07/14/09 01:40 - ID#49290
Socioeconomic/Political Potpourri
I've heard people suggest to me (both personally and via the internet) that Sotomayor is a mainstream judge. Look, anybody that has been overturned 60% of the time by the Supreme Court isn't mainstream. You'll only likely see a higher overturn rate out of the infamous wack job 9th Circuit in San Francisco. She shouldn't be sitting on a court that has overturned her decisions more than half the time, or even 25% of the time. The rest of the discussion is bullshit.
Her humble background doesn't qualify her to be a judge any more than any other American that has managed to crawl from the gutter all the way to the top of the legal profession. Honestly, it's superfluous and not germane to the argument of whether or not she should be on the Supreme Court. She seems to be an exceptional lady but as far as I'm concerned her ghastly reversal rate should disqualify her from sitting on the court; she shouldn't be sitting on the very judicial body that has reversed 60% of her rulings, and that is that - end of story.
Want To Pay Your Neighbor's Mortgage?
The Obama Administration is considering using tax dollars to pay distressed mortgages. I can't imagine this idea will get off the ground. What happens when people on the brink just flat out say, "fuck it - the guy next door is getting his mortgage paid and I'm busting my ass to stay afloat, and for what? Screw this, I'm defaulting." This is the "perverse incentive" the article is referring to. (Good luck creating a framework for this - I can't imagine the 95% of homeowners who are not delinquent, not to mention renters, will enjoy being fiscal prisoners of the 5% delinquent).
I think the far more interesting question to consider is what would happen if this were enacted, as compared to doing nothing. Would the delinquency rate shrink or increase more dramatically with or without mortgage aid? I know where I'd put my money.
Raises for Top NYS Senate Staffers
Holy #*@#. This one makes my blood boil. Rant time. Honestly I can't even believe this - during the past month 11 NYS Senate staffers have been given raises ranging from $10,000 to $32,000 - Not bad work if you can get it, particularly in a state that is absolutely broke. I don't care about the reasons why - this shouldn't have happened.
NYS and its officials are ignorant fools and a laughing stock. Sen. Malcolm Smith claims that these raises were authorized before the power struggle and budget impasse. WHO CARES? They never should have been authorized, particularly when our elected officials have eliminated numerous programs due to dire financial need (and horrifying budgeting for a very long time, but that is another story). These are the very same politicians who have been busy coming up with every single new surcharge and tax they can find to close a budget gap, then they'll turn around and hand a lackey a big, fat $10,000 - $32,000 raise.
ANTOINE THOMPSON AND WILLIAM STACHOWSKI, HEAR ME - I've had it. I suspect after hearing things like this that you've utterly abdicated your responsibility to the taxpayers of your region. You voted for a state budget that you told us was slashed, which is a half-truth - you cut future spending but the budget still increased 9%, which you partially funded with $3.6B in Obama's "stimulus" money meant for economic projects. Yes, that's right - NYS is one of many states that have utterly misappropriated stimulus funds. Your rubber stamp allowed three men in a room to ONCE AGAIN screw taxpayers on both the state and federal level - you merely took the $3.6B and filled the budget gap. No need for hard choices when Uncle Sam can come in and allow you to make the hard choices down the road, right? So, "Senators," what exactly do you do on a daily basis besides think of different ways to screw your constituents and pray daily for a time where they have the means to leave the state?
Antoine Thompson, you are my elected official and what I've heard disgusts me. These activities in the Senate are making me long to live in someone else's district, or even someone else's state. You are, and theoretically will be, a lifetime member of the class that sucks the public teat dry. Only in YOUR universe can people get $10,000 - $32,000 raises, paid for by taxpayers who are losing their jobs ostensibly because people don't want to do business in NYS anymore, due to a punitive and hostile business environment.
Do you laugh at us when you come home to your district? I hope that you didn't forget that you come from one of the poorest places in America. People here are far more horrified with excesses like this, as opposed to your colleagues in the wood-paneled rooms in Albany. Please, for the love of God, justify your elevation to State Senator and actually do something about these problems. Don't go along to get along, like Brian Higgins - I know you're eyeing Louise Slaughter's seat and if you carry this to the federal level our city will further deserve the politicians they elect.
Permalink: Socioeconomic_Political_Potpourri.html
Words: 897
07/09/09 10:47 - 69ºF - ID#49241
Letter from Brian Higgins
I wasn't really considering that he'd write me back, but interestingly enough he did. I got a form letter on congressional letterhead thanking me for communicating to him; I would bet that 80% of the letter was written by someone within their caucus, or maybe the Administration, to distribute to congressmen who hear from people who object to the bill. I'm going to test this theory by writing to other NY congressmen to see what I receive.
I'm glad that my congressman actually responded to me - although he's dead wrong and I've got a post brewing that will eviscerate the letter, line by line. I wonder to what degree he's willing to be a rubber stamp - he must covet that seat on the Ways and Means Committee. (This is the committee that is writing legislation as we speak to "surtax" individuals and couples to pay for health care, on top of the expiration of Bush's tax cuts). Read here -
FOR THE RECORD: I wrote to Sen. Boxer of California, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand, and Congressman Brian Higgins recently. Sen. Boxer responded to me first and I'm not even a constituent. Higgins responded to me much later, and I haven't heard from my own senators at all. I can't wait for the Taste of Buffalo - Sen. Schumer is always there. I'm going to introduce myself and ask him why I haven't heard from him yet (I wrote him after I found out that he was among the porkiest of the pigs w/respect to taxpayer funded travel). Read about that here -
Permalink: Letter_from_Brian_Higgins.html
Words: 388
07/08/09 02:16 - ID#49232
Admission - A Dream Of Mine
I look at work as a series of things you have to go through and put up with in order to realize an end goal 30 years down the road. After working your whole life, accumulating, saving, collaborating with all ranges of people, where do you want to end up? This is a question I've asked myself over and over. I took the places I've been and focused on my favorite, then focused even deeper on the places within my favorite that I felt were the most interesting to me.
I'm going to share with you guys my happy place. When I'm done I want to live in a place where I'm at peace and feel inspiration on a daily basis. (A sad admission within an admission - with the life I lead I find myself rarely at peace, so this is really important to me). I need to be around nature - I need the crashing water with mountains rising from endless blue ocean, wildflowers, cypresses, huge and ancient trees, birds.
I love the convenience of urban life but to be honest I mostly feel unhappy and disconnected. I don't want to be around just any old nature; I need something spectacular, something that when you see it for the first time it takes your breath away.
This is the place where I'd pack my bags tomorrow and leave for if I could - Big Sur, in the heart of the central coast of California. This place brings out the melodrama in me. This place is so important to me that when it's on my mind I talk about God, about absolute childlike wonderment with the world and all within it, about how life can be a natural high and a miracle, about the fact that life is both ecstasy and exile at the same time. Here is where I want to sit on a stone slab and grow old with somebody.
Here's an example of a place I'd never leave. I swear I could live here forever and be at peace.
See? My stone slab.
You can read more about my happy place at the wiki page, which yielded an interesting fact - - this place is so untouched that when my grandmother was born in 1928 there were only two homes in the entire region that had electricity, which was locally generated. The fabled Highway 1 was only completed in 1937; prior to that, Big Sur was virtually inaccessible.
Permalink: Admission_A_Dream_Of_Mine.html
Words: 500
07/07/09 12:27 - 65ºF - ID#49215
A Story Close to Buffalo's Heart
The jewel, of course, is the Michigan Central Station, which is a building that must have been jaw-droppingly beautiful in its day.
This terminal was designed by the same firm that designed Grand Central Station. Looking at this picture reminds me our own park system and how we left a work of art designed by Central Park's own, Fredrick Law Olmstead, to rot and be severed by a highway. They are using BHO's federal "stimulus" money to tear this building down. It made me think about how torn I am regarding these issues, and of course what fate may await our own Central Terminal. I'm not for preservation for its own sake; there has to be a purpose and a predictable stream of income to make these projects viable in the modern age. They have a point when they say that the cost to tear it down is minuscule in comparison to the costs of renovation. In a city with a several hundred million dollar shortfall for funding things like schools, firefighters and police, I'm sorry to say that renovating properties with no future use or those that are prohibitively expensive to renovate will be relegated to our history.
In other words, we're watching these buildings die a slow, irreversible death. We're watching irreplaceable aspects of our history slip through our fingers! I'd love to see a visionary repurpose buildings like this, but the pragmatist in me knows that there is no chance without a sustainable plan and a ton of cash behind it.
So, kudos to Marshall Mathers for having the desire to preserve these buildings, if not materially. Every time I pass by the expansion on the Canisius High School campus it strikes me how in 100 years time our heirs will scold us for watching these monuments erode and leave nothing for them to admire. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "if walls could talk" - the non-pragmatist, batty dreamer in me thinks that these buildings have a soul, and the buildings we're leaving behind lack EVERYTHING that these older buildings simply ooze. If we're going to watch this happen, we should at least do our heirs a favor when we replace these forgotten buildings and build things worthy of admiration in their own right.
Permalink: A_Story_Close_to_Buffalo_s_Heart.html
Words: 460
07/02/09 12:46 - 65ºF - ID#49158
FREE LUKA
In my last entry (e:carey) mentioned the thought about not realizing or understanding those things that might make someone feel like the lil' ol' hypothetical me is hard to approach. I can't get my head around that, I've never really considered these things before. I'm painfully shy with ladies and I'm usually prone to scurrying off.
OH SHIT. Sly & Family Stone - Thank You just came on Sirius - fuck my blog. Nite guys!
Permalink: FREE_LUKA.html
Words: 85
06/30/09 10:35 - ID#49129
Yet Another Admission To Discuss
Women with shaved heads. Yes or no? I'm not talking about Bic razor shaved, but your normal clipper style. I say yes!
Yesterday while driving home I saw a girl that completely blew me away but I don't think a single one of my friends would consider dating her. She was wearing a tight, slinky black dress, curvy, in my eyes mega attractive, and the way she walked just oozed sexy confidence. Really pretty smile, black Ray-Bans, and a shaved head. Allow me to be a typical guy and use a crude analogy - for some this is like being presented with a 5-star, world class dessert topped with something funky you haven't tasted before. This is where the world of "to each, his own" really kicks in, but for me this was another Cupid moment. Based on my track record and what I revealed in my last post, any takers on whether or not she's "off the market to me" so to speak? Maybe Cupid hates me? Really though, I was totally struck with how beautiful I thought she was.
Based on a very unscientific survey I think you'll find some of what my guy friends had to say surprising. A co-worker told me that he'd date a girl with a full tattoo sleeve before dating a girl with a shaved head. Hmm. Another spoke about the challenges of bringing home a girl with a different outlook on personal expression to meet grandma, which maybe isn't so surprising. (Yes, some of us are actually honest with mostly decent intentions!).
I say sexy is sexy, and personally I'm not going to be stopped because a girl I thought was an utter knockout has hair a little shorter than mine.
Permalink: Yet_Another_Admission_To_Discuss.html
Words: 345
06/29/09 12:28 - 70ºF - ID#49123
Another Admission
More than once I've found myself attracted to a girl that I found out later was a lesbian. Actually, this might be my least favorite thing about the pride parade - almost every year I see a fine lady and Cupid plays a cruel and unusual joke on me. I'll see a girl that gets my heart pounding, then a second later she'll be holding hands with another girl, and then a minute later they're kissing. SON OF A! Off the market, move along soldier. I love girls regardless of their own sexuality, apparently!
I have to laugh at myself. I'm sure this has happened to everybody (a lesbian attracted to a straight girl, etc.). I love you girls anyway - ALL of you!
Permalink: Another_Admission.html
Words: 174
06/28/09 11:59 - 67ºF - ID#49107
I Disappoint Myself Sometimes
I know myself and where I stand with my friends fairly well. I'm secure with myself more or less, although there are things that I wish were different, which is a statement that I think most people would make. I know that amongst my friends I'm broadly well-liked and amongst the more popular ones, even when I've been kind of reclusive. People do like me and I don't know why... but I'm thankful!
There is something about my personality that I hate and I feel like at times it betrays that sentiment from my friends and colleagues. Once in a while a pet peeve of mine will be in front of me, my thought process halts and a swift rush of annoyance hits me, and I'll stop what I'm doing and do whatever I can to stop that pet peeve. I'll even be vicious about it if I feel like someone is being annoying to me or a friend. Then, on occasion, I'll realize after the fact that I should have taken a different approach because my instant reaction to the pet peeve that I just described clouded my judgment, making me take too heavy handed an approach to begin with. Then I'll apologize, because I thought about it for a minute and realized that I was horrified with how I reacted.
I'm betraying myself when I do that. What it comes down to is that I am not giving people the benefit of the doubt at times, and I need to do that more because it is all that I would ask of anyone else to do for me if I were misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Permalink: I_Disappoint_Myself_Sometimes.html
Words: 322
06/26/09 02:57 - 78ºF - ID#49090
If You Love My Shades Then Just Admit It
The aviator model is entirely different than the model I currently wear - different shape, different lens size, different manufacturer. What I'm really interested in, although you can't seem to pick it specifically, is the black metal frame aviators with the dark green lenses... the sort of classic Ray-Ban setup.
I dunno. Sorry about not shaving, by the way, but then again if I don't have to apologize to my boss why am I apologizing for the public at large? Haha. Which do you think are best?
EDIT: X-factors, for fun. Sorry for the fuzzy picture but it's kind of dark.
EDIT: XXX-factor, no pr0n involved - I give you my brother. Hot like lava, y'all -
Permalink: If_You_Love_My_Shades_Then_Just_Admit_It.html
Words: 167
06/25/09 01:09 - 82ºF - ID#49077
Sympathy for the Pathetic
It doesn't have to do with jealousy - there is an intrinsic (and incorrect) assumption here that other people are as obsessed with their looks as the narcissist is with his or her looks. Some people go their whole lives without giving an apparent shit about how they look and manage to be happy, whereas the narcissist is constantly unhappy irrespective of how great or terrible they look. I don't understand the conspiratorial aspect of the narcissist's personality. Maybe Hitler could sympathize?
Permalink: Sympathy_for_the_Pathetic.html
Words: 117
Author Info
Date Cloud
- 01/11
- 07/10
- 06/10
- 05/10
- 03/10
- 02/10
- 01/10
- 12/09
- 11/09
- 09/09
- 08/09
- 07/09
- 06/09
- 05/09
- 04/09
- 03/09
- 02/09
- 01/09
- 12/08
- 11/08
- 10/08
- 09/08
- 08/08
- 07/08
- 06/08
- 05/08
- 04/08
- 03/08
- 02/08
- 01/08
- 12/07
- 11/07
- 10/07
- 09/07
- 08/07
- 07/07
- 06/07
- 05/07
- 04/07
- 03/07
- 02/07
- 01/07
- 12/06
- 11/06
- 10/06
- 09/06
- 08/06
- 07/06
- 06/06
- 05/06
- 04/06
- 03/06
- 02/06
- 01/06
- 12/05
- 11/05
- 10/05
- 09/05
- 08/05
- 07/05
- 06/05
- 05/05
- 03/05
- 02/05
Category Cloud
More Entries
After This
My Fav Posts
- This user has zero favorite blogs selected ;(
Boring even if you care.
It's understandable in one way, you don't want to nail someone down on how they'll rule in particular cases in a future that doesn't exist yet, but it'd be really nice to have a straightforward philosophical debate.
Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court seem like Kabuki theater, highly staged, rigidly directed, and tightly scripted.
You never know (e:jim) - she has said repeatedly this week that she has been bound by precedent in her rulings, which was her justification for her ruling on the Ricci case. Either she is bound by precedent like she says she is, or she isn't. Personally I think it is BS - precedents change. I thought her answer was a bit of a copout, but then again we all know that this is the exact type of answer she's "supposed" to give. I don't think gay rights are really in danger with this lady.
It is a good point to make that not only has she not explained her opinions on these topics, but she's never actually ruled on them either. I'm not hearing anything from NARAL about Sotomayor yet - similar to Planned Parenthood the silence is deafening to me. Do you think it is too conspiratorial to suggest that the silence is deafening from these folks on these issues?
I want gay rights codified in the state Constitution, personally, so that the issue is taken out of the judge's hands. At least in NYS there is no ridiculous system of Constitutional amendments like in California. This is another reason why I want a state Constitutional convention. The constitution should say that everybody is treated equally, in every respect imaginable, in the eyes of the state law.
O'Conner and Kennedy vote more liberal on some issues then anyone would've guessed, and Sotomayor hasn't ruled on abortion or gay rights issues.
I'm hoping her Didden v. Village of Port Chester ruling (the only ruling of hers that really bothers me), is not reflective of what would happen when she's on the Supreme Court. I am not down with Kelo.
I thought about it this morning; nobody apparently knows her views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. What is Sotomayor turns out to be a huge disappointment for the left as a result of this? We saw in CA (and know generally) that Latin Americans classically hold fairly conservative views on social issues. She claims that the Administration didn't ask her about abortion - I cannot believe that for one second. Under what circumstances would a liberal nominate a pro-lifer?
It made me wonder if we have another Justice Warren or Justice Kennedy on our hands, or if this lady holds both sharply liberal and sharply conservative views at the same time. Her explanation of the wise Latina comment I felt was plausible - that she was trying to inspire young people to further themselves in the professional world.
(randomly, cool visualizations of decisions, co-voting, and citation & semantic networks of SCOTUS opinions.)
I'm tired of the games with respect to the leadership - I blame both parties for hinging their political power on a couple of lowlifes with "alleged" criminal problems to sort out. I'm tired of being told the budget was cut when it quite obviously wasn't, and anybody can go to the State Budget office website and see that the general budget increased $10B, or 8.5%. I can't stomach being told that parks will close, or STAR will be cut, and a staffer will be given a $32,000 raise. Cuts in assistance to the elderly but some jackass patronage job holder in Albany can get a raise the size of a full income? NO MORE!
They are slapping taxpayers in the face and laughing at us! They are laughing at how voters are so apathetic that they could do almost anything, including flat out breaking the law as some have "allegedly" done, with no apparent consequences.
Have you been enjoying how NYS is quickly turning into an also-ran? I'm so mad that I think the only recourse we have is to insist on a statewide referendum, a Constitutional convention for our state, so we can rewrite how our government works, including term limits. We don't have politicians; we have leeches. Vulgar, disgusting people who would play games in the Senate chambers while the state circles the drain.
(e:jim) - 3 reversals from 150 opinions is in fact 2%, but it is nebulous because it disassociates itself from the reality of the number of cases that were actually reviewed. To say otherwise would be a clever slight of hand statistically. It would be more meaningful to say "3 of 5 doesn't mean crap, because it's only 5 reviews over the course of 15 years on the 2nd circuit." We're talking about the number of cases reviewed and reversed by the SC, not the number of reversals out of the total number of opinions, are we not?
I did see the SCOTUSblog stats, which are interesting for a single term. (A really nice site, I have to say, although like anything else I'm deeply suspicious of political bias and the fact that they aren't a statistical organization - do you know if they hired an outside firm?).
Let's take it all at face value. What about a career, though? After all, that's how we're judging Sotomayor. A single term's worth of stats aren't going to mean much; I'd love to see an aggregate over the course of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
This is what I want to know - this is what is relevant - how out of whack is she in comparison to the court where she will sit, or the previous candidates? A sample of one term's reversals isn't going to give us a statistically reliable indication of that, although it does give us an indication of how the SC feels about deference to the lower court.
I'm waiting for one of you guys to flip Alito's 2/2 reversal rate to me and suggest again that the number of reviews aren't statistically significant! Not only that but the makeup of the court is not changing so conservatives shouldn't complain too loudly. If I read my own blog today I'd probably debate myself from that angle.
Good on you for correcting that! I had provided a link to the same SC reversal rate you linked to - as you mentioned that was only for the 9th Circuit, which is why I picked on them specifically. There is no court outside of Denmark or Holland that would seem to be in sync with the 9th Circuit! =D
Not taking the case is utterly different than actually being reversed - that can't be counted towards a reversal rate, but it is useful in other ways.
People have been very hard at work trying to put holes in the reversal rate argument, with not a lot of success. The SC rejects the vast majority of the cases it is asked to review (approximately 1% are taken by the court); you've noted Sotomayor's own record. This is very, very important - it illustrates that Sotomayor's own record reflects the general belief by the SC that taking up cases should be rare, not that Sotomayor's record reflects that her judicial temperment is moderate in nature.
The reversal rate is an indicator of how "in step" the candidate is in comparison to the actual court where the candidate is to be appointed. Or similarly, how out of step a regional court is with the central court. It is certainly true that she won't affect the makeup of the court, which is an issue I don't contend anyway (let's face it - GOP will look center-right and the donkeys will look center-left - we should get over it).
Anyway, I've seen this 75% stat you've mentioned, but only in comments left by left wingers on Internet articles. This must be coming from somewhere - I'd love to know where.
As for Bill An Toine. Fuck them. Fuck the whole senate. But especially fuck Tom Golisano and Steve Pigeon. We should put them in with the senate, building and all, into a rocket and fire them into the sun.
We're in for these contentious votes for the foreseeable future. Chuck Schumer and the rest of those goons can blow me with their talk about what is mainstream, what isn't, and when it's appropriate to question someone. I'm sick of that. To be honest I'm sick of the process becoming a mockery of good people with good intentions who want to serve their country, but now it seems too late to care, it's done.
The NYS Senate should be sold as a reality TV property for NBC's fall lineup, deported to California, and a completely new Senate elected.
Or else make all legislative decisions using 20-sided dice, the result couldn't fail to be better.
:::link::: (PDF!)
75% of 2008 Supreme Court cases resulted in reversal.
The actual national overturn rate is more like 75%, I'm trying to find some definitive stats without having to count all the cases on the SC's website.
Also, 60% is for 3 out of 5 cases, not a huge sample, of the hundreds of cases she ruled on without being taken up by the Supreme Court.
Nothing out of the norm, from what I can tell.
She's a liberal judge and the Supreme Court has a slight conservative lean. There were many cases she ruled on the Supreme Court declined to review - if you include those the overturn rate drops.
Additionally, the Supreme Court overturns a large majority of all cases it reviews - if they don't want to change anything they usually just don't hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court overturned 15 of 16 cases this term: :::link:::
60% is a fairly good average in perspective with how the Supreme Court actually operates, and compared to the average of 90% plus overturned appeals looking at this term.
If she's not mainstream, then the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court bench also aren't mainstream. It's not like her rulings were rejected 9-0.