[OT] Sandra Day O'Connor
Christopher Mann
Sandra Day O'Connor's motives for voting against Gore. On November 7th,
she was seen making an impressive public scene when she heard Gore had
won Florida. She stood up from her dinner table and exclaimed "This is
terrible." Her husband explained that she wants to retire in the near
future but a Gore presidency would force her to stay in office at least
another four years.
Rick Desper
1) this ruling will continue to be scrutininzed, and the underlying
hypocrisy will serve to discredit the five Justices, the Court, and
the Bush regime.
2) Jesse Jackson went so far as to allege voter fraud in Duval county
on Meet the Press today. Later, on the same show, Dick Gephardt refused
to use the word "legitimate" in describing the Bush presidency. He was
pressed two or three times, and would not answer directly, settling on,
at best, a "legal" presidency.
3) Bob Woodward has indicated that he wants to write the definitive book
on this election. If there is evidence of voter fraud in Florida,
there's a good chance Woodward will find it.
4) The Seattle crowd is coming to Washington. I saw my first flyer
encouraging a march on the Inauguration. It will be huge.
My conclusion: Bush, et al, were stupid to use a scorched Earth
approach to taking the White House. As I said earlier, it's not like
everybody is simply going to go away, once they get the keys to the
House. They have pissed off a lot of people. I have not seen Democrats
this energized since Watergate. Bush will have no "honeymoon" period
and, in two years, the Republicans will lose control of both houses of
Congress.
Rick
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Paul Windsor
"Christopher Mann" <cm...@cccc.com> wrote in message
news:3A3D1CC4...@cccc.com...
Yep, for those still keeping score on the self-interests of Supreme Court
Justices:
One Justice whose son is a partner in the law firm that represented Bush
before the USSC (Scalia).
One Justice whose wife works as a personell recruiter for the Bush
transition team (Thomas).
One Justice (probably two) who are directly motivated by a desire to retire
quickly and have their sucessors named by a Republican (O'Connor, as the
article indicates, and Rhenquist, too, as many insider sources have
claimed).
Paul Windsor
Rick Desper
You know, I'm still angry. Very. I wake up in the morning, and I
am simply angry. And I know that this will stay with me, at least until
Bush is out of office. And that angers me more.
And here's Trent Lott on Meet the Press, saying not only that a
Republican should be chosen for the Department of Health and Human
Services (which includes the NIH, where I work), but it cannot
be Christie Todd Whitman, or any of a bunch of other people (all of
whom are, not surprisingly, pro-choice). Translation: Southern
"pro-life" conservatives "won" this election, so now we have to get some
idiot with an agenda telling us what kind of research isn't "ethical".
Latest news: Bush names Powell, Rice, Gonzales, and Hughes to jobs.
In an Excite poll, 68% of respondents agree that the appointments
show that Bush is working towards a "bipartisan" government. Which goes
to show that at least 68% of the public doesn't understand the word
"bipartisan". Appointing four Republicans is not a bipartisan act: the
question should not even have been asked, much less answered in the
affirmative by anybody. I don't care if two are women, two black,
and one Hispanic.
But online polls tend to get flooded by Republicans anyway. Two days
before the election, W. had a 5 point lead in a CNN poll. (For
those not paying attention, he lost the popular vote, which this
poll was supposedly measuring. But I guess it wasn't measuring poor
people without computers.) Web sites simply should not have polls about
serious matters - they are far too easily corrupted, and present a false
aura of legitimacy.
This whole situation has gotten too Shakespearian to bear.
</RANT>
In article <_hb%5.2576$g37.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Rich Goranson
>encouraging a march on the Inauguration. It will be huge.
As I said several threads ago, I knew this would happen. I would not be
suprised at all to see a great deal of violence at the inauguration...possibly
enough to make the Rodney King riots look like a children's picnic.
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
Jim Burgess
but do remember that there is a standard politics for this that
Bush is following and he should not be trashed for doing so,
It is the "way it is".
Rules:
1) Appoint your "diversity" choices up front.
2) Use the Christmas holiday to slip in the appointments that
you don't want everyone to pay attention to (we'll see that
over the weekend starting Friday).
3) Appoint people in set waves so that you can "manage" the
news story each day.
Jim-Bob
Rick Desper
bur...@world.std.com (Jim Burgess) wrote:
> I'm not as angry as you are (discomfited would be a better word),
> but do remember that there is a standard politics for this that
> Bush is following and he should not be trashed for doing so,
> It is the "way it is".
>
coverage. I simply don't see the point of the Excite poll about
"bipartisanship" being used before Bush has appointed a single Democrat
to anything.
> Rules:
>
> 1) Appoint your "diversity" choices up front.
This he has done. What bothers me is that people are confusing
"diversity" with "bipartisan". Also, I got really annoyed when
Tim Russert asked Gephardt and Jesse Jackson why the Democrats
had not appointed African-Americans as either a Secretary of State
or National Security Advisor. Yeah, let's ignore 40 years of
the Democrats being the party for helping minorities, and use two
appointments to pretend that the Republicans are "just as good".
The basic problem here is the Republican message: anybody can succeed.
But they don't address Gore Vidal's observation: to succeed, others
must fail. (And _that_ is an excellent quote for Diplomacy, BTW).
This relates also to school vouchers: yes, they let a selected few kids
get better educations, but, on the whole, the average education level
drops. (Not to mention the problems involving supporting religous
schools.)
>
> 2) Use the Christmas holiday to slip in the appointments that
> you don't want everyone to pay attention to (we'll see that
> over the weekend starting Friday).
>
Yeah, let's see, most importantly, who the new Secretary of Defense
is. That will be rough, with Cheney and Powell looking over the
shoulder. Also interested in the new Attorney General and Secretary
of HHS. Plus a few more.
> 3) Appoint people in set waves so that you can "manage" the
> news story each day.
>
This, he's doing. At least for now. The media will not be "managed"
for long - and that's not anything anti-Bush. Of all the Presidents
I can think of, only Reagan really had the media doing what he wanted
them to - and his background in the field certainly served him well.
> Jim-Bob
>
Rick
josephin...@my-deja.com
sort of been at a loss as to what to say to Dems. This
election was, in essence, decided by a coin flip. You
can't realy gloat over a coin flip. (Plus I don't
gloat to people with beat their little chests about other people's
service records. Don't want them to throw a tantrum on the carpet or
pull a gun or something! :-)
I've also eased up on the "can't y'all just accept W
now that he's in?" line because I *know* if Gore had
pulled the rabbit out of the hat I'd have been a grump.
If I lived near DC, I might have marched, (but I have a life so maybe
not).
Given what I understand about y'all's Dubya concerns, I believe it'll
be 'OK', Mr. Desper. I mean, a 50-51 Rep edge in the Senate
(assuming Breaux, D-La, takes no post) likely precludes any
reactionary weenies being nominated for the Supremes
("Stop! In the name of looooove, before you revoke Roe
v. Wade"). Like I said, Dubya's savvy. I think he'll
stick to the standard Rep winner issues: lower taxes,
strengthen the military, trim some Government
spending. Plus, somebody has to start standing up to
the Chinese.
As much as it pains me to say anything nice about Al
Gore, his concession speech will be remembered as a
keeper. He could have really thrown some gasoline on
the barby, but instead gave a Lincoln-esque "with
malice towards none" speech. Maybe he's bucking for
something later (See? I found a way to say something
bad. It's a sickness, I tell you.)
And the Republicans during this election were as energized
as I have ever seen us. My gosh, the Reps won my home state of West
Virginia! How did that happen? That cost Gore the election. Gore should
have won this walking away but he messed up.
And now I will run away and hide and say no more.
Jo2
Jim Burgess
>In article <G5rzr...@world.std.com>,
> bur...@world.std.com (Jim Burgess) wrote:
>> I'm not as angry as you are (discomfited would be a better word),
>> but do remember that there is a standard politics for this that
>> Bush is following and he should not be trashed for doing so,
>> It is the "way it is".
>>
>I am not trashing Bush for his choices, but the media for its
>coverage. I simply don't see the point of the Excite poll about
>"bipartisanship" being used before Bush has appointed a single Democrat
>to anything.
He's testing the waters here, I suspect. If he gets away with this
(and he has so far, Condi Rice is a lot of things, but bipartisan
is not it -- I have lots of respect for her as a tough administrator
and George will have lots of them as he delegates everything), then
he either won't have to appoint a Democrat or he can appoint a
really minor one.
>> Rules:
>>
>> 1) Appoint your "diversity" choices up front.
>This he has done. What bothers me is that people are confusing
>"diversity" with "bipartisan". Also, I got really annoyed when
>Tim Russert asked Gephardt and Jesse Jackson why the Democrats
>had not appointed African-Americans as either a Secretary of State
>or National Security Advisor. Yeah, let's ignore 40 years of
>the Democrats being the party for helping minorities, and use two
>appointments to pretend that the Republicans are "just as good".
>The basic problem here is the Republican message: anybody can succeed.
>But they don't address Gore Vidal's observation: to succeed, others
>must fail. (And _that_ is an excellent quote for Diplomacy, BTW).
>This relates also to school vouchers: yes, they let a selected few kids
>get better educations, but, on the whole, the average education level
>drops. (Not to mention the problems involving supporting religous
>schools.)
Leave no child behind..... come on Dubya.... ;-)
>>
>> 2) Use the Christmas holiday to slip in the appointments that
>> you don't want everyone to pay attention to (we'll see that
>> over the weekend starting Friday).
>>
>Yeah, let's see, most importantly, who the new Secretary of Defense
>is. That will be rough, with Cheney and Powell looking over the
>shoulder. Also interested in the new Attorney General and Secretary
>of HHS. Plus a few more.
I am worried about an abortion litmus test on HHS that is being
rumored. The best candidates are at least mildly pro-choice.
I know Gail Wilensky really well and I hope she gets it.
>> 3) Appoint people in set waves so that you can "manage" the
>> news story each day.
>>
>This, he's doing. At least for now. The media will not be "managed"
>for long - and that's not anything anti-Bush. Of all the Presidents
>I can think of, only Reagan really had the media doing what he wanted
>them to - and his background in the field certainly served him well.
Everyone tries to do this, he likely will succeed until January
on raising any objections. This also is even the recent history.
Christmas is coming and all that, the media doesn't want to have
to think that hard.
Jim-Bob
Douglas T. Massey
Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <G5rzr...@world.std.com>,
> bur...@world.std.com (Jim Burgess) wrote:
>> I'm not as angry as you are (discomfited would be a better word),
>> but do remember that there is a standard politics for this that
>> Bush is following and he should not be trashed for doing so,
>> It is the "way it is".
>>
> I am not trashing Bush for his choices, but the media for its
> coverage. I simply don't see the point of the Excite poll about
> "bipartisanship" being used before Bush has appointed a single Democrat
> to anything.
I don't see the point of Excite polls, period. Any poll where
the people get to choose whether or not they participate is *always*
going to be biased (this includes national elections, which favor
the Republicans, who as a rule are more reliable and consistent voters).
Who cares what a bunch of nerds who completed an Excite poll think?
> This he has done. What bothers me is that people are confusing
> "diversity" with "bipartisan". Also, I got really annoyed when
> Tim Russert asked Gephardt and Jesse Jackson why the Democrats
> had not appointed African-Americans as either a Secretary of State
> or National Security Advisor. Yeah, let's ignore 40 years of
> the Democrats being the party for helping minorities, and use two
> appointments to pretend that the Republicans are "just as good".
If Bush feels he needs to meet some quota of women or minorities
in his cabinet, that irks me. Why not put the best people available
on his staff? This is the same thinking that led to Clarence Thomas
on the Supreme Court, right?
I've got no problem with Russert's question, though. Why haven't
the Democrats done so? If the appropriate answer was "We appoint
the most qualified people for the job, regardless of color, gender,
or political affiliation", then answer the question that way.
> The basic problem here is the Republican message: anybody can succeed.
> But they don't address Gore Vidal's observation: to succeed, others
> must fail. (And _that_ is an excellent quote for Diplomacy, BTW).
> This relates also to school vouchers: yes, they let a selected few kids
> get better educations, but, on the whole, the average education level
> drops. (Not to mention the problems involving supporting religous
> schools.)
I agree with you here. Vouchers suck.
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont
\o ASICs Product Development Engineering |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ E-mail: mas...@btv.ibm.com |
. Doug's Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~masseyd (|)
Geenius at Wrok
> I don't see the point of Excite polls, period. Any poll where
> the people get to choose whether or not they participate is *always*
> going to be biased (this includes national elections, which favor
> the Republicans, who as a rule are more reliable and consistent voters).
Not to mention that they're always stupidly narrow. "What are you going
to watch on TV this weekend? ( ) 'The Iron Chef' ( ) 'Fraggle Rock'
( ) Don't know."
--
"Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do
nothing whatever to increase consumption." -- "Brave New World"
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Rich Goranson
There's a difference? ;-)
>I've sort of been at a loss as to what to say to Dems.
Many of your cohorts haven't been at such a loss. I responded at work to one
who told me, "My mother taught me not to whine." I fired back "My mother taught
me not to cheat and lie."
>This
>election was, in essence, decided by a coin flip. You
>can't realy gloat over a coin flip.
Especially when the coin is weighted.
>I've also eased up on the "can't y'all just accept W
>now that he's in?" line because I *know* if Gore had
>pulled the rabbit out of the hat I'd have been a grump.
>If I lived near DC, I might have marched, (but I have a life so maybe
>not).
>
Now that would have been funny to watch...a pro-Republican march. Has there
ever been a march in this country that was in FAVOR of anti-American principles
other than by hate groups?
>Like I said, Dubya's savvy. I think he'll
>stick to the standard Rep winner issues: lower taxes,
>strengthen the military, trim some Government
>spending.
Trimming governement spending is not a Republican issue. Republicans say that
they support lower givernment spending but when they get in power they do just
the exact opposite. The biggest increases in government spending were during
the Reagan administration...and all done with his approval.
>Plus, somebody has to start standing up to
>the Chinese.
Like the son of a former CIA head and Ambassador to China? Puhleeze.
Besides, Dubya was too cowardly to stand up to the North Vietnamese...the
Chinese are a hell of a lot tougher. If you wanted someone to stand up to the
Chinese, Dubya is most definitely NOT your man. He'll be financially in bed
with them faster than Clinton was with Monica. Cheney is already financially in
bed with our other principal enemy (Iraq).
>And the Republicans during this election were as energized
>as I have ever seen us.
Absolute Power is Absolutely Delightful?
>And now I will run away and hide and say no more.
Sort of appropriate. Considering what Republicans think about the internet and
censorship it is possible you may not be able to make a post like that for much
longer. Neither will I.
Rick Desper
josephin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> As a fairly recent Rep convert, (as in '...ublican not '...tile'),
I've
> sort of been at a loss as to what to say to Dems. This
> election was, in essence, decided by a coin flip. You
> can't realy gloat over a coin flip. (Plus I don't
> gloat to people with beat their little chests about other people's
> service records. Don't want them to throw a tantrum on the carpet or
> pull a gun or something! :-)
It wasn't really decided by a coin flip. It was decided by a
coordinated strategy whose goal was to prevent legal recounts.
>
> I've also eased up on the "can't y'all just accept W
> now that he's in?" line because I *know* if Gore had
> pulled the rabbit out of the hat I'd have been a grump.
> If I lived near DC, I might have marched, (but I have a life so maybe
> not).
>
Well, I do live near DC. As to whether I have a life, I let the readers
count the number of posts I've made to r.g.d. and draw their own
conclusions. Well, even if my "life" here was better, I still might
march. I've always wanted to "march" about something, but the most
that my generation has given me is "lower tuition", which hardly seems
marchable (although some Rutgers undergrads went on a hunger strike for
this issue, to which I say "don't be silly").
> Given what I understand about y'all's Dubya concerns, I believe it'll
> be 'OK', Mr. Desper. I mean, a 50-51 Rep edge in the Senate
> (assuming Breaux, D-La, takes no post) likely precludes any
> reactionary weenies being nominated for the Supremes
> ("Stop! In the name of looooove, before you revoke Roe
> v. Wade").
I'm not so concerned about Roe v. Wade in particular. I'm concerned
about the overall damage incompetent justices can do. We really are at
their mercy. If they start behaving arbitrarily and in a purely
partisan manner (as they did in Bush v. Gore), then there is little we
can do. I think Bush ought to be under particular pressure to not
appoint any more Scalia/Thomas clones. But who knows what he'll try to
do? How many times will the Senate reject an appointee? After the
Senate rejected Bork, Reagan appointed Kennedy (who was one of the
Five in this decision.) The Senators, ultimately are not willing to
spend four years rejecting every nominee sent their way.
> Like I said, Dubya's savvy. I think he'll
> stick to the standard Rep winner issues: lower taxes,
> strengthen the military, trim some Government
> spending. Plus, somebody has to start standing up to
> the Chinese.
The Chinese. One of Clinton's issues in '92 was that George Sr. was too
soft to the Chinese. I think every candidate feels this way, but that,
once they become President, the Chinese just stare at them until they
realize that the Chinese are essentially an immovable object. I agree
with your underlying message: that Clinton has been too soft on China.
I'm particularly annoyed at how we have drifted away from Taiwan, who
has been a loyal ally for 55 years. This area is definitely the
trickiest for Bush.
>
> As much as it pains me to say anything nice about Al
> Gore, his concession speech will be remembered as a
> keeper. He could have really thrown some gasoline on
> the barby, but instead gave a Lincoln-esque "with
> malice towards none" speech. Maybe he's bucking for
> something later (See? I found a way to say something
> bad. It's a sickness, I tell you.)
Oh, I don't view it as a negative comment to say that Gore might
be angling for 2004. The speech he gave was the only way that such a
run in 4 years could be possible. Sometimes great speeches can also
be politically useful.
>
> And the Republicans during this election were as energized
> as I have ever seen us. My gosh, the Reps won my home state of West
> Virginia! How did that happen? That cost Gore the election. Gore
should
> have won this walking away but he messed up.
Well, a lot of Democrats are annoyed with Gore. Like you say, it should
have been easy, given that he won New York, New Jersey, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and California. How Gore lost Tennessee, West Virginia,
Arkansas, Ohio...
>
> And now I will run away and hide and say no more.
>
> Jo2
Don't feel that is necessary! We can be civil, and a rational
Republican voice is certainly welcome.
Rick
--
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Paul Windsor
"Douglas T. Massey" <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:91m2rn$dn8$2...@news.btv.ibm.com...
>
> Who cares what a bunch of nerds who completed an Excite poll think?
The Simpsons is way ahead of you:
Bart: "We need some way to get this information out."
Lisa: "I know. Let's put it on the internet."
Bart: "No. We need to get it to people whose opinions actually matter."
Paul Windsor
Douglas T. Massey
forl...@aol.complex (Rich Goranson) writes:
>
> Trimming governement spending is not a Republican issue. Republicans say that
> they support lower givernment spending but when they get in power they do just
> the exact opposite. The biggest increases in government spending were during
> the Reagan administration...and all done with his approval.
We've already gone through this once. Reagan's spending increases weren't
any worse, adjusted for inflation, than Kennedy's, Johnson's, or Carter's.
The deficit expanded because he cut taxes at the same time -- a strategy
which is debatable. But the spending wasn't out of control like
Democrats like to think.
It wasn't being spent on the the things they wanted it to be spent on,
but that's another issue.
Presumably, deja.com is working well enough to be able to reproduce
the numbers I quoted from the 2000 Almanac. Stop spreading myths.
Tim Goodwin
Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I'm not so concerned about Roe v. Wade in particular. I'm concerned
> about the overall damage incompetent justices can do. We really are
at
> their mercy. If they start behaving arbitrarily and in a purely
> partisan manner (as they did in Bush v. Gore), then there is little we
> can do.
Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read and
heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not agree
with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan manner,
they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards. Remember, some people
are finding it hard to believe that two Justices didn't agree with the
majority on this issue.
Tim
Tehipite Tom
> Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read and
> heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not
agree
> with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
I wouldn't say incompetent either. 'Corrupt' is much more accurate in
this context.
>
> I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan
manner,
> they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards.
But they went 5-4 on the stay, which is what effectively killed the
recount, and on the deadline question, which is what put the nails in
the coffin.
And 5 of the 7 have shown extraordinary hostility toward equal
protection claims in the past, as Paul Windsor has pointed out.
Remember, some people
> are finding it hard to believe that two Justices didn't agree with the
> majority on this issue.
Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Tim Goodwin
Tehipite Tom <tehi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read and
> > heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not
> agree
> > with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
>
> I wouldn't say incompetent either. 'Corrupt' is much more accurate in
> this context.
Corrupt is far more serious than incompetent. I suspect there are very
few people that really believe Scalia is corrupt.
Tim
Rich Goranson
>any worse, adjusted for inflation, than Kennedy's, Johnson's, or Carter's.
>The deficit expanded because he cut taxes at the same time -- a strategy
>which is debatable. But the spending wasn't out of control like
>Democrats like to think.
And that is certainly true, however you seem to be missing the point that the
Dems have never claimed to be the party of low government spending. It is one
of the GOP's primary positions but they never actually DO it.
And if we've been through this before then you know that Reagan also increased
taxes significantly...particularly in 1986.
Mondale was entirely correct in his 1984 campaign statement when he said. "No
matter who wins taxes will go up. I'll tell you. They won't." And IMHO, that is
the fundemental difference between the two parties on this issue.
Rick Desper
mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. Massey) wrote:
> In article <20001218202838...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
> forl...@aol.complex (Rich Goranson) writes:
> >
> > Trimming governement spending is not a Republican issue. Republicans
say that
> > they support lower givernment spending but when they get in power
they do just
> > the exact opposite. The biggest increases in government spending
were during
> > the Reagan administration...and all done with his approval.
>
> We've already gone through this once. Reagan's spending increases
weren't
> any worse, adjusted for inflation, than Kennedy's, Johnson's, or
Carter's.
> The deficit expanded because he cut taxes at the same time -- a
strategy
> which is debatable. But the spending wasn't out of control like
> Democrats like to think.
I thought we already went through this and agreed that Reagan raised
taxes a half-dozen times during his administration. That he created a
huge mess by irresponsibly cutting taxes and make huge increases in
defense spending, and then dropping the whole problem in Bush's lap, who
had to renege on his "Read My Lips" promise or watch the government
collapse.
>
> It wasn't being spent on the the things they wanted it to be spent on,
> but that's another issue.
>
> Presumably, deja.com is working well enough to be able to reproduce
> the numbers I quoted from the 2000 Almanac. Stop spreading myths.
>
> Doug
> --
There is no myth behind the observation that the Federal deficit
assumed enormous proportions during the Reagan/Bush years. Only through
the influence of Greenspan and Clinton has this childish obsession with
tax cuts come under control. But look who's trying to cut taxes again!
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Rick Desper
Tim Goodwin <thgo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <91mjrl$uc7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not so concerned about Roe v. Wade in particular. I'm concerned
> > about the overall damage incompetent justices can do. We really are
> at
> > their mercy. If they start behaving arbitrarily and in a purely
> > partisan manner (as they did in Bush v. Gore), then there is little
we
> > can do.
>
> Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent?
> From what I have read and
> heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent.
I think well-reasoned is true. As for consistent, Bush v. Gore defies
this adjective. A court which consistently states that State Courts
are the ultimate arbiters of State Laws decides, in this instance, that
this attitude doesn't really hold. Why? Based on the extremely dubious
proposition that, in the manner of selecting electors for the
Presidential race, the Constitution gives the power not to the states,
but specifically to the legislatures, which thus have license to piss on
the courts if they want.
And that doesn't even start to address the issue of the December 12th
"deadline", which is found nowhere in Florida law. The USSC stated
that the FSC had earlier stated that the legislature would want to abide
by this deadline, but the FSC never said that. The FSC said that the
legislature would have wanted the state to participate fully in the
electoral process. Since this goal could have been achieved by doing a
recount which ended by the 18th, basically, the USSC not only
interpreted Florida law, a departure from their own tradition, esp.
for the Five, but also did so in a magical way, conjuring a "deadline"
out of thin air. This entire opinion is either incompetent or
shamelessly partisan.
> We may not agree
> with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
Nor did I say he was. But thanks for beating up a straw man.
>
> I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan
manner,
> they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards.
That's completely irrelevant. The main issue is the Dec. 12 deadline,
which was conjured from thin air. Well, not completely irrelevant.
But, like I said before the decision, if the Court wants to address the
idea of different standards, they really ought to take a long and hard
look at the differing technologies in different counties. The presence
of punch-card systems caused far more inaccuracy in the ballot counting
than any difference in standards.
And even if you dislike in theory the idea that different standards
might have existed in the final recount, the fact is that this idea had
not even been tested. It seemed fairly clear, before the recount was
stopped by the USSC, that the different counties were all settling upon
pretty much the same standard. As Justice Ginsburg said, the USSC was
responding to an imagined problem which had not occurred yet. Invoking
Equal Protection without referring to any actual practices in the
recount is absurd.
> Remember, some people
> are finding it hard to believe that two Justices didn't agree with the
> majority on this issue.
Really? Who are these people? From what I've heard, basically every
legal expert in the country is rolling his eyes at the opinion. I mean,
every one who isn't on a Republican payroll.
But Paul can address that issue better than I can.
Rick
>
> Tim
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Tehipite Tom
>
> Corrupt is far more serious than incompetent. I suspect there are
very
> few people that really believe Scalia is corrupt.
>
If the people I've spoken with are any indication, your suspicion is
incorrect.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Gregory A Greenman
says...
>
>
> Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
If it wasn't, then how could my Diplomacy board lay flat on my
table?
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Paul Windsor
"Tim Goodwin" <thgo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91nvn5$vbk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <91mjrl$uc7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not so concerned about Roe v. Wade in particular. I'm concerned
> > about the overall damage incompetent justices can do. We really are
> at
> > their mercy. If they start behaving arbitrarily and in a purely
> > partisan manner (as they did in Bush v. Gore), then there is little we
> > can do.
>
> Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read and
> heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not agree
> with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
>
> I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan manner,
> they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards.
decision is taken from page 12 of the per curiam opinion:
"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.
See Post at 6 (Souter, J. Dissenting) post at 2, 15 (Breyer, J. Dissenting).
The only disagreement is as to the remedy."
Your first clue that there is something odd about the claim is that the
opinion has to cite to *Dissents* to make it.
But here are the opening remarks of Justice Souter's dissent:
"The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County
Canvassing Board or this case and should not have stopped Florida's attempt
to recount all undervote ballots by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme
Court's oders during the period of this review. If this Court had allowed
the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of it's own Supreme
Court, it is entirely possible that there ultimately would have been no
issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself
out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. 15. The
case being before us, however, it's resolution by the majority is another
erroneous decision." (Souter, J. Dissent at 1).
Souter flatly states that the entire resolution of the case, and not merely
the remedy, is erroneous.
Breyer is similarly adamant:
"The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It
should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide
whether the recount should resume."
These hardly seems like endorsements of the per curiam opinion to me. At the
page cited by the per curiam, Souter does say that since the Court has
determined, however wrongly, to take up the equal protection issue, he
thinks it is "sensible to address it" in his dissent. But the very last
sentence of his dissent is "There is no justification for denying the State
the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now." In other words,
he makes it clear that his discussion of the merits of what he regards as an
unripe, untried, and as yet unproved EP claim is beside the point.
Similarly, while Breyer also discusses the merits of the Equal Protection
claim where cited, at the end of his own dissent, Breyer makes it plain that
he doesn't even predicate his "relief" on the merits of the EP claim.
Instead, he predicates it on a need to repair the error done by the
erroneous granting of the stay.
For the per curiam opinion to characterize Souter and Breyer as in agreement
with it's conclusions on the EP claim, save only for the relief, is simply
the last in a string of intellectual dishonesties that hopelessly riddle it.
> Remember, some people
> are finding it hard to believe that two Justices didn't agree with the
> majority on this issue.
Perhaps you could get somone from that same set of "some people", then, to
explain to you where the actual Equal Protection claim is here, because the
Court, unfortunately for us all, skipped all of the steps of EP analysis it
has rigorously applied to all other EP litigants.
Here are the three requirements that the Supreme Court -- *this* Supreme
Court -- has set forth for litigants attempting to raise a claim under the
Equal Protection Clause:
(1) In the absence of an express, patent classification in a statute, a
litigant must demonstrate a discriminatory intent behind a statute or a
particular application thereof.
Please show me, because I cannot find it, where the per curiam decision
states that Bush *proved*, in a trial, on the evidence, that there was a
disciriminatory intent in either the adoption of the recount provisions of
the Florida election code, or in their application. No complaining about
subjective standards please. This Court has repeatedly and consistently held
in the past that such complaints do not rise to the level of proof of
*intent* to discriminate. Further, the proof must be specific to a
particular application. General allegations that people are naturally biased
won't do. You have to prove that bias against yourself, as a member of the
aggrevied class, actually occured.
(2) A litigant must identify a class of individuals who will receive
disparate treatment from some state action as a result of that
discriminatory intent. Unless that class of persons so identified is a class
subject to an historical pattern of discrimination, the state's actions are
judged a violation of equal protection only if there is "no rational basis"
for them.
Please identify for me, because the Court also seems to have skipped this
step, the class of individuals who are being discriminated against here.
Bear in mind that the Court has already held that single individuals do not
constitute a class. Further, persons must be identifiable as a class outside
of the context of the fact pattern of the litigation or the application of
the statute, so identifying the class as "persons who ask for a recount"
won't work.
While pondering that, consider this: no one who has ever been identified as
a class outside of a group of persons against whom there has been an
historic pattern of discrimination has ever won an equal protection claim
before the Supreme Court. My Constitutional Law professor joked that the
"rational basis" test was "the govenment's insanity defense", as in, the
government wins unless the litigant can prove that only an insane person
would find the statute reasonable.
(3) A litigant must either bring a facial challenge, indicating that there
is no reasonable set of circumstances under which a statute would be valid,
or else bring an as-applied challenge, which requires a trial and findings
of fact to demonstrate an improper application of a statute in a particular
case.
The Court, once again failing to apply it's own announced rules for EP
claims, failed to indicate whether this was a facial challenge, or an
as-applied challenge. Both would be problematic.
If this is a facial challenge, the Court has already ruled that, for the
facial challenge to succeed, one cannot rely on mere proof of "diparate
impact" (and, BTW, even if you could, there was no evidence of disparate
impact on Bush in the record of this case). One has to demonstrate that,
based on the face of the statute, discrimination against the identified
group is the *necessary* result, i.e. that no reasonable circumstances can
be conceived of which lead to a non-discriminatory result. Bush's lawyers
did not argue this and it's really impossible to read the Court's discussion
of the "intent of the voter" standard that way.
If it's an as-applied challenge (which this pretty much has to be), then the
only conceivable step that the Court could take at this point would be judge
Bush's equal protection claim in the posture of reviewing a motion to
dismiss, find that he was entitled to a trial, and remand for further
proceedings. Even to do that, the Court would have to overrule -- or,
"distinguish" -- decades of its own case law. For example, if
African-Americans, who constitute a group entitled to lesser standards of
review, cannot state a claim for relief from "facially neutral" zoning laws
that have the effect of keeping affluent neighborhoods lily-white, and if
poor minority students in Texas cannot state a claim for relief from
"facially neutral" taxation laws that reliably consign them to second-class
schools (these are actual recent Supreme Court EP cases), then I would have
speculated that Bush was going to find it very difficult to state a claim
for relief from a facially neutral election law that sets forth a
less-than-perfect standard for examining ballots and may conceivably lead to
some inconsistency in the reporting of results, which may conceivably
operate to his detriment. The bar for demonstrating an EP violation, even
for protected minority groups, has been held much higher than that by this
Court.
Until now. Funny how that worked out.
Paul Windsor
Rick Desper
I wouldn't use the word "corrupt." But he was certainly willing to sell
his principles to get Bush in the White House.
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Rick Desper
They're both round, but with the same curvature. You just cannot
detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
josephin...@my-deja.com
My mother taught me how to twirl at Dead concerts. Thanks mother.
I'll be short (5'2'' in fact): when I hear people on either side trying
to claim the moral highground in the tussle, I tune out completely. It
was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a no-
rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
other way around.
"Our side was 'right' because (insert Charlie Brown teacher voice) wah
walll wa na wah na waal wa...."
Speak to the hand because the EMPRESS isn't listening.
Sorry. Was that my outloud voice? :-)
Jo2, (stomping feet mad)
Douglas T. Massey
Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
Year Outlays Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
1960 92 0.1 1.5 -1.4 R-Eisenhower
1961 98 6.0 1.1 4.8 R-Eisenhower (1.7% per year, 8 yr)
1962 107 9.3 1.1 8.1 D-Kennedy
1963 111 4.2 1.2 3.0 D-Kennedy
1964 119 6.5 1.3 5.1 D-Kennedy (5.4% per year, 3 yr)
1965 118 -0.3 1.7 -2.0 D-Johnson
1966 135 13.8 3.0 10.5 D-Johnson
1967 157 17.1 2.8 13.9 D-Johnson
1968 178 13.1 4.2 8.5 D-Johnson
1969 184 3.1 5.4 -2.2 D-Johnson (5.6% per year, 5 yr)
1970 196 6.5 5.9 0.6 R-Nixon
1971 210 7.5 4.3 3.1 R-Nixon
1972 231 9.8 3.3 6.3 R-Nixon
1973 246 6.5 6.2 0.3 R-Nixon
1974 269 9.6 11.0 -1.3 R-Nixon
1975 332 23.3 9.1 13.0 R-Nixon
1976 372 11.9 5.7 5.9 R-Nixon (3.9% per year, 7 yr)
1977 409 10.1 6.5 3.4 R-Ford (3.4%, 1 yr)
1978 459 12.1 7.6 4.2 D-Carter
1979 503 9.8 11.3 -1.3 D-Carter
1980 591 17.4 13.5 3.4 D-Carter
1981 678 14.7 10.3 4.0 D-Carter (2.5% per year, 4 yr)
1982 746 10.0 6.2 3.6 R-Reagan
1983 808 8.4 3.2 5.0 R-Reagan
1984 852 5.4 4.3 1.1 R-Reagan
1985 946 11.1 3.6 7.2 R-Reagan
1986 990 4.6 1.9 2.6 R-Reagan
1987 1004 1.4 3.7 -2.2 R-Reagan
1988 1063 5.9 4.0 1.8 R-Reagan
1989 1144 7.6 4.8 2.7 R-Reagan (2.7% per year, 8 yr)
1990 1252 9.4 5.4 3.8 R-Bush
1991 1324 5.8 4.2 1.5 R-Bush
1992 1381 4.3 3.0 1.3 R-Bush
1993 1409 2.0 3.0 -1.0 R-Bush (1.4% per year, 4 yr)
1994 1461 3.7 2.6 1.1 D-Clinton
1995 1515 3.8 2.8 1.0 D-Clinton
1996 1560 3.0 3.0 0.0 D-Clinton
1997 1601 2.6 2.3 0.3 D-Clinton
1998 1652 3.2 1.6 1.6 D-Clinton
1999 1705 3.2 2.2 1.0 D-Clinton (0.8% per year, 6 yr)
Reagan increased spending by 2.7% per year *more* than the increase
rate of the CPI (inflation). He was out-spent, adjusted by inflation,
by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Carter held the line, compared
to inflation, and Bush and Clinton did really well.
The real sinners here appear to be Kennedy and Johnson, who greatly
expanded the government (compared to inflation) and then for the next
30 years the Presidents gradually reeled it back in. In general, the
Democrats increased spending by 3.3% over and above increases in CPI,
the Republicans by only 2.5% over CPI.
Specifically, Reagan inherited a government that spent 15% more than
it took in. When he left office, it was spending 15% more than it
took in. Under Bush, it increased to 22%, thanks mostly to a shrinking
revenue stream.
Revenue is a different story:
Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
Year Revenue Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
1960 92 16.5 1.5 14.7 R-Eisenhower
1961 94 2.2 1.1 1.1 R-Eisenhower (2.4% per year, 8 yr)
1962 100 6.4 1.1 5.2 D-Kennedy
1963 107 7.0 1.2 5.7 D-Kennedy
1964 113 5.6 1.3 4.3 D-Kennedy (5.1% per year, 3 yr)
1965 117 3.5 1.7 1.8 D-Johnson
1966 131 12.0 3.0 8.7 D-Johnson
1967 149 13.7 2.8 10.6 D-Johnson
1968 153 2.7 4.2 -1.5 D-Johnson
1969 187 22.2 5.4 16.0 D-Johnson (6.9% per year, 5 yr)
1970 193 3.2 5.9 -2.5 R-Nixon
1971 187 -3.1 4.3 -7.1 R-Nixon
1972 207 10.7 3.3 7.2 R-Nixon
1973 231 11.6 6.2 5.1 R-Nixon
1974 263 13.9 11.0 2.6 R-Nixon
1975 279 6.1 9.1 -2.8 R-Nixon
1976 298 6.8 5.7 1.1 R-Nixon (0.4% per year, 7 yr)
1977 356 19.5 6.5 12.2 R-Ford (12.2%, 1 yr)
1978 400 12.4 7.6 4.4 D-Carter
1979 463 15.8 11.3 4.0 D-Carter
1980 517 11.7 13.5 -1.6 D-Carter
1981 599 15.9 10.3 5.0 D-Carter (2.9% per year, 4 yr)
1982 618 3.2 6.2 -2.9 R-Reagan
1983 601 -2.8 3.2 -5.8 R-Reagan
1984 666 10.8 4.3 6.2 R-Reagan
1985 734 10.2 3.6 6.4 R-Reagan
1986 769 4.8 1.9 2.8 R-Reagan
1987 854 11.1 3.7 7.1 R-Reagan
1988 908 6.3 4.0 2.2 R-Reagan
1989 991 9.1 4.8 4.1 R-Reagan (2.4% per year, 8 yr)
1990 1031 4.0 5.4 -1.3 R-Bush
1991 1054 2.2 4.2 -1.9 R-Bush
1992 1090 3.4 3.0 0.4 R-Bush
1993 1153 5.8 3.0 2.7 R-Bush (-0.0% per year, 4 yr)
1994 1257 9.0 2.6 6.3 D-Clinton
1995 1351 7.5 2.8 4.6 D-Clinton
1996 1453 7.5 3.0 4.4 D-Clinton
1997 1579 8.7 2.3 6.2 D-Clinton
1998 1721 9.0 1.6 7.3 D-Clinton
1999 1827 6.2 2.2 3.9 D-Clinton (5.4% per year, 6 yr)
The problem with this graph is it mixes together revenue changes due
to recessions and prosperity with revenue changes due to tax raises and
tax cuts. What it seems to confirm is the typical political belief that
Democrats like to expand the government and Republicans try to shrink
it. Well, not shrink it, as *all* the Presidents, except Bush, increased
government revenue compared to CPI. But the Democrats outpaced CPI by
5.2% and the Republicans outpaced CPI by only 1.9%.
Specifically, Reagan increased spending by 2.7% more than inflation per
year, but increased receipts by only 2.4% more than inflation per year.
>> It wasn't being spent on the the things they wanted it to be spent on,
>> but that's another issue.
>>
>> Presumably, deja.com is working well enough to be able to reproduce
>> the numbers I quoted from the 2000 Almanac. Stop spreading myths.
>
> There is no myth behind the observation that the Federal deficit
> assumed enormous proportions during the Reagan/Bush years. Only through
> the influence of Greenspan and Clinton has this childish obsession with
> tax cuts come under control. But look who's trying to cut taxes again!
The myth I was addressing was Rich's assertion that "Republicans say that
they support lower givernment spending but when they get in power they do just
the exact opposite. The biggest increases in government spending were during
the Reagan administration...and all done with his approval."
Compared to CPI (which as Jim Burgess pointed out, is the only reasonable
way to look at things), Reagan didn't increase spending very much. He
and the Republicans spent it on things Democrats didn't like, and they
cut taxes where Democrats didn't want them cut, and they did run a
deficit of 23% or so (including the Bush years).
Republicans obviously do a better job of keeping government out of
your wallet than do the Democrats, which is why Republicans usually
get my vote.
Douglas T. Massey
forl...@aol.complex (Rich Goranson) writes:
>>We've already gone through this once. Reagan's spending increases weren't
>>any worse, adjusted for inflation, than Kennedy's, Johnson's, or Carter's.
>>The deficit expanded because he cut taxes at the same time -- a strategy
>>which is debatable. But the spending wasn't out of control like
>>Democrats like to think.
>
> And that is certainly true, however you seem to be missing the point that the
> Dems have never claimed to be the party of low government spending. It is one
> of the GOP's primary positions but they never actually DO it.
>
> And if we've been through this before then you know that Reagan also increased
> taxes significantly...particularly in 1986.
>
> Mondale was entirely correct in his 1984 campaign statement when he said. "No
> matter who wins taxes will go up. I'll tell you. They won't." And IMHO, that is
> the fundemental difference between the two parties on this issue.
If a Republican says "I won't raise your taxes," and then raises them
by 3%, I'm angry.
If a Democrat says "I'll raise your taxes," and then raises them by
5%, I'm even angrier, because (a) neither party knows how to spend my money
better than I do, (b) the Democrat took more of it, and (c) I'm pretty
sure I *really* won't like how the Democrat spends it. (a) and (c) are
matters of opinion -- different folks have different opinions about government
spending policies. But (b) is incontrovertible (in this example).
Rick Desper
josephin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I fired back "My mother taught me not to cheat and lie."
>
> My mother taught me how to twirl at Dead concerts. Thanks mother.
>
> I'll be short (5'2'' in fact): when I hear people on either side
trying
> to claim the moral highground in the tussle, I tune out completely. It
> was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a
no-
> rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
> reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
> other way around.
This is what the Republicans always say when they break and pervert
the law. That's what Nixon said during Watergate, it's what Reagan
said during Iran-Contra, and it's what the Bushies are saying now.
But we have no evidence of any Democrat Secretary of State actively
using the powers of her office to stop legal recounts. We have
no evidence of a Democrat "rent-a-mob" flying to a state where a
legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it down".
We have no evidence of a Democrat majority in the US Supreme Court
throwing away all pretense of legal precedent and voting to appoint
its candidate.
The "everybody is doing it" is a morally weak argument. It is
also extremely convenient, because it lets you do whatever the hell
you want to do.
What did Gore do during this process? He sued, in the courts, to
get recounts going. Under long-established Florida law, this is
entirely legal. It was entirely legal for him to ask only for
Democratic counties. Instead of stomping his feet and whining about
"standards", Bush could have merely asked the Secretary of State to
provide guidelines. HE DIDN'T. Instead of whining about how certain
counties were not getting counted, Bush could have asked for them
to be counted, under Florida law. Why didn't he? Because his only hope
was to make an attack at the law and the judiciary. He had to attack
the law, because if the law was followed, his razor-thin lead would
easily have disappeared once the ballots from the poor districts were
properly counted. And he not only had to attack the law, he also had to
attack the judiciary, because, if he let the FSC do their job properly,
they would ordered that the counts continue. But he wasn't satisfied
with that. He had to bring in a bunch of goons from the offices of
Trent Lott and Tom DeLay to fly to Florida on paid vacations (the
taxpayers footed the bill), so they could pretend to be "Republican
protesters".
>
> "Our side was 'right' because (insert Charlie Brown teacher voice) wah
> walll wa na wah na waal wa...."
>
> Speak to the hand because the EMPRESS isn't listening.
Denial is not only a river in Egypt, as they say.
>
> Sorry. Was that my outloud voice? :-)
>
> Jo2, (stomping feet mad)
What are you so mad about? Yours is the party that got away with
stealing an election. Well, I'm sorry, because _I'm_ foot-stomping mad,
and I have been every day since Nov. 7, and I will be every day until
the first Tuesday in November in 2004. Or until Bush gets impeached,
whichever happens first.
The Democrats are not about to go gentle into the night. Bush is going
to endure four years of living hell. Gephardt and Daschle are playing
nice-nice for the cameras, but they're going to make it very clear to
everybody that Bush has no mandate, he was not even elected with a
plurality of the vote, and his programs are not worth the paper they are
printed on.
Meanwhile, John McCain is going to be calling in a favor. And if Shrub
doesn't pay up, you can bet that you'll see McCain ripping him a new one
on the Larry King show. McCain wants campaign finance reform, and he
wants it now. He claims to have a filibuster-proof 60 senator
majority. And he has no inclination to wait and see.
Rick
Tehipite Tom
"Paul Windsor" <windso...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan
manner,
> > they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards.
> This is not a 7-2 opinion on any grounds.
Thanks for clarifying that, Paul. The news media all appear to have
accepted the 7-2 story at face value--which is apparently a gross
distortion.
BTW, your analysis of the equal protection claim is great, and needs to
be more widely read. Have you given any thought to submitting it for
publication?
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Gregory A Greenman
says...
> In article <MPG.14a977e28...@news1.az.home.net>,
> Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > In article <91o4gr$421$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tehi...@my-deja.com
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
> >
> > If it wasn't, then how could my Diplomacy board lay flat on my
> > table?
>
> detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
>
> Rick
Sorry Rick. That's a testable hypothesis and it fails the
test. If they're both curved, then if I turn the board over
the board shouldn't appear to lie flat. Trying that, the board
does indeed lie flat. Proof positive that the world is flat.
Douglas T. Massey
josephin...@my-deja.com writes:
> >I fired back "My mother taught me not to cheat and lie."
>
> My mother taught me how to twirl at Dead concerts. Thanks mother.
>
> I'll be short (5'2'' in fact): when I hear people on either side trying
> to claim the moral highground in the tussle, I tune out completely. It
> was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a no-
> rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
> reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
> other way around.
I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
here who will eloquently explain how the Republicans are evil and the
Democrats are not. I wish there was an equally eloquent representative
for the Republican party, if only to balance out the discussion a
little bit. I'm certainly not the right person, mainly because I
don't really affiliate myself with either side.
Rick Desper
Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> In article <91ogfi$fkk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, des...@my-deja.com
> says...
> > In article <MPG.14a977e28...@news1.az.home.net>,
> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > > In article <91o4gr$421$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tehi...@my-deja.com
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
> > >
> > > If it wasn't, then how could my Diplomacy board lay flat on my
> > > table?
> >
> > They're both round, but with the same curvature. You just cannot
> > detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
> >
> > Rick
>
> Sorry Rick. That's a testable hypothesis and it fails the
> test. If they're both curved, then if I turn the board over
> the board shouldn't appear to lie flat. Trying that, the board
> does indeed lie flat. Proof positive that the world is flat.
>
> Greg
> ----
> greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
>
Wait - you're not one of those flat-eyed people, are you?
Jim Burgess
>In article <91ohn3$go4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> josephin...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >I fired back "My mother taught me not to cheat and lie."
>>
>> My mother taught me how to twirl at Dead concerts. Thanks mother.
>>
>> I'll be short (5'2'' in fact): when I hear people on either side trying
>> to claim the moral highground in the tussle, I tune out completely. It
>> was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a no-
>> rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
>> reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
>> other way around.
>I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
>here who will eloquently explain how the Republicans are evil and the
>Democrats are not. I wish there was an equally eloquent representative
>for the Republican party, if only to balance out the discussion a
>little bit. I'm certainly not the right person, mainly because I
>don't really affiliate myself with either side.
>Doug
Oh, I could do it, but my thinking is really liberal Republican so
that I disagree with Republicans in power right now on most of the
issues that people think define the breed (abortion, tax cuts,
human rights, corporate welfare [anyone remember that Teddy Roosevelt
was the first big trust buster, aka monopoly fighter?], conservative
"family" values).
But more fundamentally, Republicans believe that everyone is
responsible for themselves (including learning how to make one's
vote tallied properly) and that we weaken the fabric of our
society when we give in to weaknesses (since we don't make
people responsible for their own actions in doing so).
Corporations may have a lot of power, but anyone is free to
buy stock (even just a single share) and participate in the
governance of those corporations to make them do what one
thinks they should do (if they aren't doing what one thinks
they should do now). Voting with one's dollars and one's
feet determines happiness in life and we should be free to
do it with our property rights protected to the greatest
extent possible.
I myself see the supreme logic in most of that, but quickly
part company with many/most Republicans on the issues I cite
above.
All just IMHO,
Jim-Bob
Robert Watkins
> I'm particularly annoyed at how we have drifted away from Taiwan, who
> has been a loyal ally for 55 years.
Rick Desper a carebear?
Come on, you're a Diplomacy player. Alliances are matters of convience, and
if it's convienent you walk away. :)
(Just bringing this back on topic... hey, does anyone know of a Dip game
that lasted for 55 years?)
Robert.
Sloth
> Now that would have been funny to watch...a pro-Republican march. Has there
> ever been a march in this country that was in FAVOR of anti-American principles
> other than by hate groups?
As long as we accept the Democratic definition of hate groups, ie, 'anyone
who doesn't agree with our definition of American principles', no.
-Sloth
If Santa should happen to make his way down my chimney this year, I'll gut him
like a fish. The way I figure it, his very existence contradicts all we know of
reality and our place in the cosmos, and I don't need that kind of crap on
Christmas Eve.
Christopher Mann
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > They're both round, but with the same curvature. You just cannot
> > detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
> Sorry Rick. That's a testable hypothesis and it fails the
> test. If they're both curved, then if I turn the board over
> the board shouldn't appear to lie flat. Trying that, the board
> does indeed lie flat. Proof positive that the world is flat.
Argh. They are not _both_ curved. In the terms of geometry on curved
manifolds, the earth is locally flat. It is not a correct statement to
say the earth is flat but it is correct to say that, in all places, it
is locally flat.
Chris
Christopher Mann
>
> In article <91ohn3$go4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> josephin...@my-deja.com writes:
> > was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a no-
> > rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
> > reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
> > other way around.
>
> I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
I'm going to try to give a quick, moderate reply. I think that it is
very hard to give an eloquent discussion of the republican strategies
during the post-election period. I don't even know many republicans who
try. My good friends who are republican have tried two different
strategies instead. (1) well, all politicians are corrupt and (2) if
the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats would have done things
differently.
In both cases, I tend to disagree. In the case of (1), neither of the
candidates is entirely corrupt. I think Gore was doing what he believed
to be correct. I also believed that he stayed within the laws and did
much to try to protect his image. I also believe that Bush did what he
believed to be correct but he didn't give much credence to the system of
laws in place. <note: this is not a moral statement> Why didn't he
respect the system of laws? I often sense that Americans view the legal
system as human and imperfect. The conservative belief was that they
had a moral imperative to take back the house. This moral imperative
trumped the legal system. That's a gross conjecture but it explains the
republican stance without insulting them.
In the case of (2), I don't think Gore would have done the same thing.
I think democratic candidates support the other extreme. They want laws
and a strong legal system. If the shoe were on the other foot, I
believe Gore would have done everything he could legally while
attempting to maintain his reputation. I think Bush would still have
trodden on the laws.
Justice vs. the legal system? Republicans vs. the democrats?
In the end, its a reasonable theory. I'm tired so maybe its not. I'll
find out from your replies tomorrow.
Chris
Michael Sandy
> In article <91o941$8gu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tim Goodwin <thgo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <91o4gr$421$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Tehipite Tom <tehi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read
> and
> > > > heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not
> > > agree
> > > > with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say incompetent either. 'Corrupt' is much more accurate
> in
> > > this context.
> >
> > Corrupt is far more serious than incompetent. I suspect there are
> very
> > few people that really believe Scalia is corrupt.
> >
> > Tim
> Yeah, probably only about 27% of the electorate think he is corrupt.
>
> I wouldn't use the word "corrupt." But he was certainly willing to sell
> his principles to get Bush in the White House.
>
> Rick
In other words, he doesn't meet the _legal_ definition of corruption,
because he didn't break the law or _personally_ receive any
compensation, but he is corrupt in terms of his judicial principles.
From what I know of Scalia's principles, I would say "corrupt" is
the right type of word to describe his decision.
On another note, it looks like W's line, "I can work with Democrats."
should be read as, "I can work over Democrats." He was boasting
in an interview that he was going to push for his whole program,
arm twisting all the way. And he was joking(?) about how he'd
prefer to be a dictator, just because it would be easier for him.
Sounds like a real bipartisan politician to me, NOT!
Sound like a good time for at least a 24 month fillibuster to me.
Michael Sandy
Rod Spade
>
> ... Based on the extremely dubious
> proposition that, in the manner of selecting electors for the
> Presidential race, the Constitution gives the power not to the states,
How is that "dubious"? The Constitution really *does* say
"Legislature". It's right there in black and white.
Rick Desper
I'm sorry, Doug, but to justify your "obviously", you have to go back
to a President who was in the last year of serving when I was born.
Carter doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. Clinton
doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. If I were looking
at a scientific paper which had only four data points, and decided to
ignore two of them because they didn't support the conclusions, I would
crumple it up and throw it in the trash.
Basically, you have a problem with the social programs started by LBJ.
Fine. But don't couch this in terms of "Republicans do a better job of
keeping government out of your wallte than do the Democrats". Because
that's a load of manure. Republicans run deficits, Democrats balance
budgets. And guys like you think Republicans are wonderful 'cause they
"cut taxes" (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). Of course,
these tax cuts drive the government to a near state of bankruptcy, which
leads to massive decreases in the quality of services provided (the
education crisis is due to a very long-term trend whereby baby boomers
care more about their immediate gratification than the long-term
interests of their children) and to higher interest rates and to
deficits, which have to be paid for sometime. Clinton balanced the
budget and gave the United States eight years of prosperity, but all you
can do is complain about how "Democrats get into my wallet".
Meanwhile, you are fairly certain that FDR would have run a deficit even
if he hadn't been fighting the Depression and WWII. Methinks your view
of the situation has been biased somewhere along the way.
Rick
> --
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ___, IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont
> \o ASICs Product Development Engineering |>
> | Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
> / \ E-mail: mas...@btv.ibm.com |
> . Doug's Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~masseyd (|)
>
--
Rick Desper
>
> Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
> Year Outlays Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
> ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
> 1960 92 0.1 1.5 -1.4 R-Eisenhower
> 1961 98 6.0 1.1 4.8 R-Eisenhower (1.7% per year, 8
yr)
> 1964 119 6.5 1.3 5.1 D-Kennedy (5.4% per year, 3
y
> 1969 184 3.1 5.4 -2.2 D-Johnson (5.6% per year, 5
> 1976 372 11.9 5.7 5.9 R-Nixon (3.9% per year, 7 yr)
> 1977 409 10.1 6.5 3.4 R-Ford (3.4%, 1 yr)
>
> 1981 678 14.7 10.3 4.0 D-Carter (2.5% per year, 4 yr)
> 1989 1144 7.6 4.8 2.7 R-Reagan (2.7% per year, 8 yr)
> 1993 1409 2.0 3.0 -1.0 R-Bush (1.4% per year, 4 yr)
> 1999 1705 3.2 2.2 1.0 D-Clinton (0.8% per year, 6
yr)
>
> Reagan increased spending by 2.7% per year *more* than the increase
> rate of the CPI (inflation). He was out-spent, adjusted by inflation,
> by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Carter held the line, compared
> to inflation, and Bush and Clinton did really well.
Where you draw your line starting with Kennedy, I could just as easily
start with Nixon. Then my list would go: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter,
Bush, Clinton.
But the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party. Yeah, right. Clearly,
at least in my lifetime, the Republicans have been the "spend" party.
>
> The real sinners here appear to be Kennedy and Johnson, who greatly
> expanded the government (compared to inflation) and then for the next
> 30 years the Presidents gradually reeled it back in. In general, the
> Democrats increased spending by 3.3% over and above increases in CPI,
> the Republicans by only 2.5% over CPI.
They've also both been dead for thirty years. (Or is it only 25 for
LBJ? I don't know, all I know is I don't remember when he died, and I
was born in 1968.)
>
> Specifically, Reagan inherited a government that spent 15% more than
> it took in. When he left office, it was spending 15% more than it
> took in. Under Bush, it increased to 22%, thanks mostly to a
shrinking
> revenue stream.
>
> Revenue is a different story:
>
> Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
> Year Revenue Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
> ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
> 1961 94 2.2 1.1 1.1 R-Eisenhower (2.4% per year, 8
yr)
> 1964 113 5.6 1.3 4.3 D-Kennedy (5.1% per year, 3
yr)
> 1969 187 22.2 5.4 16.0 D-Johnson (6.9% per year, 5
yr)
> 1976 298 6.8 5.7 1.1 R-Nixon (0.4% per year, 7 yr)
> 1977 356 19.5 6.5 12.2 R-Ford (12.2%, 1 yr)
> 1981 599 15.9 10.3 5.0 D-Carter (2.9% per year, 4 yr)
> 1989 991 9.1 4.8 4.1 R-Reagan (2.4% per year, 8 yr)
> 1993 1153 5.8 3.0 2.7 R-Bush (-0.0% per year, 4 yr)
> 1999 1827 6.2 2.2 3.9 D-Clinton (5.4% per year, 6
yr)
>
> The problem with this graph is it mixes together revenue changes due
> to recessions and prosperity with revenue changes due to tax raises
and
> tax cuts. What it seems to confirm is the typical political belief
that
> Democrats like to expand the government and Republicans try to shrink
> it.
That's not what it says at all. You have to look at both charts
together. We already _know_ from the first chart that, at least in the
past 32 years, the Republicans are the ones expanding the government.
You also notice that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush _all_ increased their
spending at a higher rate than they increased their revenue. Carter
increased revenue slightly more than he increased spending - he had to
pay back debts Nixon had incurred. Clinton increased revenue far more
than he increased spending - again, he had to pay back the debts that
Reagan and Bush had incurred. Ford apparently increased revenue a lot,
but that was only one year.
So, what is the _real_ pattern here? Rather than seeing the Democrats
as the "tax and spend" party, we have the Republicans as the "borrow and
spend" party while the Democrats are the "pay off the Republican debt"
party. At least that's how it's been in my lifetime.
Well, let's put it in better perspective. Certainly the biggest
deficits have come during the Republican years.
Rick
Rick Desper
bur...@world.std.com (Jim Burgess) wrote:
>
> >I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
> >here who will eloquently explain how the Republicans are evil and the
> >Democrats are not. I wish there was an equally eloquent
representative
> >for the Republican party, if only to balance out the discussion a
> >little bit. I'm certainly not the right person, mainly because I
> >don't really affiliate myself with either side.
>
> >Doug
>
> Oh, I could do it, but my thinking is really liberal Republican so
> that I disagree with Republicans in power right now on most of the
> issues that people think define the breed (abortion, tax cuts,
> human rights, corporate welfare [anyone remember that Teddy Roosevelt
> was the first big trust buster, aka monopoly fighter?], conservative
> "family" values).
Most of these things are not what the Republicans are about any more.
>
> But more fundamentally, Republicans believe that everyone is
> responsible for themselves (including learning how to make one's
> vote tallied properly) and that we weaken the fabric of our
> society when we give in to weaknesses (since we don't make
> people responsible for their own actions in doing so).
> Corporations may have a lot of power, but anyone is free to
> buy stock (even just a single share) and participate in the
> governance of those corporations to make them do what one
> thinks they should do (if they aren't doing what one thinks
> they should do now). Voting with one's dollars and one's
> feet determines happiness in life and we should be free to
> do it with our property rights protected to the greatest
> extent possible.
>
This sounds very idealistic. That's not what the hardcore Republicans
are about any more. The Republicans of this decade are only interested
in power and self-interest. It's been that way at least since 1994.
They offer no social philosophy other than an aggressive, distorted
version of Christianity. I wish I didn't feel this way, but I think
the Florida recount showed the true face of the Republican party.
If they could do away with this annoying election thing altogether, they
would.
Does anybody dare disagree with me, based on how the Bushes, the
rent-a-mob, Katherine Harris, the Florida legislature, and the Supreme
Court have all behaved in the past six weeks?
Rick
> I myself see the supreme logic in most of that, but quickly
> part company with many/most Republicans on the issues I cite
> above.
>
> All just IMHO,
> Jim-Bob
>
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Rick Desper
mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. Massey) wrote:
> I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
> here who will eloquently explain how the Republicans are evil and the
> Democrats are not.
Well, the Republicans give us so much evidence to work with! I mean,
if you want to disagree with the conclusions, disagree with the
evidence! Find a flaw in the chain of logic! Or, rethink your own
position.
> I wish there was an equally eloquent
representative
> for the Republican party, if only to balance out the discussion a
> little bit. I'm certainly not the right person, mainly because I
> don't really affiliate myself with either side.
>
> Doug
By your posts, Doug, you are a Republican. You may think you are not,
but you are. Three years ago I was an independent voter. It became
obvious that this was wrong for me. You claim to be not affiliated, but
everything you say says "Republican".
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Geraint Morgan
> (Just bringing this back on topic... hey, does anyone know of a Dip
game
> that lasted for 55 years?)
Oracle did i think, but it had a real problem keeping players.
Geraint
Wales
>
> Robert.
Graeme Ackland
In article <91oqci$ob7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> writes:
|> In article <MPG.14a99f5a6...@news1.az.home.net>,
|> Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
|> > In article <91ogfi$fkk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, des...@my-deja.com
|> > says...
|> > > In article <MPG.14a977e28...@news1.az.home.net>,
|> > > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
|> > > > In article <91o4gr$421$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tehi...@my-deja.com
|> > > > says...
|> > > > >
|> > > > >
|> > > >
|> > > > > Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
|> > > >
|> > > > If it wasn't, then how could my Diplomacy board lay flat on my
|> > > > table?
|> > >
|> > > They're both round, but with the same curvature. You just cannot
|> > > detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
|> > >
|> > > Rick
|> >
|> > Sorry Rick. That's a testable hypothesis and it fails the
|> > test. If they're both curved, then if I turn the board over
|> > the board shouldn't appear to lie flat. Trying that, the board
|> > does indeed lie flat. Proof positive that the world is flat.
Rick's hypothesis is testable and passes the test.
If the board is flat the edge will take about 4 times as long
to cross as the centre:
Mos - StP - Bar -NWS - NAO -MAO - NAf - Tun - Ion - EMS - Syr - Arm - Sev
6 years
NWS - Nor - Swe - Bal - Pru - Sil - Boh - Tyr - Tri - Adr - Apu - Nap - Ion
6 years
Since the circumference is clearly smaller than (~pi times) the diameter,
the board is curved.
QED.
Graeme
PS: this is even true! StP appears larger on the map than it should
be because of curvature.
Paul Windsor
"Christopher Mann" <cm...@cccc.com> wrote in message
news:3A402BD3...@cccc.com...
> "Douglas T. Massey" wrote:
> >
> > In article <91ohn3$go4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > josephin...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > > was a partisan, say-anything battle and everybody knows it. It was a
no-
> > > rules slugfest, manifestly evident in the fact that if the roles were
> > > reversed, both sides would be saying the exact same thing, only the
> > > other way around.
> >
> > I personally agree with you, but I know there are four or five guys
>
> I'm going to try to give a quick, moderate reply. I think that it is
> very hard to give an eloquent discussion of the republican strategies
> during the post-election period. I don't even know many republicans who
> try.
I'll go even further than that. As an attorney, I can virtually guarantee
you that I interact with more Republicans on a daily basis than anyone here,
and certainly more attorneys who are Republicans. I have not encountered
one--not a single one--who is interested in even *attempting* a defense of
the legal opinions offered by the Supreme Court in this case. Not a one.
I also participate in private, lawyer-only 'net discussion groups which
spawn political threads. After the last opinion of the Supreme Court, the
conservative lawyers who contribute to those threads were conspicuous by
their absence. A couple had the courage to show up and admit that they were
offering no defense of the Supreme Court's opinions because, as a matter of
law, they could offer none.
The reason Doug can't find anyone to offer an eloquent defense of the
Republicans at this point is that there is none. What the Supreme Court did
was lawless. What the Bush team did was succeed in a strategy of winning by
suppressing the completion of the vote count. There is no eloquent defense
for winning a popular election by lawless and anti-democratic means. None of
my conservative friends, many of whom are lawyers and quite eloquent by
nature, will even venture to try.
> My good friends who are republican have tried two different
> strategies instead. (1) well, all politicians are corrupt and
> (2) if the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats would have done
things
> differently.
This is what I call the "immoral equivalence" defense. It's also a form of
double-think. Republicans' make populist attacks on the evils of big
government, while they beg to be put in charge of that very same evil. The
true believers don't see the inherent contradiction there. Similarly, they
simultaneously believe that what they do is OK because, if others were in
their position, they'd do it too, and they also believe that, once they win,
everyone everyone should believe in the moral superiority of their methods.
I have one conservative attorney colleague who took the "immoral
equivalence" defense to this extreme: What Gore did was wrong because he
should have known that the Florida laws of recount were "unfair" and that
the Republican Supreme Court would never allow a Democrat to win by "unfair"
means. Therefore, it doesn't matter to him that Gore was merely pursuing
enforcement of his legal recount rights because the way the law granted
those rights was "unfair". He further explains that it doesn't matter
whether the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling makes legal sense or not,
because in his eyes, it's more "fair" to leave Florida's laws unenforced
than to enforce them, whether that's legal or not.
So, my conservative attorney colleague is perfectly willing to admit that
Gore was doing nothing more or less than pursuing his legal rights. He's
also willing to admit that Bush, his people, and the Supreme Court were
doing nothing more or less than denying Gore both his legal and
constitutional rights. But since this meets his personal definition of
"fair", he's not going to sweat the legalities.
That's not my idea of an eloquent defense.
Nixon thought that the Congressional investigation of his office was
"unfair", so he obstructed justice. Reagan thought that the Boland Amendment
was "unfair" so he sought to negate it's effect by extra-constitutional
exercises of executive authority. Clinton thought that Paula Jones' lawsuit
was "unfair" so he lied under oath. None of these cases turned out
particularly well for the side that was holding that personal visions of
"fairness" should triumph over the enforcement of laws. None of these cases
serve as an example of how we like our government to operate.
Citing to this kind of logic leads inevitably to an examination of this line
of precedent. Not my idea of eloquence.
Paul Windsor
Douglas T. Massey
Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> writes:
> Your analysis is far too simplistic.
>
>>
>> Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
>> Year Outlays Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
>> ======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
>> 1960 92 0.1 1.5 -1.4 R-Eisenhower
>> 1961 98 6.0 1.1 4.8 R-Eisenhower (1.7% per year, 8
> yr)
>> 1964 119 6.5 1.3 5.1 D-Kennedy (5.4% per year, 3
> y
>> 1969 184 3.1 5.4 -2.2 D-Johnson (5.6% per year, 5
>
>> 1976 372 11.9 5.7 5.9 R-Nixon (3.9% per year, 7 yr)
>> 1977 409 10.1 6.5 3.4 R-Ford (3.4%, 1 yr)
>>
>> 1981 678 14.7 10.3 4.0 D-Carter (2.5% per year, 4 yr)
>
>> 1989 1144 7.6 4.8 2.7 R-Reagan (2.7% per year, 8 yr)
>
>> 1993 1409 2.0 3.0 -1.0 R-Bush (1.4% per year, 4 yr)
>
>> 1999 1705 3.2 2.2 1.0 D-Clinton (0.8% per year, 6
> yr)
>>
>> Reagan increased spending by 2.7% per year *more* than the increase
>> rate of the CPI (inflation). He was out-spent, adjusted by inflation,
>> by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Carter held the line, compared
>> to inflation, and Bush and Clinton did really well.
In your other response, you said I ignored Carter and Clinton; thanks
for acknowledging that actually, I give credit to both. I'm actually
a pretty big fan of Clinton.
> Where you draw your line starting with Kennedy, I could just as easily
> start with Nixon. Then my list would go: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter,
> Bush, Clinton.
This is true. And we could go back to Truman and FDR and put *them*
at the top of the list. But you're right; the further back you go,
the less relevant the data is to today's situation.
> But the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party. Yeah, right. Clearly,
> at least in my lifetime, the Republicans have been the "spend" party.
But on the other hand, we shouldn't ignore things just because they
didn't occur in your lifetime, right? I mean, we're trying to draw
conclusions about large groups of politicians -- maybe that's a hopeless
goal in itself -- so I don't see why going back 40 or 50 years is a bad
thing.
I really dislike the policies of Kennedy and Johnson. I liked Clinton
and Carter seemed like a good guy caught in a bad time. But from what
I've heard, Gore seemed more like the former than the latter.
Just saying "Kennedy and Johnson have been dead for a long time" doesn't
mean that the Democratic party doesn't still cling to some of those
values. I think *both* parties have become more moderate, which I
consider a good thing. Following from that, I don't think there's a
great deal of difference between Gore and Bush (at least in terms of
political ideology).
And you could also say that the revenue problems that the US government
had in the early 80's were due to the recession that started during the
Carter adminstration. And Clinton's increases in revenue (and thus the
balancing of the budget) are due almost entirely to an increase in
individual income taxes, due to the booming economy. As many of us have
pointed out, the President's control over the economy is only incidental
(that applies to Carter as well as Clinton, of course).
The Republican argument is that the increased spending of the 80's
pulled the U.S. out of the recession and led the country to prosperity
(the cost of this action was the large national debt, of course).
I don't know if I believe it or not, though.
> Clinton increased revenue far more
> than he increased spending - again, he had to pay back the debts that
> Reagan and Bush had incurred. Ford apparently increased revenue a lot,
> but that was only one year.
Right, and who knows how much influence Ford actually had . . .
The revenue chart is a lot more muddy than the expenses chart, since
both tax policies and economy strength affect the revenue (whereas the
expenses are pretty much just details in the budget). Clinton got a
*big* boost from the economy of the 90's, Carter got a big whammy.
Reagan started out in a bad place and ended in a good place; Bush did
the opposite (which probably explains why Reagan was re-elected and
Bush wasn't).
Clinton's other benefit is that he didn't have to spend as much on defense,
thanks to the end of the Cold War.
> So, what is the _real_ pattern here? Rather than seeing the Democrats
> as the "tax and spend" party, we have the Republicans as the "borrow and
> spend" party while the Democrats are the "pay off the Republican debt"
> party. At least that's how it's been in my lifetime.
>
> Well, let's put it in better perspective. Certainly the biggest
> deficits have come during the Republican years.
I guess what it comes down to is what length of time you'd prefer to
look at. If you ignore Kennedy and Johnson, then things are about even.
If you take K and J into account, they're not. The further you go
back, the more uneven it is. FDR operated under a huge deficit; but
he was fighting WW2. Of course, much of the 80's spending was on
the military and one of the greatest achievements of the Reagan/Bush
years was the fall of the USSR. If the Reagan/Bush years prevented
a 1999 nuclear war or something (who knows?), then I'd say the national
debt was a terrific investment.
Paul Windsor
"Tehipite Tom" <tehi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91on2m$lko$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <DhP%5.3162$ug7.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Paul Windsor" <windso...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I would also add that the Court did not act in a purely partisan
> manner,
> > > they voted 7-2 on the issue of uniform standards.
> > This is not a 7-2 opinion on any grounds.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that, Paul. The news media all appear to have
> accepted the 7-2 story at face value--which is apparently a gross
> distortion.
>
> BTW, your analysis of the equal protection claim is great, and needs to
> be more widely read. Have you given any thought to submitting it for
> publication?
It's already been published hundreds of times over. It's in every Equal
Protection opinion ever issued by any federal court. It's in every legal
hornbook that discusses the topic. All of those TV lawyers like Gretta Van
are, or should be, aware of the proper analysis.
It's not a matter of publishing the proper analysis. That's been done. It's
a matter of getting the media to focus on the proper analysis. Offhand, I
know of no way to get that job done. Just another data point out of the
millions where the "liberally biased media" hypothesis fails to explain or
predict the extrinsic evidence.
Paul Windsor
Jody McCullough
> to a President who was in the last year of serving when I was born.
> Carter doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. Clinton
Actually, I think Doug is giving Carter more of a break than he should.
He's adjusting for CPI, and since inflation ran into the double digits
while Carter was president, his spending numbers look lower. But really,
should we give Carter a pass because there was really high inflation
while he was in office!? Isn't high inflation a bad thing?
> doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. If I were looking
> at a scientific paper which had only four data points, and decided to
> ignore two of them because they didn't support the conclusions, I would
> crumple it up and throw it in the trash.
If I were looking at a scientific paper that had 200 data points, but
they decided to ignore all but the last 40 because they didn't support
their conclusions, I'd throw that one away too.
-Jody-
Rick Desper
> >> Reagan increased spending by 2.7% per year *more* than the increase
> >> rate of the CPI (inflation). He was out-spent, adjusted by
inflation,
> >> by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Carter held the line,
compared
> >> to inflation, and Bush and Clinton did really well.
>
> In your other response, you said I ignored Carter and Clinton; thanks
> for acknowledging that actually, I give credit to both. I'm actually
> a pretty big fan of Clinton.
You ignore them when you draw your anti-Democrat conclusions. I
found it hard to reconcile your conclusions with your observations.
I still do.
>
> > Where you draw your line starting with Kennedy, I could just as
easily
> > start with Nixon. Then my list would go: Nixon, Ford, Reagan,
Carter,
> > Bush, Clinton.
>
> This is true. And we could go back to Truman and FDR and put *them*
> at the top of the list. But you're right; the further back you go,
> the less relevant the data is to today's situation.
>
> > But the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party. Yeah, right.
Clearly,
> > at least in my lifetime, the Republicans have been the "spend"
party.
>
> But on the other hand, we shouldn't ignore things just because they
> didn't occur in your lifetime, right?
Well, if we want to talk about how things _are_, then yes, we should
ignore them. I mean, I could say that the Republicans are the party
supporting war against Spain. Or that Democrats are the party which
favors segregation in the South.
If you want to talk about how the Democrats _are_, you should start
your analysis with Bill Clinton. You can extend to other leading
Democrats like Gore, Gephardt, Daschle, and Lieberman, if you wish.
But there is a huge difference between the Democrats of the '60s and
the Democrats of the '00s. Democrats have, by and large, given up on
the Great Society programs of the LBJ administration. This
transformation, spearheaded by Clinton and the Democratic Leadership
Council, marked a huge change in the underlying philosophy of the
party. What you are arguing against is dismissed by most leading
Democrats
as "paleoliberalism". To my knowledge, Tom Harkin might be one of the
last practictioners.
> I mean, we're trying to draw
> conclusions about large groups of politicians -- maybe that's a
hopeless
> goal in itself -- so I don't see why going back 40 or 50 years is a
bad
> thing.
See above.
>
> I really dislike the policies of Kennedy and Johnson. I liked Clinton
> and Carter seemed like a good guy caught in a bad time. But from what
> I've heard, Gore seemed more like the former than the latter.
>
> Just saying "Kennedy and Johnson have been dead for a long time"
doesn't
> mean that the Democratic party doesn't still cling to some of those
> values.
Not by itself. But you have to look at what the people _today_ are
saying.
> I think *both* parties have become more moderate, which I
> consider a good thing. Following from that, I don't think there's a
> great deal of difference between Gore and Bush (at least in terms of
> political ideology).
I don't think there's a huge difference between them either, in terms of
political ideology. In terms of "character", there appears to be a huge
gap. One of the two is willing to launch attacks on any institution
which stands in his way of grasping power. And that's not Gore I'm
talking about.
> >> The problem with this graph is it mixes together revenue changes
due
> >> to recessions and prosperity with revenue changes due to tax raises
> > and
> >> tax cuts. What it seems to confirm is the typical political belief
> > that
> >> Democrats like to expand the government and Republicans try to
shrink
> >> it.
> >
> > That's not what it says at all. You have to look at both charts
> > together. We already _know_ from the first chart that, at least in
the
> > past 32 years, the Republicans are the ones expanding the
government.
> > You also notice that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush _all_ increased their
> > spending at a higher rate than they increased their revenue. Carter
> > increased revenue slightly more than he increased spending - he had
to
> > pay back debts Nixon had incurred.
>
> And you could also say that the revenue problems that the US
government
> had in the early 80's were due to the recession that started during
the
> Carter adminstration.
But I thought that this was all accounted for by comparing to the
CPI? To say that the revenue problems of the 80s were due to the
recession (which is somehow Carter's fault) ignores the massive tax
cut Reagan made.
> And Clinton's increases in revenue (and thus the
> balancing of the budget) are due almost entirely to an increase in
> individual income taxes, due to the booming economy.
Or, the booming economy is due to the fact that Clinton balanced the
budget. BTW, you're not arguing with me here, I'm just repeating what
Alan Greenspan has said.
> As many of us have
> pointed out, the President's control over the economy is only
incidental
> (that applies to Carter as well as Clinton, of course).
But there is some influence. The President's influence basically
extends to social spending, taxes, and what deficits are maintained.
They do not control oil prices, and oil prices are what triggered
the inflation of the late 70s, which pushed the economy until it crashed
with the Reagan-era recession.
>
> The Republican argument is that the increased spending of the 80's
> pulled the U.S. out of the recession and led the country to prosperity
> (the cost of this action was the large national debt, of course).
> I don't know if I believe it or not, though.
I know I don't believe this, but I could not argue the point
effectively. The basic argument is this: the Reagan tax cut basically
went to wealty people, who did not reinvest this money in the economy,
but spent the money instead on luxury items. The fact that the economy
pulled out of the recession is simply an artifact of longer-term
economic trends.
>
> > Clinton increased revenue far more
> > than he increased spending - again, he had to pay back the debts
that
> > Reagan and Bush had incurred. Ford apparently increased revenue a
lot,
> > but that was only one year.
>
> Right, and who knows how much influence Ford actually had . . .
> The revenue chart is a lot more muddy than the expenses chart, since
> both tax policies and economy strength affect the revenue (whereas the
> expenses are pretty much just details in the budget). Clinton got a
> *big* boost from the economy of the 90's, Carter got a big whammy.
> Reagan started out in a bad place and ended in a good place; Bush did
> the opposite (which probably explains why Reagan was re-elected and
> Bush wasn't).
>
> > So, what is the _real_ pattern here? Rather than seeing the
Democrats
> > as the "tax and spend" party, we have the Republicans as the "borrow
and
> > spend" party while the Democrats are the "pay off the Republican
debt"
> > party. At least that's how it's been in my lifetime.
> >
> > Well, let's put it in better perspective. Certainly the biggest
> > deficits have come during the Republican years.
>
> I guess what it comes down to is what length of time you'd prefer to
> look at. If you ignore Kennedy and Johnson, then things are about
even.
> If you take K and J into account, they're not. The further you go
> back, the more uneven it is. FDR operated under a huge deficit; but
> he was fighting WW2.
And don't forget that LBJ was fighting a war, too.
> Of course, much of the 80's spending was on
> the military and one of the greatest achievements of the Reagan/Bush
> years was the fall of the USSR. If the Reagan/Bush years prevented
> a 1999 nuclear war or something (who knows?), then I'd say the
national
> debt was a terrific investment.
>
> Doug
I hope that, in arguing for the Reagan era, you could come up with
something more than an argument that they were responsible for
preventing some hypothetical nuclear war. Quite frankly, I don't see
the connection. Reagan and Bush could have carried out exactly the
same foreign policy without the huge tax cut. (This is an example of
two issues which are "orthogonal" to each other. :)
Ian York
:
: Argh. They are not _both_ curved. In the terms of geometry on curved
: manifolds, the earth is locally flat. It is not a correct statement to
: say the earth is flat but it is correct to say that, in all places, it
: is locally flat.
Tell that to the Nepalese.
--
IY.
josephin...@my-deja.com
>Yours is the party that got away with stealing an election.
Not true, but I'm glad you think so.
>Well, I'm sorry,
No you're not :-)
"Sorry seems to be the hardest word."
> because _I'm_ foot-stomping mad,
> and I have been every day since Nov. 7, and I will be every day until
> the first Tuesday in November in 2004. Or until Bush gets impeached,
> whichever happens first.
That's not very healthy attitude (wagging my cyberfinger in motherly
fashion)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20001219.shtml
(hee hee)
Jo2
Tehipite Tom
meh...@teleport.com (Michael Sandy) wrote:
> In other words, he doesn't meet the _legal_ definition of corruption,
> because he didn't break the law or _personally_ receive any
> compensation, but he is corrupt in terms of his judicial principles.
>
> From what I know of Scalia's principles, I would say "corrupt" is
> the right type of word to describe his decision.
>
Well put. That's how I meant it, but you were more precise.
> On another note, it looks like W's line, "I can work with Democrats."
> should be read as, "I can work over Democrats." He was boasting
> in an interview that he was going to push for his whole program,
> arm twisting all the way. And he was joking(?) about how he'd
> prefer to be a dictator, just because it would be easier for him.
That dictator crack was a real deja vu moment for me. Anyone remember
this: "I have just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia
forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Bush's line is another 'joke' that seems a little too close to truth to
be funny.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Rick Desper
> > Yeah, probably only about 27% of the electorate think he is corrupt.
> >
> > I wouldn't use the word "corrupt." But he was certainly willing to
sell
> > his principles to get Bush in the White House.
> >
> > Rick
>
> In other words, he doesn't meet the _legal_ definition of corruption,
> because he didn't break the law or _personally_ receive any
> compensation, but he is corrupt in terms of his judicial principles.
I think his decision smacks of bias. I think that he, Rehnquist, and
Thomas simply got really angry at the FSC and decided to blast away
at Gore for a variety of reasons, most of which do not have to do with
the law.
>
> From what I know of Scalia's principles, I would say "corrupt" is
> the right type of word to describe his decision.
>
I think "hypocritical" is better. If he gets appointed to Chief
Justice, then I'll agree that "corrupt" is a good word. I'm hoping
Bush doesn't try to pull that. Even though there is very little
difference between the Chief and the other Justices, such a step would
smack of a payoff.
> On another note, it looks like W's line, "I can work with Democrats."
> should be read as, "I can work over Democrats." He was boasting
> in an interview that he was going to push for his whole program,
> arm twisting all the way. And he was joking(?) about how he'd
> prefer to be a dictator, just because it would be easier for him.
>
Bush is in for some big surprises. Look at it this way: he's just
pulled off a coup. He is totally full with himself. He thinks he can
do no wrong. But he has yet to take office. A lot of people are
letting him have a day in the sun who will consistently work against him
for the duration of his term in office. He'll find the Democrats on
Capitol Hill much harder to walk on than those in Texas.
> Sounds like a real bipartisan politician to me, NOT!
Yes, I have yet to see anything which indicates he has any interest in
being "bipartisan", other than his assurances that he'll get to this at
some point. From what I can see, he's only been appointing Republicans
to every open job and has not backed away from his promise to start up
the deficit-building machine with a nice tax cut.
>
> Sound like a good time for at least a 24 month fillibuster to me.
>
> Michael Sandy
>
Well, we'll have to wait and see. Personally, I think that the first
order of business should be campaign finance reform. But that's just
because I want to see one of the following two things happen:
a) President Bush signs a bill which Trent Lott thinks will doom the
Republican party
b) John McCain gets really pissed off at W. and starts working his
vengeance.
I shouldn't be so bloodthirst, I know.
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Douglas T. Massey
Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <91qi50$gsg$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
> mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. Massey) wrote:
>> In article <91pedb$84f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>> And you could also say that the revenue problems that the US
> government
>> had in the early 80's were due to the recession that started during
> the
>> Carter adminstration.
>
> But I thought that this was all accounted for by comparing to the
> CPI? To say that the revenue problems of the 80s were due to the
> recession (which is somehow Carter's fault) ignores the massive tax
> cut Reagan made.
But look at the numbers for US revenue in the early 80's:
Federal Percent CPI Adj Party &
Year Revenue Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
1980 517 11.7 13.5 -1.6 D-Carter
1981 599 15.9 10.3 5.0 D-Carter (2.9% per year, 4 yr)
1982 618 3.2 6.2 -2.9 R-Reagan
1983 601 -2.8 3.2 -5.8 R-Reagan
What year was the massive tax cut? Revenue dropped off a lot in
Reagan's first two years, which I thought preceded his tax cuts.
If tax cuts aren't to blame, then I assume it's the economy, which
either isn't the President's fault or dates back to Carter's
administration.
>> And Clinton's increases in revenue (and thus the
>> balancing of the budget) are due almost entirely to an increase in
>> individual income taxes, due to the booming economy.
>
> Or, the booming economy is due to the fact that Clinton balanced the
> budget. BTW, you're not arguing with me here, I'm just repeating what
> Alan Greenspan has said.
Chicken or the egg. I think the booming economy led to the balanced
budget, since individual income taxes increased 34% (22% above inflation)
from 1996 to 1999, as the budget went from $107B deficit to a $123B
surplus. This $230B swing is about 80% explained ($182B) by the increase
in individual income taxes. Since the tax rates didn't really change
in that time, the individal income itself must have gone up. So I
think it's clear that the booming economy led to the balanced budget.
Another $71B of swing comes from the increase in SS taxes and contributions,
which are also directly related to individual income.
There are other bits and pieces -- $8B less in military spending than
the CPI would predict, $20B less for the Labor Dept., and other smaller
changes. The surplus would have been even larger if HHS spending hadn't
gone up by $20B more than the CPI would predict.
I don't know why Alan Greenspan would say otherwise -- it seems clear
to me, just by looking at the US Budget, that the enormous increase in
individual income taxes and social security taxes, caused by a booming
economy (rather than by rate increases), balanced the budget.
Kudos to Clinton and Congress, though, for not spending it immediately.
>> The Republican argument is that the increased spending of the 80's
>> pulled the U.S. out of the recession and led the country to prosperity
>> (the cost of this action was the large national debt, of course).
>> I don't know if I believe it or not, though.
>
> I know I don't believe this, but I could not argue the point
> effectively. The basic argument is this: the Reagan tax cut basically
> went to wealty people, who did not reinvest this money in the economy,
> but spent the money instead on luxury items. The fact that the economy
> pulled out of the recession is simply an artifact of longer-term
> economic trends.
That's certainly the Democratic spin on what happened. I'm not sure
I believe either side of the story, to be honest.
>> Of course, much of the 80's spending was on
>> the military and one of the greatest achievements of the Reagan/Bush
>> years was the fall of the USSR. If the Reagan/Bush years prevented
>> a 1999 nuclear war or something (who knows?), then I'd say the
> national
>> debt was a terrific investment.
>
> I hope that, in arguing for the Reagan era, you could come up with
> something more than an argument that they were responsible for
> preventing some hypothetical nuclear war. Quite frankly, I don't see
> the connection. Reagan and Bush could have carried out exactly the
> same foreign policy without the huge tax cut. (This is an example of
> two issues which are "orthogonal" to each other. :)
Maybe so, but without the tax cut, the money comes out of the pockets
of Americans, rather than being borrowed. It's debatable what effect
this might have had, I guess. Would you have preferred a flat rate tax
of $2000 per taxpayer per year during the 80's in order to balance the
budget? Or do we lower defense spending, which might mean that the
USSR is still active and threatening?
There are lots of variables of which I don't know the value. I'm just
trying to point out that it's not as simple as pointing to the
Republicans and saying "it's all their fault!"
Christopher Mann
mountain is 6 miles high and the deepest ocean trench 5 miles deep. If
the earth were shrunk to the size of a billiard ball, it would be
smoother than a billiard ball. Those poor Nepalese have a hightened
sense of there own curvature. :-)
Chris
Tehipite Tom
> Well, we'll have to wait and see. Personally, I think that the first
> order of business should be campaign finance reform. But that's just
> because I want to see one of the following two things happen:
> a) President Bush signs a bill which Trent Lott thinks will doom the
> Republican party
> b) John McCain gets really pissed off at W. and starts working his
> vengeance.
I agree. Better to have them attack each other than to appear to be
attacking them ourselves.
> I shouldn't be so bloodthirst, I know.
I disagree. We keep getting our butts kicked because we're not nearly
bloodthirsty enough. (In a sense, we're Classicists playing against
Deviates.)
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Douglas T. Massey
josephin...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20001219.shtml
Jeez, who cares what Linda Bowles thinks? The only people who might
attach any relevance to what she says are those who are already
Dittoheads listening to Rush Limbaugh and already so far to the right
that they can't even see the middle-ground between the parties.
Paul Windsor
"Tim Goodwin" <thgo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91o941$8gu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <91o4gr$421$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Tehipite Tom <tehi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Are you suggesting Scalia is incompetent? From what I have read and
> > > heard, his opinions are well reasoned and consistent. We may not
> > agree
> > > with his views, but that doesn't in itself make him incompetent.
> >
> > I wouldn't say incompetent either. 'Corrupt' is much more accurate in
> > this context.
>
> Corrupt is far more serious than incompetent. I suspect there are very
> few people that really believe Scalia is corrupt.
I wonder what it means to you (or anyone else) that a recent Reuters poll
found that 56% of people surveyed believed that the Supreme Court based it's
rulings solely on the law?
Personally, I find that horrifying. Just a shade over half of people
surveyed believed that the highest court in this country acted entirely
within the boundaries of law? The rest either believe it did not or were not
certain?
Presuming that, with respect to a judge, a safe definition of corruption is
"one who acts without regard to the requirements of law", it would appear
that 46% of Americans believe that Scalia (and the other four who voted the
same way) is/are either corrupt, or the possibility of corruption exists
with sufficient probability as to doubt the result.
That is a pretty huge number, when you think about it.
Paul Windsor
josephin...@my-deja.com
> Jeez, who cares what Linda Bowles thinks?
I don't. But, as my step-father used to say: "You want to cry? I'll
give you something to cry about."
These guys are like "insert-a-rant". I thought this foum would talk
about Diplomacy, but everyone seems content to bellyache about Gore and
Bush. Bowles and Limbaugh and a whole host of other gasbags are big
buttons I like to press with liberals but...
(looking nervously over shoulder)
shhh....don't let anybody know I'm doing it.
^_^
Rich Goranson
>pulled the U.S. out of the recession and led the country to prosperity
>(the cost of this action was the large national debt, of course).
>I don't know if I believe it or not, though.
So the Republicans say that they are the party of small government but that
large government spending causes prosperity? Anyone else see the inherent
contradiction in this?
>Clinton's other benefit is that he didn't have to spend as much on defense,
>thanks to the end of the Cold War.
Not entirely accurate. True, the military did suffer sever cuts under his
administration but accepted increased missions...mainly because of Bush Sr.'s
screwup in the Gulf. The US has had to keep a significant presence there when
it shouldn't have been necessary. What we're doing with Iraq is a lot hotter
than most of the Cold War was...resulting in wonderful things like huge holes
in billion dollar guided missile destroyers caused by wackos in a ChrisCraft.
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
Rick Desper
cc...@cccc.edu wrote:
> The earth is about 6,000 miles (10,000 km) in diameter. The highest
> mountain is 6 miles high and the deepest ocean trench 5 miles deep.
If
> the earth were shrunk to the size of a billiard ball, it would be
> smoother than a billiard ball. Those poor Nepalese have a hightened
> sense of there own curvature. :-)
>
> Chris
>
*rim shot*
Rick
> Ian York wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Mann (cm...@cccc.com) wrote:
> > :
> > : Argh. They are not _both_ curved. In the terms of geometry on
curved
> > : manifolds, the earth is locally flat. It is not a correct
statement to
> > : say the earth is flat but it is correct to say that, in all
places, it
> > : is locally flat.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Tell that to the Nepalese.
> >
> > --
> > IY.
>
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Daniel Testa
I think the poll question is meaningless. Because of Marbury vs.
Madison, any decision the Supreme Court makes is the law of the land.
It is logically impossible for the SC to make a corrupt decision unless
you think Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
--
Daniel Testa
danc...@yahoo.com
Rick Desper
Jody McCullough <jod...@home.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, Doug, but to justify your "obviously", you have to go
back
> > to a President who was in the last year of serving when I was born.
> > Carter doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. Clinton
>
> Actually, I think Doug is giving Carter more of a break than he
should.
> He's adjusting for CPI, and since inflation ran into the double digits
> while Carter was president, his spending numbers look lower. But
really,
> should we give Carter a pass because there was really high inflation
> while he was in office!? Isn't high inflation a bad thing?
You're talking apples and oranges. It's not like the Federal government
can decide to simply stop buying things, just because there is
inflation. Or that it can freeze the employee's salaries, in face of
double-digit inflation.
>
> > doesn't support your conclusion, so you ignore him. If I were
looking
> > at a scientific paper which had only four data points, and decided
to
> > ignore two of them because they didn't support the conclusions, I
would
> > crumple it up and throw it in the trash.
>
> If I were looking at a scientific paper that had 200 data points, but
> they decided to ignore all but the last 40 because they didn't support
> their conclusions, I'd throw that one away too.
>
> -Jody-
>
Well, that's a completely irrelevant point. You have just multiplied
your sample size by a factor of fifty, for one thing. You also poorly
formulate your analogy by referring to the "last 40", apparently
in reference to my decision to consider the data without Kennedy and
LBJ. These two would not be "the last 40" in any sense.
In my discussion, I was describing what was wrong with Doug's
analysis, which attempted to characterize "Democrats" by actions taken
by Democrats who were all pre-Nixon. If you want to discuss
Democrats of Today, then it is entirely justifiable to limit yourself
to post-Nixon Democrats. You could even limit yourself to post-Reagan
Democrats, as long as you are clear that this is what you are doing.
Since I was rather clear that I was only looking at post-Nixon
Democrats, I am not guilty of the kind of sham which you insinuate
above.
Rick
Rich Goranson
>Madison, any decision the Supreme Court makes is the law of the land.
>It is logically impossible for the SC to make a corrupt decision unless
>you think Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
I think you are misapplying the word. Because of Marbury vs. Madison the
dicision they make IS the law of the land but that does not mean that it is not
corrupt. If a legislator is bribed to sponsor a piece of legislation and the
legislation ends up becoming law it does not mean that the law is invalid
because the legislator was paid off. If a judge uses personal or political bias
instead of the rule of law to make a decision, it does not mean that the
decision doesn't have to be followed. It DOES have to be followed until a
higher court overturns it. If it is the Supreme Court that makes such a
decision then we're stuck because there is no higher court to go to.
Just because their decisions have the force of law does not mean that those
decisions were reached in a legal or honest manner.
Jim Burgess
Ruthlessly cutting to the chase.....
>This sounds very idealistic. That's not what the hardcore Republicans
>are about any more. The Republicans of this decade are only interested
>in power and self-interest. It's been that way at least since 1994.
>They offer no social philosophy other than an aggressive, distorted
>version of Christianity. I wish I didn't feel this way, but I think
>the Florida recount showed the true face of the Republican party.
>If they could do away with this annoying election thing altogether, they
>would.
>Does anybody dare disagree with me, based on how the Bushes, the
>rent-a-mob, Katherine Harris, the Florida legislature, and the Supreme
>Court have all behaved in the past six weeks?
>Rick
Yeah, I disagree with you. Admittedly there are some Republicans
who are there, but Tom DeLay is not the Republican party, only one
facet of it. They do too have a social philosophy and I thought
I did a pretty decent little job of outlining it ;-)
I guess you disagree. We'll see who else jumps on board.
Jim-Bob
Jim Burgess
on the indefensibility of the USSC decisions. Another aspect of
Republicanism, that perhaps explains part of why Rick and I seem to
disagree is that "the end justifies the means" and "it" (whatever
that is) isn't cheating unless you catch me. The media (which have
a duty under our system to be part of the catching mechanism) has
shown some fundamental flaws lately that it always had.
Diplomacy players should understand better than almost ANYONE how
moral and social suasion enters these implicit social contracts on
how to behave.....
Jim-Bob
Jim Burgess
>It's not a matter of publishing the proper analysis. That's been done. It's
>a matter of getting the media to focus on the proper analysis. Offhand, I
>know of no way to get that job done. Just another data point out of the
>millions where the "liberally biased media" hypothesis fails to explain or
>predict the extrinsic evidence.
>Paul Windsor
Also part of the point I would make. The lack of ability to do even
basic fundamental research is Flaw #1. Or if they can do the research
they don't want to share it with the rest of us unless it reduces
to a one sentence sound bite.
Jim-Bob
Trevor Hill
So if the Supreme Court overturns a State Court's ruling because the
defendant in a criminal case (or the loser in a civil case) pays every judge
a million dollars, that's NOT a corrupt decision?
I hardly think so.
--Trevor
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Daniel Testa wrote:
--| I think the poll question is meaningless. Because of Marbury vs.
--| Madison, any decision the Supreme Court makes is the law of the land.
--| It is logically impossible for the SC to make a corrupt decision unless
--| you think Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
--|
--|
--| --
--| Daniel Testa
--| danc...@yahoo.com
--|
--|
--| Sent via Deja.com
--| http://www.deja.com/
--|
--|
____________________________________
Trevor Hill
CS 234/240 Instructional Support Staff
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
(519) 888-4567 x5999
Paul Windsor
"Daniel Testa" <danc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91r6nu$m3f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
The Supreme Court is incapable of corruption simply because it has the final
say? So much for the rule of law.
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only
because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953)(Jackson, J.
dissenting)
The interesting thing about the Jackson quote, is that Rhenquist clerked for
Jackson. But Marshall was commenting on a Rhenquist when he wrote:
"Power, not reason, is the new currency of this Court's decisionmaking."
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808, 844 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Actually, the origins of the Jackson quote, and Rhenquist's clerkship under
Jackson are quite relevant to the present controversey. Jackson was
dissenting from the Court's overturning of Jim Crow laws (in this case, the
systematic exclusion of blacks from juries), contrary to the findings of
state courts. He complained bitterly in his dissent about the Court's lack
of respect for the findings of the State courts in it's decision.
In the Rhenquist-authored concurring opinion to the per curiam opinion, he
cites to the very same cases overturning Jim Crow laws that his old boss,
Jackson, bitterly dissented from, on the basis of lack of respect for State
sovereignty. Only this time, he cited to them for the proposition that, if
the Supreme Court feels that a State's high court has behaved extra-legally,
the Supreme Court will overturn it. By doing so, Rhenquist uses the same
tools of judicial activism that his old boss hated so much to stick it to
the Democrats this time around. In essence, he is saying that the Supreme
Court of Florida's interpretation of election laws are entitled to no more
deference than those southern courts of the 50's that were trying to prop up
Jim Crow.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent does not overlook this slur, and protests the
Rhenquist opinion's "bracketing of [the Florida Supreme Court] with the
courts of the Jim Crow South."
Finally, with respect to Rhenquist's clerkship under a Justice who regarded
the Supreme Court using it's powers to overturn Jim Crow laws as unjust, one
should note that the pairing of Justices and their clerks does not occur by
accident. It generally involves a high degree of like-mindedness. I'll bet
very few members of this group know how Rhenquist got his start in public
service. Back in Arizona, in 1964, Rhenquist was employed as a poll-watcher.
This was before the days of legal bans on things like literacy tests.
Rhenquist sat at a table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming
with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were
from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage
of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were
ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote.
By mid-day, the line to vote was four abreast and a block long. People were
giving up and going home. A Deocratic poll-watcher told Rhenquist to leave.
They got into an argument. Shoving followed. Eventually, he was removed.
This was the second straight election in which Republicans had sent out
people to intimidate black voters. The project even had a name: Operation
Eagle Eye. Operation Eagle Eye had a two-year run. Eventually, Arizona
changed the laws that had allowed these kind of challenges.
All of this was brought up and addressed to Rhenquist at his confirmation
hearing when he was elevated to Chief Justice. His response? "I have no
recollection of any of these events." But his gleeful citation to those old
decisions that his old boss, Justice Jackson, hated so much, tossing out
those Jim Crow laws that he so energetically supported and enforced as a
footsoldier in Operation Eagle Eye, show me that CJ Rhenquist remembers, and
that he is very happy to get his payback after all of these years.
But he couldn't bear to do it without rubbing everyone's noses in it. That's
why he had to write the otherwise meaningless concurring opinion, which
cites to those old Jim Crow cases. He had to make the meaning of his
vengence perfectly clear.
This is the real story; the one that the pop culture driven infotainment
media is blissfully unaware of. But historians will not overlook these two
bookends to Rhenquist's career. They will not blow it off with a facile
observation that the Supreme Court, by definition, cannot err. The motives
of these Justices are neither beyond examination, nor beyond reproach.
Paul Windsor
Jim Burgess
>>Well, I'm sorry,
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20001219.shtml
>(hee hee)
>Jo2
I find Ms. Bowles mildly amusing (but quickly tiring). Still,
one paragraph of hers illustrates nicely my point (which Rick
continues to resist) about what Republicans believe their
"center" is.
After some Chicken Little type stuff, she says: "These crybaby
mewlings must be seen for what they are, namely cries for help.
[[Republicans find ways to help themselves....]] This needful
human misery demands attention. [[Republicans aren't really
heartless....]] Although these people are liberals and Democrats,
they are Americans. [[If Republicans didn't have someone to
beat they'd have to beat each other up....]] They need to
be reassured. [[Republicans know how to gloat.....]]
They need to understand that the country is now in the hands
of adults. [[Key point which needs no illumination......]]
Jim-Bob
josephin...@my-deja.com
>
> This is what the Republicans always say when they break and pervert
> the law. That's what Nixon said during Watergate, it's what Reagan
> said during Iran-Contra, and it's what the Bushies are saying now.
> But we have no evidence of any Democrat Secretary of State actively
> using the powers of her office to stop legal recounts.
Don't be goofy. Just a benefit of having been popularly
elected. Harris did nothing improper, she simply followed the laws set
down by the legislature. She could have waited until 9:00 AM on Mon,
but why? Would a Dem have in the same position? Of course not AND YOU
KNOW IT!
> We have
> no evidence of a Democrat "rent-a-mob" flying to a state where a
> legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it down".
Exaggeration to point of an out-an-out lie, repeated often enough to
create an air of legitimacy. The canvassing board was trying to
illegally perform recounts of disputed ballots without verifiers (of
either party) or the press as witnesses. The outrage was most justified.
The board stated they were kind of hoping no one would care they were
counting w/o witnesses, but they understood when everyone did scream
and holler. They also said they were not intimidated, and of course, if
they were at all, they would have screamed. Also how do you interpret
the vast numbers of decisions by Democrats in position to help Gore who
instead aided Bush? Were they part of the "theft conspiracy?"
> We have no evidence of a Democrat majority in the US Supreme Court
> throwing away all pretense of legal precedent and voting to appoint
> its candidate.
The unmitigated gall of a liberal chastising a court for judicial
activism is breath-taking. (For example, this is, after all, the same
court that found a heretofore unnoticed "right-to-privacy" permitting
abortion in the constitution in 1974.)
> What did Gore do during this process? He sued, in the courts, to
> get recounts going.
In the contest phase, silly, only after the certification of the
election.
> Under long-established Florida law, this is
> entirely legal. It was entirely legal for him to ask only for
> Democratic counties. Instead of stomping his feet and whining about
> "standards", Bush could have merely asked the Secretary of State to
> provide guidelines. HE DIDN'T.
Why would the victor of a count and a recount do anything to aid the
quixotic flounderings of the loser? Why? WHY?
> Instead of whining about how certain
> counties were not getting counted, Bush could have asked for them
> to be counted, under Florida law.
Again, why would the winner demand a recount that could jeopardize his
victory? You dig into the trenches and fight until its over. Bush did
nothing illegal. Gore's lawyers misrepresented the situation (and
Illinois case law) so appallingly, that David Boies is facing censure
by the Florida Bar Association. Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli
because both camps sure did.
> Why didn't he? Because his only hope
> was to make an attack at the law and the judiciary. He had to attack
> the law, because if the law was followed, his razor-thin lead would
> easily have disappeared once the ballots from the poor districts were
> properly counted.
The law was 100% on the side of Bush; that is why he won and Gore
lost. You're just pickle-pussed that an activist court in
FL "interpreting" the law to give their guy third and fourth chances
was trumped by a strict constructionist court, 7-2 mind you, who would
not fall for such pathetic, desperate measures.
> But he wasn't satisfied
> with that. He had to bring in a bunch of goons from the offices of
> Trent Lott and Tom DeLay to fly to Florida on paid vacations (the
> taxpayers footed the bill), so they could pretend to be "Republican
> protesters".
What were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, sympathetic interveners?
"Right-wing clowns to the right of me, racist nazi jokers to the left
and I'm outnumbered in the middle with you." :P
Tehipite Tom
josephin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > This is what the Republicans always say when they break and pervert
> > the law. That's what Nixon said during Watergate, it's what Reagan
> > said during Iran-Contra, and it's what the Bushies are saying now.
> > But we have no evidence of any Democrat Secretary of State actively
> > using the powers of her office to stop legal recounts.
>
> Don't be goofy. Just a benefit of having been popularly
> elected. Harris did nothing improper, she simply followed the laws set
> down by the legislature.
Nope. At every point where she had any discretion, she used it in a
way that helped Bush: in interpreting the law to say she had to reject
any ballots after 11/14; in rejecting handcount results, after Judge
Lewis decided it was within her discretion to accept late results; and
in a) opening the SoS office on a Sunday, and b) refusing to grant a 90
minute extension to Palm Beach County.
Keep in mind, too, that as a state legislator she used her position to
assist her largest contributors, and introduced at least one bill that
had been written by lobbyists for a contributor. So even if one were
inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt for this election, her
prior history supports the inference that she would use her public
office to assist her allies.
>She could have waited until 9:00 AM on Mon,
> but why? Would a Dem have in the same position? Of course not AND YOU
> KNOW IT!
Well...see below.
>Also how do you interpret
> the vast numbers of decisions by Democrats in position to help Gore
who
> instead aided Bush? Were they part of the "theft conspiracy?"
In a sense, these were the Dems 'in the same position'...and unlike
Harris, they didn't use their positions to help their party. You're
really just making, in a backhanded way, a really damning point about
the Republicans: there were *no* Republican equivalents of Judges
Lewis or Clark, *not one* Republican in a position to further Bush's
cause who did not do so.
(And, on the off chance that your question is intended seriously,
here's what I think: Judges Lewis and Clark were as fair and impartial
as possible; Judge Sauls didn't seem to understand the case, but I
don't think he was necessarily biased.)
>
> > We have no evidence of a Democrat majority in the US Supreme Court
> > throwing away all pretense of legal precedent and voting to appoint
> > its candidate.
>
> The unmitigated gall of a liberal chastising a court for judicial
> activism is breath-taking. (For example, this is, after all, the same
> court that found a heretofore unnoticed "right-to-privacy" permitting
> abortion in the constitution in 1974.)
You need to re-read Paul Windsor's analysis of the USSC decision, and
then come back and try to defend it with a straight face.
>
> > What did Gore do during this process? He sued, in the courts, to
> > get recounts going.
>
> In the contest phase, silly, only after the certification of the
> election.
>
> > Under long-established Florida law, this is
> > entirely legal. It was entirely legal for him to ask only for
> > Democratic counties. Instead of stomping his feet and whining about
> > "standards", Bush could have merely asked the Secretary of State to
> > provide guidelines. HE DIDN'T.
>
> Why would the victor of a count and a recount do anything to aid the
> quixotic flounderings of the loser? Why? WHY?
One word: legitimacy. Had the two been able to agree on a procedure,
then the winner would not have had to face questions about his right to
the office. The most reasonable procedure would have been a statewide
hand recount. Gore offered to accept this; Bush turned him down. Bush
traded the possibility of a stronger presidency (with the attendant
possibility of losing) for the certainty of a diminished presidency. I
don't understand why anyone who wanted to accomplish anything as
president wouldn't take the gamble of a statewide hand recount.
But that's just from the perspective of Bush's self-interest. There is
also the perspective of what's best for the country. Bush could have
gone for a statewide hand recount on the principle that it would yield
the most decisive, least divisive result whoever won. The fact that
this consideration never enters your mind, that you cannot even imagine
anyone acting out of anything other than naked self-interest, says a
great deal about the nature of Republicans.
> > Why didn't he? Because his only hope
> > was to make an attack at the law and the judiciary. He had to
attack
> > the law, because if the law was followed, his razor-thin lead would
> > easily have disappeared once the ballots from the poor districts
were
> > properly counted.
>
> The law was 100% on the side of Bush; that is why he won and Gore
> lost.
If, by 'the law', you mean the Supreme Court, then they were just 55%
on the side of Bush. 55% was, of course, enough to appoint Bush to the
presidency.
>You're just pickle-pussed that an activist court in
> FL "interpreting" the law to give their guy third and fourth chances
> was trumped by a strict constructionist court, 7-2 mind you, who would
> not fall for such pathetic, desperate measures.
Gee, there's that fictitious 7-2 figure again. Paul Windsor has
debunked that myth, as he has debunked the notion that the USSC
decision was anything but partisan judicial activism. I shouldn't have
to do your homework for you; read Paul's posts, then come back and try
to argue your point.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Rick Desper
> > the law. That's what Nixon said during Watergate, it's what Reagan
> > said during Iran-Contra, and it's what the Bushies are saying now.
> > But we have no evidence of any Democrat Secretary of State actively
> > using the powers of her office to stop legal recounts.
>
> Don't be goofy. Just a benefit of having been popularly
> elected. Harris did nothing improper, she simply followed the laws set
> down by the legislature.
She did more than that. She intentionally misread the statute and told
the counters to stop counting the votes.
> She could have waited until 9:00 AM on Mon,
> but why?
Well, gee, she is the Secretary of State. Her JOB is to make sure that
the election is run fairly. It is NOT to make sure that W. wins.
Under any other circumstances, the Secretary of State would take all
efforts to ensure that a fair and accurate recount of the votes would
occur. This concept of Secretary of State as adjoint to one of the
campaigns is entirely new. And distasteful.
> Would a Dem have in the same position? Of course not AND YOU
> KNOW IT!
>
Prove it. I think there were many Democrats who were in similar
positions in which they could have abused their positions of authority.
Nikki Clark could have ruled that the actions of the Republicans in
Seminole County merited a remedy whereby a few hundred votes were added
to Gore's total, based on the number of registered Democrats who didn't
get the special treatment afforded to the Republicans. The FSC could
have similarly simply ruled in her favor. Neither body did that.
Why?
Because, unlike the Republicans involved in this mess, the Democrats put
their personal honor and integrity above the interests of their national
candidate.
It would have been extremely easy for the Democrats in Palm Beach County
to simply conjure up a vote total of 500 votes for Gore, and to get on
the phone and have the same number come in from Broward and Miami-Dade
counties. They didn't do it. Why? Again, integrity.
So, please get off the "You would behave just as badly as we did"
bandwagon.
> > We have
> > no evidence of a Democrat "rent-a-mob" flying to a state where a
> > legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it
down".
>
> Exaggeration to point of an out-an-out lie, repeated often enough to
> create an air of legitimacy.
Look, it's not a lie. Those people were from Capitol Hill, from the
offices of Tom DeLay and Trent Lott, among others. I saw the photo
on CNN. They pointed to ten different "protesters", and showed exactly
which office on Capitol Hill each one worked for. MSNBC seems to have
deleted this link, unfortunately.
> The canvassing board was trying to
> illegally perform recounts of disputed ballots without verifiers (of
> either party) or the press as witnesses.
> The outrage was most justified.
> The board stated they were kind of hoping no one would care they were
> counting w/o witnesses, but they understood when everyone did scream
> and holler.
I suppose you have a source for this story about how they were hoping
that nobody would care that they were counting without witnesses?
> They also said they were not intimidated, and of course, if
> they were at all, they would have screamed.
Sure they weren't intimmidated. One of the three canvassing board
members stated publicly that, had the mob not been there, the count
would have continued.
> Also how do you interpret
> the vast numbers of decisions by Democrats in position to help Gore
who
> instead aided Bush? Were they part of the "theft conspiracy?"
No, they were people who behaved with honor and integrity. Unlike
many Republicans.
Conspiracies, by nature, are best kept small. In this case, I would say
the following people all knew exactly what they were doing, and worked
together from Nov. 7 to make sure Bush won:
Pops Bush
W.
Jeb
Katherine Harris
Rep. leaders in Fla. legislature
Cheney
Scalia, possibly Rehnquist
Jim Baker?
We know that Scalia's son worked in a law firm which was representing
Bush. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine a phone call which
details to W. just what he needs to say to win. It's easy to rally
Rehnquist and Thomas to a position which shreds the FSC. I would wager
that in 9 years, Thomas has never voted on a case against both Scalia
and Rehnquist. Then all it comes down to is getting Kennedy and
O'Connor. Scalia is a persuasive man, and can run circles around those
two, and, considering O'Connor said "This is terrible" when she thought
Gore was winning, I don't think it took much to get them to sign on.
The proof is in the pudding.
If I, as a mathematician, published a paper tomorrow which
authoritatively stated that "2 + 2 = 5", and, as a result of this paper,
George W. Bush became the President, there would be an outrage.
The only difference I can see is that it's much harder for the general
public to tell that the USSC is lying.
>
> > We have no evidence of a Democrat majority in the US Supreme Court
> > throwing away all pretense of legal precedent and voting to appoint
> > its candidate.
>
> The unmitigated gall of a liberal chastising a court for judicial
> activism is breath-taking.
Well, now, you can argue with Paul about the quality of this decision
if you like. It has nothing to do with "activism" versus "restraint".
It has to do with throwing away precedent, intervening in a state
election on flimsy, trumped-up grounds, and appointing a candidate under
circumstances where the court members were clearly acting solely as
partisans and not defenders of the law.
> (For example, this is, after all, the same
> court that found a heretofore unnoticed "right-to-privacy" permitting
> abortion in the constitution in 1974.)
>
Roe v. Wade is completely irrelevant. For one thing, that opinion was
written by a Republican appointee, Harry Blackmun. For a second thing,
I have already said on this newsgroup that I don't like the Roe v. Wade
decision. But _that_ is a much more complicated issue than what
happened here.
> > What did Gore do during this process? He sued, in the courts, to
> > get recounts going.
>
> In the contest phase, silly, only after the certification of the
> election.
>
Um, yeah? What's your point, silly? I was asking what Gore had
done which you found objectionable.
> > Under long-established Florida law, this is
> > entirely legal. It was entirely legal for him to ask only for
> > Democratic counties. Instead of stomping his feet and whining about
> > "standards", Bush could have merely asked the Secretary of State to
> > provide guidelines. HE DIDN'T.
>
> Why would the victor of a count and a recount do anything to aid the
> quixotic flounderings of the loser? Why? WHY?
Well, gee, hmmm....
"Moral authority"
"Rule of law"
oh, what other catch phrases has Bush based his campaign on?
If Bush wanted any legitimacy to his Presidency, it was incumbent upon
him not to take every effort to prevent legal recounts. The fact that
he did so marks him as a loser who doesn't want to face the facts.
The fact that he got away with it is only a tribute to the large number
of other Republicans who got involved, and put party above principle.
>
> > Instead of whining about how certain
> > counties were not getting counted, Bush could have asked for them
> > to be counted, under Florida law.
>
> Again, why would the winner demand a recount that could jeopardize his
> victory?
Well, Bushies were whining about how Gore wasn't counting Republican
counties. If Bush really thought there were more votes for him out
there, he could have gone out after them. He knew there weren't.
Look at the results from Lake County. Even in Republican counties, once
you look at the undercount or overcount, you are looking at poor voters,
who are more likely to be Democrats.
> You dig into the trenches and fight until its over. Bush did
> nothing illegal. Gore's lawyers misrepresented the situation (and
> Illinois case law) so appallingly, that David Boies is facing censure
> by the Florida Bar Association.
David Boies is facing censure from the Florida Bar Association? Geez,
those guys have no scruples, do they? Are these the same people who
accuse the FSC of "lawlessness" and "judicial aggression"? Sounds like
a bunch of partisan hacks. I would be interested to read details
about this, if you have a source.
> Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli
> because both camps sure did.
I read "The Prince" 14 years ago. I've also read a bit of the
Federalist papers. I had been thinking that the United States is based
more on the latter than the former.
>
> > Why didn't he? Because his only hope
> > was to make an attack at the law and the judiciary. He had to
attack
> > the law, because if the law was followed, his razor-thin lead would
> > easily have disappeared once the ballots from the poor districts
were
> > properly counted.
>
> The law was 100% on the side of Bush; that is why he won and Gore
> lost.
100% on the side of Bush? No, that's not true. The reason Bush won was
because he had five Justicies of the USSC who were willing to throw away
precedent to make sure that Gore didn't win. Also, see Paul's post
about Equal Protection.
Florida law certainly wasn't on Bush's side. Florida law supports
the usage of hand recounts, under the standard "intent of the voter".
> You're just pickle-pussed that an activist court in
> FL "interpreting" the law to give their guy third and fourth chances
> was trumped by a strict constructionist court, 7-2 mind you, who would
> not fall for such pathetic, desperate measures.
Repeat after me...it was a 5-4 decision, it was a 5-4 decision.
If you read through the decision carefully (which I have done), there is
no way you can mistake this point. All four dissenters vehemently and
forcefully protest the action of the majority. The majority tried to
claim that two of the dissenters were actually with them, aside from
the question of a remedy. But this is not an argument you find in the
dissent.
The continued "7-2" nonsense is part of the continued Big Lie campaign
perpetrated by Bush, no doubt learned from masters such as Machiavelli
and Goebels. Tell something outrageously false, and use the
outrageousness to intimidate those who would stand against you.
If you want to say that the FSC mis-interpreted Florida law, fine.
Having read through that opinion myself, I would disagree. Clearly, at
least 4 justices of the USSC would disagree. The fact remains that the
USSC, up to now, has NEVER stomped on a state court in a manner of this
importance, in the question of determining a state election, a manner
which is clearly within the state laws. This attitude is especially
hypocritical for Scalia et al, who have spent the past 10 years
trumpeting states' rights.
>
> > But he wasn't satisfied
> > with that. He had to bring in a bunch of goons from the offices of
> > Trent Lott and Tom DeLay to fly to Florida on paid vacations (the
> > taxpayers footed the bill), so they could pretend to be "Republican
> > protesters".
>
> What were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, sympathetic interveners?
Did they stop any recounts? I didn't see any of that. I didn't
even see Al Sharpton anywhere. As for Jesse Jackson, his issue has
been the infringement of voter rights in black districts. If he has a
case, I'm interested to hear it. If you have a case _against_ anything
he has done, I'm interested to hear it. One thing I do know is that
Jesse Jackson paid for his own flight to Florida. And he never
pretended to be a local protester.
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Tehipite Tom
Daniel Testa <danc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is logically impossible for the SC to make a corrupt decision
unless
> you think Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
The others have more than adequately rebutted your main point. I will
just point out here that all the evidence--e.g., the proposal,
sponsored by Delay (I think), to give Congress the power to overrule
the Supreme Court--indicates that it is the Republicans who think
Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Rick Desper
I saw what you called the Republican philosophy. That doesn't
seem uniquely Republican to me. The Republicans may want to take
credit for these attitudes, but I don't buy it. It's like Republicans
trying to say that truth, fairness, justice, etc. are "Republican
issues". I mean, basically you said a lot of things which I believe in,
like that individuals have to be "responsible" for themselves.
So, no, I don't see that as a "Republican" philosophy. I think
Republicans might like to think that this is true.
Rick
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Rich Goranson
>who are there, but Tom DeLay is not the Republican party, only one
>facet of it. They do too have a social philosophy and I thought
>I did a pretty decent little job of outlining it ;-)
Boob, if the Republicans want to be taken seriously they're going to NEED to
get some of your sort of people in power. The powers that be in the GOP, like
DeLay, Lott and Gingrich before he went off into the sunset chasing his own
staffer, have drifted so far to the right they make Attila the Hun look
liberal. Helms is looking more and more moderate every day. This is the face
that the GOP is presenting to the public and it is not pretty.
Robert Watkins
> des...@my-deja.com says...
> > Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > > tehi...@my-deja.com says...
> > > > Some people believe the friggin' earth is flat.
> > >
> > > If it wasn't, then how could my Diplomacy board lay flat on my
> > > table?
> >
> > They're both round, but with the same curvature. You just cannot
> > detect it, because you are so used to living in a round world.
> >
> > Rick
>
> Sorry Rick. That's a testable hypothesis and it fails the
> test. If they're both curved, then if I turn the board over
> the board shouldn't appear to lie flat. Trying that, the board
> does indeed lie flat. Proof positive that the world is flat.
Bah! You're both wrong. Everyone knows that the world is banana-shaped.
Robert (every thread needs a Monty Python reference)
Jody McCullough
> > > legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it
> down".
> >
> > Exaggeration to point of an out-an-out lie, repeated often enough to
> > create an air of legitimacy.
>
> Look, it's not a lie. Those people were from Capitol Hill, from the
> offices of Tom DeLay and Trent Lott, among others. I saw the photo
> on CNN. They pointed to ten different "protesters", and showed exactly
> which office on Capitol Hill each one worked for. MSNBC seems to have
> deleted this link, unfortunately.
It's exaggeration to the point of being a lie. Yes, I believe that's
correct. When you say "rent-a-mob" and "mob tactics" that's pretty
inflammatory. I think the real beef is "Holy Cow, Republicans were
*protesting* of all things!" I mean imagine, Republicans... protesting!
They're not supposed to do that!! Protesting is for Democrats, not
Republicans.
Sure, you can take CNN and point to some pictures. Guess what? Take any
protest and you're going to have leaders from the party or whatever who
help to organize it and/or be actively involved in it. That's how
protests work. That's how it works for Democrats or Greens or (God
forbid!) even Republicans. Big deal.
You *are* making way too much of this point Rick. Republicans are
allowed to protest, just as Democrats are. There was no "mob" and it
didn't "intimidate" anyone. The people who were doing the counting said
specifically "we were not intimidated". How much more do you want!?
Let it go.
-Jody-
Field Marshall Stack
>In article <91ra4a$p97$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
[snip]
>> Why would the victor of a count and a recount do anything to aid the
>> quixotic flounderings of the loser? Why? WHY?
>
>One word: legitimacy. Had the two been able to agree on a procedure,
>then the winner would not have had to face questions about his right to
>the office. The most reasonable procedure would have been a statewide
>hand recount. Gore offered to accept this; Bush turned him down. Bush
>traded the possibility of a stronger presidency (with the attendant
>possibility of losing) for the certainty of a diminished presidency. I
>don't understand why anyone who wanted to accomplish anything as
>president wouldn't take the gamble of a statewide hand recount.
>
>But that's just from the perspective of Bush's self-interest. There is
>also the perspective of what's best for the country. Bush could have
>gone for a statewide hand recount on the principle that it would yield
>the most decisive, least divisive result whoever won. The fact that
>this consideration never enters your mind, that you cannot even imagine
>anyone acting out of anything other than naked self-interest, says a
>great deal about the nature of Republicans.
>
[snip]
One of the things that annoys me about this newsgroup is, whenever I
want to post a reply, I find downthread that someone else has already
made all the points I intended to make, and what's more, they've made
them at least ten times more eloquently than I ever could. It's damned
obnoxious!
Anyway (no, honest, this is more than just an elaborate "me-too!"), the
fact that Josephine doesn't seem to be able to imagine acting out of
anything other than naked self-interest doesn't so much say a good deal
about the nature of Republicans. Rather, I'd say that it says a great
deal about the nature of Josephine.
*insert sound of me throwing kerosene on the fire here* :)
--
Field Marshall Stack
Jody McCullough
> should.
> > He's adjusting for CPI, and since inflation ran into the double digits
> > while Carter was president, his spending numbers look lower. But
> really,
> > should we give Carter a pass because there was really high inflation
> > while he was in office!? Isn't high inflation a bad thing?
>
> You're talking apples and oranges. It's not like the Federal government
> can decide to simply stop buying things, just because there is
> inflation. Or that it can freeze the employee's salaries, in face of
> double-digit inflation.
It's not apples and oranges. Apples and pears maybe ;-) Let me
explain. The real question is what would the spending have been if
inflation hadn't been so high? I have a feeling it would have been
*proportionally* higher, so that if inflation had not been as high,
CPI-adjusted spending would have been higher. This analysis has probably
been done, though it'd be difficult.
But math aside, you have to admit there's something perverse about
saying that spending rose a whole bunch during the Carter years, but
it's okay because inflation was running wild then too.
> > If I were looking at a scientific paper that had 200 data points, but
> > they decided to ignore all but the last 40 because they didn't support
> > their conclusions, I'd throw that one away too.
>
> Well, that's a completely irrelevant point. You have just multiplied
> your sample size by a factor of fifty, for one thing. You also poorly
> formulate your analogy by referring to the "last 40", apparently
> in reference to my decision to consider the data without Kennedy and
> LBJ. These two would not be "the last 40" in any sense.
Okay, well I was talking about years, but I typoed and said 40 instead
of 30. Do you understand the analogy now?
> In my discussion, I was describing what was wrong with Doug's
> analysis, which attempted to characterize "Democrats" by actions taken
> by Democrats who were all pre-Nixon. If you want to discuss
> Democrats of Today, then it is entirely justifiable to limit yourself
> to post-Nixon Democrats. You could even limit yourself to post-Reagan
> Democrats, as long as you are clear that this is what you are doing.
> Since I was rather clear that I was only looking at post-Nixon
> Democrats, I am not guilty of the kind of sham which you insinuate
> above.
No, he wasn't talking about ALL pre-Nixon, but he did include pre-Nixon.
Personally, I think when you're talking about something like Presidents
or Democrats or Republicans, 40 years is a perfectly reasonable
time-frame. Things don't really change THAT fast.
Now, if you want to insist that you're not guilty of "sham" then you
should also admit that Doug was not guilty of that offense either. Doug
made it *very* clear which data points he was talking about. Just as you
did.
My opinion, anyway.
-Jody-
Greycat Sharpclaw
>The earth is about 6,000 miles (10,000 km) in diameter.
Sorry, the Earth is about 8000 miles (12,900 km).
You may be thinking the distance from the equator to the pole along
the surface, which is 10,000 km. In fact, this was the origional
definition of the meter (1/10,000,000 the distance).
--
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
Tehipite Tom
Jody McCullough <jod...@home.com> wrote:
> You *are* making way too much of this point Rick. Republicans are
> allowed to protest, just as Democrats are.
*No one* is allowed to punch and kick people, as they did (to a
cameraman and a Democratic party functionary). No one is allowed to
*try* to intimidate public officials into abandoning their duties--
regardless of whether they succeeded, which is in dispute--as they did
(or do you have a different interpretation of 'shut it down'?).
And by the way, the only actions of that sort at any Democratic protest
occurred when bused-in Republicans hounded Jesse Jackson off stage in
Palm Beach County.
--
"...diplomacy assumes that a dependable social order can be
achieved only by mendacity, cowardice, cannibalism, in short,
the predictable baseness of human nature."
--Robert Musil, 'The Man Without Qualities'
Christopher Mann
Jody McCullough wrote:
> But math aside, you have to admit there's something perverse about
> saying that spending rose a whole bunch during the Carter years, but
> it's okay because inflation was running wild then too.
Only perverse in that, had he not raised spending by so much, he would
have effectively reduced government spending in real terms.
I want to thank Doug for starting this discussion about spending. It
brings to light the fact that republicans were not as thrifty as they
often say and democrats are not loose with money as republicans often
say they are.
It also illustrates how difficult these discussions can be with all of
the different, subtle aspects that need to be considered. One is
contemporaneous inflation, others are the short and long term effects of
government spending measures, both real and in perception.
Chris
Jody McCullough
> cameraman and a Democratic party functionary). No one is allowed to
If someone in the crowd assaulted someone, they should be punished for
it criminally. It's that simple. Assault is still a crime, last time I
checked. But the actions of one or two bad apples doesn't prove anything
about the crowd in general.
> *try* to intimidate public officials into abandoning their duties--
> regardless of whether they succeeded, which is in dispute--as they did
> (or do you have a different interpretation of 'shut it down'?).
Well, I'd say we have a different interpretation of the events that
happened. That's for sure.
> And by the way, the only actions of that sort at any Democratic protest
> occurred when bused-in Republicans hounded Jesse Jackson off stage in
> Palm Beach County.
Wow! There wasn't *any* violence at *any* of the Democratic protests!??
That's a little hard to believe. But hey, the Democrats have had a lot
more practice than the Republicans ;-)
-Jody-
Sloth
> I think the poll question is meaningless. Because of Marbury vs.
> Madison, any decision the Supreme Court makes is the law of the land.
> It is logically impossible for the SC to make a corrupt decision unless
> you think Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided.
Just as a small matter of correction - Marbury vs. Madison does
not, per se, establish that SC decisions are the law of the land - only
modern interpretation of the decision makes this so. If you'll actually
read Marbury v Madison, you'll find that it quite explicitly asserts the
finality of the SC only over matters within the Judcial domain, with the
clear implication that Executive and Legislative heads would have final
authority over their own domains.
-Sloth
Michael Sandy
> > > > no evidence of a Democrat "rent-a-mob" flying to a state where a
> > > > legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it
> > down".
> > >
> > > Exaggeration to point of an out-an-out lie, repeated often enough to
> > > create an air of legitimacy.
> >
> > Look, it's not a lie. Those people were from Capitol Hill, from the
> > offices of Tom DeLay and Trent Lott, among others. I saw the photo
> > on CNN. They pointed to ten different "protesters", and showed exactly
> > which office on Capitol Hill each one worked for. MSNBC seems to have
> > deleted this link, unfortunately.
> It's exaggeration to the point of being a lie. Yes, I believe that's
> correct. When you say "rent-a-mob" and "mob tactics" that's pretty
> inflammatory. I think the real beef is "Holy Cow, Republicans were
> *protesting* of all things!" I mean imagine, Republicans... protesting!
> They're not supposed to do that!! Protesting is for Democrats, not
> Republicans.
They went a bit beyond "protesting". What they did was akin to
the protests you see outside many abortion clinics, deliberate
intimidation, trespass (they were inside the building) and in
some cases, physical contact and alleged violence.
The fact that none of them were arrested for assault is an
artifact of our society, left wing protesters are far more
likely to be subjected to violence and legal action than
right wing protesters, when the actions of the protesters
are comparable.
It may be that right wing protesters get the presumption of
legitemacy, in part because they don't protest as many things.
The police encounter left wing protesters more frequently and
so have a more negative reaction to them?
> Sure, you can take CNN and point to some pictures. Guess what? Take any
> protest and you're going to have leaders from the party or whatever who
> help to organize it and/or be actively involved in it. That's how
> protests work. That's how it works for Democrats or Greens or (God
> forbid!) even Republicans. Big deal.
Democrats rarely provide all expense vacations for staff members
to pose as local protesters. If they did, the Republicans would
_howl_ at such a use of taxpayer funds, we both know it!
> You *are* making way too much of this point Rick. Republicans are
> allowed to protest, just as Democrats are. There was no "mob" and it
> didn't "intimidate" anyone. The people who were doing the counting said
> specifically "we were not intimidated". How much more do you want!?
>
> Let it go.
>
> -Jody-
"I .. make this .. statement .... of my ... own ... free will.
I ... have ... not been .. coerced .. or intimidated .. in .. any way."
Paul Windsor and Newsweek detailed some of the pressures these
judges were under.
Michael Sandy
Sloth
>
> Don't be goofy. Just a benefit of having been popularly
> elected. Harris did nothing improper, she simply followed the laws set
> down by the legislature. She could have waited until 9:00 AM on Mon,
> but why? Would a Dem have in the same position? Of course not AND YOU
> KNOW IT!
Not that I really want to disagree with you, but... If you are
talking about the court-mandated extension of the deadline, Harris was
not, in fact, given the authority to wait until Monday morning - the
FSC set down very explicit deadlines, and the Monday deadline was
permitted only in the instance that the office was closed Sunday, which
it wasn't.
> > We have
> > no evidence of a Democrat "rent-a-mob" flying to a state where a
> > legal recount is in progress, and using mob tactics to "shut it down".
>
> Exaggeration to point of an out-an-out lie, repeated often enough to
> create an air of legitimacy. The canvassing board was trying to
> illegally perform recounts of disputed ballots without verifiers (of
> either party) or the press as witnesses. The outrage was most justified.
> The board stated they were kind of hoping no one would care they were
> counting w/o witnesses, but they understood when everyone did scream
> and holler. They also said they were not intimidated, and of course, if
> they were at all, they would have screamed. Also how do you interpret
> the vast numbers of decisions by Democrats in position to help Gore who
> instead aided Bush? Were they part of the "theft conspiracy?"
So, the union mobs which came in from out of town to stage 'Revote'
rallies don't count as rent-a-mobs? Interesting... See my comments on
the definition of 'hate-groups' elsewhere in this thread.
> What were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, sympathetic interveners?
-Sloth
Is there an Elevator to Heaven for disabled people?
Michael Sandy
> In article <1elwj7g.v9en221vubaxsN%meh...@teleport.com>,
> meh...@teleport.com (Michael Sandy) wrote:
> > Rick Desper <des...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On another note, it looks like W's line, "I can work with Democrats."
> > should be read as, "I can work over Democrats." He was boasting
> > in an interview that he was going to push for his whole program,
> > arm twisting all the way. And he was joking(?) about how he'd
> > prefer to be a dictator, just because it would be easier for him.
> >
> Bush is in for some big surprises. Look at it this way: he's just
> pulled off a coup. He is totally full with himself. He thinks he can
> do no wrong. But he has yet to take office. A lot of people are
> letting him have a day in the sun who will consistently work against him
> for the duration of his term in office. He'll find the Democrats on
> Capitol Hill much harder to walk on than those in Texas.
>
> > Sounds like a real bipartisan politician to me, NOT!
After thinking about it, I think W has a problem with his mouth,
it keeps going off and saying what he thinks. :) All he had
to do was shut up, make bipartisan noises, and any concerted
Democratic opposition could be blasted as sour grapes. Now
he is basicly spitting on the idea of 'working with' Democrats
in favor of pressuring them to do what he wants.
The Democrats may not put his administration into gridlock because
of the close election, but they will if they think Bush would just
walk over them if they don't show their power.
> Yes, I have yet to see anything which indicates he has any interest in
> being "bipartisan", other than his assurances that he'll get to this at
> some point. From what I can see, he's only been appointing Republicans
> to every open job and has not backed away from his promise to start up
> the deficit-building machine with a nice tax cut.
> >
> > Sound like a good time for at least a 24 month fillibuster to me.
> >
> > Michael Sandy
> >
> Well, we'll have to wait and see. Personally, I think that the first
> order of business should be campaign finance reform. But that's just
> because I want to see one of the following two things happen:
> a) President Bush signs a bill which Trent Lott thinks will doom the
> Republican party
> b) John McCain gets really pissed off at W. and starts working his
> vengeance.
> I shouldn't be so bloodthirst, I know.
>
> Rick
If Bush is _smart_ he will start with some things everybody can
agree on, like voting reform. Then once people see that he is a
capable administrator, capable of moving important legislation
along, _then_ he would start laying the groundwork for important
legislation.
There has to be some Democrat legislation in the pipeline so
that Bush can threaten to veto, or offer to support it in order
to get Democratic votes.
Michael Sandy
Randy Hudson
Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>Year Revenue Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
>======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
>1980 517 11.7 13.5 -1.6 D-Carter
>1981 599 15.9 10.3 5.0 D-Carter (2.9% per year, 4 yr)
>1982 618 3.2 6.2 -2.9 R-Reagan
>1983 601 -2.8 3.2 -5.8 R-Reagan
>
>What year was the massive tax cut? Revenue dropped off a lot in
>Reagan's first two years, which I thought preceded his tax cuts.
>If tax cuts aren't to blame, then I assume it's the economy, which
>either isn't the President's fault or dates back to Carter's
>administration.
I was taking Intermediate Macroeconomics in 1983, and have some memory of
the period, as papers analyzing various aspects of it were due throughout
the semester.
1979 and 1980 had high and growing inflation, to the point that the general
public considered it the most serious economic problem, more than
unemployment or the "oil crisis", which was widely assumed to be a fiction
advanced by the oil companies to support higher prices. An effect of the
inflation was a strong increase in the marginal tax rates paid by
middle-class taxpayers. "Everybody" felt they were paying too much in taxes.
Tax shelters were widespread, and the IRS could barely keep up with the most
abusive of them. Since just pushing a tax liability off a couple years into
the future effectively reduced it by 20% or more, because of the inflation
rate, much resources were being devoted to creating, marketing, finding,
using, or (for the government) stopping or breaking tax shelters.
Both political parties agreed that the tax system needed to be revised.
Plans ranged from eliminating income taxes altogether, such as the VAT-based
systems, to "consumption taxes" that would exclude unspent income from
income taxation, to tax simplification that would eliminate many deductions
and exclusions, to bracket widening, bracket reduction, various indexing
proposals, flat tax systems, and other proposals.
The first tax reduction was just a change in withholding tables, effective
in 1981, which reduced the withholding from paychecks without any change in
actual tax liability. It wasn't until calendar 1982, halfway through fiscal
1982, that tax rates were actually reduced, and 1984 before major cuts
occurred in both personal and corporate income taxes.
In mid-late 1980, the Fed pushed up short-term interest rates to extraordinary
levels, and jawboned about "credit controls." The result was an extremely
sharp drop in economic activity, far sharper than even the Fed had expected.
Though they backtracked some as soon as they started seeing the numbers,
this was the recession of 1980-1982.
>>> And Clinton's increases in revenue (and thus the balancing of the
>>> budget) are due almost entirely to an increase in individual income
>>> taxes, due to the booming economy.
The revenue from capital gains, primarily from the booming stack market, has
pushed up the IIT receipts, to an unsupportable level. The surpluses are
destined to evaporate as quickly as they appeared.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com>
Rick Desper
bur...@world.std.com (Jim Burgess) wrote:
> I will note, though, that I entirely agree with Paul's various musings
> on the indefensibility of the USSC decisions. Another aspect of
> Republicanism, that perhaps explains part of why Rick and I seem to
> disagree is that "the end justifies the means" and "it" (whatever
> that is) isn't cheating unless you catch me. The media (which have
> a duty under our system to be part of the catching mechanism) has
> shown some fundamental flaws lately that it always had.
Yes, well, I worry that the system cannot withstand such a frontal
assault of anti-intellectualism and fraud. Perhaps this feeling is
colored by having spent two years in Germany. Americans tend to have
this arrogant attitude of "it can't happen here". Well, "it" can
happen, and "it" has been happening.
Rick
>
> Diplomacy players should understand better than almost ANYONE how
> moral and social suasion enters these implicit social contracts on
> how to behave.....
>
> Jim-Bob
>
--
***
Don't bother to reply to deja address - I get
so much spam there I just ignore the mailbox
completely. Trim the Shrubs!
Rod Spade
>
> Or if they can do the research
> they don't want to share it with the rest of us unless it reduces
> to a one sentence sound bite.
Perhaps that could be blamed on the audience as much as on the media.
Rod Spade
>
> Similarly, they
> simultaneously believe that what they do is OK because, if others were in
> their position, they'd do it too, and they also believe that, once they win,
> everyone everyone should believe in the moral superiority of their methods.
Jim Burgess wrote:
>
> Another aspect of
> Republicanism, that perhaps explains part of why Rick and I seem to
> disagree is that "the end justifies the means" and "it" (whatever
> that is) isn't cheating unless you catch me.
I suspect that politicians of *both* parties are generally guilty of
these attitudes. That doesn't make it right, of course - I'm just
saying that we shouldn't assume that it's uniquely Republican.
Rod Spade
>
> Well, now, you can argue with Paul about the quality of this decision
> if you like. It has nothing to do with "activism" versus "restraint".
> It has to do with throwing away precedent, intervening in a state
> election on flimsy, trumped-up grounds, and appointing a candidate under
> circumstances where the court members were clearly acting solely as
> partisans and not defenders of the law.
> If you want to say that the FSC mis-interpreted Florida law, fine.
> Having read through that opinion myself, I would disagree. Clearly, at
> least 4 justices of the USSC would disagree. The fact remains that the
> USSC, up to now, has NEVER stomped on a state court in a manner of this
> importance, in the question of determining a state election, a manner
> which is clearly within the state laws. This attitude is especially
> hypocritical for Scalia et al, who have spent the past 10 years
> trumpeting states' rights.
It's not a state election. It's the appointment of Electors.
States' rights come from Amendment X, which states that any power not
specified in the U.S. Constitution is reserved for the States. The
State Constitution delegates that power to the State Legislature and
provides for review by the State Judiciary.
However, the appointment of Electors *is* specified in the U.S.
Constitution, so it's not a power that's "reserved to the States".
Instead, the Constitution specifically grants this authority to the
State Legislature, and it does not provide for review by the State
Judiciary. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter
of all cases "arising under this Constitution".
Is it really so ludicrous to believe that the authority of a State
Court, devolved from a State Constitution, extends only to matters under
the control of that State Constitution? The plenary power of the State
Legislature to direct the manner of appointing Electors is granted by
the U.S. Constitution. This power is superior to the power (granted by
the State Constitution) to enact general legislation, because it stems
from a higher authority.
The USSC is right to defer to State Courts in the matter of interpreting
laws that are passed under the authority of the State Constitution. The
USSC is also right to review any matter relating to the U.S.
Constitution.
Paul Windsor
"Rod Spade" <rods...@paonline.com> wrote in message
news:3A4199A2...@paonline.com...
Your argument would be more persuasive, Rod, if it weren't the opposite of
the truth.
The concurring opinion, signed by Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas, makes clear
that the majority of Justices who went along with the per curiam opinion
were not deferring to the State Courts, they were out and out accusing the
State Courts of acting unlawfully. In doing so, they compared the Florida
Supreme Court of acting as unlawfully as southern courts in the '50s did
when providing a defense of Jim Crow. The USSC's utter lack of deference to
the interpretive authority of the Florida Supreme Court could not have been
expressed in clearer terms.
Read the opinions. The USSC did not say that the Florida Supreme Court
lacked the authority to review Florida's election laws. What they said was
that they considered the Florida Supreme Court's behavior so outside of the
normal bounds of lawful review that they were entitled to ignore it utterly.
Actually, they didn't ignore it *utterly*. When it came time to set a
deadline for remedying their new found equal protection violation, the per
curiam opinon, after finding that Florida Courts should be accorded no
deference with respect to any of their other findings of legislative intent
vis a vis election laws, granted a great degree of deference to the Florida
Supreme Court's finding that the Florida Legislature intended to meet the
safe harbor deadline of 3 U.S.C. 5 for certifying elections. So, after
having stayed all recounts for the better part of three days, the Supreme
Court announced that the Florida Supreme Court had acted entirely unlawfully
in all of it's legislative interpretations, except one: the one that set a
December 12th deadline for certification. So they overturned everything
except that one and, at 10:00pm on December 12th that the deadline was
midnight on December 12th, so they weren't even going to bother with
announcing a remedy for their new found equal protection violation.
Of all the issues to accord the Florida Courts deference on, that one--the
one that would make any attempt at remedy pointless--was most curious,
indeed.
Paul Windsor
Douglas T. Massey
Christopher Mann <cm...@cccc.com> writes:
>
>
> Jody McCullough wrote:
>
>> But math aside, you have to admit there's something perverse about
>> saying that spending rose a whole bunch during the Carter years, but
>> it's okay because inflation was running wild then too.
>
> Only perverse in that, had he not raised spending by so much, he would
> have effectively reduced government spending in real terms.
>
> I want to thank Doug for starting this discussion about spending. It
> brings to light the fact that republicans were not as thrifty as they
> often say and democrats are not loose with money as republicans often
> say they are.
I think both parties exaggerate about any aspect of their governing,
and both parties exaggerate (in the other direction) about the other
party.
Clinton looks really good, in retrospect. The question is whether or
not the Democratic party -- and the next Democratic President in particular --
will more closely resemble Clinton or Carter or Johnson or Kennedy. They
can say anything they want, but the proof is in the pudding (actually,
the proof is in the budget). Had Gore been elected, would he have followed
in Clinton's footsteps? I don't know.
> It also illustrates how difficult these discussions can be with all of
> the different, subtle aspects that need to be considered. One is
> contemporaneous inflation, others are the short and long term effects of
> government spending measures, both real and in perception.
Agreed. I don't think any solid conclusions can be reached with so
many other variables in the equations. I just thought that the data
was interesting in that it pointed out that the deficit increase of the
1980's wasn't due to outrageous spending by the Republican party (remember?
that was the original reason for the posting of the data, both times).
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont
\o ASICs Product Development Engineering |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ E-mail: mas...@btv.ibm.com |
. Doug's Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~masseyd (|)
Douglas T. Massey
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com> writes:
> In article <91qqak$gsg$4...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
> Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>Year Revenue Change Change Change President (Avg Adj Change)
>>======= ======= ======= ====== ====== ==========================
>>1980 517 11.7 13.5 -1.6 D-Carter
>>1981 599 15.9 10.3 5.0 D-Carter (2.9% per year, 4 yr)
>>1982 618 3.2 6.2 -2.9 R-Reagan
>>1983 601 -2.8 3.2 -5.8 R-Reagan
>>
>>What year was the massive tax cut? Revenue dropped off a lot in
>>Reagan's first two years, which I thought preceded his tax cuts.
>>If tax cuts aren't to blame, then I assume it's the economy, which
>>either isn't the President's fault or dates back to Carter's
>>administration.
>
> I was taking Intermediate Macroeconomics in 1983, and have some memory of
> the period, as papers analyzing various aspects of it were due throughout
> the semester.
I was in the eighth grade and far more interested in Heidi Kershner than
macroeconomics. :-) So I won't be able to confirm many of your
memories.
> Both political parties agreed that the tax system needed to be revised.
> Plans ranged from eliminating income taxes altogether, such as the VAT-based
> systems, to "consumption taxes" that would exclude unspent income from
> income taxation,
<drools> oh man, what I wouldn't give for that . . .
> to tax simplification that would eliminate many deductions
> and exclusions, to bracket widening, bracket reduction, various indexing
> proposals, flat tax systems, and other proposals.
> In mid-late 1980, the Fed pushed up short-term interest rates to extraordinary
> levels
I can confirm this:
1980: 2/15 - 13%
5/30 - 12%
6/13 - 11%
7/28 - 10%
9/26 - 11%
11/17 - 12%
12/5 - 13%
1981: 5/5 - 14%
11/2 - 13%
12/4 - 12%
1982: 7/20 - 11.5%
8/2 - 11%
8/15 - 10.5%
8/27 - 10%
10/12 - 9.5%
11/22 - 9%
12/15 - 8.5%
Sounds like the Fed was having a lot of trouble figuring out
what to do about monetary policy.
(by way of comparison, the Fed rate dropped steadily through the
80's and early 90's, bottoming out at 3% from July '92 until May '94,
it's climbed fairly steadily since then)
> , and jawboned about "credit controls." The result was an extremely
> sharp drop in economic activity, far sharper than even the Fed had expected.
> Though they backtracked some as soon as they started seeing the numbers,
> this was the recession of 1980-1982.
>
>>>> And Clinton's increases in revenue (and thus the balancing of the
>>>> budget) are due almost entirely to an increase in individual income
>>>> taxes, due to the booming economy.
>
> The revenue from capital gains, primarily from the booming stack market, has
> pushed up the IIT receipts, to an unsupportable level. The surpluses are
> destined to evaporate as quickly as they appeared.
At which point the revenue bulge we've seen in 1997-2000 will dissipate,
the surplus will disappear, a budget deficit appears, and everyone will
blame it on the Republicans.
As I've said before, I commend Clinton and Congress for not spending
all the extra cash they received. I hope that Bush can take a lesson
from it and keep the budget balanced. There's little precedent for
this sort of thing -- the last balanced budget was 1969; before that
was the Eisenhower administration. We'll see.
For the first time, I'll be paying close attention (rather than researching
after the fact). If they don't, I'll probably vote against Bush in '04.
Jody McCullough
> the protests you see outside many abortion clinics, deliberate
> intimidation, trespass (they were inside the building) and in
> some cases, physical contact and alleged violence.
Trespass occurs fairly often at protests. I don't think that is, in
itself, a terrible thing. I don't agree with intimidation or violence,
but from what I saw the *large* majority of the protesters were
peaceful. I don't think it's fair to paint the whole group as a "mob"
because of a few people, any more than I would call the protesters at
the WTO "rioters" because a few people broke some windows.
> The fact that none of them were arrested for assault is an
> artifact of our society, left wing protesters are far more
> likely to be subjected to violence and legal action than
> right wing protesters, when the actions of the protesters
> are comparable.
Maybe. But if that's so, it's not really the protestors' fault, is it?
> It may be that right wing protesters get the presumption of
> legitemacy, in part because they don't protest as many things.
> The police encounter left wing protesters more frequently and
> so have a more negative reaction to them?
Possibly. They may also view left wing protesters as better organized,
and therefore more "dangerous". And they'd probably be right.
> Democrats rarely provide all expense vacations for staff members
> to pose as local protesters. If they did, the Republicans would
> _howl_ at such a use of taxpayer funds, we both know it!
I haven't seen any evidence on that. I admit, I've tuned out a lot of
this because it just didn't interest me that much. I think if a
Congressman wanted to give days off to staff members for whatever
reason, that's his business. I don't care a bit about that. But if they
were flown down there at taxpayer expense, yes, I would have a problem
with that. (Not that I don't have a problem with thousands of other ways
that Congress spends money!) Can you point me to a story on this?
> "I .. make this .. statement .... of my ... own ... free will.
> I ... have ... not been .. coerced .. or intimidated .. in .. any way."
>
> Paul Windsor and Newsweek detailed some of the pressures these
> judges were under.
Which had *NOTHING* to do with the so-called "mob".
So I'd say again, let it go.
-Jody-