|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Host and DK ....You both continue to reinforce my belief that neither of you is willing to consider pragmatic politcal solutions to our current state of affairs but would rather espouse your extremist rhetoric for purposes beyond my understanding.
Our governmental system of checks and balances, and accountability to the people, ingeniously envisioned by the framers of the Constitition, and with all its warts and shortcomings (particularly int the last six years) has worked excedingly well for 200+ years. It will continue to work if reasonable minds prevail, despite the doomsday scenarios painted by self-righteous ideologues on both ends of the politcal spectrum.
|
dc_dux, doesn't it come down to where you've come from, and what you are willing to swallow....to settle for, now? I "came up" in a time in America when the Gini Co-efficient in the Us was .356....when Scotus justices William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall were the defenders of the constitution and acted in the spirit that the framers had intended....to protect the interests of the least of us, against those of the most powerful and prosperous, and against, on occassion, a misguided majority of us.
Let's look at me now....the political and economic environment that I'm forced to live in today if I choose to continue to reside in my country.....
....Why isn't it, in view of the actual record of where the last four republican presidents, and the federal judges they have appointed, supported by a partisan and compromised series of Attorney Generals and FBI directors, aggravated by the dramatic decline in the way the "pie" of wealth and poliitcal influence is divided today in the US....reasonable....to consider my views as "middle of the road"....I'd enjoy one good argument that describes how I am "too polarized". In the U.S. of 35 years ago, or in Japan and in Europe today, my sentiments would clearly place me in the "center". Why not here in the US, what is the influence that results in dc_dux's reaction to my OP????
<b>By any measure....of opinion that has not been tainted and compromised by the investment of benefactors to both of the dominant, "right wing" political parties in the U.S., "ole host" would be considered a centrist.
Consider that this measure of the leanings of Scotus justices sets a value of ".500" as the center....the moderate position. Consider where the Scotus has taken us, how it's supporters and manipulators have successfully "spun" and controlled the damage that has resulted from it's rulings in the current era, and how the majority of the American people are more accepting of a Gini value that may be as high now as .47, compared to the reaction in Japan to a Gini of .314....
Fellows....I am not the partisan extremist here on this forum....I exhibit sentiments that, in western Europe of Japan, would reasonably be considered moderate, centrist. If I am a centrist....where do you think you are positioned, compared to me?</b>
Quote:
http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical...d_segalco.html
February 20, 2006
Updated Segal/Cover Scores
Jeffrey Segal recently updated the Segal/Cover perceived ideology scores by adding Samuel Alito. Alito rates a .1 on a scale that runs from 0 to 1.0, with 0 being the most conservative and 1.0 being the most liberal. The Court now lines up as follows:
Ginsburg .680
Breyer .475
Kennedy .365
Souter .325
Stevens .250
Thomas .150
Roberts .120
Alito .100
Scalia .000
|
Quote:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1095434485225
High Court Clerks Bemoan 'Bush v. Gore' Revelations
Scores of former Supreme Court law clerks criticize those who gave Vanity Fair details about Court divisions in case
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
September 28, 2004
More than 90 prominent lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks including former Attorneys General Richard Thornburgh and William Barr have joined in a statement sharply criticizing the law clerks who gave behind-the-scenes details about the 2000 case Bush v. Gore to Vanity Fair magazine.....
......Entitled "The Path to Florida," the article reviews the dramatic events of four years ago and depicts sharp divisions within the Court over whether the Florida recount should proceed or be ended. Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and, eventually, Anthony Kennedy are portrayed as determined to reach a result that would hand victory to George W. Bush.
Several law clerks are named, though they are not necessarily among the clerks Margolick was able to interview. Margolick says roughly one-fourth of that term's 35 clerks spoke with him.
<b>In a footnote published with the article, Margolick, a former legal affairs reporter for The New York Times, acknowledges the confidentiality rule and says none of the clerks he spoke to disclosed internal documents or conversations with their justices. But he indicates that the clerks who were willing to give him other details did so because they felt strongly the Court had acted improperly in the election case. "We feel that something illegitimate was done with the Court's power, and such an extraordinary situation justifies breaking an obligation we'd otherwise honor," Margolick quotes one clerk as saying....... </b>
......In one episode reported in the story, Scalia clerk Kevin Martin visited the chambers of Justice John Paul Stevens to discuss the case with Stevens' clerks. The conversation "turned nasty," Margolick reports, and Martin stormed out. Martin could not be reached for comment. On another occasion, Kennedy was said to have visited Justice Stephen Breyer's chambers, where he stated aloud that he hoped Breyer would join his opinion against continuing the recount. "We just kind of looked at him like he was crazy," a clerk is quoted as saying.
'UNBELIEVABLE'
Andrew McBride, a 1988 O'Connor clerk who helped draft and circulate the statement, says it was launched after "seven or eight former clerks of various years read that footnote and said, 'This is unbelievable.' " He says clerks of all political stripes were upset that some clerks were willing to violate their Code of Conduct because of their disagreement with Bush v. Gore. Signers were solicited nationwide, McBride says, adding that none of the 2000 clerks were asked to participate.
McBride, a partner at Wiley Rein & Fielding, says disclosures like those made by the clerks in the Vanity Fair article damage the functioning of the Court. "It has to chill communications" between justices and their clerks, he says.
Erik Jaffe, a 1996 Clarence Thomas clerk who also signed the statement, says confidentiality is a crucial obligation. "Clerks have unprecedented access and are granted unprecedented candor," says Jaffe, who compared what the clerks did in Vanity Fair with "stealing my diary." He adds, "If any attorney did that, he'd be disbarred."
McBride, speaking for himself and not the other signers, also says the magazine's use of the information provided by the clerks was "not good journalism." He reasons that the views of any clerk who was willing to violate the Code of Conduct were inherently suspect and, in this case, were one-sided against the Court majority. "The reliability of the statements cannot be verified, and other clerks can't respond because they feel bound by the code," McBride says........
|
<b>Note who were described to be among the 90 former Scotus clerks who were "outraged" by the conduct of the Scotus clerks who spoke to Vanity Fair about the unprecedented "non precedent setting" ruling by 5 Scotus Justices in the case of Gore v. Bush in Dec., 2000.
Maybe the "indignation" of the "90" convinces you that the act of the clerks speaking to Vanity Fair is the affront to the sensiblities of the majority of the citizenry. I submit that this is a smokescreen.....that they protest too loudly:
</b>
Quote:
http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2004_09...d_archive.html
<h3>Tuesday, September 28, 2004</h3>
<h2>Supreme Court <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">Clerks</b> for Truth<a name="109641090702935590"> </a></h2>
<div class="blogPost">
<div style="clear:both;"></div><a href="http://volokh.com/">Orin Kerr at Volokh</a> (link to main page, permalink broken) reports that "about 90 former Supreme Court <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> (along with some prominent practitioners)" have signed a <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1095434485367">statement</a> objecting to a group of <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> speaking to <em><b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Vanity</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Fair</b></em> about the <em>Bush v. Gore</em> deliberations.<br /><br />While the propriety of the conduct of the <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> giving interviews seems to me subject to good faith debate, let us take a moment to consider the objectors. The objecting <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> and practitioners claim to represent a diversity of views: <br /><br /><blockquote>"Although the signatories below have differing views on the merits of the Supreme Court's decisions in the election cases of 2000, they are unanimous in their belief that it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court clerk to disclose confidential information, received in the course of the law clerk's duties, pertaining to the work of the Court."</blockquote>Do those "differing views" mean they're divided between the <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html">per curiam opinion and the Rehnquist concurrence</a>? While there do seem to be a few Democrats on the list (Jeffrey Bleich is one, though he just received a significant appointment from Schwartznegger), it appears to be heavy with hard-core Republicans. The "prominent practitioners" are overwhelmingly so:<br /><br /><blockquote>Theodore Olson -- Argued Bush v. Gore for Bush; now Bush's SG.<br />Douglas R. Cox -- Olson's former partner; co-author of Bush's Supreme Court Brief<br />Jan Baran -- Former General Counsel of RNC and Bush I for President<br />William P. Barr -- Bush I's Second AG<br />Michael Carvin -- <a href="http://www.mdn.org/2001/STORIES/LAWYER.HTM">Represented Bush in Florida recount</a><br />Mark Evans -- <a href="http://www.khhte.com">Partner of Peter Huber, author of <em>Hard Green, Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists: A Conservative Manifesto</em> and <em>Law and Disorder in Cyberspace . . . Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm</em></a><br />Charles R.A. Morse -- <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Engage/apr04.pdf">Federalist Society, Litigation Group Publication Committee</a><br />Richard Thornburgh -- Bush I's First AG<br />John Thorne -- <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1065195517149">Telecom lawyer who recently worked with Ted Olson on major appeal</a>; <a href="http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/qind/">Bush donor</a></blockquote>The former <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> include Kenneth Starr -- whose sudden concern for official confidentiality is quite convenient after pressing for the testimony of Clinton's secret service entourage and using leaks as a prosecutorial tactic. And <a href="http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=C._Boyden_Gray">Republican power broker Boyden Gray</a>. And Bradford Berenson, member of the Federalist Society and former counsel to Bush I. And Rebecca Benyon, former special assistant to Bush II. And Peter Huber (above). And so on.<br /><br />And by the way, 90 <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> may seem like a lot, but that's fewer than three years' worth. Supreme Court <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">clerks</b> tend to have prominent careers and be easy to find, so the fact that they could only get 90 signatures actually strikes me as pretty weak.<div style="clear:both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;"></div><br />
<div class="byline"><a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_thurgood_archive.html#109641090702935590" title="permanent link">#</a> posted by Fred Vincy @ 9/28/2004 04:39:46 PM</div>
</div>
<a href="javascript:HaloScan('109641090702935590');" target="_self"><script type="text/javascript">postCount('109641090702935590'); </script></a> | <a href="javascript:HaloScanTB('109641090702935590');" target="_self"><script type="text/javascript">postCountTB('109641090702935590'); </script></a><br><br>
|
<b>Here we present an opinion that the recent Gini Coeffient in the U.S. could be reasonably estimated at .47......</b>
Quote:
http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/winter/?p=200
« Take the Blue Pill, Take the Red Pill
Through the Looking Glass »
Ali G Economics and the Gini Coefficient Puzzle
Paul Kasriel of Northern Trust has put together a collection of charts that reveal some dramatic economic changes underway. Let’s go through them. Charts 12-15 are a snapshot of the leverage used by American consumers......
....I make a primary distinction from this data, and that is the American consumer is now very bifurcated. Most economists act as if it’s fairly monolithic. This bifurcation is measured by what is called the Gini Coefficient (GC), which reflects income and wealth distribution inequality. (It is important that you click the thumbnail link to enlarge the chart.) The latest estimate for the US GC is from 2005 and checks in at about 47, so visually adjust the yellow line on the chart accordingly. It’s now just a bit below Mexico, a process being accelerated by illegal immigration to the tune of 60,000 per month, or six Topeka, Kansas’ per year. It is estimated that only 3% of America’s 12 million illegals have a college education, and many don’t pay taxes.
It is my view however that 47 is likely to be understated, and that the last two years in particular has witnessed a parabolic acceleration, probably to well above 50. Therefore, it is vital when looking at the American economy to start using an economic model that is much closer to Mexico, or even Brazil, than to comparisons with other advanced countries such as Europe, or Japan. ....
|
<b>Those spoiled, ignorant Japanese people.....</b>
Quote:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/bizf.../04/2003311689
Japan's `lost decade' leaves many in dire straits
AFP, TOKYO
Sunday, Jun 04, 2006, Page 12
..... These are not extraordinary cases in Japan, which has prided itself since the end of World War II on being a classless society. Even today people in need are often reluctant to ask for help.
"In Japan, poor people hide. Those who live on social security don't talk about it because they think they are responsible for their own misfortune," said Kazuya Hata, a charity worker at The Group to Protect Living and Health.
Homelessness, which was largely unknown in Japan until the economic bubble burst in the early 1990s, has also risen and many parks are dotted with the blue tarpaulins of their makeshift shelters.
Japan's economy may be finally emerging from the `lost decade' of deflation but it is still expected to have more than one million households on welfare on average in the year to March, according to the most recent government survey.
This is about 2 percent of the total number of households in Japan and a 60 percent jump from 10 years ago, according to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor.
While the increase is largely due to the aging population, the total number of working-age people on welfare, including disability and other benefits, has also gone up.
Almost 20 percent of the Japanese population is now aged 65 or older.
This ratio, already at a record high, will only increase as post-war baby boomers approach retirement age, while the falling birthrate is set to put increasing strains on the public finances.
While some struggle to scrape by, those with cash to burn head for ultra-chic shopping complexes in Tokyo with jaw-dropping prices, such as Roppongi Hills and its new sister mall Omotesando Hills.
<b>Social inequalities may still be less pronounced in Japan than many other countries but there is increasing public concern about the emergence of the "haves" and the "have-nots" -- and the rising number of Japanese millionaires.
</b>
For many Japanese the unsavory side of the country's new style of capitalism was embodied by the fall from grace of Takafumi Horie, the high-flying founder of the Livedoor Internet firm now indicted for fraud.
<b>A poll in March by the Yomiuri newspaper found that some 81 percent of Japanese people think the income gap is widening and many blame Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's reforms as he seeks to slim down the government.
</b>
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), <b>Japan's gini coefficient, a leading measure of inequality, stood at 0.314 in 2004, worse than Germany, France and Scandinavian nations but better than the US and Britain.</b>
In 1969 Japan's gini coefficient was 0.316, above France's 0.414 at around the same time, where zero corresponds to perfect equality and 1.0 to perfect inequality.
On the face of it Japan's economy is in the best shape for a long time with the unemployment rate is at a seven-year low of 4.1 percent.
The number of people receiving jobless benefits declined to 628,000 in the fiscal year to March this year from 1.1 million four years earlier, out of a total population of about 127 million, according to government statistics.
However, not everyone is benefiting from falling unemployment, said Takuro Morinaga, an economics professor at Dokkyo University near Tokyo.
<b>"Many specialists say the income gap has been rapidly widening," he said, noting that under Koizumi's reforms it has become easier for manufacturing companies to hire temporary workers.
"This means that many workers who used to be protected by the law can suddenly be fired, even though they are on lower incomes," Morinaga added. </b>
|
Quote:
<i>Well, down on me, oh, down on me,
I said it looks like everybody in this whole round world
They're down on me.
</i>
....Thank you very much. we're big brother and the holding company
|
Last edited by host; 01-05-2007 at 11:24 AM..
|