PDA

View Full Version : Harriet WHO?


Judy G. Russell
October 4th, 2005, 10:42 AM
So... is this another appointment of loyalty over ability, or ...? I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway??? (And yes, I've read her resume. It tells me what she's done, not who she is or what she might believe.)

ndebord
October 4th, 2005, 11:28 AM
So... is this another appointment of loyalty over ability, or ...? I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway??? (And yes, I've read her resume. It tells me what she's done, not who she is or what she might believe.)


Judy,

If you, a lawyer, don't know who she is or what she's all about...the rest of us don't have a chance.

Bush's penchant for promoting from within his little secretive band of sycophants and longtime attendants is beginning to wear a tad thin.

Peter Creasey
October 4th, 2005, 02:20 PM
yes, I've read her resume.

Judy, I read your posting earlier. After giving your posting some thought, I remain surprised that you seem bothered by this nominee.

I hope that I'm not being presumptuous. I would have thought that there is much to admire about what she has accomplished and that you would recognize and appreciate same almost as perhaps a kindred spirit.

I cannot add anything about her except to say that The President and First Lady and many others in both parties are steadfast in supporting Ms Miers.

rlohmann
October 4th, 2005, 04:31 PM
I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway??? (And yes, I've read her resume. It tells me what she's done, not who she is or what she might believe.)An interesting observation.

Harriet Miers is a lawyer. She has not been a judge. Her resume, which you assert that you have read, reflects numerous activities of the kind that the ABA and the several state bars encourage lawyers to engage in.

You complain about the failure of her resume to tell you "what she's done, not who she is," but you do not explain why a nominee for the Supreme Court--or indeed for any other judicial position--should be obliged to engage in navel-gazing for public edification. While I do not challenge the competence of Justice Ginsburg, I do not recall demands from the Right that she expostulate in detail about "who she is."

Are you suggesting a double standard?

Give reasons for your answer.

Bill Hirst
October 4th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Give reasons for your answer.
Bush's ringing endorsement is hardly something that gives me a great deal of confidence. We've seen too much history of Bush appointing unqualified people, and Bush's unshakable beliefs (WMD anyone?) have a history of being wrong.

Micheal Brown of FEMA might be an equally good choice. At least he has experience judging horses.

Judy G. Russell
October 4th, 2005, 06:51 PM
You're certainly being presumptuous if you think I'm going to support a Supreme Court nominee because she was a corporate lawyer (so was Hillary Clinton and I suspect you wouldn't support her), a state bar president, a city council person, the President's lawyer (a number of them have gone to jail over the years), and/or female.

I'd like to know her judicial philosophy and particularly whether she can be considered mainstream politically. If she's an extremist -- to the right OR to the left -- she doesn't belong on the Court. And the sum total of what we know about her judicial and political philosophy is... almost nothing.

Judy G. Russell
October 4th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political and judicial views were exceedingly well known by the time she was nominated to the Court. She had taught and written extensively, argued many cases (including several before the US Supreme Court) and had served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit for thirteen years before being named to the Supreme Court. She was hardly an unknown.

There is something very fundamentally different between being asked to sign off on someone whose positions -- legal, judicial, political -- are well-known (which is, of course, and you well know it, what I meant by "who she is") and on someone whose most fundamental qualification for the position appears to be loyalty to the President. (Can we say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job", boys and girls?)

There is absolutely NOTHING comparable between the nature of the vote on Ginsburg (where there were no surprises -- who she was and what she was likely to do on the Court was well known to everyone) and this appointment, where everything is supposed to be taken on faith. If you disagree, YOU give reasons.

Judy G. Russell
October 4th, 2005, 07:03 PM
My problem here is not that she isn't nominally qualified on paper -- but by that token, so am I. We both went to law school, we've both held significant legal positions in our careers. Whoopee. Now on what basis is a Senator supposed to vote yes or no? There's little doubt at this point that it'd be easier right here in the messages in this forum to find out what my view of the law and politics is than it is to find out what her views are.

If all that's involved in the confirmation process is a resume check (high school? check; college? check; law school? check), then the concept of a constitutional check and balance is eviscerated.

Lindsey
October 4th, 2005, 09:01 PM
I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway???
Yeah, that was my reaction when I heard the announcement Monday morning.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 4th, 2005, 09:15 PM
As Judy pointed out, Ginsburg had a paper trail 20+ years long that made it quite clear what her judicial philosophy was. There may well be a double standard, but the people imposing it are the Bush supporters.

Why should a nominee to the Supreme Court be obliged to tell the People anything about herself, you ask? Because it's a lifetime appointment to the nation's court of last appeal, a court whose decisions affect the lives of millions of people, that's why. And because the Constitution charges the Senate with the job of vetting nominees to the Court and other high positions, in no small part to prevent cronyism. How are they supposed to vet a nominee that few people know anything about? The People have a right to know how the nominee looks at the law and the role of the Court. It's not enough just to know that the president likes her. That's not a good enough qualification to sit on the highest court in the land.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 4th, 2005, 09:47 PM
If all that's involved in the confirmation process is a resume check (high school? check; college? check; law school? check), then the concept of a constitutional check and balance is eviscerated.
There was an interesting discussion on the Diane Rehm Show (http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/10/04.php) today about the Bush Administration appointments in general, and the Miers nomination in particular. One of the participants--I believe it was Randy Barnett of Boston University--said pretty much the same thing. And that it was up to the Senate to take the confirmation process seriously.

It bothers me greatly to have a White House insider nominated to a critical position in what is supposed to be an independent branch of government. One of the most critical issues that is going to be coming up before the Court over the next couple of years is the extent and nature of executive power, especially in a time of war or national emergency. I think it's a good bet that Bush's White House counsel is in agreement with the powers that Bush is claiming for himself. Roberts is also thought to be sympathetic with expansive executive powers, based on what little we know about the arguments he has made in the course of his career. And we know that Scalia and Thomas are also deferential to claims of executive power. I don't like the way that is stacking up. And I question how truly independent someone who has long been one of Bush's closest advisors can be when faced with a question of limiting the powers he claims for himself.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 4th, 2005, 11:05 PM
It bothers me greatly to have a White House insider nominated to a critical position in what is supposed to be an independent branch of government.That part of it doesn't bother me, any more than it would bother me to have a Senator elected President. It's the fact that I don't have any basis for judging her except that she's a White House insider that bothers me.

ndebord
October 4th, 2005, 11:51 PM
Ralph,

More telling is the reaction from conservatives. Dismay.

"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy," Mr Kristol said, adding that he was "disappointed, depressed and demoralised" by the choice.

Senator Sam Brownback (R), a Judiciary Committe member, said "There is a lot of skepticism around about her." He was alluding to the fear that she might be another Souter, a liberal in conservative fleece.

And from the loonie toons side of the Republican Party:

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement that he worried Ms. Miers "was helping to legitimize the drive of homosexual organizations for power and influence over our public policies."

National Review editor Rich Lowry: "Bush thus made a strong statement that the court has room for highly distinguished justices and not-so-distinguished justices, for nominees who have made their reputations in the wider legal world and for nominees people have hardly heard of, for world-class lawyers and for lawyers he happens to know and like."

On the editorial side, reaction was equally negative. This was one of the most negative responses.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune said: "For the Supreme Court of the United States, a president under fire for cronyism has chosen the ultimate crony."

The most irreverant comes from that new "journalist" on the watch Yahoo, an internet powerhouse making a run at being serious journalists:

"Nominating his Girl Harriet" was their headline!

The botom line? Bush President Bush nominated a "longtime friend and former Texas lottery official" to the Supreme Court! (Yahoo News quote)

Even worse is the lead from tonight's NYTimes: "Harriet E. Miers's decision to become an evangelical Christian coincided with a move toward the Republican Party." The implication from my perspective would be that Bush's first consideration in this as in so many other things is to dictate a faith-based government in the Executive, in the Legislature and now in the Supreme Court.

Dan in Saint Louis
October 5th, 2005, 09:54 AM
More telling is the reaction from conservatives. Dismay.
Any chance she is a red herring to divert us so the REAL choice will be more palatable?

Judy G. Russell
October 5th, 2005, 10:11 AM
Any chance she is a red herring to divert us so the REAL choice will be more palatable?I doubt it very seriously. First off, Bush is loyal (to an absolute fault) and he wouldn't do that to someone who's part of his inner circle. Second, unless she's a total idiot (and there's no indication that she's anything other than a very bright woman), she wouldn't agree to be used as that kind of a sacrificial lamb -- it's demeaning in the extreme. Thirdly, with his political capital at a real low point for his entire Presidency, I can't see him spending any of it to try to get anyone appointed that he didn't really want to see on the Court.

rlohmann
October 5th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Bush's ringing endorsement is hardly something that gives me a great deal of confidence.Let me make sure I understand this. You seem to be saying that the identity of the nominating official is dispositive of character, fitness, and suitibility of the nominee.

Intriguing logic. Maybe Bush should nominate Hillary. Or maybe Michael Moore....

<sneering gleefully>

rlohmann
October 5th, 2005, 06:36 PM
There is something very fundamentally different between being asked to sign off on someone whose positions -- legal, judicial, political -- are well-known (which is, of course, and you well know it, what I meant by "who she is") and on someone whose most fundamental qualification for the position appears to be loyalty to the President. (Can we say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job", boys and girls?)I in fact did not know what you meant by "who she is," and since I learned in this morning's WP that she's apparently a born-again bible-thumper, I'm less inclined to defend the nomination than I was 24 hours ago.

Nonetheless, I still oppose a reflex opposition to anyone whom Bush nominates. (As you know, my support for Bush, never enthusiastic, has been fraying around the edges lately. Still, considering that the alternative was Kerry, who, it developed, had thrown military decorations that belonged to somebody else over the White House fence, and kept his own to display in his Senate office once the winds shifted, I'll stick reluctantly with what we've got.)

What I see in your response--and in some others around here--is "Borking" encore une fois. Judge Bork was a distinguished jurist with an record of well reasoned decisions that didn't sit well with the NOW, an august and dignified body of distinguished legal thinkers.

Are you of a mind to continue that rigorous intellectual process?

rlohmann
October 5th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Why should a nominee to the Supreme Court be obliged to tell the People anything about herself, you ask?Evidently you misread Judy's note in the same way I did, but that's really neither here nor there.

I didn't know yesterday evening that Judge Miers was a religious fundamentalist. However, since that information, AFAIK, first appeared in this morning's WP, you didn't know it yesterday evening either. My quarrel is with the NOW/Michael Moore approach of immediate and reflexive vituperation hurled at anyone Bush nominates regardless of the existence or absence of relevant facts.

I have grave reservations about the nomination to the SCOTUS of a fundamentalist of any religious stripe, but what concerns me here is the timing. The attacks in this forum were posted before anybody outside of Texas had any reason to know about Judge Miers' religious beliefs.

I don't think that approach to the politics of a democratic society is particularly constructive or useful. In fact, it strikes me as very similar to fundamentalist religion in its blind dogmatism.

rlohmann
October 5th, 2005, 07:15 PM
More telling is the reaction from conservatives. Dismay.You might want to look at my notes to Judy and Lindsey.

I learned this morning from the WP that Judge Miers is a fundamentalist Christian as the term is currently understood. I didn't know it yesterday when I objected to Judy's comments. I myself do not want what Charles Krauthammer once referred to as "a whiff of the Taliban" on the Supreme Court.

What I still object to, however, is the "Borking," reflexive opposition to a judicial nomination based on unthinking hatred before all the facts are in. Unless everyone in this forum who hammered on the Miers nomination knew yesterday afternoon that she was a fundamentalist, they've signed up to the Taliban thought process themselves.

I do not believe this is an appropriate way to consider judicial appointments.

ndebord
October 5th, 2005, 08:58 PM
You might want to look at my notes to Judy and Lindsey.

I learned this morning from the WP that Judge Miers is a fundamentalist Christian as the term is currently understood. I didn't know it yesterday when I objected to Judy's comments. I myself do not want what Charles Krauthammer once referred to as "a whiff of the Taliban" on the Supreme Court.

What I still object to, however, is the "Borking," reflexive opposition to a judicial nomination based on unthinking hatred before all the facts are in. Unless everyone in this forum who hammered on the Miers nomination knew yesterday afternoon that she was a fundamentalist, they've signed up to the Taliban thought process themselves.

I do not believe this is an appropriate way to consider judicial appointments.

Ralph,

I can't speak to the timing of any posts other than my own, but Miers is failing the smell test on all sides of the political spectrum. This from George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html

Lindsey
October 5th, 2005, 09:18 PM
That part of it doesn't bother me, any more than it would bother me to have a Senator elected President.
It bothers me a LOT, and I think it's quite different from having a senator elected to the office of president. (Not that senators have a particularly easy time getting elected president...)

I looked through my copy of the Federalist Papers last night after hearing a reference to Hamilton and the confirmation process on Diane Rehm yesterday.

Hamilton in Federalist Paper #76

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure. (My emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, I don't think Bush feels any need to fear rejection by the Senate. Not to mention that his shame threshold is pretty high anyway.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 5th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Even worse is the lead from tonight's NYTimes: "Harriet E. Miers's decision to become an evangelical Christian coincided with a move toward the Republican Party." The implication from my perspective would be that Bush's first consideration in this as in so many other things is to dictate a faith-based government in the Executive, in the Legislature and now in the Supreme Court.
That statement from the Times is not quite accurate, or is at the least a bit misleading. I believe she left the Catholic Church and "came to Jesus" in the late 1970s, but she donated money to Al Gore's presidential run in 1988. So it would appear that the move to the Republican Party was about a decade after her change of religious affiliation.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 5th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Evidently you misread Judy's note in the same way I did, but that's really neither here nor there.
Actually, I don't think I did. I think you misread both of us.

I didn't know yesterday evening that Judge Miers was a religious fundamentalist. However, since that information, AFAIK, first appeared in this morning's WP, you didn't know it yesterday evening either.
And there you would be wrong, because I most certainly had heard that before this morning. I don't remember exactly where, but it was pretty widely reported. Here, for example, is an excerpt from an article in yesterday's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04conserv.html) (and datelined October 3):

Beginning at 9 a.m., the White House and the Republican Party began organizing a series of nearly a half-dozen conference calls with conservative organizers to relieve anxieties about Ms. Miers's views. In one call, friends of Ms. Miers, including Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, testified to her evangelical Christian faith and devoted participation in the theologically conservative Valley View Christian Church in Dallas.

I would not, however, as you apparently would, automatically disqualify her because she belongs to an evangelical church. There are evangelicals, and there are evangelicals--they're not all like Pat Robertson or James Dobson. Frankly, I have no more qualms about Miers on the basis of her evangelical faith than I have about Roberts on the basis of his Roman Catholicism. (Not that I am particularly sanguine about either one of them.)

My quarrel is with the NOW/Michael Moore approach of immediate and reflexive vituperation hurled at anyone Bush nominates regardless of the existence or absence of relevant facts.
Then I guess your quarrel is not with me, because I posted reasons for my reservations about Miers. If you missed them, perhaps you should go back and try reading my message.

The attacks in this forum were posted before anybody outside of Texas had any reason to know about Judge Miers' religious beliefs.
Again, you are wrong that nobody here could possibly have known about her religious affiliation before you did, but why do you think that the only valid reason for opposing her nomination is objection to her brand of religious faith? And attacks? I saw reservations, doubts, a questioning of qualifications, but I didn't see any attacks. Not against Miers, anyway. Attacks on those of us who expressed doubts about her, though--yes, I am seeing those. :mad:

I don't think Judy and I are the ones who are being blindly dogmatic here.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 5th, 2005, 10:53 PM
There is a fundamental difference between someone going from the Executive Branch to the Judiciary and an appointment for mere cronyism. The former is not something that bothers me. In NJ, we do that sort of thing in ways that would be impossible in today's nasty political climate in DC -- for example, a Republican Governor here named his Democratic predecessor as Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. The latter OTOH bothers me a lot (repeat after me: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"...).

Judy G. Russell
October 5th, 2005, 11:13 PM
Judge Bork was a distinguished jurist with an record of well reasoned decisions that didn't sit well with the NOW, an august and dignified body of distinguished legal thinkers.Oh puh-leeeeze. Robert Bork was the Assistant Attorney General who was the only gutless wonder in the Justice Department willing to indulge Richard Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. He is anti-gay-rights, anti-women's-rights, and thoroughly out of the mainstream. This is a man who has written that Government should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes and that the falling of the Berlin Wall was a bad thing because it exposed the East Germans to the immorality of the west. And you want to defend HIM?????

Judy G. Russell
October 5th, 2005, 11:24 PM
What I still object to, however, is the "Borking," reflexive opposition to a judicial nomination based on unthinking hatred before all the facts are in. Unless everyone in this forum who hammered on the Miers nomination knew yesterday afternoon that she was a fundamentalist, they've signed up to the Taliban thought process themselves. I do not believe this is an appropriate way to consider judicial appointments.Exactly where -- word for word, line for line, and give reasons for your answer -- does the following constitute "unthinking hatred":

I'd like to know her judicial philosophy and particularly whether she can be considered mainstream politically. If she's an extremist -- to the right OR to the left -- she doesn't belong on the Court. And the sum total of what we know about her judicial and political philosophy is... almost nothing.

That's what I said about her. Now how is that "unthinking hatred"? Be specific.

ndebord
October 6th, 2005, 10:54 AM
That statement from the Times is not quite accurate, or is at the least a bit misleading. I believe she left the Catholic Church and "came to Jesus" in the late 1970s, but she donated money to Al Gore's presidential run in 1988. So it would appear that the move to the Republican Party was about a decade after her change of religious affiliation.

-Lindsey

Lindsey,

BusinessWeek had this to say about Miers' donations to Gore and other democrats back in the 80s.

" Yes, Miers donated to a couple of Dems in '88, but the Al Gore of that campaign was quite different from the antiwar liberal of 2005. In 1988, Gore was considered by many of the Texas Tory Democrats to be the conservative alternative to Michael Dukakis. Bentsen, a popular incumbent, was considered moderate to conservative by many Texas voters. One Dallas Democratic operative theorizes that Miers made her donations after a leading local businessman lobbied partners at her law firm to help out a couple of Dems considered to be right of center. "

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf2005104_3941_db038.htm

More telling is her longstanding affiliation with the Republican Party and in particular GWB and her support for Right to Life organizations.

This from Wikipedia: "Her last recorded contribution to a Democratic cause or campaign was in 1988. Ed Gillespie said that she was a "conservative Democrat" at the time."

rlohmann
October 6th, 2005, 04:55 PM
This is a man who has written that [...] the falling of the Berlin Wall was a bad thing because it exposed the East Germans to the immorality of the westCan you provide a cite for this?

rlohmann
October 6th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Nick--

As I indicated earlier, and as Will confirms, the Miers nomination is questionable for a number of reasons. Still, I do not withdraw my initial objections to the "Borking" process.

Judy G. Russell
October 6th, 2005, 08:20 PM
The easy cite is the Washington Times in this article (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041230-114327-7178r.htm). Otherwise you'll have to read his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, a polemic against everything American (including much of the Declaration of Independence).

By the way, I am still waiting for a specific response to my question as to just exactly how my stating that we don't know enough to say anything about Harriet Miers constitutes "Borking" her.

Lindsey
October 6th, 2005, 08:43 PM
There is a fundamental difference between someone going from the Executive Branch to the Judiciary and an appointment for mere cronyism.
This is not just anybody from the executive branch; it is one of the president's closest advisors, and someone who has been closely involved in formulating many of the same policies that will almost certainly be challenged before the Supreme Court. That's what bothers me. It's not anything like nominating your predecessor to the court, especially when that predecessor is from a different party. I would have absolutely no problem with Bush nominating Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court, for instance. ;)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 6th, 2005, 08:52 PM
This from Wikipedia: "Her last recorded contribution to a Democratic cause or campaign was in 1988. Ed Gillespie said that she was a "conservative Democrat" at the time."
Right; she was a conservative Democrat. My point was that the impression the Times gave that her move to the Republican Party was directly connected to her conversion to evangelical Christianity is not accurate.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 6th, 2005, 10:23 PM
There again while it wouldn't be my first choice, if the nominee is thoroughly qualified, there is certainly nothing legally wrong with the appointment (and the rules of the Court and 28 USC 455 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+3003+0++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28%2828%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND% 20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28455%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20) would require recusal in any case in which the advisor had been directly involved or had expressed a public opinion).

Lindsey
October 6th, 2005, 10:52 PM
(and the rules of the Court and 28 USC 455 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+3003+0++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28%2828%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND% 20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28455%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20) would require recusal in any case in which the advisor had been directly involved or had expressed a public opinion).
Yeah, the rules would require a recusal, but what power does anyone have to enforce them? You can't appeal a ruling of the Supreme Court.

Remember Scalia and the duck hunting trip with Dick Cheney? He didn't choose to recuse himself from ruling on the question of disclosing the members of Cheney's energy task force, and there was no way to force him to if he chose not to. Meirs can always deny direct involvement in whatever decision is being challenged, and we know only too well that she has made a lifetime habit of not expressing a public opinion on anything.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 7th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Yes, she could lie. But if she would lie about something like that, we'd have a much deeper problem than we would merely from the shift of someone from the executive to the judiciary branches.

Jeff
October 7th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Evidently you misread Judy's note in the same way I did, but that's really neither here nor there.

I didn't know yesterday evening that Judge Miers was a religious fundamentalist.

"Judge" who?

- Jeff

Jeff
October 7th, 2005, 01:16 PM
You might want to look at my notes to Judy and Lindsey.

I learned this morning from the WP that Judge Miers

You keep saying that. The toady has been confirmed already? No, that would be "Justice", so what trial bench did she ever sit behind?

- Jeff

rlohmann
October 7th, 2005, 07:17 PM
The easy cite is the Washington Times in this article (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041230-114327-7178r.htm). Otherwise you'll have to read his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, a polemic against everything American (including much of the Declaration of Independence).Context is sometimes worth paying attention to. You appear not to have done so in this case. The fact that Judge Bork (or I, and maybe even you) may not be a big fan of Brittany Spears does not necessarily compel the conclusion that I (or you) support the East German approach to government. (FWIW, today, 7 October, is/was the official national holiday of the "DDR." I decline--as I assume Judge Bork does, also--to celebrate it.)

By the way, I am still waiting for a specific response to my question as to just exactly how my stating that we don't know enough to say anything about Harriet Miers constitutes "Borking" her.A diligent search of this thread has failed to reveal the question in question. Did you perhaps delete it?

rlohmann
October 7th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Sorry. I slipped freudianly. :)

Lindsey
October 7th, 2005, 10:24 PM
"Judge" who?
Oh, good catch!!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 7th, 2005, 10:30 PM
A diligent search of this thread has failed to reveal the question in question. Did you perhaps delete it?
Your search was evidently not diligent enough, and you do Judy a tremendous injustice with your question. The message I believe she is referring to is here (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8551&postcount=26).

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 7th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Yes, she could lie. But if she would lie about something like that, we'd have a much deeper problem than we would merely from the shift of someone from the executive to the judiciary branches.
She wouldn't actually have to lie; she could just take a very narrow view of what is meant by "directly involved".

But even if she recuses herself, that's still a problem, because it leaves the court without a ninth vote on many very critical issues, and opens the possibility that the decision may be evenly split.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 12:03 PM
The fact that Judge Bork (or I, and maybe even you) may not be a big fan of Brittany Spears does not necessarily compel the conclusion that I (or you) support the East German approach to government.And, of course, that is NOT what I said. (What have I been saying lately, and frequently, about misrepresenting...?) What I did say, word for word, is:

"This is a man who has written that ... the falling of the Berlin Wall was a bad thing because it exposed the East Germans to the immorality of the west."

As for your suggestion that I may have deleted the message where I insisted that you answer how saying Miers is an unknown is the same thing as "Borking" her, I suspect you're not searching very diligently. Try this message (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8551#poststop).

Jeff
October 8th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Oh, good catch!!

--Lindsey

I just didn't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that her entire qualifications are "Toady Crony, JD".

- Jeff

Wayne Scott
October 8th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Why don't we just filibuster until January, 2009, and let Sen. Rodham appoint the new justice?
That would solve most of your problems.

Wayne Scott
October 8th, 2005, 03:34 PM
What a wonderful idea? A confessed perjuror on the Supreme Court, but a DEMOCRAT perjurer, so it doesn't count.

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 05:40 PM
OK. I found it. Se my response to Judy.

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 05:45 PM
By the way, I am still waiting for a specific response to my question as to just exactly how my stating that we don't know enough to say anything about Harriet Miers constitutes "Borking" her.Sorry for missing it. I was confused by the threading process this software uses.

My reference to "Borking" was a response to your rhetorical question, "I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway???"

This did not strike me as a thoughtful and reasoned criticism, for which reason the term "Borking" came to mind as an accurate characterization.

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 05:54 PM
And, of course, that is NOT what I said. (What have I been saying lately, and frequently, about misrepresenting...?) What I did say, word for word, is:

"This is a man who has written that ... the falling of the Berlin Wall was a bad thing because it exposed the East Germans to the immorality of the west."You did not quote his words; you paraphrased them. My response, which you may wish to read again in this context, was to your paraphrase.

As for your suggestion that I may have deleted the message where I insisted that you answer how saying Miers is an unknown is the same thing as "Borking" her, I suspect you're not searching very diligently. Try this message (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8551#poststop).I have responded to that elsewhere. While I do not hold you responsible for the threading in this software, my attempt to find the referenced message was as diligent as I could make it. I respectfully decline for that reason to admit bad faith in my response.

Judy G. Russell
October 8th, 2005, 05:54 PM
What I don't understand is why you thing it is a criticism at all. It's a statement of fact: the nominee is a virtual cypher. Nobody (except possibly Bush) knows anything much about her, she has never held a judicial position anywhere, none of her credentials suggests any particular constitutional scholarship (or even particular constitutional interest), she's basically an unknown. So... why is it unfair (or to use your precise words, evidence of "unthinking hatred") to ask who the heck she is? Or are you suggesting that it's somehow evidence of unthinking hatred not to call her "Madame Justice" at the outset?

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 06:10 PM
I would not, however, as you apparently would, automatically disqualify her because she belongs to an evangelical church. There are evangelicals, and there are evangelicals--they're not all like Pat Robertson or James Dobson. Frankly, I have no more qualms about Miers on the basis of her evangelical faith than I have about Roberts on the basis of his Roman Catholicism. (Not that I am particularly sanguine about either one of them.)The reason I do disqualify her is my experience with evangelicals as they operate--or try to--within the Defense establishment.

The problems at the Air Force Academy are probably public knowledge, but they happen at the worker-bee level as well. About two years ago, a Navy chaplain at NSA (Naval Support Activity) Naples was disciplined for violating the military's ironclad rules against proselytizing. "But I just have to talk about Jesus," he protested, "and the government can't stop me from doing that."

The Navy, which sometimes gets it right, told him he could talk about Jesus to whomever he wanted, whenever he wanted, but not on Sam's payroll. Having taken Caesar's denarius, he had to play by Caesar's ground rules.

(Then, of course, there's "ďntelligent design," but that's another issue.)

I've noted before that we're growing our own Taliban, and I don't like it.

rlohmann
October 8th, 2005, 06:25 PM
At this point, both of us have made our positions clear. It is now up to the readers of this exchange to decide whether the assertion,

"I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway???"

is a thoughtful, measured, reasoned criticism of the nominee or whether it's simply knee-jerk "Borking."

Dan in Saint Louis
October 8th, 2005, 07:06 PM
It is now up to the readers of this exchange to decide whether the assertion,

"I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway???"

is a thoughtful, measured, reasoned criticism of the nominee or whether it's simply knee-jerk "Borking."
It is neither a criticism nor borking. It is a reasonable question, asked by a reasonable person, to try to learn more about a nominee to discover if she needs to be criticised or borked.

Who knows? If we had a better idea what she stood for, we might even support her! It is the lack of information being criticised, not the individual.

ndebord
October 8th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Why don't we just filibuster until January, 2009, and let Sen. Rodham appoint the new justice?
That would solve most of your problems.

Wayne,


Yes, why not? An excellent suggestion. We'll take a page out of the Republican playbook during the first Clinton administration.

;-)

Wayne Scott
October 9th, 2005, 01:28 PM
But W nominated her, so she must be bad.

Dan in Saint Louis
October 9th, 2005, 07:59 PM
But W nominated her, so she must be bad.Nay, W nominated her so even his fellow Republicans have expressed then need to know more.

Judy G. Russell
October 9th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Maybe that's true, at least according to what I'm reading from Republican conservatives, but I for one just don't know enough to say whether she's good, bad or (as I fear, and as the Court does not need) indifferent.

ndebord
October 9th, 2005, 10:48 PM
But W nominated her, so she must be bad.

Wayne,

(an aside here)

Yes, W nominated her, so she DEFINITELY must be bad. I use the Roman nomenclature here because if we are to remain a Republic, a strong Republic, we must acknowledge the truth of our situation. We have had Bush the Elder followed by Clinton the Vacillator and Bush the Lesser. I note that if Bush Jr had been a better man, his designation would have been that of Bush the Younger. His decision to embrace the lesser intellectuals of the Neocon movement, a flawed reinterpretation of Wilsonian utopianism, is both a historic misstep (IMO) and a rejection of decades of Republican support for internationalism or realpolitik.

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:08 PM
Why don't we just filibuster until January, 2009, and let Sen. Rodham appoint the new justice?
Filibustering wouldn't work; W would just make a recess appointment.

Sen. Rodham? I don't believe there is anyond in the Senate going by that name. Besides which, US senators don't have the power to appoint judges, only to confirm or reject them.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:12 PM
I have responded to that elsewhere. While I do not hold you responsible for the threading in this software, my attempt to find the referenced message was as diligent as I could make it. I respectfully decline for that reason to admit bad faith in my response.
My problem was not that you couldn't find it, but that you accused Judy of deleting it because you couldn't find it. You should have known she wouldn't do anything like that.

Frankly, though, I didn't find it all that difficult to find, but that may be because I am using linear view. I just clicked on the "Parent message" link a few times, and there it was.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:15 PM
The reason I do disqualify her is my experience with evangelicals as they operate--or try to--within the Defense establishment.

Well, as I said, there are evangelicals, and there are evangelicals. Not everyone who attends an evangelical church goes around buttonholing everyone they meet trying to convert them. They're not all the same, just as not all Catholics are the same, and not all Jews are the same, and not all Muslims are the same, and not all Episcopalians are the same.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:20 PM
At this point, both of us have made our positions clear. It is now up to the readers of this exchange to decide whether the assertion,

"I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway???"

is a thoughtful, measured, reasoned criticism of the nominee or whether it's simply knee-jerk "Borking."
It certainly doesn't strike me as anything close to "unthinking hatred."

Actually, the main question that occurs to me is whether your criticism of that question constitutes thoughtful, measured, reasoned commentary, or whether it's simply knee-jerk trashing of anyone who dares to criticize George Bush.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:23 PM
We'll take a page out of the Republican playbook during the first Clinton administration.
Indeed. But of course, according to Republicans, when they blocked judicial nominees, that was entirely within their rights. When the tables are turned, they accuse Democrats of violating the Constitution. :mad:

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 9th, 2005, 11:26 PM
But W nominated her, so she must be bad.
You're ignoring that the most vocal critics of the Miers nomination are conservative Republicans.

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 10th, 2005, 08:19 PM
What I don't understand is why you thing it is a criticism at all. It's a statement of fact: the nominee is a virtual cypher. Nobody (except possibly Bush) knows anything much about her, she has never held a judicial position anywhere, none of her credentials suggests any particular constitutional scholarship (or even particular constitutional interest), she's basically an unknown. So... why is it unfair (or to use your precise words, evidence of "unthinking hatred") to ask who the heck she is? Or are you suggesting that it's somehow evidence of unthinking hatred not to call her "Madame Justice" at the outset?

Judy,

Perhaps not a complete blank slate:

Miers position on right to life over abortion rights? No controversy here if William Saletan's research is correct. She is 100% pro life:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2127679&nav=tap1/

Judy G. Russell
October 10th, 2005, 10:57 PM
I've seen some of those reports and I find them disquieting. But what I find most disquieting are the claims by some of the extreme right wing folks that they have been given private assurances as to how she will vote on certain issues. I sure hope the Senate makes sure they get the same assurances...

Lindsey
October 10th, 2005, 11:08 PM
I sure hope the Senate makes sure they get the same assurances...
Or, if the White House refuses that (as I suspect they will, even though it would seem only right to give the US Senate the same information you give a private citizen) that they subpoena the individuals making those statements and ask them--under oath--just what assurances they were given.

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 11th, 2005, 09:27 PM
I've seen some of those reports and I find them disquieting. But what I find most disquieting are the claims by some of the extreme right wing folks that they have been given private assurances as to how she will vote on certain issues. I sure hope the Senate makes sure they get the same assurances...

Judy,

Some intellectuals, mainly on the left, have argued for years that the greatest challenge to our secular democracy is a combination of fundamental Christianity and executive branch fiat. Instead of overthrowing the Senate as did Caesar, this imperial/fundamental Presidency has legal control of all 3 branches of government and can disassemble government as we know it to fit a theological world view.

What is that old saw? Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Mike
October 12th, 2005, 12:11 AM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/11/DDG7SF49S11.DTL

Lord, Will Harriet Save Babies?
The religious right is outraged about Bush's pick. But how can they punish him?
Vote Democrat? Right.

Jon Carroll.

ndebord
October 12th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Ralph,

RL>> The reason I do disqualify her is my experience with evangelicals as they operate--or try to--within the Defense establishment.

Try to operate within the DD? That's funny.

Better to say the DD and its branches (Army, Air Force, Marines) (can't speak to the Navy) are all run by evangelicals, from the bottom up, with a few nutter Generals extolling modern-day crusades.

I say this with personal knowledge, indeed family knowledge. Four nephews/nieces/husbands and wives, etc., are currently serving in these branches and they and their friends are doing likewise. All devout, evangelical reborn again, Southern Baptists. To hear them tell it, they are the majority and are career volunteer soldiers. As Robert Kaplan calls them: "Imperial Grunts" (I'd add with an evangelical bent.)

RayB (France)
October 12th, 2005, 02:10 AM
You're ignoring that the most vocal critics of the Miers nomination are conservative Republicans.

--Lindsey

Fantastic! That will help her more than anything.

Judy G. Russell
October 12th, 2005, 09:46 AM
It isn't up to the White House to explain what Dodson (for example) means when he says he's been given private assurances as to how Miers will vote. It's up to Dodson, and he should be subpoenaed and compelled to answer.

Judy G. Russell
October 12th, 2005, 09:47 AM
this imperial/fundamental Presidency has legal control of all 3 branches of government and can disassemble government as we know it to fit a theological world view.I'm hoping that people who've seen just what that kind of theological world view has done in other parts of the world will balk.

ndebord
October 12th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I'm hoping that people who've seen just what that kind of theological world view has done in other parts of the world will balk.

Judy,

For the current fundamentalist stage to change, the Democrats need to overcome the traditional 2-1 advantage of Republican moneymen, Rove's political machine (which may well be crooked to the core) and the fundamental third tripod leg of American politics, the bible belt. That 1/3 of the populance can fluctuate between 27%, it's traditional percentage, to 40% (by some prognosticators) of our fair country.

Don't know which way the winds are blowing for sure, although my barometer has always been influenced by the large numbers of fundamentalists in my immediate family tree. I hear a lot of groundswell and I don't much like it.

Wayne Scott
October 12th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Senator Rodham, as you well know, is intent on becoming President Rodham in January, 2009. She will then have the power to nominate judges in federal courts. Of course, it the vile Republicans use the tactics now being used by the Democrat minority, they will be accused of not letting the President, Clinton II, have her way.

rlohmann
October 12th, 2005, 08:09 PM
A mostly fair comment (although I think he's unfair to Scalia in implying that Jesus drives his decisions. Jesus doesn't.)

Still, I can appreciate the irony. My own gills are turning slightly green at the possibility of a Supreme-Court justice's approaching cases on a "what would Jesus do?" basis, but some people who really ought to know better are objecting because she's not fundamentalist enough.

I try to remind myself that the German situation right now is even stupider, but it's not that easy.

Lindsey
October 12th, 2005, 09:27 PM
It isn't up to the White House to explain what Dodson (for example) means when he says he's been given private assurances as to how Miers will vote. It's up to Dodson, and he should be subpoenaed and compelled to answer.
Apparently, he shared what he was told on his radio show in the last day or so. From what I heard reported, it wasn't any more than we've already heard about her from other sources. So: either he was lying ^H^H^H^H^H exaggerating when he said that he had been given convincing reassurances, or he is lying about what he was told, or he is easily persuaded. Whichever is the case, Dobson doesn't come out so well.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 12th, 2005, 09:38 PM
(although I think he's unfair to Scalia in implying that Jesus drives his decisions. Jesus doesn't.)
Where in that article does Jon Carroll imply that? The only mention I see of Scalia is this sentence: "Not since Anthony Scalia has there been a partisan firebrand appointed to the court." "Partisan firebrand" says nothing at all about reliance (or non-reliance) on religious belief. The point of the paragraph in which it appears is that Supreme Court appointments don't tend to come from the ranks of extreme partisans on either side.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:18 AM
Whichever is the case, Dobson doesn't come out so well.He didn't start out so well, so ending up not so well ain't surprising!

Judy G. Russell
October 13th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Don't know which way the winds are blowing for sure, although my barometer has always been influenced by the large numbers of fundamentalists in my immediate family tree. I hear a lot of groundswell and I don't much like it.I don't much like it either, but I'm hearing a lot of groundswell the other way as well. People get nervous when folks start claiming they're doing what they're doing because God told them to.

ndebord
October 13th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I don't much like it either, but I'm hearing a lot of groundswell the other way as well. People get nervous when folks start claiming they're doing what they're doing because God told them to.

Judy,

Agree completely. That is how I feel and most of my friends here. I always wonder how cut off I am from the mainstream by virtue of my geographical location and by my choice of compadres.

Lindsey
October 13th, 2005, 11:31 PM
He didn't start out so well, so ending up not so well ain't surprising!
LOL!!! This is true...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 13th, 2005, 11:38 PM
I don't much like it either, but I'm hearing a lot of groundswell the other way as well. People get nervous when folks start claiming they're doing what they're doing because God told them to.
I said earlier that I'm no more bothered by Miers being an evangelical than I am by Roberts being Catholic, but I will add that I am very bothered that the Bush Administration seems to be arguing (and they most certainly are making this argument, however many times Scott McClellan denies it), that her religion is one of her qualifications for the Court.

There is, of course, a rather delicious irony that the same people who were heaping scorn on Democrats skeptical of Roberts by accusing them of imposing a religious test for office are in this case doing exactly that themselves.

--Lindsey

Mike
October 13th, 2005, 11:48 PM
My own gills are turning slightly green at the possibility of a Supreme-Court justice's approaching cases on a "what would Jesus do?" basis
Depending on whose Jesus...

ndebord
October 14th, 2005, 12:13 AM
Ralph,

RL> My own gills are turning slightly green at the possibility of a Supreme-Court justice's approaching cases on a "what would Jesus do?" basis...


If this turns your gills slightly green, what effect does the BBC story about Bush invading Iraq because God told him to do so, have on them?

<g>

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 10:11 AM
I always wonder how cut off I am from the mainstream by virtue of my geographical location and by my choice of compadres.Your geographical location certainly does insulate you from some of the worst of it -- the Northeast tends not to indulge in that sort of thing.

Judy G. Russell
October 14th, 2005, 10:13 AM
I am very bothered that the Bush Administration seems to be arguing (and they most certainly are making this argument, however many times Scott McClellan denies it), that her religion is one of her qualifications for the Court.I agree with you completely there. The idea that she won't have to answer how she will vote on Roe v. Wade while the White House and its minions trumpet that she belongs to a church firmly opposed to abortion is very disturbing.

Lindsey
October 14th, 2005, 11:32 PM
I agree with you completely there. The idea that she won't have to answer how she will vote on Roe v. Wade while the White House and its minions trumpet that she belongs to a church firmly opposed to abortion is very disturbing.
What is really amazing is to see that argument coming from conservative bloggers (http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2005/10/question_from_a.html). (My favorite exchange in response to the post in that link: One commenter says of Harriet Miers, "I like her because she seems, well, normal? Like an aunt?" To which another answers, "Harriet Meirs does remind me of one of my aunts, but I don't think that's the best criterion for picking Supreme Court judges." Aunts normal? Hehehehehe!)

Apropos of which (of conservatives fighting with the president, that is, not of wacky aunts):

http://www.rightsideredux.com/2005/10/exclusive-video-conservative-ice-age.html

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 15th, 2005, 09:10 AM
Your geographical location certainly does insulate you from some of the worst of it -- the Northeast tends not to indulge in that sort of thing.


Judy,

Yes, the operative word being "tends" with exceptions like LI and horse country!

Judy G. Russell
October 15th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Being a wacky aunt myself (I have more than a dozen nieces and nephews who can vouch for that!), I think I should be on the Supreme Court!

Judy G. Russell
October 15th, 2005, 09:22 AM
There have always been right-wingers around (witness the current GOP candidate for Governor here), but so far so good in keeping a balance. And that's not just the Democrats either... generally the GOP here consists of the likes of Tom Kean and Clifford Case.

ndebord
October 15th, 2005, 09:37 PM
There have always been right-wingers around (witness the current GOP candidate for Governor here), but so far so good in keeping a balance. And that's not just the Democrats either... generally the GOP here consists of the likes of Tom Kean and Clifford Case.

Judy,

You're forgetting the horsewoman Christie Todd Whitman and her progeny, who have political ambitions too!

<g>

Judy G. Russell
October 15th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Christie kind of blew it with me when she took the Party Line ("air quality issue? what air quality issue?") after 9/11.

ndebord
October 15th, 2005, 11:34 PM
Christie kind of blew it with me when she took the Party Line ("air quality issue? what air quality issue?") after 9/11.

Exactly.

Christie still had national political stars in her eyes back then. She always thought she could be a VP candidate. By the time she finally woke up and smelled the roses, she was smelling more like Rose fertilizer. And then she kept her mouth shut about the EPA stuff after leaving office. Not the class act she billed herself as.

Lindsey
October 15th, 2005, 11:39 PM
Being a wacky aunt myself (I have more than a dozen nieces and nephews who can vouch for that!), I think I should be on the Supreme Court!
Hey, why not? But first you'll have to send GWB a sappy birthday card and tell him he's the greatest and coolest president EVER! (I don't know about you, but for me, that would be a rather high price to pay...)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 15th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Christie still had national political stars in her eyes back then. She always thought she could be a VP candidate. By the time she finally woke up and smelled the roses, she was smelling more like Rose fertilizer. And then she kept her mouth shut about the EPA stuff after leaving office. Not the class act she billed herself as.
I sometimes wonder if Bush or some of his people didn't have, as secondary goals, blowing out of the water any ambitions Christie Whitman and Colin Powell might have had for national office in order to clear the way for brother Jeb.

Not that I think at this point the country is going to be in the mood for another president named "Bush" for quite some time!

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 16th, 2005, 10:07 AM
I sometimes wonder if Bush or some of his people didn't have, as secondary goals, blowing out of the water any ambitions Christie Whitman and Colin Powell might have had for national office in order to clear the way for brother Jeb.

Not that I think at this point the country is going to be in the mood for another president named "Bush" for quite some time!

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Bush is a hardline fundamentalist and neocon. Anybody who disagees with him goes on his enemy list (whether they know it or not). What he wants in terms of a successor immediately is not clear, nor down the road to me. Since the Bush family is dynastic, I'm sure Jeb is in their plans and probably the next generation thereafter.

Judy G. Russell
October 16th, 2005, 11:37 AM
By the time she finally woke up and smelled the roses, she was smelling more like Rose fertilizer. And then she kept her mouth shut about the EPA stuff after leaving office. Not the class act she billed herself as.And not the class act she had tried to be as Governor. Very disappointing.

Judy G. Russell
October 16th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Hey, why not? But first you'll have to send GWB a sappy birthday card and tell him he's the greatest and coolest president EVER! (I don't know about you, but for me, that would be a rather high price to pay...)Hmmm... I think I'll pass if you don't mind. Not to mention that I suspect the confirmation hearings might get a little... testy.

RayB (France)
October 16th, 2005, 02:39 PM
**confirmation hearings**

When do they start, Judy? (Too lazy to look it up)

Judy G. Russell
October 16th, 2005, 04:27 PM
**confirmation hearings** When do they start, Judy? (Too lazy to look it up)Mine? Never. Harriet Miers' confirmation hearings haven't been scheduled yet -- late October, early November most likely.

Wayne Scott
October 16th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Judy: I think you and most others here know how much I love you and how much I dislike most of your political opinions.
In this case, I'm not very happy about a born again evangelistic Christian who wrote those stupid letters becoming a member of SCOTUS.
She may be a very bright lawyer, but that doesn't make her totally palatable to this curmudgeon.
I remember a special dinner meeting of our county medical society when the guest speaker was Dr. Kissinger. He said something to the effect of, "I don't understand all these stickers on cars describing the owners as born again. I was born once, and that seems to me to be the correct number."
One of my dear friends who had become very active in an evangelic church when his son drowned in their swimming pool was not amused.

Judy G. Russell
October 16th, 2005, 07:33 PM
In this case, I'm not very happy about a born again evangelistic Christian who wrote those stupid letters becoming a member of SCOTUS.Uh oh... when you and I agree on something, the world is in deep trouble...

Lindsey
October 16th, 2005, 11:28 PM
I'm sure Jeb is in their plans and probably the next generation thereafter.
You mean Jenna and Barb? OMG!!!! :eek:

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 16th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Not to mention that I suspect the confirmation hearings might get a little... testy.
They should be interesting at the very least!

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 17th, 2005, 06:07 AM
You mean Jenna and Barb? OMG!!!! :eek:

--Lindsey

TWIN PRESIDENTS!! I love it!

ndebord
October 17th, 2005, 03:44 PM
You mean Jenna and Barb? OMG!!!! :eek:

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

(Oh my God! That's totally gross. Like, whatever...)

;-)

(I was thinking more about the nephew with Latin heritage...how about a young Caudillo as President?)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/03/bush.young/

<weak grin>

Lindsey
October 17th, 2005, 10:46 PM
(I was thinking more about the nephew with Latin heritage...how about a young Caudillo as President?)
I think we need a Constitutional amendment: no more than two presidents from the same family in any 100-year period...

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 17th, 2005, 11:19 PM
I think we need a Constitutional amendment: no more than two presidents from the same family in any 100-year period...

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Up until Bush, I was in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to allow for 3 terms, as in 3 terms is the charm. This lameduck syndrome doesn't allow for longterm strategy by a President, be it for good or ill.

But Bush....brrrrrr. We'll be lucky if we still have a constitution by the time he leaves office.

Lindsey
October 17th, 2005, 11:26 PM
But Bush....brrrrrr. We'll be lucky if we still have a constitution by the time he leaves office.
I wish I could say I disagreed with you...

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 18th, 2005, 03:11 AM
I think we need a Constitutional amendment: no more than two presidents from the same family in any 100-year period...

--Lindsey

Effective immediately!

MollyM/CA
October 18th, 2005, 12:04 PM
If all that's involved in the confirmation process is a resume check (high school? check; college? check; law school? check), then the concept of a constitutional check and balance is B]eviscerated[/B].


Isn't that one of the main goals of this administration?

Judy G. Russell
October 18th, 2005, 03:23 PM
It certainly seems to be high up in its list of goals... Concentration of executive power is, frankly, a little frightening (and yes, I would say that if the Democrats were doing it too).

Lindsey
October 18th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Effective immediately!
Note that this would preclude Jeb but not Hillary...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 18th, 2005, 10:39 PM
Concentration of executive power is, frankly, a little frightening
Which is really my chief concern about the nomination of Harriet Miers. We already have reason to believe that Roberts would be receptive to arguments in favor of broad executive powers, and we know that Scalia and Thomas are as well. Miers has been near Bush's side as he has claimed sweeping powers, cheering him on. Do we really want to put another vote in that column?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 23rd, 2005, 11:35 PM
Well, one thing I had thought about Harriet Miers was that, whatever her lack of obvious qualifications, she was at least a decent person. Now I'm not so sure; maybe I should have been more suspicious of such a close GWB crony:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12973371.htm

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 24th, 2005, 09:27 AM
Lord, why are people so damned stupid (greedy?) when it comes to money?

RayB (France)
October 24th, 2005, 11:08 AM
Lord, why are people so damned stupid (greedy?) when it comes to money?

An interesting thing to me is that the more they have, the worse they are. Doesn't really make sense. I have a theory that because they have worked so hard for so long to acquire wealth that it becomes an unconscious obsession and they do stupid things to get one penny more.

Lindsey
October 24th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Lord, why are people so damned stupid (greedy?) when it comes to money?
It's especially interesting in light of the experience of the Mathes family heirs after property owned by Mathes family trusts in Arlington, Texas, was condemned to build a stadium for the Texas Rangers (under the ownership of a certain G.W. Bush).

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol17/issue19/pols.bush.html

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 24th, 2005, 05:42 PM
An interesting thing to me is that the more they have, the worse they are. Doesn't really make sense. I have a theory that because they have worked so hard for so long to acquire wealth that it becomes an unconscious obsession and they do stupid things to get one penny more.
Not every person who is wealthy worked hard to become so; a lot of them were simply lucky enough to be born into wealthy or powerful families. Look at GWB.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 24th, 2005, 10:17 PM
I have a theory that because they have worked so hard for so long to acquire wealth that it becomes an unconscious obsession and they do stupid things to get one penny more.It's certainly an obsession, but I'm not sure about the rest of it. A lot of the stupidest stuff is by people who haven't worked very much (or at all).

earler
October 25th, 2005, 04:36 AM
and look at the kennedy children. Far more money than the bush family had or has.

Note that the bush family wasn't really rich. Prescott bush was a mediocre lawyer, then a mediocre senator. His children did better. George bush made money in oil in the 1950s, then entered public service. Like clinton now, he has made a lot of money since leaving office.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 09:39 AM
and look at the kennedy children. Far more money than the bush family had or has.No question -- and it certainly has damaged many of them, beyond repair.

RayB (France)
October 25th, 2005, 02:23 PM
No question -- and it certainly has damaged many of them, beyond repair.

Further to my earlier statement -

'Is not the dread of thirst when the well is full the thirst that is unquenchable -
Kahlil Gibran.

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 03:32 PM
An apt quotation indeed. It occurs to me that all of this boils down, in the final analysis, to a psychological game of "I'm better than you are." I have more money, more things, more power (and money equals power).

RayB (France)
October 25th, 2005, 04:36 PM
An apt quotation indeed. It occurs to me that all of this boils down, in the final analysis, to a psychological game of "I'm better than you are." I have more money, more things, more power (and money equals power).

Sort of the 'He who dies with the most toys . . . Wins' syndrome. Interestingly that seems to be more of an American trait compared to most European countries. Here you can have power without the material things on all levels and that 'power over others' is more important. It is sort of a 'Bully factor', 'Big Fish in Little Pond', etc. here. I'm sure that it ties in with the class system. This is especially true in the UK. In Germany, the boss is still referred to by his subordinates as 'Herr so-and-so'. At least that has been my observation. Maybe Earle would have some comments on this. He has been here far longer than me.

rlohmann
October 25th, 2005, 05:07 PM
In Germany, the boss is still referred to by his subordinates as 'Herr so-and-so'. At least that has been my observation.In Germany, everybody is addressed as "Herr" or "Frau" so-and-so. Our next-door neighbors for 15 years were Herr and Frau Grund, and we were Herr and Frau Lohmann.

I got on a first-name basis with two of my German co-workers after 13 and 15 years, respectively, but only with them; nobody else.

That's just the way Germany is.

(All of this first-naming by sales clerks and Symantec-support people makes me uncomfortable.) :)

Lindsey
October 25th, 2005, 10:46 PM
In Germany, everybody is addressed as "Herr" or "Frau" so-and-so. Our next-door neighbors for 15 years were Herr and Frau Grund, and we were Herr and Frau Lohmann.
It used to be that way here, too, or at least it was with my grandparents. Even within their circle of close friends, they didn't call each other by their first names. Now it's quite the opposite.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 11:40 PM
I think it all boils down to how you keep score in the Great Game of Life. In some societies, it's whether you get bowed to. In others, it's the size of your bank account.

Judy G. Russell
October 25th, 2005, 11:41 PM
It used to be that way here, too, or at least it was with my grandparents. Even within their circle of close friends, they didn't call each other by their first names. Now it's quite the opposite.Agreed, except that in the south there was often the practice of calling a single woman by her first name with "Mzzzzzz" (not Ms.!) on the front. "Now Mzzzzz Mary would say..."

Lindsey
October 25th, 2005, 11:58 PM
Agreed, except that in the south there was often the practice of calling a single woman by her first name with "Mzzzzzz" (not Ms.!) on the front. "Now Mzzzzz Mary would say..."
A few people in my office still do that. It drives me nuts.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
October 26th, 2005, 02:04 AM
A few people in my office still do that. It drives me nuts.

--Lindsey

My personal preference is - 'OY, YOU!'. It is no longer necessary to remember people's names or marital status and certainly gets thler attention . . . . even in French except that it is 'vous'.

earler
October 26th, 2005, 06:05 AM
It's not just the money. Look at how exemplary the rockefeller family has been, in spite of all its money. Then too there are the rothschilds, the mellons, the phipps, and others.

It was the really dreadful patriarch of the kennedys, joe kennedy that set the tone for his progeny.

-er

RayB (France)
October 26th, 2005, 06:27 AM
It's not just the money. Look at how exemplary the rockefeller family has been, in spite of all its money. Then too there are the rothschilds, the mellons, the phipps, and others.

It was the really dreadful patriarch of the kennedys, joe kennedy that set the tone for his progeny.

-er

The book, 'The Kennedys' does a good job of detailing that.

earler
October 26th, 2005, 06:33 AM
The french protocols are sui generis. On one hand, you address everyone you meet as monsieur, madame or mademoiselle. You shake hands with everyone, be he the concierge, the postman, or the president of france. When you enter a shop you are supposed to say bonjour (or bonsoir) first. The shopkeeper or shop assistant then says bonjour (or bonsoir). He will say au revoir as you leave and you will say it, too.

Anyone who has been cabinet minister or president of the republic is forever addressed as monsieur le ministre or monsieur le président. In fact, if you have been president of say the association of peanut growers of poitier, for example, you have the right to be called monsieur le président for the rest of your days. A general is addressed as 'mon général', even after his retirement. Same for a full colonel.

Titles are not used, except on very formal occasions. Thus, you wouldn't be introduced to jean-marie de montcul as le marquis de montcul, but merely as jean-marie de montcul. Further, when you speak of him you don't speak of de montcul, but of montcul, unless his name is monosyllabic.

In business environments, the use of vous is standard, except among the lower level of civil servants and among the socialists and communists. The latter still like to address each other as comrade. Otherwise, the use of tu can be delicate. I address two of my brothers-in-law in the familiar mode (tu), but one of them in the formal mode (vous). I address all three of my sisters-in-law with vous. My nephews and nieces uses vous with me and I address them using tu. Among older people it isn't uncommon to hear a husband and wife use vous with each other in public.

Kissing is a complex procedure, too. A man will kiss the cheeks of a lady if he knows her reasonably well. Women will exchange kisses far more readily. Men don't kiss each other, unless they are members of the same family or to demonstrate homosexuality publicly. Note that it is considered tacky to bestow more than a single kiss on each cheek. Shopkeepers and the like often do this several times.

I'll spare you an explanation of handkissing, a ceremony that is also complex, unless you are really interested.

-er

earler
October 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM
Did you click you heels when addressing your superiors while in germany?

The germans also have the charming tradition where young girls kiss the right hand of an older relation and curtsey, too.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 26th, 2005, 11:38 AM
A few people in my office still do that. It drives me nuts.And you know they think they're being very polite and don't have a clue why it bothers you.

Judy G. Russell
October 26th, 2005, 11:39 AM
"Hey you!" works for me.

Lindsey
October 26th, 2005, 04:50 PM
My personal preference is - 'OY, YOU!'. It is no longer necessary to remember people's names or marital status and certainly gets thler attention . . . . even in French except that it is 'vous'.
My mother has developed a habit of addressing people with simply "Hey!" But she has an excuse: She's over 80, and she's had a stroke, and I think she just has difficulty recalling the names of even people that she knows well.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 26th, 2005, 04:53 PM
And you know they think they're being very polite and don't have a clue why it bothers you.
Oh, no, I don't think they really do it to be polite; they do it because they are faux-Southern-belle suck-ups. (Well, OK, there is one guy, now retired, who also does it, and he is just trying to be polite, but the others are just being phony.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 26th, 2005, 04:54 PM
"Hey you!" works for me.
Says the gal from Noo Joisey...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
October 26th, 2005, 05:54 PM
I'm not from Noo Joisey. I just happened to live here the vast majority of my life...

rlohmann
October 26th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Even when we left the States in July of 1986, There was a degree of residual formality among people who didn't know one another.

Still--and I keep reminding myself of this--this kind of minor dissonance is nothing like the hammer that hit me the first time I came back from Germany. That was in September of 1966. The Army had sent me there in June of 1963.

That September, I came back to a country I simply could not comprehend.

rlohmann
October 26th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Um.... How does one pronounce "Ms."?

IIRC, the guidance from Gloria Steinem was that it was to be pronounced in exactly the manner you disparage.

In my eternal striving for ultimate political correctness, I remain,

Yr. Obd. Serv't,

rlohmann
October 26th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Did you click your heels when addressing your superiors while in germany?Nah. Nobody does that anymore.

The germans also have the charming tradition where young girls kiss the right hand of an older relation and curtsey, too.That's a new one. Never heard of it.

Older gentlemen--say, of your age or mine--may kiss the hand of a lady, but only if she's married, and you don't actually kiss her hand; you just hover over it briefly.

A Bavarian friend sent me a Prussian flag in a CARE package recently. I treasure it.

rlohmann
October 26th, 2005, 07:35 PM
[QUOTE=earler]jean-marie de montcul /QUOTE]

Ooooh.

Quel horreur!

Lindsey
October 27th, 2005, 12:06 AM
I'm not from Noo Joisey. I just happened to live here the vast majority of my life...
Point taken!

--Lindsey

earler
October 27th, 2005, 05:36 AM
I should have been clearer. The younger woman or girl kisses the hand of an older woman relation, not a man's hand, unless he be a bishop, cardinal or the pope. Such customs do have their charm, certainly more than the modern practice of mooning.

And, yes you kiss the hand of a married woman only, at least in theory. If the lady is beyond the age of extreme nubility then one might also kiss her hand. One shouldn't slobber either, as you point out.

As for heel clicking being no longer de rigeur, do you still wear a monocle?

-er

Dan in Saint Louis
October 27th, 2005, 09:58 AM
So... is this another appointment of loyalty over ability, or ...? I mean, who the h### IS Harriet Miers anyway??? (And yes, I've read her resume. It tells me what she's done, not who she is or what she might believe.)
Now that the Miers nominiation has been withdrawn, it has been said that the nomination of a true statesman capable of being instantly accepted by all parties is vital to the credibility of the W administration. The name "John Danforth" has been heard.......

Jeff
October 27th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Even when we left the States in July of 1986, There was a degree of residual formality among people who didn't know one another.

Still--and I keep reminding myself of this--this kind of minor dissonance is nothing like the hammer that hit me the first time I came back from Germany. That was in September of 1966. The Army had sent me there in June of 1963.

That September, I came back to a country I simply could not comprehend.

I went to Holland in June of 1982, and returned to a country that I still cannot comprehend in September of 2003. It's still so bad that I often wish I had a translator, of language, customs, politics, and about everything else.

Judy G. Russell
October 27th, 2005, 01:57 PM
I went to Holland in June of 1982, and returned to a country that I still cannot comprehend in September of 2003. It's still so bad that I often wish I had a translator, of language, customs, politics, and about everything else.In some ways, Jeff and Ralph, I think it must be worse for you folks than for folks like me who travel abroad. When I go to, say, Ireland, even though they (mostly) speak English, I don't expect to understand what I hear and see and read. But for you, this is your native country, and there must be an automatic expectation that what you hear and see and read will be immediately understandable. Then again when I listen to my 15-year-old niece, I'm not sure what she's speaking is English, so...

Lindsey
October 27th, 2005, 05:36 PM
The name "John Danforth" has been heard.......
I heard that, too, and I would be quite happy with such a nomination, because, his support of Clarence Thomas notwithstanding, I have a good deal of respect for John Danforth. But I can't imagine that Bush would want to nominate him, as Danforth quit his post at the UN after only a very short stint there, apparently terribly unhappy with what BushCo wanted him to do, and wrote a stinging op-ed (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/9996) for the NYT lamenting that the Republican party had become "the political arm of conservative Christians."

OTOH, if Bush wants to get back at the Christian right for torpedoing the Meirs nomination, Danforth would be an excellent pick. And as a former senator, he would be an easy confirmation.

--Lindsey

Dan in Saint Louis
October 27th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Unfortunately Danforth probably does not want the job. I understand that one reason he left his UN post was that his wife was very ill, and they were getting snarky with him about her using his official car to get around in NYC.

AFAIK they are both quite happy to be back in St. Louis.

Lindsey
October 27th, 2005, 05:46 PM
I understand that one reason he left his UN post was that his wife was very ill
Oh, I hadn't heard about that! I'm terribly sorry. And fie on those who would begrudge his wife the use of the car!

--Lindsey

rlohmann
October 27th, 2005, 07:37 PM
If this turns your gills slightly green, what effect does the BBC story about Bush invading Iraq because God told him to do so, have on them?
There seems to be some question about whether he actually did say that, but I have a nasty suspicion that he probably did.

When things like that happen, I simply remind myself that the alternative was Kerry. :(

rlohmann
October 27th, 2005, 07:52 PM
And fie on those who would begrudge his wife the use of the car!--LindseySorry, you're off base on that one.

Transportation of one's spouse, except in narrowly defined circumstances, is a personal expense; not one to be charged off to the taxpayers.

One of the reasons I never cared for Danforth is his gargantuan sense of entitlement. I remember when this business came out a few years ago. He was uncomonnly insulted at the idea that government property wasn't his to use for his personal errands. He was, after all, a very important person.

It's unfortunate that his wife is ill, but a government employee or military member who uses a GOV (government-owned vehicle) for transportation of a family member, sick or not, gets a mandatory 30-day suspension without pay for misuse of government property.

For your personal errands, you use your personal vehicle.

Lindsey
October 27th, 2005, 09:04 PM
OK, I'll accept that--you would know and I wouldn't.

I have to say, though, it seems a very small thing compared with the looting that is going on within Congress and by the likes of Halliburton and those close to Tom DeLay. I as a taxpayer would far rather foot the bill for transporting Danforth's wife (to allow the guy to do his job without having worry about that) as a trade for not having John Bolton in that job. And if I had to choose between giving Danforth money for personal use of that car and giving the state of Alaska money for a bridge to nowhere, well...

--Lindsey

Wayne Scott
October 27th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Something that bothers me is to bump into someone, say in the grocery store, whom I've met in the past and have him say, "Hi, Doctor, how are you?" He doesn't remember my name, but just my vocation. I can't reply, "Hello, plumber, I'm fine, how are you?"
It isn't fair.
By the way, out here in the wild, wild west, I prefer to be called by my first name. In the cafes I infest or the stores I visit often, I like to be called, "Wayne."
At my favorite lunch spot I'm Wayne to the whole staff including the dish-washer, Chuy. Only the owner insists on calling me, "Dr. Scott." I've begged him, but even tho he's lived in the US for almost 50 years, he can't get over the French formality of his youth.

Informal in Ireland

Wayne Scott
October 27th, 2005, 09:55 PM
Sorry, you're off base on that one.

Transportation of one's spouse, except in narrowly defined circumstances, is a personal expense; not one to be charged off to the taxpayers.

One of the reasons I never cared for Danforth is his gargantuan sense of entitlement. I remember when this business came out a few years ago. He was uncomonnly insulted at the idea that government property wasn't his to use for his personal errands. He was, after all, a very important person.

It's unfortunate that his wife is ill, but a government employee or military member who uses a GOV (government-owned vehicle) for transportation of a family member, sick or not, gets a mandatory 30-day suspension without pay for misuse of government property.

For your personal errands, you use your personal vehicle.
What a ridiculous opinion. You must be a subversive member of the dreaded VRWC.

I'm proud to be a member of that group.

Judy G. Russell
October 27th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Something that bothers me is to bump into someone, say in the grocery store, whom I've met in the past and have him say, "Hi, Doctor, how are you?" He doesn't remember my name, but just my vocation. I can't reply, "Hello, plumber, I'm fine, how are you?"
It isn't fair.
(a) Nobody ever said life would be fair.

(b) Tell me about it. I hear "Hi, Professor!" all too often...

Judy G. Russell
October 27th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Now that the Miers nominiation has been withdrawn, it has been said that the nomination of a true statesman capable of being instantly accepted by all parties is vital to the credibility of the W administration. The name "John Danforth" has been heard.......There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Extreme Right in the Republican Party would accept Danforth. Not a chance.

Jeff
October 28th, 2005, 12:57 PM
(a) Nobody ever said life would be fair.

(b) Tell me about it. I hear "Hi, Professor!" all too often...

For my entire career I was entitled, actually technically it was required, that I be addressed as 'The Honorable'. It did actually happen once. My Presiding Justice in San Francisco addressed me as such when he officiated at my marriage, as if I didn't have enough else going on in my head at the time. And the sly old fox knew it<g>

- Jeff

fhaber
October 28th, 2005, 03:41 PM
I think you should lighten up, mayhbe, Ihro Durchlaucht, baby, bubbeleh. Like, love yo' blingbling; I's down wit it. And that's a du up dere, fo' shizzl'.

fhaber
October 28th, 2005, 03:52 PM
(more discussion, inevitably, will occur below current the current depth*).

*and should. Just having fun.

Judy G. Russell
October 28th, 2005, 04:01 PM
A dear friend of mine is a federal judge here in NJ. She was once addressed as "Your Worship." She still can't decide if she likes it or not...

Judy G. Russell
October 28th, 2005, 04:02 PM
You know, I think (gasp) we may have to start (gasp!!) breaking these threads up a bit...

Lindsey
October 28th, 2005, 10:02 PM
She was once addressed as "Your Worship."
LOL!! A little problem of separation of church and state, there...

--Lindsey

rlohmann
October 29th, 2005, 05:04 PM
The spoken language is the least of it, and it's likely that Jeff, with whom I don't agree on very many things, would agree that the disconnect in this context is about more than just language.

Both of us left with a set of assumptions about society and social relationships that we weren't consciously aware of until we came back. That's when the changes hit us between the eyeballsand we became very conscious of what wasn't there anymore.

(In my purely subjective perception, the United States changed more--and those changes knocked my own perceptions slaunchwise far more--in the three years from June of 1963 to September of 1966 than in the 18 years from July of 1986 to October of 2004. Still, October of 2004 was a pretty rough landing.)

Jeff's mileage may--will--vary, but when we go someplace else, we're still Americans, and we expect to come back to the country we left.

But we never can, and we never do.

Judy G. Russell
October 29th, 2005, 05:36 PM
One question I would pose to both of you, of course, is whether what you think you remember ever truly existed at all. Especially given the length of time you were both out of the country, there is always the possibility that -- like the Norman Rockwell Christmases we all wish we'd had a children -- the America you think you remember isn't what was real at all.

earler
October 29th, 2005, 07:05 PM
The america was real enough, and not just the from rockwell's saturday evening post covers. One advantage of age is one has a perspective over today and the past, too.

I have lived most of the past half century in europe, though I did spend 7 years in california during that time, from 1978 to 1985. I am also helped by the perspective my father had. He was born in 1884 and saw so much change in his own lifetime, as he explained to me over the years. I too note much change, some positive, but much, alas negative. What disturbs me very much now when I travel back to the states is to see the infrastructure of the country as if the usa were a 3rd world country.

-er

rlohmann
October 29th, 2005, 07:13 PM
In Germany, you'd have to say that in Turkish. :)

rlohmann
October 29th, 2005, 07:28 PM
(I read Earle's response and I'm still chewing on it.)

June of 1963, from the perspective of September of 1966, was no Rockwellian illusion.

Judy G. Russell
October 29th, 2005, 08:13 PM
What disturbs me very much now when I travel back to the states is to see the infrastructure of the country as if the usa were a 3rd world country.That disturbs many of us here as well. Tax cuts are just dandy, but you can't fight a very expensive war, take care of natural disasters and maintain the infrastructure while bringing in fewer and fewer dollars. It just can't be done. Bridges need to be built, schools upgraded, roads repaired, public facilities maintained. And that isn't being done.

Judy G. Russell
October 29th, 2005, 08:16 PM
June of 1963, from the perspective of September of 1966, was no Rockwellian illusion.No, that I'll grant you. The 60s represented an astounding sea change even for those of us who didn't come out of the same milieu that you did (autocratic educational environment, military etc.).

earler
October 30th, 2005, 03:53 AM
You speak as if the parlous state of the infrastructure were a recent phenomenon due to the money being spent in iraq. This isn't true at all. The neglect of infrastructure dates back throughout all my life. For example, the interstate highway system, initiated under eisenhower has been allowed to deteriorate for the past 40 years. Factories in new jersey rusted in the 1950s as they do today. And the new jersey turnpike's views are as third world today as they were in the 1970s. The bridges over the east river in nyc were rusting in the 1940s, too.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 08:40 AM
I realize infrastructure doesn't deteriorate overnight. But I can't do anything about what happened in the 1940s, when I wasn't alive. I can at least try to do something about what's going on now.

earler
October 30th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Americans always speak of how high their taxes are. In fact, other than places like new york city, where the combination of city and state income taxes is punishing, taxes in the usa are too low to pay for the services the citizenry requires: maintenance of the infrastructure, building and maintaining schools, recruiting and paying teachers decently, providing health care to the poor, offering nurseries for single mothers, vocational training for the underclass, etc. Here in europe, taxation is often too high, especially in france. In the states it is too low.

You weren't alive in the 1940s, but you were since then and have to have seen the gradual deterioration.

-er

Jeff
October 30th, 2005, 01:10 PM
The spoken language is the least of it, and it's likely that Jeff, with whom I don't agree on very many things, would agree that the disconnect in this context is about more than just language.

Well as I remember we did once agree about a hotdog; polite for putz, with earing masquerading as a lawyer at the Embassy. However you only had to deal with him for a time or two. I did for a year or two. I contemplated murder, but I gathered that you were not available in criminal defense.

I know you can't go home again, but I thought I'd never left. Now on some many occasions I wonder if I was ever here.

- Jeff

Jeff
October 30th, 2005, 01:20 PM
One question I would pose to both of you, of course, is whether what you think you remember ever truly existed at all. Especially given the length of time you were both out of the country, there is always the possibility that -- like the Norman Rockwell Christmases we all wish we'd had a children -- the America you think you remember isn't what was real at all.

Oh it existed and I remember it quite well; my apartment in SF was 2/3rds the way up Knob Hill and it had parking and rent control. That was the important stuff. And that's gone now too. It's all so gone that I can't bring myself to even contemplate a trip back there. And then there's the rest of the country that's all gone too.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 01:53 PM
You are assuming, incorrectly I suspect, that the citizenry agrees that those are all services that it "requires". The Republicans have had quite a bit of success in arguing that (a) every pregnancy should end in a live birth but (b) only minimal services -- if any at all -- should be provided to the poor.

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 01:55 PM
The increase in population alone would account for an end to things like easy parking and rent control in high demand areas.

earler
October 30th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Unfortunately, there is a lot of selfishness. There are many who say, they shouldn't have their taxes spent on schools because they have no children.

As for your statement that "the republicans" are against all abortions, that is like saying 'the democrats' wish to nationalize all industry. It just ain't true. There are people who are adamantly against any and all abortions. But, most republicans are more reasonable, just as are most democrats.

As for helping the poor, there is something of calvinistic thinking in many americans. Mind you, help should be provided in the form vocational training, assistance for single mothers, not just money paid out for them to do nothing, as is often the case here in europe.

-er

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 03:31 PM
As for your statement that "the republicans" are against all abortions, that is like saying 'the democrats' wish to nationalize all industry. It just ain't true. There are people who are adamantly against any and all abortions. But, most republicans are more reasonable, just as are most democrats. We shall see what "most Republicans" say in the next round of Supreme Court appointment(s).

rlohmann
October 30th, 2005, 04:11 PM
I have to say, though, it seems a very small thing compared with the looting that is going on within Congress and by the likes of Halliburton and those close to Tom DeLay. I as a taxpayer would far rather foot the bill for transporting Danforth's wife (to allow the guy to do his job without having worry about that) as a trade for not having John Bolton in that job.I'm not sure government can work that way. If you let Danforth use his GOV for his personal errands, what would be your rationale for forbidding a GS-5 from doing the same thing?

And if I had to choose between giving Danforth money for personal use of that car and giving the state of Alaska money for a bridge to nowhere, well...Get serious.

There was bipartisan outrage over that. The reason we're going to pay for the Bridge to Nowhere is because of the arcana of Congress, a democratic institution. Go back and read what Sir Winston had to say about that, and hold your tongue. :rolleyes:

rlohmann
October 30th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Well as I remember we did once agree about a hotdog; polite for putz, with earing masquerading as a lawyer at the Embassy.I had to think about that for a half-second before I remembered that idiot.
However you only had to deal with him for a time or two. I did for a year or two.I have a long history of conflicts with the State Department. I forget that individual's name, but he was one of the reasons. Not the only reason by a long shot, but a significant factor.

I contemplated murder, but I gathered that you were not available in criminal defense.Thanks for the compliment. I would have mounted an agressive defense on grounds of justifiable homicide.

>I know you can't go home again, but I thought I'd never left. Now on some many occasions I wonder if I was ever here.

<pondering that>

rlohmann
October 30th, 2005, 04:45 PM
No, that I'll grant you. The 60s represented an astounding sea change even for those of us who didn't come out of the same milieu that you did (autocratic educational environment, military etc.).Are you suggesting that my reaction was a result of environmental factors that you posit as causes for it? <sneering blandly>

Maybe we should ask Gail and Tom to shrink my head. :->

rlohmann
October 30th, 2005, 04:52 PM
I am waiting for a candidate from either party to say, "This is what I propose to do. It's going to cost $x, which will affect your taxes. Agree and elect me, or vote for the other guy.

That's probably not going to happen soon.

rlohmann
October 30th, 2005, 05:09 PM
But we also need to have a way to navigate within the threads, as we could in Tapcis, and I'm not sure that will work. If I understand an earlier comment of yours, we're pretty much at the mercy of the webmail software. :(

Is there any way, short of the "search" function, of finding an answer to a specific message?

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 05:14 PM
I am waiting for a candidate from either party to say, "This is what I propose to do. It's going to cost $x, which will affect your taxes. Agree and elect me, or vote for the other guy. That's probably not going to happen soon.Not in our lifetimes, I don't think...

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Is there any way, short of the "search" function, of finding an answer to a specific message?What display format are you using? In hybrid view, you can see the thread tree and you can just click on the reply (and if we start actually breaking threads into shorter pieces the thread tree would be a lot more useful).

Dan in Saint Louis
October 30th, 2005, 05:41 PM
if we start actually breaking threads into shorter piecesBWAA-Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

Judy G. Russell
October 30th, 2005, 08:09 PM
Hey anything's possible, y'know. No matter how unlikely...

Lindsey
October 30th, 2005, 11:18 PM
There was bipartisan outrage over that.
But the majority party was apparently not sufficiently outraged to actually do anything about it.

The reason we're going to pay for the Bridge to Nowhere is because of the arcana of Congress, a democratic institution.
In other words, the Republicans who said in 1994 they were going to change the way things worked weren't really serious about it. (Note that the number of earmarks has jumped dramatically since Republicans gained the majority in Congress.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
October 30th, 2005, 11:24 PM
But we also need to have a way to navigate within the threads
I'm using linear view, and when I want to see the parent of any given message, I click on the "go to parent msg" link on the message itself.

Is there any way, short of the "search" function, of finding an answer to a specific message?
The best way to do that, I think, is to use one of the views that gives you a thread tree, and then use the graphic view of the tree to look to see if there are replies to any given message.

--Lindsey

MollyM/CA
November 2nd, 2005, 08:09 AM
All of this first-naming by sales clerks and Symantec-support people makes me uncomfortable.

If there's anything I hate, Ralph, it's agreeing with you. But Amen!

When I was in college the teachers addressed us as 'Miss' and when I was teaching I wished that were still the convention. Faculty members were Miss, Mrs. or Mr. --which provided the students a lot of innocent entertainment discovering which of our teachers had PhDs. I could live with that, too. It made a Darius Milhaud or a Pierre Salinger look as good as some nonentity with a doctorate in cafeteria trays.

And yes, it was a girls' school --pardon me, women's college-- and male grad students were addressed as Mr. by the teachers.

MollyM/CA
November 2nd, 2005, 08:16 AM
One question I would pose to both of you, of course, is whether what you think you remember ever truly existed at all.

A sociologist wrote a very good book on just that, full of statistics about what the Beaver Cleaver days were really like, in terms of health and economic power, especially for women. It was called

The Way We Never Were.

I just discovered, by the way, that if you hit the italics button with nothing selected, you get a little dialogue window --all you have to do is fill the word in. Nicer than a toggle (which so often leaves one typing on in italics).

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 09:12 AM
A sociologist wrote a very good book on just that, full of statistics about what the Beaver Cleaver days were really like, in terms of health and economic power, especially for women. It was called

The Way We Never Were.I'm familiar with that concept -- I think it explains a lot of the Republican philosophy ("get us back to the way we [think we] were in the 1950s and all our problems will be solved").

RayB (France)
November 2nd, 2005, 10:09 AM
I'm familiar with that concept -- I think it explains a lot of the Republican philosophy ("get us back to the way we [think we] were in the 1950s and all our problems will be solved").

I know EXACTLY who, where and how I was in the 50's. Probably the most exciting decade in my life. I loved it. Those years formed the rest of my life.

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 10:26 AM
I suspect you're a tad older than I am, Ray... and the world that I knew in the 1950s was no Beaver Cleaver - Norman Rockwell world. Not to mention how very repressive the world was even well into the 1960s for girls and women.

Mike
November 2nd, 2005, 03:18 PM
... my apartment in SF was 2/3rds the way up Knob Hill and it had parking and rent control. That was the important stuff. And that's gone now too.
SF still has rent control, and if the parking was part of the building, then likely it's still there. Unless the entire building itself is gone!

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 07:13 PM
And yes, it was a girls' school --pardon me, women's college-- and male grad students were addressed as Mr. by the teachers.
I'm a graduate of a woman's college, too, and I am ashamed to admit it, but we had the very insidious custom (left over, no doubt from the 1890s, when the college was first founded, but still...) of addressing male teachers with PhD's as "Dr. So-and-so," but female teachers with PhD's as "Miss" or "Mrs." To the college's credit, the course catalog listed them all as "Miss" Mrs." or "Mr.".

I do hope that is one custom that has been rooted out since I graduated.

--Lindsey

Jeff
November 4th, 2005, 02:04 PM
SF still has rent control, and if the parking was part of the building, then likely it's still there. Unless the entire building itself is gone!

Oh the building is likely still there, but I thought rent control wasn't anymore. Interesting. How has it survived?

Mike
November 6th, 2005, 11:53 PM
San Francisco is still very friendly to renters, especially now as home purchase prices have continued to rise astronomically. In one case, when the owner of a big apartment building wanted to knock it down and rebuild it, the city refused the permits until the landlord ensured all tenants had found replacement lodging, along with guarantees they could have apartments in the new building at the same rent they'd been paying.

Indeed, rent control is alive and well in SF, and quite a few renters appreciate it!