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.
*******************************************************
|