(e:lilho) made me realize that my situation is the exact opposite; that for the longest time I had vivid dreams that I could remember precise details about. God, I miss it badly. I haven't had a vivid dream in a long time. I have a couple of theories; one involving the serious about of anxiety that I suppress on a regular basis, and the other being the at times abusive way I treat my body.
Dream No. 1
One dream I had involved me hanging out at an ex-girlfriend's family home. (This is a girl I had a recurring nightmare about for many years - she hurt me badly, I suppose, if I had constant dreams about her abandoning me. Different situations, same result - no matter what, at the end of the dream I lost and couldn't find her). This dream was a little different - she wasn't actually in the dream although I was in her parent's house. I was in her room when I hear the doorbell ring downstairs; I run down the stairs and all that is there is a receipt for flowers, next to the goldfish. The receipt lists the type of flower, I pick it up, then I wake. The first thing I did was scribble down the name of the flower - I did a Google search and it was non-existent.
Dream No. 2
Another dream I had involved tooling around what was in my mind somewhere in lower Manhattan, although in reality it could have been anywhere. I was with an anonymous group of friends, tooling around bars, checking out dingy record stores, taking a walking tour of a new urban landscape. I remember the traffic, the smell of the hot street, the people, the dangerous crosswalks, the skyscrapers, the weather (early afternoon gray skies, followed by bright sunshine), walking the sidewalks and taking in the environment. It was a truly beautiful day. I recall not the rush, but the flood of excitement and newness I felt during my dream - I wish with all my heart that I could repeat it and feel it again. It was like somebody poured an ice-cold pitcher of water over my restless soul, allowing me to take in a fire hose of zest for life, full bore, all while admiring the grandness, chaos, sadness and magic of a new city with good friends.
Dream No. 3
I'm with my brother and my dad in a strange city - it could have been a weird mix of Pittburgh and parts of New York. We're there on vacation, just to check things out and see a baseball game. We park our car in a downtown garage, which is attached to an absolutely enormous office building, complete with several walkways suspended over different parts of the building. I learn that I must work here - I have access to the building. Our car is stolen, which triggers me to run upstairs. It's late afternoon at this point, about dinnertime. I'm talking with police on the phone, who are downstairs speeding in their cars through several levels looking for the thieves. The office walls are mostly glass; I gaze outside the windows to try to relax, and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the strange aesthetic beauty of the modern downtown, the traffic, the people, the sun gradually retreating, office lights flickering on from across the street, all in combination. Then, I wake.
Dream No. 4
I'm with my ex-girlfirend I've mentioned earlier, although in the dream we're still together (sorry for the spoiler earlier, you already know how this ends). We're upstairs at a party - it's evening and we're in a somewhat old apartment building, with a huge entertainment area. The party is great, a real laid back and enjoyable atmosphere. Outside of the windows you see equally tall buildings that look like they were built during the Great Depression - evidently I'm in New York and in my head the party is set in a building somewhere in lower Manhattan. While the party is going on, criminals burst through the doors and begin shooting people. I rush over and proceed to put my fist through a guy's face, incapacitating him and injuring him severely. This evidently spooks the criminals, and they retreat. Not having any of this bull, I proceed to jump out of the window and fly about 20 storeys to the ground level to apprehend them. I shoot sparks out of the tips of my fingers, stunning them and allowing for the police to easily haul them in. In a flash I'm back upstairs and the mess has been cleaned up. I can't find my girlfriend, who seemed to be oddly missing during a lot of the party. Evidently, I was a guy with super powers who lost his girl during the evening.
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
07/16/2009 12:24 #49306
Dreams, Cont.07/15/2009 21:33 #49300
Michael "Mickey" KearnsVote for Mickey Kearns in the Democratic primary. I can't believe I saw three "Brown for Mayor" signs already posted up in people's lawns on a short drive from Hertel to home. We've got a guy with a Federal case staring down his office - a real case, not some trumped up bullshit allegation with no legal merit - and it's business as usual in Buffalo? The Feds don't get involved unless they know something. Brian Higgins is Brown's political ally. I'm sick of this crap - dump Byron Brown and vote for Kearns if you love your city.
joshua - 07/16/09 12:42
I would work for anyone though - Democrat or Republican. I'm a gun for hire sort, dogged loyal and when I have to be, vicious to affect a positive outcome for my boss.
I would work for anyone though - Democrat or Republican. I'm a gun for hire sort, dogged loyal and when I have to be, vicious to affect a positive outcome for my boss.
joshua - 07/16/09 10:23
(e:james) this morning the thought crossed my mind about registering D to vote in the primary - I'm pretty sure my dad would have a heart attack after crying tears of joy. (My parental political situation is the exact opposite of Drew). I'm pretty sure I'd change registrations ASAP afterwards because I love getting this mail spam from both parties. It's nice to feel wanted without having to commit one way or the other.
I miss the old Democratic Party - the one that JFK came up in. I considered JFK to be a mainstream liberal - certainly had ideas on the social side but in those days nobody ever considered stuff like national defense to be a political issue. He understood the power of liberty in the realest sense and took no bullshit from the Communists.
JFK was a WWII vet - he had an understanding about national defense that no Democratic President has had since. He would have cut someone's rhetorical throat if he had to defend our interests, right or wrong. He stuck up for our country at all times while extending his hand out to his enemies. He did the right thing by wanting to invade Cuba at the time; it would have been insanity to allow the Soviets to eventually put ICBMs on that island. When JFK died it broke Khrushchev's heart.
JFK's inaugural speech was amongst the greatest in history - sorry to say it, but as good as Obama is, he will never hold a candle to JFK's rhetoric. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge -- and more."
Find me a Democrat like that and you very well might have my support.
(e:james) this morning the thought crossed my mind about registering D to vote in the primary - I'm pretty sure my dad would have a heart attack after crying tears of joy. (My parental political situation is the exact opposite of Drew). I'm pretty sure I'd change registrations ASAP afterwards because I love getting this mail spam from both parties. It's nice to feel wanted without having to commit one way or the other.
I miss the old Democratic Party - the one that JFK came up in. I considered JFK to be a mainstream liberal - certainly had ideas on the social side but in those days nobody ever considered stuff like national defense to be a political issue. He understood the power of liberty in the realest sense and took no bullshit from the Communists.
JFK was a WWII vet - he had an understanding about national defense that no Democratic President has had since. He would have cut someone's rhetorical throat if he had to defend our interests, right or wrong. He stuck up for our country at all times while extending his hand out to his enemies. He did the right thing by wanting to invade Cuba at the time; it would have been insanity to allow the Soviets to eventually put ICBMs on that island. When JFK died it broke Khrushchev's heart.
JFK's inaugural speech was amongst the greatest in history - sorry to say it, but as good as Obama is, he will never hold a candle to JFK's rhetoric. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge -- and more."
Find me a Democrat like that and you very well might have my support.
jim - 07/16/09 09:58
Just kidding about voting for Brown of course.
Just kidding about voting for Brown of course.
jim - 07/16/09 09:58
I've given up on third parties until someone can give me a 'game theory' type plausible scenario about how mathematically or electorally the political system in this country could support a third party. Even NYS's fusion system doesn't do more then move third parties from low single digits to high single digits.
The 'vast middle' that are assumed the target a large new 3rd party could carve out a base from, well... they're the ones who pick and choose from left and right on various issues, or don't care about certain issues. There's no natural cohesion in the middle, they don't agree with each other.
The divisive issues haunt the middle as well as the left and right, just not in a clear cut way suitable for organization as the polarized big parties do. What platform could a third party have that wasn't too the left of the democrats or the right of the republicans? And 3rd parties further left or right then the main parties often just get subsumed into the main parties given the slightest electoral success.
3rd parties seem to only gain power on the backs of charismatic figures (c.f. Perot or T.Roosevelt) but rarely defeat or last more than a couple electoral cycles.
Which really sucks. I'd rather have two parties, like the Greens and Libertarians locked in conflict then the Republicans and Democrats, or to have a parliamentary system where many voices and factions could be heard and coalesce.
I've given up on third parties until someone can give me a 'game theory' type plausible scenario about how mathematically or electorally the political system in this country could support a third party. Even NYS's fusion system doesn't do more then move third parties from low single digits to high single digits.
The 'vast middle' that are assumed the target a large new 3rd party could carve out a base from, well... they're the ones who pick and choose from left and right on various issues, or don't care about certain issues. There's no natural cohesion in the middle, they don't agree with each other.
The divisive issues haunt the middle as well as the left and right, just not in a clear cut way suitable for organization as the polarized big parties do. What platform could a third party have that wasn't too the left of the democrats or the right of the republicans? And 3rd parties further left or right then the main parties often just get subsumed into the main parties given the slightest electoral success.
3rd parties seem to only gain power on the backs of charismatic figures (c.f. Perot or T.Roosevelt) but rarely defeat or last more than a couple electoral cycles.
Which really sucks. I'd rather have two parties, like the Greens and Libertarians locked in conflict then the Republicans and Democrats, or to have a parliamentary system where many voices and factions could be heard and coalesce.
vincent - 07/16/09 09:44
I'm an independent waiting for that Third Party to emerge as I think BOTH parties in this country suck.
I'm an independent waiting for that Third Party to emerge as I think BOTH parties in this country suck.
james - 07/16/09 09:19
You are an Independent in New York, what is the point? Become a Dem and participate in the only game in town. Besides, as an Independent you can't participate in any major party's primary anyway.
I know you don't agree with a lot of what the Democratic Party does or believes, but there are good politicians and bad politicians and they are all Dems here.
Come on, join the Dark Side. ^_^
You are an Independent in New York, what is the point? Become a Dem and participate in the only game in town. Besides, as an Independent you can't participate in any major party's primary anyway.
I know you don't agree with a lot of what the Democratic Party does or believes, but there are good politicians and bad politicians and they are all Dems here.
Come on, join the Dark Side. ^_^
joshua - 07/16/09 08:42
I can't vote in the primary so I'm hoping for 20 votes to counter my lost one vote.
I can't vote in the primary so I'm hoping for 20 votes to counter my lost one vote.
james - 07/16/09 07:47
I will flip the switch for him so vigorously the voting booth might get an erection.
I will flip the switch for him so vigorously the voting booth might get an erection.
matthew - 07/15/09 21:35
see now, here's a journal i agree with. I'm most definitely voting for Mc-Kearns.
see now, here's a journal i agree with. I'm most definitely voting for Mc-Kearns.
07/15/2009 01:24 #49294
Surtax on the Rich5.4% 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."
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."
ajay - 07/16/09 15:06
"((e:ajay)) - no, it isn't a right."
Fair enough. What about Education? and Defense?
"((e:ajay)) - no, it isn't a right."
Fair enough. What about Education? and Defense?
joshua - 07/15/09 23:30
(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: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.
joshua - 07/15/09 20:57
(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: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.
ajay - 07/15/09 17:13
(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....
(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....
dcoffee - 07/15/09 16:12
I like that idea of having congress on the Public Option :), So long as I get to have it too.
I like that idea of having congress on the Public Option :), So long as I get to have it too.
dcoffee - 07/15/09 16:10
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.
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.
joshua - 07/15/09 15:35
(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?
(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?
ajay - 07/15/09 13:34
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
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
vincent - 07/15/09 10:04
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 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.
jason - 07/15/09 09:18
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.
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.
07/14/2009 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.
What is the name of the flower?
i'll trade you.
4 Sounds like it could be an episode from Heroes