5.4% surtax for those earning $1m or above, ostensibly to help pay for Obamacare.
I support taxing Hollywood limo libs to the absolute hilt, baby, starting with Al Gore and Sean Penn and moving down the line. I can't figure out how CA hasn't managed a wealthy surtax yet - how did CA beat the Feds to the punch again?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," indeed. At least the Soviet Union managed to dial it back and adhered to the following - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
07/15/2009 01:24 #49294
Surtax on the Rich07/14/2009 13:40 #49290
Socioeconomic/Political PotpourriSotomayor
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.
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.
jim - 07/15/09 21:25
Souter! I meant Souter was the one who REALLY disappointed Reagan. O'Conner and Kennedy less so, and only on particular issues.
Souter! I meant Souter was the one who REALLY disappointed Reagan. O'Conner and Kennedy less so, and only on particular issues.
matthew - 07/15/09 21:14
im willing to admit that i tend to agree with you more often than you think. It's like you said at some past party " we have far more in common than not ". or something like that.
im willing to admit that i tend to agree with you more often than you think. It's like you said at some past party " we have far more in common than not ". or something like that.
joshua - 07/15/09 20:36
(e:matt) - I know we disagree on many things, whether or not you tell me probably won't change much! =P I know you agreed with me recently because (e:paul) wrote a comment to me recently to the effect of, "wow, this is something you and Matt agree on!" I had to laugh. Regardless of our disagreements my journal is generally a safe haven for extremely left wing thought, or any kind of thought, as long as people aren't being nasty. We all know each other and there's no really good reason for it.
(e:matt) - I know we disagree on many things, whether or not you tell me probably won't change much! =P I know you agreed with me recently because (e:paul) wrote a comment to me recently to the effect of, "wow, this is something you and Matt agree on!" I had to laugh. Regardless of our disagreements my journal is generally a safe haven for extremely left wing thought, or any kind of thought, as long as people aren't being nasty. We all know each other and there's no really good reason for it.
matthew - 07/15/09 20:30
lol you are right (e:josh), i take back my ugly comment. well...i'll take back 60% of it at least. In the future i'll try only to comment on your journals i agree with ;)
lol you are right (e:josh), i take back my ugly comment. well...i'll take back 60% of it at least. In the future i'll try only to comment on your journals i agree with ;)
joshua - 07/15/09 16:03
I've felt on a couple of occasions that Sotomayor, in the paraphrased words of a righty talk show host, lobbed one back full of topspin while the senator waved the racket around helplessly. (See Uncle Ted Kennedy vs. John Roberts in 2005). Particularly the question on gun rights today - I can't remember which senator questioned her, but he suggested that Americans wanted to know what her gut told her on this issue, and she responded by saying that this is not how judges determine rulings. CHECKMATE! She did well there.
I've felt on a couple of occasions that Sotomayor, in the paraphrased words of a righty talk show host, lobbed one back full of topspin while the senator waved the racket around helplessly. (See Uncle Ted Kennedy vs. John Roberts in 2005). Particularly the question on gun rights today - I can't remember which senator questioned her, but he suggested that Americans wanted to know what her gut told her on this issue, and she responded by saying that this is not how judges determine rulings. CHECKMATE! She did well there.
jim - 07/15/09 15:57
This is the first Supreme Court confirmation hearing that I've either listened to or skimmed all the transcripts from, and let me tell you, I'm not going to bother in the future.
Boring even if you care.
This is the first Supreme Court confirmation hearing that I've either listened to or skimmed all the transcripts from, and let me tell you, I'm not going to bother in the future.
Boring even if you care.
jim - 07/15/09 15:55
She's very careful to talk about being bound by precedent in previous cases, and not talking about what she'll do once she can change precedences on the Supreme Court. A very distinct line of power, you're right.
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.
She's very careful to talk about being bound by precedent in previous cases, and not talking about what she'll do once she can change precedences on the Supreme Court. A very distinct line of power, you're right.
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.
joshua - 07/15/09 15:51
This is inspiring a new post later - I want to know why lefties are supporting Sotomayor's nomination, outside of the fact that Obama was the one to put her up for the seat. I wonder if it's an article of faith that she won't screw the gay right and abortion crowds.
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.
This is inspiring a new post later - I want to know why lefties are supporting Sotomayor's nomination, outside of the fact that Obama was the one to put her up for the seat. I wonder if it's an article of faith that she won't screw the gay right and abortion crowds.
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.
jim - 07/15/09 15:39
You never know, look at what happened to Ronald Reagan!
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.
You never know, look at what happened to Ronald Reagan!
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.
jason - 07/15/09 15:27
Hmm. Well, eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood isn't raising holy hell over Sotomayor, if that is any indication. No way would BHO ever nominate a pro-lifer. I'd fall back in my chair shocked if he did that.
Hmm. Well, eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood isn't raising holy hell over Sotomayor, if that is any indication. No way would BHO ever nominate a pro-lifer. I'd fall back in my chair shocked if he did that.
joshua - 07/15/09 15:24
We do know that the SCOTUS does overturn a majority of their cases - that much is pretty well understood. I think (e:jim) has effectively convinced me that I could be wrong about Sotomayor, although really the data isn't what did it. I still puzzle at her open contradictions regarding her testimony - thus far I've felt like I've listened to the president of the John Birch Society, which goes against her 10 years of public speaking on judicial philosophy.
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.
We do know that the SCOTUS does overturn a majority of their cases - that much is pretty well understood. I think (e:jim) has effectively convinced me that I could be wrong about Sotomayor, although really the data isn't what did it. I still puzzle at her open contradictions regarding her testimony - thus far I've felt like I've listened to the president of the John Birch Society, which goes against her 10 years of public speaking on judicial philosophy.
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.
heidi - 07/15/09 15:16
Ah, here it is :::link::: JuRI from U of South Carolina.
(randomly, cool visualizations of decisions, co-voting, and citation & semantic networks of SCOTUS opinions.)
Ah, here it is :::link::: JuRI from U of South Carolina.
(randomly, cool visualizations of decisions, co-voting, and citation & semantic networks of SCOTUS opinions.)
heidi - 07/15/09 15:08
(e:Jim), I'm searching for the SCOTUS decision dataset that I found during fall semester so your research will be easier ;-)
(e:Jim), I'm searching for the SCOTUS decision dataset that I found during fall semester so your research will be easier ;-)
jim - 07/15/09 09:23
We can wait until 2017 when there will be an automatic referendum on having a constitutional convention :)
We can wait until 2017 when there will be an automatic referendum on having a constitutional convention :)
jason - 07/15/09 09:21
Oh, I realize I haven't commented on the NYS stuff. It seems we have bipartisan agreement here. I think the people have given up, actually. I feel like I've given up on NYS and am looking for a way out. I don't know how it's fixable. We know the government is broken and they don't work for us. We know they work to get the best offices, the perks, the ability to influence people with state money.
Oh, I realize I haven't commented on the NYS stuff. It seems we have bipartisan agreement here. I think the people have given up, actually. I feel like I've given up on NYS and am looking for a way out. I don't know how it's fixable. We know the government is broken and they don't work for us. We know they work to get the best offices, the perks, the ability to influence people with state money.
jason - 07/15/09 08:34
We're going to get a liberal judge, who is replacing a liberal judge, and that's probably what we should expect from President Obama. Although many people have forgotten since 2000, it's a President's prerogative to nominate who he wants.
We're going to get a liberal judge, who is replacing a liberal judge, and that's probably what we should expect from President Obama. Although many people have forgotten since 2000, it's a President's prerogative to nominate who he wants.
joshua - 07/15/09 00:45
Like I said USCF, what you're speaking of is not a reflection of whether or not she's a mainstream jurist, but the rarity of the SCOTUS reviewing cases in general - the court only takes approximately 1% of the cases.
Like I said USCF, what you're speaking of is not a reflection of whether or not she's a mainstream jurist, but the rarity of the SCOTUS reviewing cases in general - the court only takes approximately 1% of the cases.
joshua - 07/15/09 00:36
This world has free will, (e:matt). You don't have to read this journal, so feel free not to. Keep your snarky comments to yourself - they're ugly.
This world has free will, (e:matt). You don't have to read this journal, so feel free not to. Keep your snarky comments to yourself - they're ugly.
uncutsaniflush - 07/14/09 22:16
To me the important statistic is that only 5 out of 150 decisions (if I am understanding all the stats) warranted Supreme Court review. If she was the activist pinko commie <expletive-deleted> <redacted> racist <redacted> <expletive-deleted> that some think she is, I would think a lot more of her decisions would have made it to the Supreme Court and a lot more would have been overturned. So I reckon I disagree with (e:joshua). Think of a judge as a NFL referee, if a referee only got reviewed 5 times in 15 years, I reckon most people would think that he was a good referee even if 3 of his decisions that were reviewed were overturned. But then again, if your team lost because of him . . .
To me the important statistic is that only 5 out of 150 decisions (if I am understanding all the stats) warranted Supreme Court review. If she was the activist pinko commie <expletive-deleted> <redacted> racist <redacted> <expletive-deleted> that some think she is, I would think a lot more of her decisions would have made it to the Supreme Court and a lot more would have been overturned. So I reckon I disagree with (e:joshua). Think of a judge as a NFL referee, if a referee only got reviewed 5 times in 15 years, I reckon most people would think that he was a good referee even if 3 of his decisions that were reviewed were overturned. But then again, if your team lost because of him . . .
matthew - 07/14/09 20:29
Thanks (e:jim). Your fact checking has made this journal entry worth reading.
Thanks (e:jim). Your fact checking has made this journal entry worth reading.
joshua - 07/14/09 16:32
I'm so happy to see that we are in agreement w/respect to the other stuff, particularly the NYS senate. That body is pissing me off so much that I think I'm starting to understand how it must have felt to be a lib anti-war protester a few years ago - I want to yell and scream at the top of my lungs and I wish some others would come along with me. I hate feeling alone on these issues that are not political to me and will affect all of our futures.
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.
I'm so happy to see that we are in agreement w/respect to the other stuff, particularly the NYS senate. That body is pissing me off so much that I think I'm starting to understand how it must have felt to be a lib anti-war protester a few years ago - I want to yell and scream at the top of my lungs and I wish some others would come along with me. I hate feeling alone on these issues that are not political to me and will affect all of our futures.
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.
jim - 07/14/09 16:31
The stats are mostly just counting not regression analysis or using sophisticated and thus 'malleable' models, so somewhat hard to skew. I haven't verified anything personally. If I'm bored later I'll compile a 10 year average for overturning... :)
The stats are mostly just counting not regression analysis or using sophisticated and thus 'malleable' models, so somewhat hard to skew. I haven't verified anything personally. If I'm bored later I'll compile a 10 year average for overturning... :)
joshua - 07/14/09 16:06
I'm rebutting but I had to ask this first. Here's a question - nobody seems to know Sotomayor's opinion on abortion and gay marriage. Does that make you nervous, being that she is in fact a devout Catholic latina? I don't mean devout in the Pelosi "I went to Rome so the Pope could take me to school" kind of way.
(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.
I'm rebutting but I had to ask this first. Here's a question - nobody seems to know Sotomayor's opinion on abortion and gay marriage. Does that make you nervous, being that she is in fact a devout Catholic latina? I don't mean devout in the Pelosi "I went to Rome so the Pope could take me to school" kind of way.
(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.
joshua - 07/14/09 15:17
Hi Jim -
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.
Hi Jim -
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.
jim - 07/14/09 15:17
3 of 150 is actually 2%
3 of 150 is actually 2%
james - 07/14/09 15:14
Since joining the Second Appeals court she has authored over 150 decisions. That makes her reversal rate less than 10%, which is a hell of a lot better than Alito.
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.
Since joining the Second Appeals court she has authored over 150 decisions. That makes her reversal rate less than 10%, which is a hell of a lot better than Alito.
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.
jason - 07/14/09 14:50
The process isn't quite as undignified as it was in the 2000's, but it still has a shady vibe to it, very uncomfortable. If 30-something Senators vote against her, I wonder how they'll be portrayed? I know what the hard cores like MoveOn and their ilk will say, but what about the regular media, NBC, the papers?
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 process isn't quite as undignified as it was in the 2000's, but it still has a shady vibe to it, very uncomfortable. If 30-something Senators vote against her, I wonder how they'll be portrayed? I know what the hard cores like MoveOn and their ilk will say, but what about the regular media, NBC, the papers?
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.
jim - 07/14/09 14:43
About mortgages, NYS senate raises, and Antoine Thompson I am in agreement.
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.
About mortgages, NYS senate raises, and Antoine Thompson I am in agreement.
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.
jim - 07/14/09 14:41
Sweet, SCOTUSBLOG comes through:
:::link::: (PDF!)
75% of 2008 Supreme Court cases resulted in reversal.
Sweet, SCOTUSBLOG comes through:
:::link::: (PDF!)
75% of 2008 Supreme Court cases resulted in reversal.
jim - 07/14/09 14:33
Quick correction: that 90% overturn rate was for one federal court district, not all districts (in the link in my previous comment).
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.
Quick correction: that 90% overturn rate was for one federal court district, not all districts (in the link in my previous comment).
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.
jim - 07/14/09 14:29
w/r/t Sotomayor:
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.
w/r/t Sotomayor:
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.
07/09/2009 10:47 #49241
Letter from Brian HigginsI wrote a letter to Brian Higgins recently, blasting him for voting for the cap and trade legislation. (Ok, I wrote him literally after the vote took place). I basically mocked him - I asked him what he'd do when energy prices rise 90%. I asked him if I could come down and collect a check from his office to offset the price of the energy and his vote. I even suggested he could craft legislation and call it an "energy cost payment differential" - something wonky he'd love - and that he could put his name on the bill and make himself famous.
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 -
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 -
zobar - 07/10/09 20:17
I have some experience with this type of stuff- one of my first tasks at the paper was to manage an online petition, something about proceeds from the New York Power Authority. If I recall correctly, we were sending out petitions to Hillary Clinton, Brian Higgins, George Pataki, Thomas Reynolds, Charles Schumer, Louise Slaughter, and I think one or two people at NYPA. Some of them agreed, some disagreed, some didn't really care. Those who agreed with us helped us organize the petition so that it would be most visible to our representatives.
For starters, emailing your representative is probably the easiest way to get your voice ignored. Therefore, although we were collecting the petitions online, I had to print every petition on a separate page, fully addressed as a separate letter [which were bundled together and sent in one large envelope every day].
Secondly, people are motherfucking lazy even if they care about the issue. So we had a form letter already filled out. You could delete it and write your own thing which happened once every few days. Mostly people would leave it intact, sometimes they would change a couple words. If somebody took the time, I would shuffle their letter to the top of the packet. So yeah, constituents write form letters too, in a way.
A number of the people at work also filled out the petition, so we were able to gauge the response of politicians. Even though Brian Higgins was spearheading the effort and worked closely with us as an organization, nobody heard back from his office individually. Hillary Clinton was the only politician who responded individually even though it probably wasn't her jurisdiction [I have heard on a number of occasions that her office was very good at correspondence]. Louise Slaughter knew she needed to have an opinion but couldn't come up with one [also her main office is in Fairport, yay gerrymandering].
Here's what I gather about the process: the letter is opened and read by an intern, who classifies it by issue and position. They probably keep an approximate tally, but remember that people are a lot less likely to write to a representative they agree with. There is probably a form letter for each issue that has been written or at least approved by the politician. Think about it- the last thing they need is some intern sticking their foot in the senator's mouth. They do not have separate letters for people who agree or disagree, and thus the language often seems a little out-of-step. They run the letter through the autopen, meter it, and ship it out. Maybe they put your name on a mailing list, maybe not. I don't know what happens if you keep writing back, it would be interesting to find out.
- Z
I have some experience with this type of stuff- one of my first tasks at the paper was to manage an online petition, something about proceeds from the New York Power Authority. If I recall correctly, we were sending out petitions to Hillary Clinton, Brian Higgins, George Pataki, Thomas Reynolds, Charles Schumer, Louise Slaughter, and I think one or two people at NYPA. Some of them agreed, some disagreed, some didn't really care. Those who agreed with us helped us organize the petition so that it would be most visible to our representatives.
For starters, emailing your representative is probably the easiest way to get your voice ignored. Therefore, although we were collecting the petitions online, I had to print every petition on a separate page, fully addressed as a separate letter [which were bundled together and sent in one large envelope every day].
Secondly, people are motherfucking lazy even if they care about the issue. So we had a form letter already filled out. You could delete it and write your own thing which happened once every few days. Mostly people would leave it intact, sometimes they would change a couple words. If somebody took the time, I would shuffle their letter to the top of the packet. So yeah, constituents write form letters too, in a way.
A number of the people at work also filled out the petition, so we were able to gauge the response of politicians. Even though Brian Higgins was spearheading the effort and worked closely with us as an organization, nobody heard back from his office individually. Hillary Clinton was the only politician who responded individually even though it probably wasn't her jurisdiction [I have heard on a number of occasions that her office was very good at correspondence]. Louise Slaughter knew she needed to have an opinion but couldn't come up with one [also her main office is in Fairport, yay gerrymandering].
Here's what I gather about the process: the letter is opened and read by an intern, who classifies it by issue and position. They probably keep an approximate tally, but remember that people are a lot less likely to write to a representative they agree with. There is probably a form letter for each issue that has been written or at least approved by the politician. Think about it- the last thing they need is some intern sticking their foot in the senator's mouth. They do not have separate letters for people who agree or disagree, and thus the language often seems a little out-of-step. They run the letter through the autopen, meter it, and ship it out. Maybe they put your name on a mailing list, maybe not. I don't know what happens if you keep writing back, it would be interesting to find out.
- Z
tinypliny - 07/09/09 20:03
You should totally wear one of those antonio banderas masks and don't forget to take a sword - you know, to slash a J on that Shumer bloke's shirt when he being diverted by the grease on the chicken wings or something.
You should totally wear one of those antonio banderas masks and don't forget to take a sword - you know, to slash a J on that Shumer bloke's shirt when he being diverted by the grease on the chicken wings or something.
metalpeter - 07/09/09 19:19
Hope that isn't the only reason you are looking forward to The Taste of Buffalo this weekend
Hope that isn't the only reason you are looking forward to The Taste of Buffalo this weekend
jessbob - 07/09/09 18:13
Most likely, an intern wrote the letter loosely based on some type of form response that was previously approved by one of Higgins' staffers. I know because I used to write them as an intern for the previous occupant of Higgins' seat.
Most likely, an intern wrote the letter loosely based on some type of form response that was previously approved by one of Higgins' staffers. I know because I used to write them as an intern for the previous occupant of Higgins' seat.
07/08/2009 14:16 #49232
Admission - A Dream Of MineThis is a topic I could write a novel about despite the fact that I hardly talk about it... it's personal and something that I keep in the recesses of my mind, only to pull out on days where I feel like I need a little lift. Needless to say, no matter how long this journal entry will be it will end up being incomplete.
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.
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.
dimartiste - 07/10/09 23:58
I think I agree I could write a novel about my dreams and how they keep changing. I want to thank you. Recently I have been having some serious personal dramas that I am sorting out, trying to learn from my mistakes and finding boundaries. Your post reminded me in all this that I need to dream again. I can discribe that place, but I do not know where it is. I know I have never been there (at least not in this lifetime)! The pictures are beautiful. I will have to put it on the list of places to visit and they even speak english! (sorry family joke) I love the country, it part of the reason I usually go camping. The first few nights letting go of all the noise, electricity and knowing that some where out there someone else is awake. Natural kind of pulls you toward it like gravity and creates an entropy with city life. Either way enjoy your dream and may you move closer to being able to live there with every decision you make. Remember us city folk and give us each a little piece of your heaven! Thanks for the reminder! I am Sincerely grateful!
I think I agree I could write a novel about my dreams and how they keep changing. I want to thank you. Recently I have been having some serious personal dramas that I am sorting out, trying to learn from my mistakes and finding boundaries. Your post reminded me in all this that I need to dream again. I can discribe that place, but I do not know where it is. I know I have never been there (at least not in this lifetime)! The pictures are beautiful. I will have to put it on the list of places to visit and they even speak english! (sorry family joke) I love the country, it part of the reason I usually go camping. The first few nights letting go of all the noise, electricity and knowing that some where out there someone else is awake. Natural kind of pulls you toward it like gravity and creates an entropy with city life. Either way enjoy your dream and may you move closer to being able to live there with every decision you make. Remember us city folk and give us each a little piece of your heaven! Thanks for the reminder! I am Sincerely grateful!
metalpeter - 07/09/09 19:25
It looks great and looks very relaxing. But I couldn't live there all year. I need my city and my noise and some people watching. Of course if I had the love of my life with me then that might be different.
It looks great and looks very relaxing. But I couldn't live there all year. I need my city and my noise and some people watching. Of course if I had the love of my life with me then that might be different.
mrmike - 07/09/09 11:12
Great shots -- Serenity now, indeed. Even if you aren't a fulltime resident, it would be awful hard not to feel spiritually renewed after spending time in such a locale.
Great shots -- Serenity now, indeed. Even if you aren't a fulltime resident, it would be awful hard not to feel spiritually renewed after spending time in such a locale.
tinypliny - 07/08/09 22:17
Cool pictures!
I might be happy visiting such a place but very uncomfortable actually living there. I am fairly certain that I would be terribly unhappy living in remote locations. I think I want to live and die in the heart of a BIG and extremely busy city with tons and tons of people. At the moment, I am leaning heavily towards having my ashes compacted into a brick and contribute towards building a environmentally sound landscape/building in a very very urban locale. :)
Cool pictures!
I might be happy visiting such a place but very uncomfortable actually living there. I am fairly certain that I would be terribly unhappy living in remote locations. I think I want to live and die in the heart of a BIG and extremely busy city with tons and tons of people. At the moment, I am leaning heavily towards having my ashes compacted into a brick and contribute towards building a environmentally sound landscape/building in a very very urban locale. :)
07/07/2009 12:27 #49215
A Story Close to Buffalo's HeartToday I was reading an article discussing an Eminem video and I have to give him credit - he did his city proud. In one of his latest videos he used a handful of decrepit buildings of historical significance to the city as a backdrop, which I thought was a truly beautiful concept. You can read the article and see the video here -
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.
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.
uncutsaniflush - 07/07/09 21:16
Thanks for posting this. The lovely Lettuce posted some pix from our Detroit visit :::link::: The Michigan Central Station can be seen in the background of the photo of the Mexican Village Restaurant. Even in it's twilight, I remember being impressed by the station as a kid.
After not being in Detroit for almost 25 years, it was very hard to realise that entire neighborhoods no longer existed at all and were for all practical purposes urban wildernesses with a grid street system.
It is still hard to say in words what I felt.
Thanks for posting this. The lovely Lettuce posted some pix from our Detroit visit :::link::: The Michigan Central Station can be seen in the background of the photo of the Mexican Village Restaurant. Even in it's twilight, I remember being impressed by the station as a kid.
After not being in Detroit for almost 25 years, it was very hard to realise that entire neighborhoods no longer existed at all and were for all practical purposes urban wildernesses with a grid street system.
It is still hard to say in words what I felt.
metalpeter - 07/07/09 19:54
"You Can Tear A building down, But you Can't Erase A Memory" I think that is how the Living Colour lyric goes. That building in those pictures look like it would be a great place to shoot a movie or even do some Metal Videos a couple shots look really goth. In terms of preserving old buildings Some of them are really cool and should be kept. The 600lb Gorilla in the room that most people don't want to talk about is sprawl. But what gets weird is when There is sprawl from one suburb to another one. I say lets tear down all these new ugly houses out there and move people back into the city, lets go back to being a community. Hey but that is just me.
"You Can Tear A building down, But you Can't Erase A Memory" I think that is how the Living Colour lyric goes. That building in those pictures look like it would be a great place to shoot a movie or even do some Metal Videos a couple shots look really goth. In terms of preserving old buildings Some of them are really cool and should be kept. The 600lb Gorilla in the room that most people don't want to talk about is sprawl. But what gets weird is when There is sprawl from one suburb to another one. I say lets tear down all these new ugly houses out there and move people back into the city, lets go back to being a community. Hey but that is just me.
"((e:ajay)) - no, it isn't a right."
Fair enough. What about Education? and Defense?
(e:dcoffee) - I'm watching a rerun of O'Reilly right now and they are discussing how cap and trade will allow GS to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the energy market. Last hear GS paid no tax. None! No corporate contributions to national defense, healthcare, etc. So in that respect yes I'll agree that GS are seriously, seriously hating on America. They will pay tax this year.
Leave the businesses that make a lot of money alone, man - it's not illegal to get rich, at least not yet. GS has done very well for themselves, paid back the government money they never really wanted to begin with, and it's one financial firm that's managing to find some success in a ridiculously spooky market.
I don't care one lick that average compensation there, including bonuses, will be around $800,000 this year. Do you know who can't wait for those bonuses to get paid? The governments of the state of New York and the City of New York, Gov. Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg - there is a special tax on the books for Wall St. bonuses. The major reason why our state budget took a major shit this past year is because the tax money generated by Wall St. evaporated - it accounts for 20% of our state budget. What's good for Wall St. is good for New York, that's a fact that we'll have to learn to live with.
(e:ajay) - no, it isn't a right. So I suppose you are correct, this discussion is ovah!
(e:dcoffee) - nobody has an hour these days. This class warfare stuff needs to stop - suggesting that the rich used to be interested in paying their fair share is LUDICROUS and I'm not debating the topic anymore. Any top 1%er will pay more in tax in one to three years than you or I will in our career earnings combined. It's that simple. To suggest that they aren't giving back their "fair share" is an utter fallacy. What about the people who "gave back" when Obama ripped up contract law to guarantee retiree healthcare benefits for union workers? I'm pretty sure many of those bondholders were rich!
I think being greedy is sticking your hand out, expecting something for nothing, then bitching when it isn't given to you. Do you believe in what Karl Marx said when he uttered the quote I referenced in my entry? I don't understand nor do I care for this weird penchant for constantly wanting to stick it to one person that has more than another.
W/respect to Goldman Sachs - do you know how exactly they have earned that money? Stock underwriting, which is what they specialize in. It's a market (maybe one of the only markets) that has literally exploded over the course of the past few months. Are you really arguing against a truly legitimate success story involving an American company? Their revenue has increased almost 50% as compared to previous quarters - of course their profits are going to balloon!
My god.
(e:joshua) , first questions first: do you think healthcare is a "right" (as in, "everyone in a developed country should have it", and not a constitutional right) ? Should every American have access to low-cost basic healthcare?
If yes, then we can discuss how to pay for it.
If no, then there's not much to discuss....
I like that idea of having congress on the Public Option :), So long as I get to have it too.
I wish I had an hour.
Fact is that we have to compete in a global economy now, and we have to work together as a society to make sure we can out preform other countries. This means giving Americans real opportunity, helping the best and brightest perfect their tallents and rise to the top. Concentrated wealth prevents competition and innovation, it stifles the economy. The richest companies don't want competition, they want protection and stability. They want the workers to stay in their place as servants, not rivals. The people at the top are mostly there because of ruthlessness and luck, not because they are the smartest or most motivated. This must change.
Americans need more freedom to go ahead and innovate. By freedom, I mean freedom from fear, 'how do I pay for college', 'what if I get sick', 'what if I lose my job and can't afford health coverage'. We need the freedom to move about the economy and do what we enjoy. If you enjoy your work, you will do it well. But right now most workers are locked in their jobs, they have no other choice.
The rich used to support the idea of paying their fair share, and giving back to the society that enabled them to be successful. Not any more, Goldman Sachs doesn't care about America.
America better start looking out for itself.
Honestly, all these years we've just had good luck, excess resources, excess wealth, weak international competition, unending growth. It didn't matter how much the fat cats shoved in their pockets because there was so much to go around. Now the rest of the world has caught up, and we need to start paying attention and making hard choices. Being greedy is a luxury we can no longer afford.
(e:ajay) - you should ask that question to the Dems themselves that wrote the bill - even they don't know for sure, and I'll bet that the Senate will make this bill look like an MJ before and after shot.
I do not support the enrichment of one person at the poverty of another, under any circumstances. If they want to institute healthcare, then they have to find a way to pay for it that ensures that EVERYBODY suffers equally. But don't worry, regardless of how it is paid for, when the rationing starts the equitable situation will be quite evident. ;-)
So, is Congress still exempt from participation in this system? Every single politican that votes for the bill should be forced into enrolling in the program. This way, people like Ted Kennedy won't be going to Duke University Hospital anymore, but Local Medical Center #27 in inner city D.C. Nobody wants to practice what they preach, do they?
So how do you propose we provide health insurance to the 50M people uncovered?
The chances of an American dying from a terrorist attack are 1000x less than that from dying due to lack of good healthcare; and yet you don't mind spending trillions on this "war" on terror.
Would these taxes be easier to digest if Obama called them "war on disease" ? ;-D
The thing is that a Married Filing Joint Couple making $350,000 in CA, MA, NYC doesn't really have it "made." Especially if they a small business owner or paying back large professional student loans. Plus, this is "Off the top" before any Standard Deductions that rich people love like home mortgage interest. I can only imagine that in high taxes "Blue" States people in this tax bracket are going to be well beyond paying 50% and in some cases 60% of their income in taxes to Fed, Trust Fund, State, Local Governments.
The result is predictable. What happened in France the last time they soaked the rich will happen here and some rich folks will skip the country to avoid the taxes. CA, you know, I'm not enjoying their misery but they've brought it on themselves by building a government they can't afford. That shit was predictable too. If we have to bail their incompetent asses out, I will absolutely freak.