"Ignoramus620" wrote in message
...
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights, and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 16, 10:39*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ignoramus620" wrote in message

...

By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights, and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.

--
Ed Huntress

They will only be eliminated from countries with leaders and
populations naive enough to believe the wishful rhetoric. Others will
hide them under the drugs we can't find or in Bin Laden's cave or next
to Jimmy Hoffa, or in a donated World Peace Memorial statue, concealed
by lead shielding inside the bronze.

Germany and Japan were able to build up air forces and navies that
violated the high-minded arms control treaties that followed WW1, more
or less in plain sight, because Western pacifists wouldn't accept
evidence that they were wrong. The strong and competent US foreign
intelligence service was shut down because "gentlemen don't read each
other's mail".

The Russians recently revealed a major undiscovered Soviet missile
development center right outside Moscow disguised as an apartment
complex. The water tower was actually the flash suppressor for rocket
exhausts. All they had to do to fool our satellites was move the cars
around in a normal commuter pattern.

Jim Wilkins

....
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they are of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much. The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in California for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan. By the time he hit the White House
his peak was well past him and the slide into dementia started exactly when?
Some folks know but they don't want to spoil the idealistic picture of their
hero by spilling the beans. Suffice it to say that when a president can't
stay awake in cabinet meetings something is wrong besides just being sleepy.
I would venture to say if you can't stay awake for that kind of thing you
are no longer capable of being the president.


He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear
weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Ideally, it would be a plus to eliminate nukes. Realistically, I don't see
it as possible because weak countries believe it's their only protection
against aggressors, like the US.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew
first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the
risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same
understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.



No, not courage. Foolhardiness and stupidity is what it would take.
Unfortunately, it seems like there are a number of countries that are led by
people who are indeed too stupid to understand how MAD works and that would
therefore reduce the efficacy of the policy.


Hawke

On 2008-05-16, Hawke wrote:
...
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that
they are of no value to anyone.


In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would accomplish
nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.

Thus it makes it a great weapon. I would rather see weapons not used.

i



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much. The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in California for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan. By the time he hit the White House
his peak was well past him and the slide into dementia started exactly when?
Some folks know but they don't want to spoil the idealistic picture of their
hero by spilling the beans. Suffice it to say that when a president can't
stay awake in cabinet meetings something is wrong besides just being sleepy.
I would venture to say if you can't stay awake for that kind of thing you
are no longer capable of being the president.


He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear
weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Ideally, it would be a plus to eliminate nukes. Realistically, I don't see
it as possible because weak countries believe it's their only protection
against aggressors, like the US.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew
first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the
risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same
understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.



No, not courage. Foolhardiness and stupidity is what it would take.
Unfortunately, it seems like there are a number of countries that are led by
people who are indeed too stupid to understand how MAD works and that would
therefore reduce the efficacy of the policy.


Hawke



--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights, and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Ed, nuclear new clear weapons will never go away. I am more impressed
that we gave away PAL technology to the Soviets.

Wes

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
...
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they are
of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms of
Reagan's intelligence.

The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all inside.

The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in California
for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan.

Aha. Is this anything like you knowing all about the Surpreme Court
justices? g

snip

--
Ed Huntress

Right - MAD had it's place when dealing with a knowledgeable and intelligent
and using it country. The MAD broke down with the North Koreans and China.
The Russians (Soviets then) knew it wasn't a win or break even game. SO MAD worked.

The two were not trusted. They valued life little. They amassed Million men
armies and didn't expect any of them to come back.

Vengeful and reactionary are just a couple of bad terms that brought MAD down.

Once down, balance and stability died.

Since the down turn of the morals of the various new countries having Nukes
they, signed not to obtain or develop. But they did.

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ignoramus620" wrote in message
...
By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights, and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

He said essentially what Obama is suggesting as a goal: that nuclear weapons
are a scourge and should be completely eliminated from the earth. His
numerous arms-control initiatives were pointed in that direction.

Read his memoir on the subject some time. This is a guy who knew first-hand
what nuclear weapons do to the relations between countries and to the risks
they face. You'll find that other presidents who had that same understanding
felt the same way about it, but were less forthright about doing anything
about it. Mutually assured destruction, after all, seemed to work at the
time, and it would take an extraordinary amount of courage to go against
that principle.

--
Ed Huntress






----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms of
Reagan's intelligence.

The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all inside.


Ed? Ed, is that really you?

The real Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said
he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even
before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's
also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most
critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms
of
Reagan's intelligence.

The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although
he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person
who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all
inside.


Ed? Ed, is that really you?

The real Wes

Whaddaya mean? I'm an equal-opportunity curmudgeon. d8-)

Reagan will always be an enigma to me, no matter how much I try to read
about him. To me, and to a lot of other people at the time, the B-movie
actor facade never let down. It was like trying to read him through a piece
of opaque glass. We knew what we were seeing wasn't real but I could never
tell what *was* real. And the only people who knew, I'm convinced, are the
people who really knew him when he wasn't in front of a camera. The only
time the rest of us ever saw him, of course, was when he *was* in front of a
camera.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Reagan will always be an enigma to me, no matter how much I try to read
about him. To me, and to a lot of other people at the time, the B-movie
actor facade never let down. It was like trying to read him through a piece
of opaque glass. We knew what we were seeing wasn't real but I could never
tell what *was* real. And the only people who knew, I'm convinced, are the
people who really knew him when he wasn't in front of a camera. The only
time the rest of us ever saw him, of course, was when he *was* in front of a
camera.

I have a hunch the man in front of the camera was much more real than most
other politicians.


Did you read "The Reagan Diaries"? Opinion?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Reagan will always be an enigma to me, no matter how much I try to read
about him. To me, and to a lot of other people at the time, the B-movie
actor facade never let down. It was like trying to read him through a
piece
of opaque glass. We knew what we were seeing wasn't real but I could never
tell what *was* real. And the only people who knew, I'm convinced, are the
people who really knew him when he wasn't in front of a camera. The only
time the rest of us ever saw him, of course, was when he *was* in front of
a
camera.

I have a hunch the man in front of the camera was much more real than most
other politicians.


Did you read "The Reagan Diaries"? Opinion?

No. I read _An American Life_. I'd like to read the other accounts of those
years, especially the straight histories by Cannon, etc., before taking on
another biographical book.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did you read "The Reagan Diaries"? Opinion?

No. I read _An American Life_. I'd like to read the other accounts of those
years, especially the straight histories by Cannon, etc., before taking on
another biographical book.


I'd like to read Reagan's actual diaries.
It would be interesting to see how Reagan, Nixon, or Bush (41) would have
handled 911.

IIRC, he did fireside chats on radio as governor if I caught a snippit on
mass media correctly. I'd like to listen to that also.

America could use another great leader now. Sadly, electing one is hit and
miss.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Did you read "The Reagan Diaries"? Opinion?

No. I read _An American Life_. I'd like to read the other accounts of
those
years, especially the straight histories by Cannon, etc., before taking on
another biographical book.


I'd like to read Reagan's actual diaries.
It would be interesting to see how Reagan, Nixon, or Bush (41) would have
handled 911.

IIRC, he did fireside chats on radio as governor if I caught a snippit on
mass media correctly. I'd like to listen to that also.

America could use another great leader now. Sadly, electing one is hit
and
miss.

Wes

It almost feels like a crapshoot, after getting sandbagged a couple of times
in my lifetime. I'm not going to say who I feel sandbagged us. g

--
Ed Huntress

By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is
not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons. But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they
are
of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something
you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

Me, no. But my parents knew him when they were part of the Orange county,
Reagan country republican support system. Since I lived in California since
1961 and mainly in Orange county I do know a lot about Reagan. I also knew
all about his politics and about the things said about him by people in the
community who had known him for years.


I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said
he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even
before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's
also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most
critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms
of
Reagan's intelligence.

I know about George Will too. I'll agree with you that he is a smart guy and
very knowledgable. But he's got his head so far up the ass of the republican
party leadership that his "insight" about republicans is worthless. He's one
of those guys who very cleverly finds every minute flaw with Democrats but
finds nothing to complain about when it comes to his beloved republicans. No
credibility on republicans from him because of extreme bias, sorry.
As to Reagan's intelligence it's not a matter of what "leftists" say. You
can discount them all you want. The fact is that like George W. nobody ever
went around bragging about how smart and well educated Ronald Reagan was.
Except for his mindless followers who did see him as a diety. Oh, by the
way, Will is one of the Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Reagan.


The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although
he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person
who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all
inside.

The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the
same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in California
for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan.

Aha. Is this anything like you knowing all about the Surpreme Court
justices? g

Kind of. I finished the "Nine" by the way. No insights there other than that
justice Thomas likes to RV. It did confirm what I said earlier about the
court, it's not a legal body. It's a political one. Which is why the
presidents pick the justices they do, they know ahead of time the way the
judges will rule, except when they get an occasional curveball. It doesn't
take a genius to know why Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were chosen. They were
chosen because their politics is perfectly in synch with republican
politics. What I learned about the Supreme Court I learned in Grad school. I
learned about Reagan by living under his governing for too many years. Both
were good learning experiences. Living under Reagan as a leader was not.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

America could use another great leader now. Sadly, electing one is hit
and
miss.

Wes

It almost feels like a crapshoot, after getting sandbagged a couple of times
in my lifetime. I'm not going to say who I feel sandbagged us. g

There have been more than one. Perceptions may differ on the names and
terms. I sure wish Nixon hadn't blown it he could have been a great leader.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is
not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons.
But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they
are
of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something
you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important
insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that
list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

Me, no. But my parents knew him when they were part of the Orange county,
Reagan country republican support system. Since I lived in California
since
1961 and mainly in Orange county I do know a lot about Reagan. I also knew
all about his politics and about the things said about him by people in
the
community who had known him for years.


I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said
he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even
before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's
also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most
critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms
of
Reagan's intelligence.

I know about George Will too. I'll agree with you that he is a smart guy
and
very knowledgable. But he's got his head so far up the ass of the
republican
party leadership that his "insight" about republicans is worthless. He's
one
of those guys who very cleverly finds every minute flaw with Democrats but
finds nothing to complain about when it comes to his beloved republicans.
No
credibility on republicans from him because of extreme bias, sorry.

It appears you're confusing him with someone else. He's often quite critical
of Republicans, especially Dubya, and most especially on his policies in
Iraq.

As to Reagan's intelligence it's not a matter of what "leftists" say. You
can discount them all you want. The fact is that like George W. nobody
ever
went around bragging about how smart and well educated Ronald Reagan was.
Except for his mindless followers who did see him as a diety. Oh, by the
way, Will is one of the Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Reagan.

I don't know what you mean by that expression. He knew and advised Reagan,
and, as I said, Will thinks Reagan was underestimated. The jury is out as
far as I'm concerned.

Like you, most of Reagan's detractors have been leftish and I question how
informed they really are. Your estimate of George Will, if it's equal in
quality to your estimate of Reagan, is not something I'd put stock in. As I
said, I knew George Will. He was my professor and academic advisor; he got
me my opportunity to study international politics at the University of
Lausanne. I have high regard for the clarity of his vision and his judgment,
even though I often disagree with his politics.



The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although
he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person
who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all
inside.

The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the
same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in
California
for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan.

Aha. Is this anything like you knowing all about the Surpreme Court
justices? g

Kind of.

Then you have a problem here. d8-)

I finished the "Nine" by the way. No insights there other than that
justice Thomas likes to RV. It did confirm what I said earlier about the
court, it's not a legal body. It's a political one. Which is why the
presidents pick the justices they do, they know ahead of time the way the
judges will rule, except when they get an occasional curveball. It doesn't
take a genius to know why Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were chosen. They
were
chosen because their politics is perfectly in synch with republican
politics. What I learned about the Supreme Court I learned in Grad school.
I
learned about Reagan by living under his governing for too many years.
Both
were good learning experiences. Living under Reagan as a leader was not.

You can spare us your idea of what the Court should be as a "legal body."
There are various doctrines of jurisprudence, and the Justices reflect a
broad spectrum of those doctrines. Even at the most conservative end, for
example, you have two "originalists" -- Scalia and Thomas -- who have very
different views of precedent.

And I think you're too quick to cross-identify those jurisprudential
doctines with politics. Politically conservative judges tend toward more
originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but not always. Some favor
states rights, but not all of them. They *often* surprise, and anger, the
presidents who nominate them, with their decisions in particular cases. And
so on.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

And I think you're too quick to cross-identify those jurisprudential
doctines with politics. Politically conservative judges tend toward more
originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but not always. Some favor
states rights, but not all of them. They *often* surprise, and anger, the
presidents who nominate them, with their decisions in particular cases. And
so on.

Well I don't think David Souter is voting the Republican plank and he was
nominated by President Bush (41).

These judges are appointed for life and there is no real way to influence
them externally. I would suspect the biggest influence on them is each of
the other Justices.

If you watch c-span, you can often catch one of them addressing some group.
It is always interesting to learn how they think about certain cases and
priciples of law.


Wes



Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

And I think you're too quick to cross-identify those jurisprudential
doctines with politics. Politically conservative judges tend toward more
originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but not always. Some
favor
states rights, but not all of them. They *often* surprise, and anger, the
presidents who nominate them, with their decisions in particular cases.
And
so on.

Well I don't think David Souter is voting the Republican plank and he was
nominated by President Bush (41).

These judges are appointed for life and there is no real way to influence
them externally. I would suspect the biggest influence on them is each of
the other Justices.

If you watch c-span, you can often catch one of them addressing some
group.
It is always interesting to learn how they think about certain cases and
priciples of law.

Yeah, I wish I had time for more of that. Meantime, the book that Hawke
mentioned, _The Nine_, is a good read for anyone interested in the makeup of
the present Court. It's a combination of biographical info about them and
discussions about how they really operate on a day-to-day basis.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yeah, I wish I had time for more of that. Meantime, the book that Hawke
mentioned, _The Nine_, is a good read for anyone interested in the makeup of
the present Court. It's a combination of biographical info about them and
discussions about how they really operate on a day-to-day basis.


I see the local library has it. I'll have to drop in on tuesday when it is
open again.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:29:34 -0400, Wes wrote:
snip
These judges are appointed for life and there is no real way to influence
them externally.
snip
------------
And herein lies a real problem for the country.

When the US Constitution was written, median life expectancy was
about 35 years,
http://www.answers.com/topic/life-ex...cy?cat=biz-fin
{about 1/3 of way down the page} and a long term illness was one
that took 10 days to kill you. Note that If infant mortality is
excluded, a person that reached 20 could expect to live about
another 40 years, i.e. 60. To be appointed and confirmed as a
judge, you had to be admitted to the bar, and have some legal
background, which would probably put you up into your mid to late
30s at the soonest, leaving at most 25 years on the bench.

Currently, life expectancy at birth is now 78 in the United
States
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html or an increase of 43
years from 1776 or more than a 100% increase. Using the life
expectancy by age tables, it can be seen that there has been a
huge increase in the term of "life time appointment."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

This gross increase in tenure because of increased lifespan is
amplified and exacerbated by advances in medical technology
whereby individuals suffering from chronic conditions such as
cancer or cognitive disfunction are now kept alive for years,
e.g. Chief Justice William Rehnquist
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/rehnquist/index.html

Given the increasing participation of the judges in the
legislative process through "judicial activism," the country can
no longer tolerate mentally impaired judges, judges pre-occupied
with their own mortality and impending death, or judges totally
out of touch with current conditions, who are still living in the
1960s [or earlier] in a land that never was.

== Thus there seems to be every justification for legislation
specifying that a total of 20 years on the Federal bench at all
levels shall constitute a "life-time," with mandatory retirement
at full pay, and to require an annual intensive physical and
mental evaluation of all judges to verify their ability to
fulfill the requirements of that office after their 65th
birthday, with automatic retirement at full pay should they not
pass. This seems more than fair to the judges.

[In your dreams...]

FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On May 18, 11:40*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

When the US Constitution was written, median life expectancy was
about 35 years,http://www.answers.com/topic/life-ex...cy?cat=biz-fin
{about 1/3 of way down the page} and a long term illness was one
that took 10 days to kill you. Note that If infant mortality is
excluded, a person that reached 20 could expect to live about
another 40 years, i.e. 60. *To be appointed and confirmed as a
judge, you had to be admitted to the bar, and have some legal
background, which would probably put you up into your mid to late
30s at the soonest, leaving at most 25 years on the bench.

Currently, life expectancy at birth is now 78 in the United
Stateshttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.htmlor an increase of 43
years from 1776 or more than a 100% increase. *Using the life
expectancy by age tables, it can be seen that there has been a
huge increase in the term of "life time appointment."http://www.infoplease..com/ipa/A0005140.html


FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme...e_Court_of_the...

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

http://www.americanrevolution.com/FoundingFathers.htm
Average lifespan was almost 67, some lived past 80.

Jim Wilkins

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

As indicated on the "demographics" page [about 7/8th from the
top] 7 of the current 9 Justices are graduates of either Harvard
or Yale, one from Columbia and one from Northwestern, all highly
[some would say overly] elite schools.

Name Appt. by College Law school
John Roberts G.W. Bush Harvard Harvard
John Paul Stevens Ford Chicago Northwestern
Antonin Scalia Reagan Georgetown Harvard
Anthony Kennedy Reagan Stanford Harvard
David Souter G.H.W. Bush Harvard Harvard
Clarence Thomas G.H.W. Bush Holy Cross Yale
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton Cornell Columbia
Stephen Breyer Clinton Stanford Harvard
Samuel Alito G.W. Bush Princeton Yale

This is a very good point, and the elitist background of the
SCOTUS justices, in addition to their age, certainly amplifies
their isolation from [the concerns of] the majority of American
citizens.

Where are the graduates from our state law schools and land grant
universities? Why are there no graduates from UC, KU, FSU, Texas
Tech, etc.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/boalt-hall.html
http://www.law.ku.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida...College_of_Law
http://news.ttu.edu/archive/newsReleasesByCategory/13

Should there be a policy limiting the number of Harvard/Yale law
graduates? Should there be a policy requiring at least 5 of the
9 justices be graduates of law programs at public universities?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On May 18, 12:38*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

Should there be a policy limiting the number of Harvard/Yale law
graduates? *Should there be a policy requiring at least 5 of the
9 justices be graduates of law programs at public universities?

Unka' George [George McDuffee]


How about a fairness & diversity policy requiring some fraction of
those accepted by Harvard to attend state university instead?

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference to the
concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"? And how should current
"concerns" influence decisions about constitutionality of laws? After all,
that's basically what they do.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference to the
concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues. [There are many
others, generally involving pension funding and corporate
stockholder "rights"] A closely related situation is the rush by
the pols to sell public property [to "balance the budget"] such
as roads at fire sale prices to for-profit companies that then
charge the public to use the facilities their taxes paid for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300783.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698927-84.stm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14921


And how should current
"concerns" influence decisions about constitutionality of laws? After all,
that's basically what they do.
---------------
Legal cases are not brought in a vacuum [if they are, that's what
is called a moot court which is an academic exercise], and the
tacit/implicit contextual factors are frequently more important
than the written law, which may be ambagious, or as frequently
occurs, several legal conflicting legal theories or precedents
apply. Also experience may show that certain assumptions or
pre-conditions were not correct or changed over time.

A prime example of this is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
347 U.S. 483 (1954 which reviewed the results of Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

IMNSHO, the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson of "separate, but equal"
was correct for the time and the legal situation as it was then
understood.

The problem was [and would be again] is that the word "SEPERATE"
was easily heard and understood, while the qualifier ", but
equal" was widely ignored. By 1954, the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for the majority students had seen very
considerable progress/improvement, while the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for most "separate, but equal" minority schools
had not, which in [too] many cases remained at or about the 1896
levels.

The serious and increasing adverse aggregate socio-economic
effects of this growing disparity in education availability, on
the national economy/society, were well documented by Gunnar
Myrdal in his book "An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democracy." [FWIW -- this was admitted as evidence for
its factual data, and not its legal theories.] Thus there were
not only serious equity/chancery questions raised, but also
undeniable and increasing serious questions of national economic
impact (and on social stability resulting from the economic
effects), with the result that "Brown" supplanted "Plessy."
==Our increasingly deaf financial and corporate management would
do well to pay attention to this case.==

This "Ivory Tower" problem is greatly exacerbated when the judges
are living in the "never was TV world" of "Leave It To Beaver" of
the 1950s, and/or are isolated by their elitist education and
social/financial status from the huge majority of citizens.
Current (2008) salary for the Chief Justice is $217,400 per year,
while Associate Justices make $208,100.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htm
with primo free medical care/perscription benefits and a super
retirement package, all paid for by the taxpayers. [So much for
objective action on socialized medicine and pension reform...]

Some specific instances are SCOTUS failure/refusal to act on, or
indeed even recognize, the problems of the inaccuracy and/or
fraud of the new computerized voting methods [which not only
determine which politicians are elected, but also the passage of
bond issues and local tax rates], and their denial of the reality
of the existence of, and gross abuse by, transnational
corporations, many of which now rival many nominally independent
countries in wealth and influence.

We now appear to be headed back into the "two societies"
described by the "National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders" [1967] know popularly as the "Kerner Commission,"
except this is now divided into a huge class of [increasingly]
poor, and a tiny class of the affluent.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission

Given the events that caused the creation of this investigatory
commission [i.e. wide-spread urban riots and extreme civil
disorders], it would appear that every effort should be made to
avoid such a division. Deliberate [or even the passive allowing]
of the creation of social conditions known to promote "class
warfare" is about on a par with the deliberate re-introduction of
bubonic plague, small pox or typhus as a population control
measure.

In this case an ounce of prevention is worth not a pound, but a
ton of "cure."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:38:56 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:



As indicated on the "demographics" page [about 7/8th from the
top] 7 of the current 9 Justices are graduates of either Harvard
or Yale, one from Columbia and one from Northwestern, all highly
[some would say overly] elite schools.

...........

Where are the graduates from our state law schools and land grant
universities? Why are there no graduates from UC, KU, FSU, Texas
Tech, etc.

I don't find it surprising that anyone with the considerable
intelligence, ambition, and work ethic necessary to be a justice would
choose to attend top schools. It would be interesting to see how many
of the justices' siblings, parents and grandparents attended the same
schools. The argument that they have an elitist viewpoint that skews
their decisions would be more compelling if the justices owe their
educational opportunities to family ties rather than individual merit.

--
Ned Simmons

I know about George Will too. I'll agree with you that he is a smart guy
and
very knowledgable. But he's got his head so far up the ass of the
republican
party leadership that his "insight" about republicans is worthless. He's
one
of those guys who very cleverly finds every minute flaw with Democrats
but
finds nothing to complain about when it comes to his beloved
republicans.
No
credibility on republicans from him because of extreme bias, sorry.



It appears you're confusing him with someone else. He's often quite
critical
of Republicans, especially Dubya, and most especially on his policies in
Iraq.

I've observed George Will for 20 years and have read plenty of his columns
too so I know where he stands, and you're right, he has been critical of
Bush at times. But come on, how in god's name could one not be? Believe me,
he doesn't want to be critical of Bush but with Bush mucking things up so
badly even Will has to say something if he wants to stay credible. How could
one not criticize Bush's Iraq policies?



As to Reagan's intelligence it's not a matter of what "leftists" say.
You
can discount them all you want. The fact is that like George W. nobody
ever
went around bragging about how smart and well educated Ronald Reagan
was.
Except for his mindless followers who did see him as a diety. Oh, by the
way, Will is one of the Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Reagan.

I don't know what you mean by that expression. He knew and advised Reagan,
and, as I said, Will thinks Reagan was underestimated. The jury is out as
far as I'm concerned.

Kool Aid drinkers? Jim Jones? Jonestown? They are mindless followers who
drink poisoned Kool Aid if their leader tells them to. So Will, an avid
conservative, who once worked for Reagan, and is a true believer, thinks he
was underestimated. I'm so surprised he came to that judgment! Like I said,
I saw Reagan for years and years and he did not have a reputation for his
intellectual capacity. He was known for his looks, his speaking ability, and
his ability to lead right wing folks. Nobody said he was bright. This
underestimation thing is just another ploy to make him seem better than he
was in this dept. too. He had some definite political strengths but his
brain power was not one of them.



Like you, most of Reagan's detractors have been leftish and I question how
informed they really are. Your estimate of George Will, if it's equal in
quality to your estimate of Reagan, is not something I'd put stock in. As
I
said, I knew George Will. He was my professor and academic advisor; he got
me my opportunity to study international politics at the University of
Lausanne. I have high regard for the clarity of his vision and his
judgment,
even though I often disagree with his politics.

Here is where your analysis goes wrong. Tell me of some right wing or
conservative detractors of Reagan. You can't do it. There aren't any. Reagan
has assumed a mantle of divinity among republicans. That leaves only
"leftists", your word, to bring up his weaknesses. I hate to tell you this,
but people who don't see Reagan as a god aren't all leftists. But you could
ask Ron Reagan, his son about him if you want to know the truth about him.
Would you believe him if he said his dad was cold, distant, aloof, and
didn't know that much about a lot of things? The problem is that there is
this group that adores Reagan so much that they make him a god and accuse
anyone finding his weaknesses as biased against him, which makes drawing a
true picture difficult. Just trust me on this, Reagan was a good politician
but not all that smart. That's a true picture not a biased one. If it was
the other way around I would have no problem saying that either.

Will is different from Reagan but also similar. Both were true believers in
conservative ideology but Will is very smart, and well educated. That sets
him apart from Reagan and it's not hard to see that Will is the smart one of
the two. By the way, Reagan was the good looking one. I give Will his due
where it's warranted. My problem with him is his predictability. He's like
clockwork. You can always count him to have a very conservative opinion on
everything. To me that says his judgment is clouded when it comes to many
issues. I trust those who don't have such consistent views on everything.
You can't fit life into a pidgeon hole but people like Will try to make it
so. For example, Will is going to vote for McCain (I predict). Will ought to
know McCain isn't the guy to step into the White House next but his ideology
prevents him from voting for anyone else. I voted for Nixon and I voted for
Reagan. Both were big mistakes due to my youth and inexperience, but I voted
not on party but on the man. Guys like Will can never go outside the box so
I don't have much faith in him except in strictly academic areas.


Aha. Is this anything like you knowing all about the Surpreme Court
justices? g

Kind of.

Then you have a problem here. d8-)

I finished the "Nine" by the way. No insights there other than that
justice Thomas likes to RV. It did confirm what I said earlier about
the
court, it's not a legal body. It's a political one. Which is why the
presidents pick the justices they do, they know ahead of time the way
the
judges will rule, except when they get an occasional curveball. It
doesn't
take a genius to know why Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were chosen. They
were
chosen because their politics is perfectly in synch with republican
politics. What I learned about the Supreme Court I learned in Grad
school.
I
learned about Reagan by living under his governing for too many years.
Both
were good learning experiences. Living under Reagan as a leader was not.

You can spare us your idea of what the Court should be as a "legal body."
There are various doctrines of jurisprudence, and the Justices reflect a
broad spectrum of those doctrines. Even at the most conservative end, for
example, you have two "originalists" -- Scalia and Thomas -- who have very
different views of precedent.

Did you see Leslie Stahl's interview of Scalia on 60 Minutes a few weeks
ago? I did. It just confirmed my view that as smart as he is he can't get
past his political programming. Do you watch Book TV on CSPAN? An author
named Michael Meyerson was on yesterday and was talking about "originalist"
views. He shredded them as being patently stupid. I agree. Too bad you
didn't see it. Coincidently, he mentioned the founding fathers and the 2nd
amendment too, in passing. He was talking about the Federalist Papers as
well. His point was that it would have been anathema to them for Americans
not to have the right to individual ownership of weapons even though they
didn't go around saying so. He based this on his reading of the primary
sources. He's a law professor but I don't remember at which school.



And I think you're too quick to cross-identify those jurisprudential
doctines with politics. Politically conservative judges tend toward more
originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but not always. Some
favor
states rights, but not all of them. They *often* surprise, and anger, the
presidents who nominate them, with their decisions in particular cases.
And
so on.

Supreme Court justices can always be counted on to "anger" the presidents
who pick them. Except maybe for Clarence Thomas. That's because once they
get the job they are no longer beholden to the president and they get to do
what they want. You want to see the law as something greater than it is so
you minimize the political angle of it. I see it from an individualistic
view and from a psychological view. The legal part is just windowdressing.
Being human beings these people on the court can surprise you at times but
it's like a batting average. You can count the liberals to go one way most
of the time and the same for the conservatives, but even more so. They just
use the law to cover their political positions. Undertand that I don't apply
this view to all the other justices in all the other courts. This view is
about the SC, which is a branch of government not a court of law, and that
is what makes it very different.

Hawke

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:29:34 -0400, Wes wrote:
snip
These judges are appointed for life and there is no real way to influence
them externally.
snip
------------
And herein lies a real problem for the country.

When the US Constitution was written, median life expectancy was
about 35 years,
http://www.answers.com/topic/life-ex...cy?cat=biz-fin
{about 1/3 of way down the page} and a long term illness was one
that took 10 days to kill you. Note that If infant mortality is
excluded, a person that reached 20 could expect to live about
another 40 years, i.e. 60. To be appointed and confirmed as a
judge, you had to be admitted to the bar, and have some legal
background, which would probably put you up into your mid to late
30s at the soonest, leaving at most 25 years on the bench.

Currently, life expectancy at birth is now 78 in the United
States
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html or an increase of 43
years from 1776 or more than a 100% increase. Using the life
expectancy by age tables, it can be seen that there has been a
huge increase in the term of "life time appointment."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

This gross increase in tenure because of increased lifespan is
amplified and exacerbated by advances in medical technology
whereby individuals suffering from chronic conditions such as
cancer or cognitive disfunction are now kept alive for years,
e.g. Chief Justice William Rehnquist
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/rehnquist/index.html

Given the increasing participation of the judges in the
legislative process through "judicial activism," the country can
no longer tolerate mentally impaired judges, judges pre-occupied
with their own mortality and impending death, or judges totally
out of touch with current conditions, who are still living in the
1960s [or earlier] in a land that never was.

== Thus there seems to be every justification for legislation
specifying that a total of 20 years on the Federal bench at all
levels shall constitute a "life-time," with mandatory retirement
at full pay, and to require an annual intensive physical and
mental evaluation of all judges to verify their ability to
fulfill the requirements of that office after their 65th
birthday, with automatic retirement at full pay should they not
pass. This seems more than fair to the judges.

[In your dreams...]

FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Technically, you're right about the long lifespans of people nowadays making
the time spent on the Supreme Court excessively long. However, until
Rehnquist died the make up of the court had remained the same for ten years,
but that was a record, I believe. So, even though as a rule people live
longer than they used to the actual tenure of the average justice on the SC
isn't all that long. On the other hand, I think a life term for SC members
was a goof up by the Founding Fathers. We should put the SC on a specific
term length. Twenty years is more than enough. I'd lean more toward a
fifteen or eighteen year maximum.

Hawke

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference to the
concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues.

You're talking about the Kelo case. I'm sure you realize that the courts in
America deferred to local governments on matters of eminent domain even
before the country's founding. These cases are matters of state or local
governments making the initial claim of domain, which was never successfully
challenged for the first century or so in the country's history, and the
Supreme Court is deferring to them, once again.

It's a very originalist interpretation and it has a long and generally
favorable history. If you look at the cases that applied the "public
purpose" rule, such as Berman v Parker (1954), you'll see that the Court
said that the purpose had to be "public" and then decided that a
construction project that would clear "blighted areas" fit that definition.
And that was a very liberal, activist Court. One wonders what they would
have decided if the area had not been blighted. I doubt if even the 1954
Court would have told the state (or D.C., in the Berman case) how to define
"blight." In 1981, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that Detroit or
Dearborn (I forget which) could clear an area of "blighted" homes to build a
new GM plant.

The principle has been around for a very long time. People are getting
incensed because local governments are using it to solve budget problems,
rather than to do something more clearly, and more permanently, for the
public good. The problem, though, is with state and local governments.
You're suggesting that the US Supreme Court should dictate to the states how
they must interpret "public purpose." I'm sympathetic to the goal, but not
to the method. I agree with the Court in general that this is a matter for
locally elected legislatures to decide for themselves. It's too bad that
most of them suck. g That's why I don't get misty-eyed about state's
rights, or about deferring anything that may infringe on individual rights
to local governments. But it *is* a strong Constitutional principle.

What's needed, if the states won't do it themselves (some have) and if we
want to change it, is a constitutional amendment preventing it. I think it's
a big enough issue that an amendment would have a good chance of succeeding.
Otherwise, there's nothing inherent in the 5th Amendment that limits how
local governments have to define "public purpose." The whole thing is the
case of the Supreme Court making an unpopular decision, but one which is
based on long traditions of deferring to the states.

...[There are many
others, generally involving pension funding and corporate
stockholder "rights"] A closely related situation is the rush by
the pols to sell public property [to "balance the budget"] such
as roads at fire sale prices to for-profit companies that then
charge the public to use the facilities their taxes paid for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300783.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698927-84.stm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14921

Again, that's a problem with legislatures, including Congress, not with the
Supreme Court. The Court isn't a watchdog for what most people would like to
see happen. The whole system assumes that the people's will be decided
through elected legislatures. The Court's job, among a few others, is to
make sure they don't infringe on individual rights. This isn't a case of
individual rights.



And how should current
"concerns" influence decisions about constitutionality of laws? After all,
that's basically what they do.
---------------
Legal cases are not brought in a vacuum [if they are, that's what
is called a moot court which is an academic exercise], and the
tacit/implicit contextual factors are frequently more important
than the written law, which may be ambagious, or as frequently
occurs, several legal conflicting legal theories or precedents
apply. Also experience may show that certain assumptions or
pre-conditions were not correct or changed over time.

A prime example of this is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
347 U.S. 483 (1954 which reviewed the results of Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v...d_of_Education

IMNSHO, the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson of "separate, but equal"
was correct for the time and the legal situation as it was then
understood.

You're mixing up some different principles here. Plessy was decided on the
basis of what was known (or assumed) at the time; so was Brown. But they
were seeking to fulfill the same principle of rights.


The problem was [and would be again] is that the word "SEPERATE"
was easily heard and understood, while the qualifier ", but
equal" was widely ignored. By 1954, the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for the majority students had seen very
considerable progress/improvement, while the schools, curriculum,
equipment, etc. for most "separate, but equal" minority schools
had not, which in [too] many cases remained at or about the 1896
levels.

The serious and increasing adverse aggregate socio-economic
effects of this growing disparity in education availability, on
the national economy/society, were well documented by Gunnar
Myrdal in his book "An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democracy." [FWIW -- this was admitted as evidence for
its factual data, and not its legal theories.] Thus there were
not only serious equity/chancery questions raised, but also
undeniable and increasing serious questions of national economic
impact (and on social stability resulting from the economic
effects), with the result that "Brown" supplanted "Plessy."
==Our increasingly deaf financial and corporate management would
do well to pay attention to this case.==

This "Ivory Tower" problem is greatly exacerbated when the judges
are living in the "never was TV world" of "Leave It To Beaver" of
the 1950s, and/or are isolated by their elitist education and
social/financial status from the huge majority of citizens.
Current (2008) salary for the Chief Justice is $217,400 per year,
while Associate Justices make $208,100.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htm
with primo free medical care/perscription benefits and a super
retirement package, all paid for by the taxpayers. [So much for
objective action on socialized medicine and pension reform...]

Now you're throwing in the kitchen sink. g The question is whether they're
adhering to an accurate understanding of the Constitution. Many Courts have
reached 'way out in left field to make claims that they are adhering to
those principles. But now that we get a Court that actually *is* closer to
originalism (although far from perfect), we expect the Court to do something
else.

The "something else" is hard to justify. And I'm not saying this as some
kind of a libertarian originalist. I'm saying it because a Court that makes
decisions based on the popular will, rather than on long-standing
principles, is doing the legislatures' job. And it leaves rights in a
dangerous position, because the popular will often goes against individual
rights. That's the primary justification for hard-nosed originalism. If we
don't like it, we have the means to change it. Often it only takes an act of
Congress to do so, not an amendment. But as long as the courts can be
counted on to do some of the legislatures' jobs, those legislatures can
pander and get away with it. When their pandering becomes something we have
to live with, they usually catch hell for it in the end -- often by being
voted out of office.


Some specific instances are SCOTUS failure/refusal to act on, or
indeed even recognize, the problems of the inaccuracy and/or
fraud of the new computerized voting methods [which not only
determine which politicians are elected, but also the passage of
bond issues and local tax rates]...

That's a state issue, and you know it.

..., and their denial of the reality
of the existence of, and gross abuse by, transnational
corporations, many of which now rival many nominally independent
countries in wealth and influence.

It's Congress's job to do something about it, not the Court's, unless you
can find some constitutional violation that's involved.


We now appear to be headed back into the "two societies"
described by the "National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders" [1967] know popularly as the "Kerner Commission,"
except this is now divided into a huge class of [increasingly]
poor, and a tiny class of the affluent.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission

Given the events that caused the creation of this investigatory
commission [i.e. wide-spread urban riots and extreme civil
disorders], it would appear that every effort should be made to
avoid such a division. Deliberate [or even the passive allowing]
of the creation of social conditions known to promote "class
warfare" is about on a par with the deliberate re-introduction of
bubonic plague, small pox or typhus as a population control
measure.

Tell your Congressman, not the Justices. It isn't their job.


In this case an ounce of prevention is worth not a pound, but a
ton of "cure."

Before I sign off here, let me clear up a couple of things before the
lefties come down my neck again. g What I'm saying is based on an idea
that our government should work as it was designed, or we should make
changes to it. I agree with you about the *results* we would mostly favor,
but the Supreme Court is not the instrument to right these wrongs. It's an
unelected body and, although I generally think highly of their
decision-making, I don't want to see this government upended by defaulting
to the Court on matters that really are questions of what should be in the
Constitution, or are matters that are supposed to be decided by
legislatures, including Congress. If we elect them and can get rid of them,
we have at least a modicum of power to make decisions. With the Court
deciding these things, we have no power at all. We're just deferring to a
group of oligarchs, benign or not.

Thomas Jefferson said we should scrap the Constitution every 19 years and
write a new one. I don't agree with him, although I agree with the idea. The
Constitution itself is something we shouldn't toy with lightly but when it
demands some result we decide we don't like, we should take charge and
change something so it *does* produce a result we believe is right. This is
our government, after all, not the government of some 18th-century wise men
that we have to live with because we don't have the guts to get involved and
do something about it.

And if the Congress is too weak to pass a widely demanded amendment, then
change the way Congress operates. The problem, at its very root, is with us
and with how much initiative and involvement we're willing to engage it. We
can't sit back and just criticize, expecting a system that was wound up in
1791 to run forever without re-winding the springs and adjusting the time.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip

I've observed George Will for 20 years and have read plenty of his columns
too so I know where he stands, and you're right, he has been critical of
Bush at times. But come on, how in god's name could one not be? Believe
me,
he doesn't want to be critical of Bush but with Bush mucking things up so
badly even Will has to say something if he wants to stay credible. How
could
one not criticize Bush's Iraq policies?

You're projecting your own thoughts onto a man you don't understand. Will is
independent-minded as hell, an iconoclast, and is always ready to call
things as he sees them. He wouldn't defend a president just because he's a
Republican.




As to Reagan's intelligence it's not a matter of what "leftists" say.
You
can discount them all you want. The fact is that like George W. nobody
ever
went around bragging about how smart and well educated Ronald Reagan
was.
Except for his mindless followers who did see him as a diety. Oh, by
the
way, Will is one of the Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Reagan.

I don't know what you mean by that expression. He knew and advised
Reagan,
and, as I said, Will thinks Reagan was underestimated. The jury is out as
far as I'm concerned.

Kool Aid drinkers? Jim Jones? Jonestown? They are mindless followers who
drink poisoned Kool Aid if their leader tells them to. So Will, an avid
conservative, who once worked for Reagan, and is a true believer, thinks
he
was underestimated. I'm so surprised he came to that judgment! Like I
said,
I saw Reagan for years and years and he did not have a reputation for his
intellectual capacity. He was known for his looks, his speaking ability,
and
his ability to lead right wing folks. Nobody said he was bright. This
underestimation thing is just another ploy to make him seem better than he
was in this dept. too. He had some definite political strengths but his
brain power was not one of them.

I recognized the Jonestown reference but I couldn't believe you were
applying it to George Will. As I said, you don't know the man. And in your
20 years of reading his writings you apparently missed his position on
government involvement and aid to single mothers (he favors both), or his
earlier positions on gun control (he favored it). His conservatism comes
from a different source than that of Dubya or the blue-collar workers who
consider themselves "conservatives." He was one of that small handful of
people now referenced in political history as the "intellectual
conservatives" who popped up after Barry Goldwater lost the election. Will
was in England, at Oxford University, when he turned his opinion away from
liberalism and toward conservatism. It isn't your grandfather's kind of
conservatism.


Like you, most of Reagan's detractors have been leftish and I question
how
informed they really are. Your estimate of George Will, if it's equal in
quality to your estimate of Reagan, is not something I'd put stock in. As
I
said, I knew George Will. He was my professor and academic advisor; he
got
me my opportunity to study international politics at the University of
Lausanne. I have high regard for the clarity of his vision and his
judgment,
even though I often disagree with his politics.

Here is where your analysis goes wrong. Tell me of some right wing or
conservative detractors of Reagan. You can't do it. There aren't any.
Reagan
has assumed a mantle of divinity among republicans. That leaves only
"leftists", your word, to bring up his weaknesses.

Hawke, that's the *point*. Opinions on Reagan are divided along
liberal/conservative lines. Thus, I don't trust them, because I never trust
political opinions of people who take sharply ideological political
positions. I wouldn't put my faith in either side. I'll put some faith in
people I know to be honestly critical, but even then, I want to see more for
myself.

As I said, Reagan has always been an enigma to me, and maybe he always will
be. But I'm not interested in the opinions of people who didn't know him
personally. We've heard enough of those.

I hate to tell you this,
but people who don't see Reagan as a god aren't all leftists. But you
could
ask Ron Reagan, his son about him if you want to know the truth about him.
Would you believe him if he said his dad was cold, distant, aloof, and
didn't know that much about a lot of things? The problem is that there is
this group that adores Reagan so much that they make him a god and accuse
anyone finding his weaknesses as biased against him, which makes drawing a
true picture difficult. Just trust me on this, Reagan was a good
politician
but not all that smart. That's a true picture not a biased one. If it was
the other way around I would have no problem saying that either.

I'll put that in the same place that I put all other opinions about Reagan
that come from people who didn't know him, or who are sharply ideological.
As for his coldness, aloofness, or the things he didn't know about, I don't
consider any of them relevant. I want to know what thinking went on when the
man established political opinions and made decisions.

One of his biographers, I forget which, said that Reagan projected a simple
pattern of thought to casual observers but that he was dogged and intense,
extremely focused on a few big issues, and read incessently from the
political canon, including the Greeks and the Enlightenment thinkers. My
impression of *their* impression (hardly anything I'd hang my hat on, but a
working hypothesis) is that he was one of those semi-bright people who could
penetrate an idea as well as the whip-crackers; it just took him a bit
longer.

Those people have always interested me. John Kennedy was another one: IQ of
119, as measured on a test when he entered Choate. Hardly a genius, but
relentless and insightful. They impress me more than some people who have
much higher native IQs. Most people with IQs in the sub-120 range are
limited in how *deeply* they penetrate relationships, as well as how
quickly. These presidents appear to be of another kind.


Will is different from Reagan but also similar. Both were true believers
in
conservative ideology but Will is very smart, and well educated. That sets
him apart from Reagan and it's not hard to see that Will is the smart one
of
the two. By the way, Reagan was the good looking one. I give Will his due
where it's warranted. My problem with him is his predictability. He's like
clockwork. You can always count him to have a very conservative opinion on
everything.

Nonsense. See my references above.

I'm going to trim this because I'm not up for getting into another one of
these arguments with you. FWIW, you look at things very differently from me.
Maybe it's our backgrounds. My work experience has taught me not to trust
other peoples' judgments, especially on judgmental issues. There are few
people whose opinions matter much to me on anything as complex as politics.
At best, they provide me with a list of things that might be worth checking
into.

I just watched you go 'way off base with a minor character, who you know
only through a collection of opinion columns, while I knew the man
personally, and had almost daily contact with him for a couple of years. So
I've just seen how you fill in the blanks with your assumptions and
projections. g You're a quick study and you have a very analytical mind,
Hawke, but you try to do too much with inadequate material. It's good for
college bull sessions but I've spent most of my career writing for
publication. If I speculated, I got my butt handed to me by one or more of
my 100,000 subscribers. So I learned not to speculate.

Believe me, you're a mile off base about George Will. And I won't argue your
positions on Reagan. I will, however, form my own opinions about him.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference
to the concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues.

You're talking about the Kelo case. I'm sure you realize that the
courts in America deferred to local governments on matters of eminent
domain even before the country's founding. These cases are matters of
state or local governments making the initial claim of domain, which
was never successfully challenged for the first century or so in the
country's history, and the Supreme Court is deferring to them, once
again.

It's a very originalist interpretation and it has a long and generally
favorable history. If you look at the cases that applied the "public
purpose" rule, such as Berman v Parker (1954), you'll see that the
Court said that the purpose had to be "public" and then decided that a
construction project that would clear "blighted areas" fit that
definition. And that was a very liberal, activist Court. One wonders
what they would have decided if the area had not been blighted. I
doubt if even the 1954 Court would have told the state (or D.C., in
the Berman case) how to define "blight." In 1981, the Michigan
Supreme Court decided that Detroit or Dearborn (I forget which) could
clear an area of "blighted" homes to build a new GM plant.

It was Hamtramck Ed.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Believe me, you're a mile off base about George Will. And I won't
argue your positions on Reagan. I will, however, form my own opinions
about him.

I was watching Will, Peggy Noonan, Shrum and Murphy this morning Ed and at
one point, as Noonan was speaking, George's countenance was overcome with
what could be politely called a look of disdain. He didn't have that " I
just smelled a fart" look at all. It was as if he was thinking that she'd
completely lost her faculties and ought just shut up rather than attempt to
be insightful or witty.
I know Peggy's world locked into place the day before RR left office but
she's really out of it, or was today.
I'm wondering if she hasn't some health problem. I think Will might have
been wondering the same thing. He really doesn't suffer fools easily does
he?

Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how many times
did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed the obvious and then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

One of the things I've always respected about him was that he doesn't just
go around throwing bombs. He throws the bomb but then usually takes the time
to explain himself and his is a fine mind.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference
to the concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues.

You're talking about the Kelo case. I'm sure you realize that the
courts in America deferred to local governments on matters of eminent
domain even before the country's founding. These cases are matters of
state or local governments making the initial claim of domain, which
was never successfully challenged for the first century or so in the
country's history, and the Supreme Court is deferring to them, once
again.

It's a very originalist interpretation and it has a long and generally
favorable history. If you look at the cases that applied the "public
purpose" rule, such as Berman v Parker (1954), you'll see that the
Court said that the purpose had to be "public" and then decided that a
construction project that would clear "blighted areas" fit that
definition. And that was a very liberal, activist Court. One wonders
what they would have decided if the area had not been blighted. I
doubt if even the 1954 Court would have told the state (or D.C., in
the Berman case) how to define "blight." In 1981, the Michigan
Supreme Court decided that Detroit or Dearborn (I forget which) could
clear an area of "blighted" homes to build a new GM plant.

It was Hamtramck Ed.

Obviously a blighted place. My first college roommate, Bohdan Huzar, was
from Hamtramck. He arrived on a soccer scholarship but then they learned he
had played semi-pro ball in Hamtramck for $25/game, and they kicked him out
of the NCAA. They deserved to have the town flattened for stupidity. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip

It was Hamtramck Ed.

Obviously a blighted place.

Actually it wasn't Ed. Certainly less than much of the rest of Detroit.
Hamtramck had lost about a third of it's land when I-75 was built and the
community fought so hard that the short section that went through it didn't
get finished until the late 70's.

The community was almost exclusively Polish immigrants and their families.
The founding group had emigrated during and immediately after WWI and before
and to some extend during WWII and then after. Hamtramck became the largest
single grop of Poles outside of Poland and they were very proud to be both
American citizens and of Polish Heritage.
You wouldn't have survived a bad mouthing of either in a club there. The
city was an excellent example of how immigrants can embrace their new
country and not abandon their culture.

My first college roommate, Bohdan Huzar,
was from Hamtramck. He arrived on a soccer scholarship but then they
learned he had played semi-pro ball in Hamtramck for $25/game, and
they kicked him out of the NCAA.

I don't know his story but it was a club town so he probably played for one
of the many clubs. I'll bet it never even crossed his mind that he'd done
anything either unusual or worth reporting.

They deserved to have the town flattened for stupidity. g

Maybe.
The population was disposessed at a bad time. Their homes, while largely
paid off, weren't worth much compared to the out lying burbs and the
population was pretty long in the tooth. In the end, a couple hundred
thousand old people without any real means of support ended up out on the
street. The rest of Michigan was concerned about the survival of the auto
industry and those old folks got thrown under the bus quicker than quick.
The closest thing I can think of off hand where an entire ethnic comunity
vanished is also Polish and the residents of Hamtramck weren't killed as
were the residents of the Warsaw ghetto's but things were pretty rough by
our standards.

It's also interesting that the manufacturing comples built on Hamtramck is
now gone. Should you ever speak with Bohdan Huzar, ask him what he thinks of
that.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:14:56 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues. [There are many

I don't recall hearing what happened in the case of Souter's property
after the Kelo Decision.

others, generally involving pension funding and corporate
stockholder "rights"] A closely related situation is the rush by
the pols to sell public property [to "balance the budget"] such
as roads at fire sale prices to for-profit companies that then
charge the public to use the facilities their taxes paid for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300783.html

I'm with Sandy.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06169/698927-84.stm

The thought of foreign countries/interests owning most of our main
thoroughfares makes me uncomfortable.


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14921

Chicago sure gets its share of gangstas, doesn't it?


Some specific instances are SCOTUS failure/refusal to act on, or
indeed even recognize, the problems of the inaccuracy and/or
fraud of the new computerized voting methods [which not only
determine which politicians are elected, but also the passage of
bond issues and local tax rates], and their denial of the reality
of the existence of, and gross abuse by, transnational
corporations, many of which now rival many nominally independent
countries in wealth and influence.

We now appear to be headed back into the "two societies"
described by the "National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders" [1967] know popularly as the "Kerner Commission,"
except this is now divided into a huge class of [increasingly]
poor, and a tiny class of the affluent.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission

Do you feel that there has been no progress toward integration in the
past 40 years, since that report was made, Unk? I think that vast
improvements have come about. Then again, bigots (both white and
black, the worst being the KKK and people like the REVs Jackson,
Wright, and Farrakhan) continue to -strongly- promote the division.
sigh


Given the events that caused the creation of this investigatory
commission [i.e. wide-spread urban riots and extreme civil
disorders], it would appear that every effort should be made to
avoid such a division. Deliberate [or even the passive allowing]
of the creation of social conditions known to promote "class
warfare" is about on a par with the deliberate re-introduction of
bubonic plague, small pox or typhus as a population control
measure.

Some folks are saying that has already been done with AIDS. Who knows?

-
Press HERE to arm. (Release to detonate.)
-----------

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Believe me, you're a mile off base about George Will. And I won't
argue your positions on Reagan. I will, however, form my own opinions
about him.

I was watching Will, Peggy Noonan, Shrum and Murphy this morning Ed and at
one point, as Noonan was speaking, George's countenance was overcome with
what could be politely called a look of disdain. He didn't have that " I
just smelled a fart" look at all. It was as if he was thinking that she'd
completely lost her faculties and ought just shut up rather than attempt
to
be insightful or witty.
I know Peggy's world locked into place the day before RR left office but
she's really out of it, or was today.
I'm wondering if she hasn't some health problem. I think Will might have
been wondering the same thing. He really doesn't suffer fools easily does
he?

HAHAHA! Oh, as soon as I started reading this, that's what I thought I'd
mention. g No, he doesn't suffer fools easily, nor anyone who he thinks is
doing less than his best thinking at any moment. Because Will, himself,
never lets up.

I'm glad you mentioned that about Peggy Noonan. Now there's something I
share with her. I've been on the receiving end of that withering look of
disdain more than once.


Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how many times
did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed the obvious and
then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

That's two questions. How many times did he bring me up short like that?
Maybe a half-dozen. Take the time to straighten me out? Never. I was on my
own to figure it out.


One of the things I've always respected about him was that he doesn't just
go around throwing bombs. He throws the bomb but then usually takes the
time
to explain himself and his is a fine mind.

He'll do that explaining in print or in that kind of environment. He was an
outstanding lecturer -- probably the best I ever had. He answered questions
with great care in the classroom. But in one-on-one, you had to keep up with
him or you were toast.

He does have a fine mind. I think he was 23 when he got his PhD at
Princeton, after an MA at Oxford. He didn't just jam together a PhD program
and skip the masters, but he still made it all by age 23.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip

It was Hamtramck Ed.

Obviously a blighted place.

Actually it wasn't Ed. Certainly less than much of the rest of Detroit.

Damn, I'm being too facetious today. Yes, I know what you mean. I've been to
Hamtramck.

Hamtramck had lost about a third of it's land when I-75 was built and the
community fought so hard that the short section that went through it
didn't
get finished until the late 70's.

The community was almost exclusively Polish immigrants and their families.
The founding group had emigrated during and immediately after WWI and
before
and to some extend during WWII and then after. Hamtramck became the
largest
single grop of Poles outside of Poland and they were very proud to be both
American citizens and of Polish Heritage.

We had some horrible Hamtramck Polish jokes when I was at Michigan State.
g

You wouldn't have survived a bad mouthing of either in a club there. The
city was an excellent example of how immigrants can embrace their new
country and not abandon their culture.

My first college roommate, Bohdan Huzar,
was from Hamtramck. He arrived on a soccer scholarship but then they
learned he had played semi-pro ball in Hamtramck for $25/game, and
they kicked him out of the NCAA.

I don't know his story but it was a club town so he probably played for
one
of the many clubs. I'll bet it never even crossed his mind that he'd done
anything either unusual or worth reporting.

That's right. He was flabbergasted and furious when they told him he
couldn't play NCAA. They were tough about that in those days.


They deserved to have the town flattened for stupidity. g

Maybe.
The population was disposessed at a bad time. Their homes, while largely
paid off, weren't worth much compared to the out lying burbs and the
population was pretty long in the tooth. In the end, a couple hundred
thousand old people without any real means of support ended up out on the
street. The rest of Michigan was concerned about the survival of the auto
industry and those old folks got thrown under the bus quicker than quick.
The closest thing I can think of off hand where an entire ethnic comunity
vanished is also Polish and the residents of Hamtramck weren't killed as
were the residents of the Warsaw ghetto's but things were pretty rough by
our standards.

It's also interesting that the manufacturing comples built on Hamtramck is
now gone. Should you ever speak with Bohdan Huzar, ask him what he thinks
of
that.

I lost track of him after freshman year. We had 42,000 students on one
campus, and I moved into a residence college, James Madison College of
Policy Science, which had fewer than 1,000 at the time. We were a little
isolated from the rest of Michigan State.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how many
times did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed the
obvious and then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

That's two questions.

LOL
Schoolin' me are you!
Pretty good.

How many times did he bring me up short like
that? Maybe a half-dozen. Take the time to straighten me out? Never.
I was on my own to figure it out.

We were discussing Oil prices and Paul Krugman a while back and I mentioned
what I'd seen at first hand.
A professional recounting is he

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how many
times did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed the
obvious and then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

That's two questions.

LOL
Schoolin' me are you!
Pretty good.

How many times did he bring me up short like
that? Maybe a half-dozen. Take the time to straighten me out? Never.
I was on my own to figure it out.

We were discussing Oil prices and Paul Krugman a while back and I
mentioned
what I'd seen at first hand.
A professional recounting is he

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

So, "The Buyout Boys Reload (Their New Killer Deals: Leveraged Purchases Of
Their Own Debt)." It sounds like they're making a new round of money on
their own crap, with the banks holding the bedpan. Are the banks that
desperate for cash? To an outsider, it looks absolutely insane.

If I understand correctly, the banks made the loans to the buyout boys for
the original LBOs; the credit crunch caught the banks in need of cash just
to keep doing business; the buyout targets lost value; the banks are now
holding paper that's worth less money while the buyout boys lost nothing;
and the banks are salvaging what they can by selling the debt at a discount
to the original borrowers (the buyout boys). Is that really right?

If so, I need a couple of Advils.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:52:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

If I understand correctly, the banks made the loans to the buyout boys for
the original LBOs; the credit crunch caught the banks in need of cash just
to keep doing business; the buyout targets lost value; the banks are now
holding paper that's worth less money while the buyout boys lost nothing;
and the banks are salvaging what they can by selling the debt at a discount
to the original borrowers (the buyout boys). Is that really right?

If so, I need a couple of Advils.

--
Ed Huntress
============
Now we know where the liquidity the Fed is pumping into the
economy [and taking from the taxpayers and savers through
inflation] is going, in addition to the huge commodities bubbles.

I don't have first-hand personal information, but in general this
seems to be correct from articles in the FT, WSJ and Economist,
proving again the truth of the golden rule, i.e. "when you have
the gold, you make the rules," also stated as "cash is king."

Also don't confuse the banks, and the bankers. While the
commercial and investment banks [and their stockholders] may be
taking it in the shorts, the bankers still have their house in
the Hamptons. their Rolexes, and their Porches, along with their
bonus money salted away in judgement proof trust funds/accounts.

I suggest a large bottle of advil rather than just 2 caplets, [or
even better a large bottle generic ibuprofen -- same stuff but
cheaper].

The following URLs have some information on "debt repurchase"
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage...20081906440244
http://www.efinancialnews.com/homepa...ent/2450451025
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/126/...ticleFTen.aspx
Interesting to read how the banks squeal and whine when this
occurs. Given their recent actions toward their credit card
holders, all I can say "is what goes around, comes around."
http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf...ity_-_Overview
http://leadsandbids.com/index.php?cm...g/view/id_161/

This does not yet seem to be a widespread practice, and was
mainly one Danish phone company TDC.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).