JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for RADSTATS Archives


RADSTATS Archives

RADSTATS Archives


RADSTATS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

RADSTATS Home

RADSTATS Home

RADSTATS  November 2012

RADSTATS November 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: followup to Hudson

From:

Nigel Waters <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Nigel Waters <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:03:57 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (365 lines)

Hi Harry,

Many thanks for sending that information so quickly. Obviously I was completely unaware of the previous actions of the two newest members of the US Supreme Court. Quite embarrassing since I have a nice little exercise in multidimensional scaling where we analyze the last 50 non-unanimous decisions of the nine justices -- although that data set is just prior to the last two appointments. The result of the analysis comes out pretty much as a straight line although there is some variance captured in the second dimension.

Harry, my feeling is that we would both like to end up with an administration that is far more progressive than we have seen is the case with the first Obama administration -- we just believe that there are different routes to achieving that.

Having taught in the us at George Mason University since 2007 (following 32 years at the University of Calgary) I find myself swamped by right wing views and rhetoric and simply cannot see that we will ever get there other than with a slow incremental process. 

A right wing Romney administration would have taken us back 50 years and reversed the gains we have achieved over that time. Yes, no one "knows" what a government will actually do but the likelihood was that would have been the case. I just feel that given the realities of political opinions across the US there would have been no reaction to a Romney administration even though it would be good to think otherwise.

Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: followup to Hudson

> Hi Nigel,
> 
> Re: Sotomayor and Kagan:
> 
>    In the 2002 decision Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v.
>    Bush,[127] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's 
> implementation    of the Mexico City Policy, which states that 
> "the United States will
>    no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations 
> which    perform or actively promote abortion as a method of 
> family planning
>    in other nations."[128] Sotomayor held that the policy did not
>    constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is
>    free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice
>    position, and can do so with public funds."[127]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
> 
>    While serving as an adviser in the White House domestic policy
>    office, Kagan co-authored a May 13, 1997, memo to President Bill
>    Clinton <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton> urging him to
>    support a ban on late-term abortions
>    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion>: "We recommend
>    that you endorse the Daschle
>    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle> amendment in order to
>    sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from
>    overriding your veto."^[22]
>    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan#cite_note-22>
> 
> ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
> 
> What I'm arguing is that you can't really predict what a candidate 
> will 
> do in office, except for the absolute certainty that they will 
> rule on 
> behalf of 'The 1%'. So I'm not really concerned with who would 
> have been 
> the 'better president', for them or for us. I AM concerned about 
> which 
> would provoke a broader and more effective fightback and I 
> speculate 
> that Romney might have done so. If I'd been registered in a swing 
> state, 
> I probably still would have voted for Jill Stein because I believe 
> - 
> just a belief, mind you - that a respectable showing, say near 5% 
> of the 
> popular vote for a candidate to the left of the Repugnant 
> Demagogue 
> duopoly, might have curtailed the ruling class's cockiness and 
> encouraged the left to grow a vertebra or two.
> 
> I'm curious about what indicators you're using to measure 
> 'significance' 
> and 'progress'? I don't know much about Obamacare, but my 
> understanding 
> is that it might prevent some populations from falling between the 
> cracks. And that's a good thing, as far as it goes. But I think 
> others 
> may be economically disadvantaged by compulsory insurance premia. 
> I know 
> that health insurance policies, like other insurance policies, are 
> hedged with exclusions and excesses and that many of the insured 
> find 
> that it fails them when they most need it. Have you seen Michael 
> Moore's 
> 'Sicko'? Certainly, Obamacare's big winners are the insurance 
> industry 
> and Big Pharma.
> 
> Even though Obama had a Democrat controlled House and Senate for 
> his 
> first two years (some say 78 days or something, but I'm not across 
> that 
> argument), and could have got any legislation he liked passed 
> during 
> that period, instead, he violated all his electoral promises, 
> explicit 
> and vague, to one extent or another. He appointed the foxes to 
> guard the 
> financial chicken coop, as Hudson points out, and left underwater 
> homeowners to drown, etc.
> 
> In solidarity,
> Harry
> 
> On 12/11/12 08:18, Nigel Waters wrote:
> > Harry,
> >
> > Tripling tuition fees over ten years is bad, I would agree, but 
> it is not as bad as doing it in one year.
> >
> > Harry, could you also elaborate on your comment about Obama's 
> Supreme Court Justices taking ant-life positions. What does that 
> mean and what were the decisions that they rendered that took 
> these positions. I really am interested in the details.
> >
> > Finally, are you arguing that Romney would be a better President 
> or that there is no difference? I could not agree with either 
> agrument so perhaps it is moot. I can agree that Obama can do a 
> whole lot better in his second term, although he made significant 
> progress in his first term.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Harry Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:55 pm
> > Subject: Re: followup to Hudson
> >
> >> Rachel Maddow may be ever so cluey, although to all appearances,
> >> she's a
> >> completely deluded Obamaniac, but she can't predict what Romney
> >> 'would
> >> have done' any more than anyone else can. She CAN and did predict
> >> what
> >> Obama WOULDN'T do and that was very imprudent, particularly in
> >> light of
> >> Obama's agreement with Romney about cutting Social Security and
> >> Medicare, the fact that both of his Supreme Court appointments had
> >> taken
> >> anti-choice (or anti-life, as I prefer to call it) positions, etc.
> >>
> >> Presidents' party affiliations, personal backgrounds, media
> >> personae,
> >> least of all campaign promises and rhetoric, are poor indicators
> >> of what
> >> they will do in office. Even with the best, or more likely worst,
> >> will
> >> in the world, they are constrained by interests and events beyond
> >> their
> >> control and must make decisions with inadequate time and
> >> information...
> >> The principal issues for the left, in my view, are the extent to
> >> which
> >> they may provoke a response to their inevitable attacks and what
> >> kind of
> >> restrictions they may place on the response. The left in the US,
> >> such as
> >> it is, has proven itself almost entirely unwilling to criticise
> >> Obama,
> >> notwithstanding his reneging on his promises regarding Guantanamo,
> >> the
> >> Employee Free Choice Act, etc., quite apart from any 'hope and
> >> change'.
> >> As Hudson demonstrates, he has been and remains a creature of
> >> finance
> >> capital, but his supporters will not hear a word said against him.
> >> I
> >> suspect that many of those same people who insist on keeping shtum
> >> when
> >> Obama attacks them would be fighting mad if Romney carried out the
> >> very
> >> same policies. And some might even be motivated to fight back. I
> >> think
> >> it's plausble that Romney would take more draconian measures to
> >> avert
> >> and quash any fightback, but Obama has already demonstrated that
> >> he has
> >> form for this, himself, colluding in smashing the Occupy camps and
> >> so
> >> forth.
> >>
> >> But that's back in the realm of speculation. One thing we needn't
> >> speculate about is whether any 'American government would try to
> >> double
> >> or triple tuition fees' when we already know that they nearly
> >> tripled
> >> them in Califorina between 2001 and 2011
> >> (http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/2012-
> >> 2013/documentation/13-historical-suf-rates.shtml).
> >> I haven't looked any further, but believe the situation is similar
> >> in
> >> other states.
> >>
> >> In solidarity,
> >> Harry
> >>
> >> On 12/11/12 01:46, Nigel Waters wrote:
> >>> While I more or less agree with Larry and even Bill Black, there
> >> are a few things that we should keep in mind:
> >>> 1. Let’s begin with Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the 
> possible”.>>>
> >>> 2. Second, the US is not a parliamentary democracy and it really
> >> is amazing what Obama achieved in his first term in office given
> >> that there are such things as filibusters and Blue Dog Democrats
> >> who are just amazingly right wing – what’s the joke, “I belong to
> >> no political party, I’m a Democrat”. One of my PhD students
> >> analyzed voting patterns in the past Congress using a discriminant
> >> analysis and the democrats are just all over the place, sometimes
> >> more right wing than the Republicans (no, he hasn’t yet published
> >> it). So, here in the US, there is no party discipline, no party
> >> whips, anything goes.
> >>> 3. The Americans were absolutely horrified when the British last
> >> go round elected what turned out to be a coalition government. How
> >> would it ever work they asked? Well, unfortunately it works all
> >> too well. One surprising thing is that no American government
> >> would try to double or triple tuition fees, although the
> >> Republicans did want to pull a similar stunt on the interest rates
> >> students would pay on their loans.
> >>> 4. If you still are not convinced that Obama will make no
> >> difference then you might find it informative to listen to Rachel
> >> Maddow’s comments on how different a new Obama administration will
> >> be compared to a Romney presidency. Sure an Obama administration
> >> will not do enough for my tastes but it is infinitely better than
> >> what could have been.
> >>> Here’s the link to Rachel Maddow:
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49736294> You may have to
> >> watch the commercial but you will get everything you need to know
> >> about how different things will be in the first two minutes. It
> >> goes fast and you will have to understand a few things about
> >> American politics. Re the comment on Romney’s character as a bully
> >> in high school, she does not also mention that he subsequently
> >> protested for the Vietnam War and then himself dodged the draft.
> >>>
> >>> ******************************************************
> >>> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> >>> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> >>> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> >>> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> >>> to [log in to unmask]
> >>> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the
> >> sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of
> >> views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find
> >> out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and
> >> read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to
> >> visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> >>> *******************************************************
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is much longer piece that fills in some of Hudson's
> >> scenario
> >>> from a slightly different perspective.
> >>> It is by Bill Black, who concentrates on the criminal behavior
> >> that
> >>> enabled Wall Street to commit its many frauds, including one
> >> that GS
> >>> did on the Greek government. The Greek government was duped into
> >>> making certain investments, which not soon after went against
> >> them,
> >>> something the investment bank knew was going to eventually occur
> >> and
> >>> probably sooner rather than later. How do we know that they knew
> >> these
> >>> investments were toxic? They bet against them. Ie, they set
> >> things up
> >>> so that they could both have their cake and eat it. Nice. Has
> >> anyone
> >>> been prosecuted for these crimes? No. Will anyone be? Most
> >> probably
> >>> not, except for perhaps a few trivial cases. These were in no
> >> sense
> >>> "innocent frauds", a term I detest.
> >>> http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/11/wall-street-urges-
> >> obama-to-commit-the-great-betrayal.html
> >>> larry
> >>> /*Dr L Brownstein*/
> >>> *[alt-e]: */*[log in to unmask]*/
> >>> Review Editor
> >>> /Radical Statistics/
> >>> "It's difficult to reason someone out of something that they've
> >> never
> >>> been reasoned into."
> >>> -- Jonathan Swift
> >>>
> >>> ****************************************************** Please
> >> note
> >>> that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only
> >> to the
> >>> sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list,
> >> use
> >>> your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
> >> automatically
> >>> to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to
> >> this list
> >>> are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be
> >> representative
> >>> of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical
> >> Statistics
> >>> Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims
> >> and
> >>> activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter
> >> you are
> >>> invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> >>> *******************************************************
> >>> ****************************************************** Please
> >> note
> >>> that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only
> >> to the
> >>> sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list,
> >> use
> >>> your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
> >> automatically
> >>> to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to
> >> this list
> >>> are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be
> >> representative
> >>> of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical
> >> Statistics
> >>> Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims
> >> and
> >>> activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter
> >> you are
> >>> invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> >>> *******************************************************
> >>
> >> ******************************************************
> >> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> >> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> >> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> >> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> >> to [log in to unmask]
> >> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the
> >> sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of
> >> views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find
> >> out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and
> >> read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to
> >> visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> 
> 
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the 
> sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of 
> views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find 
> out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and 
> read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to 
> visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
> 

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager