefore he does not see abortion as a constitutional concern. You will notice that he does not take a stance abortion, but says it is a subject for states and the people to decide. He also feels that the so-called activists on the court often act outside the contraints of the constitution.
I am pro-abortion and generally liberal on social matters. However I am concerned that the Supreme Court involves itself in legislation. That is not its purpose.
Complain about this comment
Oh, now it's clear. Cunard seems to have been picking on AndreainNY, even though she's on the right side in this exchange (posts #181 vs. #180), because she has a history of trashing Obama and Democrats. Well I like Obama, and Andrea is still on the right side here.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles (#271), well in post #249 I did not say what I understood Bork's position to be. I just let him speak for himself by posting a link to an item he wrote, so that readers may judge for themselves.
I did imply that those who think Roe v. Wade has worked out well, whether it is good law or bad from a strictly judicial point of view, do not want it overturned, and believed that Bork would likely vote to overturn it if given the chance, hence opposed his nomination.
Complain about this comment
Diversity is a fancy word for tokenism in recruiting show piece ethnic staff.
But maybe Obama is a bit scared to recruit black males with their own minds.
Complain about this comment
270. David_Cunard:
#267. AndreainNY: "Yes, she did, and it was equally ignorant."
If that is so, then just remember your words next time you criticise Democrats or Obama supporters. No sweeping statements for you m'dear! And we shall be checking to ensure you don't violate your own limitations.
**************************
I'm sure you'll do an excellent job policing my comments.
Complain about this comment
273, Gary.
Abortion is here to stay so I am not worried about that. What does concern me is the Supreme Court not acting like the Supreme Court. I am an independent, socially progressive and fiscally conservative, who voted for Obama. That does not mean that I accept the Democrats wholeheartedly. I particularly do not like the growth of the federal government and its intrusion in affairs that does not conern it.
Complain about this comment
268, guns.
I watched your video and (shame, shame) had to have my husband explain it to me. I don't know anything about cars and did not know the song by Presley. He thught it was great.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, Marbles' commentary simply reflected the frustration that so many of us feel for those who while claiming to defend the sanctity of life because of religious and moral convictions, engage in vicious attacks and, at times, heinous crimes against those they disagree with. Obviously, not every "pro-lifer" is a murderer, and their concerns should not be dismissed or minimized because of the irrational behavior of a few, but crimes like this do not happen in a vaccuum and are often influenced by the irresponsible rhetoric of people in positions of responsibility and, therefore, it is important to look beyond what a murderer did and determine what drove him to such example of irrational behavior.
Unfortunately, the generalizations and candid comments that most of us make at one time or another in our lives become an effective weapon to attack, criticize, denigrate, or destroy someone's credibility. It is apparent in everyday life, and it is patently clear in politics.
Complain about this comment
re 260 youngasterix I will take the easy one, "Watergate" and its cover-up. It damaged no one but himself and his own party.
Uh, OK. So you're cool with the President using the security apparatus of the state for subverting the democratic process.
You do remember whose offices were being burgled, and why, don't you?
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
#272. Gary_A_Hill: "Cunard seems to have been picking on AndreainNY. . . because she has a history of trashing Obama and Democrats."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander; Andrea has a double standard. If she were moderation exemplified, that would be an entirely different matter - but she isn't. It is possible that writing "she has a history of trashing Obama and Democrats" could be construed as being a sweeping generalisation. Would one dismissive comment about Obama and the Democrats amount to "a history"? How many references does it take? The same with "Hypocrites and murderers!".
Complain about this comment
David (#280), I did not count Andrea's posts on Obama, and sort and categorize them, but I did review enough of them to get a picture which I though sufficient to support the statement I made. If she has a problem with my characterization of her posts on Obama, she may say so herself.
Complain about this comment
279, pinko, it's a good thing that the Bad Guys don't have to sneak around
in the middle of the night and break into your office in order to
steal all of your confidential information, right?
That way, we don't have to hire security guards and call up locksmiths
in the middle of the night, when they are apt to be cranky about
working conditions.
Complain about this comment
#275. AndreainNY: "I'm sure you'll do an excellent job policing my comments."
Not I, but Mr Hill is doing it for us.
#281. Gary_A_Hill: "I did not count Andrea's posts on Obama, and sort and categorize them, but I did review enough of them to get a picture which I though sufficient to support the statement I made. If she has a problem with my characterization of her posts on Obama, she may say so herself."
But she hasn't, has she? So it's OK for her to make sweeping generalisations about other individuals or groups, but not for others to do the same. Double Standard, QED
Complain about this comment
With regard to the phrase "Hypocrites and murderers!" those interested might read this article and scroll down to a list of those guilty of other similar attacks. Dr Tiller's murder is not an isolated example.
Complain about this comment
#260 youngasterix
"you have posted rhetoric and apparently feel it has some merit. Please support your view.
Would you mind taking a moment to list Nixon's alleged crimes?
I will take the easy one, "Watergate" and its cover-up. It damaged no one but himself and his own party."
I'd say he damaged the reputation of the American government at the time, thats a pretty big F-up.
"Please, do not digress to Bush. The rhetoric is too fresh."
Sorry easy target.
I think you missed the essence of my post though - White males had the opportunity to shape and do "impressive things for America" where as females, Black people etc were not given that opportunity.
Similarly, White males were the ones in power when things went down-hill. You can't just give White males all the credit for a country for the things that go well and none of the blame when things go bad.
Complain about this comment
A Judge is supposed to be an impartial evaluator. Ms. Sotomayor is not impartial. She has already stated that a "Latina Women can Issue Better Rulings than a White Male". As a matter of fact she sounds like an absolute racist and feminist. But, the Democratic party is a joke controlled by another liberla feminist, Pelosi. Sotomayor will get confirmed based on party lines and Obama will will tell us what Sotomayor really meant by her statement. A Supreme Court Jusitice that has to have her statments narrated by the first Black President. A truly EEOC tandem, with the white male being victimized.
Complain about this comment
Is the word feminist on an equal footing to racist in your post, BRIANCM?
Is it meant to be an insult?!
Complain about this comment
saintDominick (#278), I think you make a good point. While the acts of violence are those of a fringe element, they operate in a climate of hostility fueled by the rhetoric of some of the more legitimate groups (and one in particular), who claim that the victim got what he deserved, although they are not responsible for it.
Complain about this comment
284, David.
It is curious that it is men who perpetrate the violence against abortionists. Is this due to males being more naturally aggressive than females, or is it the need of some men to control women? Self-righious excuses for their behavior are hypocritical and cowardly. They are simply murderers.
Complain about this comment
287, George.
Don't you think that, in this stage of our development, race, gender and religion should no longer be a factor in our choices? Isn't it time to choose people by merit alone?
Complain about this comment
I have never thought that these should be a factor in choices as people are people. However, I was just bemused as to the seeming equal status of 'feminist' and 'racist' in the post by BRIANCM. Whilst individuals and groups that call themselves 'feminists' may propose things some may think of as biased or prejudiced, the actual word feminism, according to the OED, is 'the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of sexual equality'. Surely, we can all get on board with that? Therefore, the poster's wording warranted a raised eyebrow from me, I felt.
Complain about this comment
291, George.
Often the so-called disadvantaged groups use their status, not to demand fair treatment, but to gain an advantage. That's what I meant when I said there should now be true equality, and the best equalizer I can think of is merit.
Complain about this comment
I would not actually disagree. As I said, I just wondered why the word 'feminist' was being used seemingly like an insult. After all the OED definition speaks of 'equality'. I say 'seemingly' as I, of course, cannot read BRIANCM's mind and I may be misinterpreting him. However, I hate it when so many women even hastily say, 'I'm not a feminist!' when they do believe in equality. They just do not identify with some attitudes and tactics propounded by some feminist activists. Therefore, BRIANCM's post stood out.
Complain about this comment
Well it is interesting to see the by the comments here that the pervasive racist blame game of politics is played here quite well by saintone and saintdomnick. One can only wonder if they were annointed by the new Messiah (Obama). Well under the Clinton Administration the Community Reinvestment act was done. This started the finacial mess we are now in. So part of the blame was done by a white democrat, who made the banks loan money to minorities, and others who could not repay or qualifiy under the old rules of banking. Lastly under the Clinton admin, again. The Sec of Education said "It is okay to discrimintate as long as it is only against white males." Well when Ricci Vs Connecticuit was brought to Sotomayor. White firefighters who studied hard played by the rules worked to merit a promotion while dedicated to their profession. Had the results of this acheivement discarded in the name of inclusiveness as the PC term is of the twisted left. Rather then the rule of law, injustice by PC. That is true racism, I can only wonder if Sotomayor' s test were thrown out if because an African-American, Indigenous Person or another more PC selected individual was chosen to attend Princeton how she would have felt. Since Sotomayor is so empathetic! So Rule of Law does not apply, PC blame game, or scapegoating of hard work. But it is okay as long as it is performed against white males. Lastly to make it fair the Democrats probably will no longer count the bodybags of the white males who are killed in Afghanistan. The way white soldiers won't have to be counted in the losses of the Messiah's and Democrat controlled administration in the name inclusiveness and fairness.
Complain about this comment
263, OH NOOO... and here I was shopping for a BMW...
Complain about this comment
Guns # 295
Compared with other USA tin can possibilities the BMW is indeed the expensive precious metal mentioned by Ms Marbles at 263.
How do you do it? - Extrasensoryperception when making a double or mis-post on the wrong thread?
Go and check your lottery numbers quickly, and place a bet.. Perhaps you are on a roll today and you know a Roller knocks a BMW into a cocked hat.
Complain about this comment
wma,
Good to hear from you. Roof done yet?
I wonder how a Roller compares in price to say, a BMW 7 series? One sees almost none of the former here, while the latter are pretty common. Is price the reason?
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Pinko # 297
Half the roof is better than none. Busy , busy, busy but avoiding the hot sun that other comments here inform me is doing it's best to avoid Canada.
Over BMW 7 series and Rollers, apart from being well out of my price bracket I thought they were one and the same now- Or is that just the Bentley and BMW. Clueless in most things but especially in cars. Japanese makes hit the spot in this house.
wma
Complain about this comment
wma,
You are wise to stay out of the sun. We certainly wouldn't mind, though, if you could send a little this way. A very, uh, "fresh" spring thus far.
How high is this roof? A single story, or taller? I am myself quite terrified of getting up on anything over the single story level.
About the cars, you are quite right. BMW bought Rolls in 1998! Bentley is owned by, wait for it ... Volkswagen! Don't tell Gary, but I got this information from Wikipedia.
Anyway, I had no clue that they had been sold. Shows you how far out my price range Rollers are . . .
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
Barack Obama's Nominee for the Supreme Court is a Member of LA RAZA --
Not only has President Barack Obama picked a liberal judicial activist as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court,she turns out to ALSO be a member of the pro-illegal immigration group LA RAZA! "La Raza" means "the race"... and is a group that also has connections to
organizations that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America! In fact, in 2006, the late Rep. Charlie Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan -- which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs (in Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas).
Can you imagine if a Republican nominated a Caucasian judge for the Supreme Court, who was a member of a group called THE RACE that advocated government programs and actions favorable only to white people? Seriously?
Don't forget -- Sonia Sotomayor is the same woman who stated at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001, "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."
You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that HER experience as a "wise Latina woman" would make her a better judge than a white man would be!
So, in Sonia Sotomayor, we're facing a judge who will "i nterpret" the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW itself. In fact, she has gone even further to say, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
As if that wasn't enough to prove her race-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that's not all she said:
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS