Review of Sotomayor: Huh?

Below is the context from Sotomayor. Thanks, Ray.

Here is George Will on the some relevant matters. I like the article as it agreed with me on many matters.

It seems Sotomayor is a board member of La Raza, The Race, which is dedicated to Mexico's recovery of the Southwest and the importation of illegal aliens (and getting them the right to vote.) This is all I need to hear. Ms. Sotomayor has put herself into the political game, not me, assuming the journalists I read were correct. I really can't believe a sitting judge would be on the board of any politically active organization, left or right. I don't know if this is normal, or not.

La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Read up on our La Raza friends who consider English an abomination, an insult.

Read over the context. I find it supportive of my concern and it does not look like it was an unfair lifting of a small quote, though context is always important.

Of interest is her reference to Cardozo as voting for sexual and racial discrimination. This statement has several levels of importance.

First, it is a reference to the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Has anyone mentioned this? Second, a judge does not vote for a policy; indeed, if push comes to shove the term "vote" is a poor choice of words. There is a decision, not a final tally. Third, the Supreme Court decides very narrow issues where rights must be balanced. It does not "vote" on what it thinks should be policy. This is the key difference between the traditionalist and the "activist."

Underlying societal matters are close to irrelevant. The Court does not vote on social matters and legal trends, or, at least, it should not. Cardozo did not vote in favor of discrimination; that is absurd. He may have voted on an issue that some activists didn't like so they characterize the result as discriminatory; hence, Sotomayor says he voted in favor of discrimination.

Sotomayor: Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Cardozo was a brilliant, Sephartic Jew, from the streets of New York City, hardly someone who could be characterized as a old white prejudiced man. He had to fight his way through his early life. To besmear him is personally offensive as it is not merely stupid, it is a manipulative attack on the honor of a fine man for political purposes. This may be Democratic politics, but it remains a primitive tool of the manipulative.

Even those who favored assisting blacks or who favored reverse discrimination, could not vote against Bakke in the late 1970s - if they were traditionalists. One's political views are not on trial in an appeal, or they should not be.

In the Bakke case, there was clear race-based reverse discrimination as Bakke was denied admission to medical school in California. The court's decision opined, not held, that states could create paths to assist black students, but that the case presented for decision had the admission, the legal meaning, by the State University system that were it not for the race-based policy, Bakke would have been admitted, as he qualified. He was denied entry because of his race, using a percentage or numerical quota, I forget which. Is this so hard to understand?

The decision was - a person cannot be denied his rights on the basis of sex.

It was as simple as that. This is exactly what Sotomayor is whining about in the excerpt below. The decision was he has to be admitted, regardless of social intent, because it was admitted he was qualified and rejected because he was white.

The personal rights of citizen Bakke had been abused by the State, something Sotomayor should understand as being offensive. This view of personal rights is under assault today, unless you are claiming a popular right, one you 'vote' on, but that is anathema to our original Consitution. Sotomayor disagrees with Bakke, based upon a recent decision going to the Supreme Court:

...Citing the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the affected firefighters sued the city claiming racial discrimination. The officers had other allies who joined the lawsuit, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundation. They said the city blundered by ignoring the valid results of a test that was race-neutral.

However, Sotomayor said the city could discriminate if it produces an acceptable racial mix. The decision is being appealed....

[If she is a new justice, she will not be able to review herself. So far, the poop is conservative judges don't follow this decision at all. This could make for an interesting day at the Supreme Court. Bakke will return. Don't forget, all depends on the issue presented, not the support for reverse discrimination or race preference, as it is positioned.]

In law school, I gave a talk on Bakke and just explained the facts and decision of the majority. I was met by a weird distress, an illogical rejection of the opinion based on the notion that black students should be permitted to take advantage of the quota system. The lecture was to a large audience and only a few were adamant.

I remember one friend, an exceptionally sharp student, had lost all her training and basically attacked the decision on an "ends" analysis. People were arguing with me as though this was some evil position that I had by explaining it. Very revealing. Mr. Spock must have a hard time dealing with earthlings.

The knee-jerk reaction shows a complete failure of understanding as to what the role of the Court is, even after taking Constitutional law. I am sure those who objected are now politicians and judges. This is the problem. It all comes down to sloppy thinking - or clever political control.

Sotomayor:

In our private conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. [Huh?] I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment. [Huh?]

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. [There you have it.] Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. [So? Stupid and meaningless attack] I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. [This is gibberish. She is not sure, but is sure, but agrees what she is sure of can't be defined. If she gets in, I hope she has good clerks.]

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. [So? Perhaps, it court was deciding issues, not voting for women.] I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. [Huh?] Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. [And the Court changes its decisions, which it did. So?]

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. [OK, this is -10 points in a course on writing. What is she talking about?] For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. [There goes another 10 points. This is painful.] Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

The conclusion does not follow, nor is there one that makes sense. The use of the word "hence" adds nothing. It does suggest a prior argument, the absence of which suggests lying or confusion.

The proposition she "proved" is: that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.

This sounds like Yoda on martinis. I can't say, but the proposition may also include: Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

This is terrifying. Experience affects facts (it changes facts?)....the facts that judges choose to see (but doesn't change facts you won't see?). What? It is no wonder La Raza is offended by English.

Like I say, a judge oversees the correct application of due process, procedures, and constitutional protections. He or she does not interpret any facts in a case other than the narrow legal issue presented by the appellant.

Well, he or she shouldn't.

=======

I found an analysis through the site feministing.com, so it is a politically correct summary. There is a listing of cases of interest. There was also a note that every candidate on Mr. Obama's list was a women, proof of a political selection, which is perfectly acceptable to the challenged.

It is interesting in that the Supreme Court will be deciding if the Second Amendment applies only to federal action, not the state, as the Court, including Sotomayor held and NYS/Cuomo argued. The issue is whether NYC can regulate nunchcks, Chinese wheat farmer's tool useful as a weapon. The Defendant argued he had a second amendment right to bear arms. The Court said he did not.

I would have to dust off the books, but it seems to me the bill of rights has been fully extended to cover the states, thanks to activist judges who thought that was a way to push civil rights. I don't recall there being a selection of rights applicable to control the state. Just a few years ago, Rutland, VT, was told its gun control law was unconstitutional. Anyway, one can't assume any report on these cases is accurate. Again, it is the narrow issues presented that the Court will review. Below, it appears the case is being brought to the Supreme Court "a certiorari," a curious basis for a claimed violation of Constitutional rights. But, what do I know?

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

Bilderbergers Meet Again

Just a short one for tired readers.

Ray sent me the context of Sotomayor's remarks about Latina. I will drop it in here next time. Not having read the context, yet, I am interested in the notion that what she said could be out of context. If it is, it will be a classic example of how one (me) should not assume excerpts mean what they say. I should never rely on journalists, anyway, but you can't look everything up.

The key is what her view of a judge is. I think most people don't understand they are not responsible to find fact, they are responsible to conduct matters according to due process. That is what is meant by not making law. It is one thing for Congress to make a law, which can be reviewed under Constitutional provisions, but another for the Court to do it, such as the Roe v. Wade case, which is a departure from the role of the Court.

The majority made up new law because the majority wanted the result, not because it was supportable by precedent. The Vermont Supreme Court made up the social contract (there are non lawyers on the court) by deciding it flows from the Dred Scot decision. This makes zero sense. To understand the system, now realize that present judges who are conservative, with a small c, will give deference to Roe, etc., as it is precedent. The weird Vermont decision was not reviewable by anyone, even the U.S. Supreme Court, so it made up law. To its detriment, the legislature just shuffled along.

As Greg says, in a means analysis, the legislature should have ignored the instruction to create a law that met the Court's decision (I am not making this up) and should have rejected the usurping of power. The legislature is free to make laws, but it has to defend its own turf.

Chief Judge Roberts testified at his hearings that as a Court member, he must apply law and precedent (which can be changed if a proper case is brought) and Roe is law regardless of any personal opinion. This is what I call system's analysis, the proper way to protect the Constitution.

Judicial activists say - Oh the Constitution is so old and made up by dead white men, so we can change things to make them modern, for example, that, for some magical reason, abortion is legal for three months. Why? Activists wanted the outcome, bringing in their own views and desires, and do back flips to sound like they are traditional jurists. This is ends analysis is, to my mind, the end of the grand experiment. Ends analysis is anarchy and tyranny. The government will do what it can get away with, then it won't care, as it will have control.

So, I will see what Sotomayor thinks. The quote being used these days suggests she wants to make law based on her sex and personal experience. That is anathema to the conservative, so that may be why it was lifted and promulgated. Her personal experience is irrelevant to a traditional jurist's mind. In fact, she would be highly regarded when her personal opinions are unknown or put aside; they have no place in judicial work. I will get to this soon.

I recall one case from law school where this point was made. In a criminal case the defendant said he was at a certain location to make a night deposit. The Judge knew there was no bank deposit box at that bank, so in his rulings he had the testimony, essentially, destroyed. The appeal court said, no - you do not bring in you knowledge; it is not your job. The lawyers dig out the facts and offer evicence to the jury. Sure, mistakes can be made, but do you want judges telling the jury what to think?

(Ray, looks like a good kayak place at 2123 Central Ave, Albany called Paddle 'n Pole.)
------

Here is an interesting report on the current Bilderberg meeting.

I like the notion that people assume that this talk about the Bilderbergers, the CFR, and so on is part of some nut conspiracy and don't even try to put 1 and 1 together. Now, if you say evil Republicans are meeting to make money, then you have a Congressional hearing. There must be a way to make money on self-imposed blinders. Gold, I guess, but they can take that away. A puzzlement.

Below, note the talk was of a short crash, rather than a long one. If the "recession" is short it must be deep to meet the goals of creating chaos......new government. If you apply this filter to what has happened in the past few years, especially this year, it is obvious what is going on. This clarity lends credibility to the filter, though doesn't prove it.

An excerpt for fun:

..Shortly after the meetings began, Bilderberg tracker Jim Tucker reported that his inside sources revealed that the group has on its agenda, “the plan for a global department of health, a global treasury and a shortened depression rather than a longer economic downturn.”

Tucker reported that Swedish Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, “Made a speech advocating turning the World Health Organization into a world department of health, advocating turning the IMF into a world department of treasury, both of course under the auspices of the United Nations.” Further, Tucker reported that, “Treasury Secretary Geithner and Carl Bildt touted a shorter recession not a 10-year recession ... partly because a 10 year recession would damage Bilderberg industrialists themselves, as much as they want to have a global department of labor and a global department of treasury, they still like making money and such a long recession would cost them big bucks industrially because nobody is buying their toys.....the tilt is towards keeping it short.”[2]

After the meetings finished, Daniel Estulin reported that, “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”[3]

On May 21, the Macedonian International News Agency reported that, “A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be ‘totally’ destroyed.” Further, the same Kremlin report apparently stated that, “most of the West’s wealthiest elite convened at an unprecedented secret meeting in New York called for and led by” David Rockefeller, “to plot the demise of the US Dollar.”[4]

The Secret Meeting of Billionaires

The meeting being referred to was a secret meeting where, “A dozen of the richest people in the world met for an unprecedented private gathering at the invitation of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to talk about giving away money,” held at Rockefeller University, and included notable philanthropists such as Gates, Buffett, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Eli Broad, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller Sr. and Ted Turner.... [This part of any conspiracy needs a mild suspension of belief, I should think, but not a dismissal.)

Bilderberg founding member David Rockefeller, Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honourary Chairman and Founder of the Trilateral Commission, Chairman of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society, former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan.

10th Amendment

(That's Jim Madison)

As I recently mentioned, the 1oth Amendment is the front line against statism. It may be the only front as the Court moves toward placing power in the Executive, with full consent of the left in Congress. They are doing their own grabbing of state power. None of this matters to those people, as the goal is to denude the Constitution's principle of enumerated powers.

Watch this area for an idea as to how things will go.

Also, watch the review of the new candidate for the Supreme Court who recently stated Latina women would make better judges than white men because of life experience. Imagine if Roberts said the converse. There is not only a double standard, one standard is moronic. (P.S. There is no "latin" race, even if you buy into the 18th century concept of race. Watch for White House intervention, as they now run the census directly, imagine if Bush did this, into the reporting of information as Hispanics resent being called a race and check off "white.")

The Democrats will run Sotomayor through Congress and the GOP will be polite, having never learned, but watch to see where the players are and who pushes. The tradition used to be the president can have his choice, until conservatives were proposed.

The great thing about places like Harvard is that once you get in, say the law school, it is virtually impossible to be thrown out. Forget competence. This is why the school does so poorly on bar examinations. My school doubled their pass rate in NY, but that nothing to do with who got high paying jobs.

In my era, the Kennedy kid got a high profile ADA job under Morgenthau, only to fail the bar, as I recall three times; could have been twice - he one more chance to take the test. If he didn't pass that time, he would have been fired. After all, how does an ADA exist who can't practice law? I don't know, but he got paid.

Me, I wouldn't have even had an interview with NYC. I did interview in Nassau County and the interviewer wanted to know if I was in the Republican Party. I wasn't and would not have been interested if I were.

As I recall, Harvard's pass rate in the simple California exam was something like 41% in those days. (They claimed at Harvard they are "national" not state based school, where plebeians study to get a license and practice law, rather than clerk and dictate law. It is an absurd defense, but the uninitiated love it.)

A lovely woman who taught contract law at St. John's was just out of Harvard. She was great person and would go to a party of students, but she was the worst teacher that I can remember, at any level - a reader/mumbler who could not deal with people. She now is a professor at Harvard, as I discovered.

There are many smart folks who go to Harvard who keep up the reputation a bit (can you name one?) Then, there are the foreign, political, well connected who go there, well, because. The school pooh-poohs tests like the SAT for an obvious reason. As Greg mentioned, I think it was, Harvard is a brand, not a school.

Mr. Obama's application was backed by Percy Sutton, among others, at the behest of a leading lawyer of the radical left. Sutton didn't know who Obama was, just that he got the request. (See prior blog - I put in a YouTube video of him speaking) After getting in, Obama need not have written a law article or worried about grades. His test scores, papers, and grades are in the same drawer as his citizenship papers.

You see, once you are admitted, you are the chosen, just like Sotomayor. This is like Carey and Bush in the Skull and Bones - at the same time. This is the upper class maintaining its control by manipulating the masses. The idea of democrat or republican is amusing gamesmanship to these people.

I think you may see the upper class begin to pull the plug on their new star, as he steal money from them. Even the emotionally attached (i.e. guilty) will have to withdraw. We have left the game of GOP vs. Dem and entered the era of subversive statism through the "masses." Mr. Obama will come to find the source of his power is not necessarily the high school graduate and below.

Oh, a piece from Mr. Obama does exist that we know for sure that he wrote. It is below. You may want to consider Jack Cashill regarding his purported books.

Under water grottos (sic), caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .

ah, "they crunch..."

From Fox online:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights.

At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

"This has been boiling for years, and it's finally come to a head," said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. "With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head."

The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:

The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state's gun manufacturers to produce "Made in Montana" firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.

The Montana law is expected to end up in the courts, where states' rights activists hope judges will uphold their constitutional right to regulate firearms.

That would reverse a longstanding trend, said Martin Flaherty, a professor of constitutional law at Fordham Law School.

"From 1937 to 1995 there is not one instance of the Supreme Court knocking back Congress," he said. "In the Constitution the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce between the states. That gives them a lot of power. There were questions of how far they can reach, but then comes the New Deal, and Roosevelt gets all these picks on the [Supreme] Court, and they come upon a theory whereupon congressional power is almost infinite."

That 1930s understanding of the Constitution is now the norm, with advocates for the federal government arguing that issues of a certain size and scope can be addressed only by an institution with the resources of the federal government.

As an example, federal authority is necessary in the economic crisis, said U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, whose home state of Oklahoma recently passed a sovereignty resolution.

"The economic situation in our nation over the past year has not been contained in any one community or state. The industries and institutions affected by the recent economic crisis touch multiple layers of our economy and are not confined to any one state or region," he said in a statement. "I feel there was Constitutional justification for Congress's recent efforts to stabilize our economy."

But for many state leaders, the degree to which Congress regulates issues within their boundaries, using the interstate commerce clause to regulate just about everything and anything, has become untenable.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made headlines recently when he made a passing reference to the possibility of the Lone Star State seceding from the U.S., saying, "if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"

States rights advocates offer countless examples of what they believe is Washington's overreach.

In Utah, 67 percent of the state's land is controlled by the federal government through wilderness preserves, limiting state leaders in their bid to fill government coffers through oil and natural gas drilling after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancelled 103,000 acres of leases this year.

In Idaho, ranchers are furious that federal endangered species law prevents them from shooting the wolves that prey on their cattle.

"The balance of power between the states and the federal government is way out of whack," said Georgia state Senator Chip Pearson." The effect here is incalculable. Everything you do from the moment you wake up until you get to bed, there is some federal law or restriction."

Up until recently, the state sovereignty movement has remained almost entirely Republican, drawing supporters from the ranks that voted against President Obama and attended tea parties last month to protest federal tax hikes.

But the movement's rank and file are just as likely now to criticize Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as they are the new president, pointing to what they believe were Bush's overreaching policies on education and homeland security.

Many are becoming frequent visitors to a Web site, TenthAmendmentCenter.com, which was founded in early 2007 and has become a community bulletin board for states rights activists and politicians. Up to 20,000 viewers log on to the site every day.

The site's founder, Michael Boldin, a 36-year-old Web marketer in Los Angeles who says he has no political affiliation, says he decided to launch the site after watching the Maine State Legislature fight the Department of Homeland Security on the Real ID act, a controversial Bush-era law that will require states to issue federally regulated identification cards, complete with biometric data and stringent address checks.

"Maine resisted, and the government backed off, and soon all these other states were doing the same thing," Boldin said. "The bottom line is, if there's widespread support, people can resist the federal government at the state level."

The deadline for states to comply with Real ID has now been pushed back until 2011.

The Tenth Amendment movement is not without controversy. In Georgia, a columnist for The Atlanta Journal Constitution called a sovereignty resolution in the state Senate a threat "to secede from and even disband the United States."

The resolution, which was passed as part of a group of bills that were banded together, affirmed the state's powers under the Tenth Amendment, taking its inspiration and language from Thomas Jefferson's 1798 resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts -- laws enacted by the federal government during wartime to quiet protest against the government.

The resolution asserts that any instance of the federal government taking action beyond its enumerated powers "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

"It's been taken out of context by some editors," said Pearson, who sponsored the bill. "It certainly never meant secession. The intent was to communicate that the actions of the federal government are an infringement on states' rights."

Robert Natelson, a law professor at the University of Montana who was involved in drawing up that state's sovereignty resolution over a decade ago, argues that states up until now have been unwilling to take action of any real consequence in checking federal power.

"Back then they passed the resolution, but they didn't turn down any federal dollars," he said.

"If the states are serious about returning the federal government to its historical origins, they're going to have to do more than pass resolutions. They're going to have to turn down money and litigate."

Washington Post on GM

Even the Washington Post sees what is going on, article below, so it is not long before the true believers start to emerge from their stupor. Their propaganda gods are speaking.

Previously, the administration "bailed out" Chrysler, forced bond holders into swallowing a deal that removed protected status, a la Juan Peron, then killed the company destroying the bond holders, those evil capitalists. The Obama clan must think investors have a short memory.

Remember when normal businesspeople thought car companies should go bankrupt and get it over with some seven months ago? Let the market take care of the problem, as it does so well? Too bad the companies had no guts.

We were told that going bankrupt will never work. No one would buy a car thereafter and everything will collapse. Then, after the UAW and the state got control, Obama runs the companies into bankruptcy. With Chrysler the bond holders were forced into giving up their preferred status in order to save the manufacturer. Ha Ha.

I don't know how things can be more obvious. I don't imagine ENRON's leaders thoughy in such evil terms. I continue to be amazed at America's lack of critical thinking. Can you say third world? The again, one time shame on you; two times, shame on me. When things hit home, one tends to wake up.

People vote with their feet, in the end. We still have a market economy and there is only government interference, not control. Government trolls cannot fathom anything beyond taxing, let alone control intricate forces. American feet are moving now.

A mediocre car bought from the government/UAW company that has gone bankrupt and stolen investment money from retirees is not a good product placement. Chrysler's first quarter saw 48% few cars sold than the prior year. Hello? I haven't noticed it, but has the government taken on car warranties? They will as their playground collapses. A moron would think that would encourage buyers.

Just wait a quarter to see what happens to GM. Greg says there is a group already formed ready to buy Saturn, a sensible, economical, and cool car. So buy Ford, the last one standing. Of note, Ford has a new economy engine and the Fiesta is coming back - Europe's favorite car.

As an aside, I don't think the GM bond holders are playing nice as Chrysler's did (many being the same persons) with Obama and Chrysler, so GM will be much more of a mess. How that tug of war works will be a good indicator of things to come. Who knows, another Pyrric victory for change?

In the future, many unemployed auto workers will continue to think they were injured by George Bush and vote socialist. Though, the days of the stupid worker are long gone. Just look at union membership numbers. Sooner or later the poor carbon copy socialists will have to take responsibility, but look how long it took England to wake up. (Look for future scandals with the UAW and delf-dealing.)

Chrysler and GM are Obama's gambits. Bush would have let them fail or, perhaps, pulled a deal like the Iacocca one, but it looks like they were on their own as of January 20. The whining about the problems that were inherited is not relevant. The prior people understood government supported and regulated business, not take it over as a toy.

Then again, by the time it is clear who is screwing who, the government will have driven the last resistant voice from the radio. Oh, you are not up on that? Oh well, take another nap?

There is that old moral about the man who saw the gypsies taken away and who said, "I am not a Gypsy." When the Jews were taken away, "I am not a Jew." And so on until the time they came to take the man and their was no one left to complain.


Washington Post:

Editorial

Government Motors

GM's new owner (the Obama administration) should stop bullying the company's bondholders.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

IN THEORY, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities to further political goals.

It is now clear that there is no real difference between the government and the entity that identifies itself as GM. For all intents and purposes, the government, which is set to assume a 50 percent equity stake in the company, is GM, and it has been calling the shots in negotiations with creditors. While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion? It's highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have cut such a deal had the government not been standing over them -- or providing the steady stream of taxpayer dollars needed to keep the factory doors open.

GM is widely expected to file for bankruptcy before the end of this month. If this were a typical bankruptcy, the company would be allowed by law to tear up its UAW collective bargaining agreement and negotiate for drastically reduced wages and benefits. That's not going happen. Phrased another way: The government won't let that happen. Still, the threat of a contract abrogation probably played a role in the union's agreement to cost-cutting measures last week. (The details of the deal have not been made public; union members are scheduled to vote on the proposal early this week.) It's never easy for unions to make concessions, but the sting of handing back money is being softened by the government's desire to give the union a huge ownership stake in GM. Might bondholders be more willing to agree to the kind of quick restructuring the government hopes for if they had been treated more fairly from the outset?

The administration argues that it could not risk alienating the union for fear of triggering a walkout that could permanently cripple GM. It also posits that it had to agree to protect suppliers and fund warranties in order to preserve jobs and reassure prospective buyers that their cars would be serviced. These are legitimate concerns. But it's too bad that the Obama administration has not thought more deeply about how its bullying of bondholders could convince future investors that the last thing they want to do is put money into any company that the government has -- or could -- become involved in.

My take is the Obama administration has taken a long thought on what it is doing. It doesn't care about bondholders or the capitalist system except as a source of unearned income. No one in it ever had a job that produced anything. The poor confused Washington Post is conflicted because it retains its prejudices even in the light of contrary action. In the meantime, we can cheer for the new sensitive, woman jurist from Harvard, that bastion of the common man.

Stevia, Aspartame, Sugar and Insulin

I read, sometime ago, that aspartame, in all its various diet drink formulations, actually tricks the body into thinking too much sugar is coming into the blood stream. It is sweet. This causes the pancreas to drop insulin into the blood stream.

Now, the reason we take diet soda, and that is all I drank for a long time, is to NOT have sugar causing the insulin to increase. This is misplaced confidence. Indeed, the promotion of diet drink is a cruel con game.

Insulin increases in order to counteract an overabundance of sugar; hence, it enters to blood with a vengeance, to control sugar, but doesn't find any as it has been tricked by aspartame. (P.S., eat protein with carbs to control insulin.)

The end result is that aspartame is worse than sugar as the insulin has nothing to do but kill you, well cause inflammation/glycemic panic. That there are almost no calories in aspartame is irrelevant. It still makes one flabby, then, diabetic.

Below I lifted information about aspartame that you may find of interest. The cool thing is that after it gets to 86 degree F, it turns the inherent wood alcohol into formaldehyde. So, you could use it to preserve your dead body. As Dr. Roberts points out - it is NOT a diet food.

My point of looking back at this is I wanted to see if stevia was acceptable, so I double checked the old news and looked up the new.

Stevia is a Brazilian food that our government, to use the term loosely, says is not a food. Therefore, it is food and it is good for you.

Stevia tastes vastly sweeter than sugar and can be used in cooking and so on, but use very little. So far, it seems that stevia is acceptable in that there is no glycemic impact. Thus, don't even hesitate to switch to stevia. Have stevia cocoa all the time, with cinnamon.

Our "government" in N.Y., being more idiotic than most, is pushing to force aspartame into our schools in order to fight obesity. Since it is N.Y.'s decision to force diet drinks into the schools, it has to be a stupid idea, QED; now, you know why, though further research was not necessary.

Diet soda will make children fatter and generate diabetes at an early age. I wrote to the governor about this, as he said he needs input on things, which I like as an honest approach. If you feel motivated write to someone. Occasionally, the trees listen.

Oh, Japan has completely banned aspartame as a health hazard. So, you can believe Sheldon Silver or Japan.

TAKE AWAY POINTS:

    • Never use aspartame.

    • Avoid Sugar at all costs, even the joke "natural sugar."

    • Use Stevia. 

Some background:

    

    Aspartame FACTS:

    Marketed as 'NutraSweet,' 'Equal,' and 'Spoonful.'

    Aspartame is a man-made, high intensity, non-caloric sweetener, used extensively worldwide in over 5,000 products.

    When the temperature of Aspartame exceeds 86 degrees F, the wood alcohol in ASPARTAME coverts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, which in turn causes metabolic acidosis. (Formic acid is the poison found in the sting of fire ants.)

    Methanol toxicity mimics multiple sclerosis; thus, many people are being diagnosed with having multiple sclerosis in error. The multiple sclerosis is not a death sentence, where methanol toxicity is. It is a slow silent killer. The EPA recently announced that there was an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus across the United States.

    Aspartame actually causes sugar cravings and weight gain!

    The US Congressional record states, "Aspartame makes you crave carbohydrates and will make you FAT." Dr. H. J. Roberts, diabetic specialist, stated that when he got patients off aspartame, their average weight loss was 19 pounds per person. It is NOT A DIET PRODUCT!

    Aspartame is especially deadly for diabetics!

    Aspartame is especially deadly for diabetics. Physicians believe that in many of their diabetic patients with retinopathy, it is caused by the aspartame. The aspartame keeps the blood sugar level out of control, causing many patients to go into a coma.

    Dr. Roberts realized what was happening when aspartame was first marketed. He said his diabetic patients presented memory loss, confusion, and severe vision loss." At the Conference of the American College of Physicians, doctors admitted that they had wondered why seizures were rampant (the phenylalanine in aspartame breaks down the seizure threshold and depletes serotonin, which causes manic depression, panic attacks, rage and violence). According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians, "We are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by this deadly poison."

    Aspartame Is TOXIC To The Body!

    Upon ingestion, aspartame is metabolized to two amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid) and methanol. (Trefz) Methanol qualifies as an exceptionally toxic substance, even at very low doses. (Roe) The minimum methanol amount needed to cause death (without medical treatment) is 300-1000 mg./kg. This is equivalent to only 0.85 - 2.85 oz. for a 154 lb. (70 kg.) man (much less for a child). (Kavet)

    The absorption of methanol into the body speeds up considerably when aspartame is heated. This occurs when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is cooked or heated (e.g., as part of a "food" product such as sugar-free gelatin or pudding).

    The formaldehyde stores in the fat cells, particularly in the hips and thighs. According to the EPA, methanol is considered a cumulative poison due to its low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. They recommend limiting consumption to 7.8 mg./day. A one-liter, aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg. of methanol- 7 times over the safe limit. (Monte)

    Aspartame accounts for over 75% of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the U.S. Federal Drug Agency (F.D.A.). A February 1994 Department of Health and Human Services report the following portion of the 90 different documented Aspartame negative effects: (Kavet, Monte)

    Headaches/Migraines

    Dizziness /Vertigo

    Numbness

    Muscle spasms

    Weight gain

    Rashes

    Fatigue

    Insomnia

    Memory loss

    Vision problems

    Hearing loss

    Heart palpitations

    Breathing difficulties

    Anxiety attacks

    lurred speech

    Tinnitus /ear buzzing

    Joint pain

    The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems (misty vision, contraction of visual fields, blurring, obscuration of vision, retinal damage and blindness). Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects. (U.S. F.D.A.)

    Some researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame report the following can be triggered or worsened by ingesting aspartame: (Stoddard)

    Brain tumors

    Multiple sclerosis

    Epilepsy

    Chronic fatigue syndrome

    Parkinson's disease

    Alzheimer's

    Mental retardation

    Lymphoma

    Fibromyalgia

    Diabetes 

Let's see Dale complain about this entry.

Dr. Ron Paul on Flu

With any luck there is a short video above.

The Swine Flu killed .04% of those infected in Mexico, the hotbed of the almost pandemic, it was just recently voted by someone not to be a pandemic. No one died in the U.S., much to the consternation of the drug companies.

When do we come to understand we are being used?

10th Amendment

A heads up regarding a future fronts: 10th Amendment. I wonder if the ACLU will step in to help.

From a Glenn Beck interview (I excerpted to reduce size):

...MARBUT: Well, the theory is to challenge [the use of, I think he means] the commerce clause power of Congress with a Tenth Amendment spin. What the bill says — there's now a law in Montana — is that any firearms, ammunition and firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal jurisdiction under the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states.

BECK: OK. Joel, you put this in. You're a state rep. You put it in. The governor signed it. It's now law. It goes into effect October 1st?

REP. JOEL BONIEK, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Correct ...(political hummmmmm)

MARBUT: Once this begins to bear fruit, that's correct. We plan to litigate this through the courts. ...We want to set our own standards and we should be allowed to have guns and we don't want the federal standards. We're not the same as New Jersey or California or somewhere else.

And if we want to put restrictions on who can possess firearms, they should be our restrictions and should fit our culture and our people.

BECK: ... Kevin, you're smiling like this and it doesn't have a shot in hell of working.

KEVIN GUTZMAN, AUTHOR, "POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION": Well, there are two levels to approach this question. One is on the theoretical level. On the theoretical level, the gentlemen are exactly right. The federal government is grabbing power to regulate these things and anything else that comes to mind that it's not supposed to have. And so I applaud them.

And trying to figure out a way to confront the federal government and get it to rein itself in is a good idea. On the other hand, practically, the first time this matter comes into a federal court, it's tossed.

BECK: Judge?

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, I think the more states that do it, the more pressure there will be on the Congress to realize that the states are serious about preventing the Congress from taking power away from it...

BECK: Leo, let me go to you, because you are a representative in the state of Texas. With Texas — you guys get it. And no offense, Montana, but Texans are going to come up and kick your butts. You guys are also — are you going to be taking Gary's amendment? Is that what you are trying to do? What are you doing in Texas?

REP. LEO BERMAN, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We've already filed his bill in Texas. But he'll have the court case in Montana. But Glenn, I'm a 9/12er. I served 22 years in the military because I love this country, just like you do. And we say that we fought against fascism, communism.

We watched socialist countries throughout the world just languish while we prospered based on free enterprise and individual freedoms. We see this president and this administration taking us not to the far-left, but beyond that to socialism. We don't want to go there.

So Rep. Brandon Creighton and I filed two bills in Texas. The bills don't really need to pass because 30 other states did essentially the same thing. But what these bills do is reassert our sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

And we tell the federal government that if they mandate anything on us which is not fully authorized by the U.S. Constitution, we're going to challenge it and not do it. That's the only thing we can possibly do right now.

We don't want to become a socialist state. We want to challenge the federal government and I think we can do it. If we get all the state governors together to pull their resources, and anytime the federal government comes out with a mandate that's not authorized by the Constitution, we take it right into federal court, all of us at the same time....

Gutzman hit the nail. Sure it is right, but if you bring the matter to federal court you will not even get to a trial, like the claim that Mr. Obama is not eligible to be president, a valid concern which no court will hear. A trial is supposed to determine the facts, not a judge wanting to avoid the issue. This is where the seeds of revolution are sown - there is no longer a check on government.

The commerce clause has long been the wedge into your life. It started as a tool to force greasy spoon operators into letting blacks sit at the lunch counter. It was a twisted construct to find a desired end. See where ends' analysis leads.

Frazier folks on IPCC

A reader friendly analysis of the IPCC's work, I came upon, is here.  It is from Canada's Frazier Institute and reviews current information and the IPCC's work.  Recall, the summary of the IPCC work was not written by scientists and half of those involved in the program agreed with the summary for policy makers. 

 I have no idea why the selection, below, is goofy or why a picture of a dog sleeping in the snow didn't load. Ayway, now and then, we have to actually read stuff, very annoying. There are good graphs in the report

7Overall conclusions 

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was 

agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence. 

The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the 

difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, 

knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding  data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms. 

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and 

the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in 

many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local 

land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, 

such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The 

actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of 

known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented 

changes are underway. 

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a 

variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypo- 

thesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a signifi- 

cant warming of the Earthís climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and 

merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical 

arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed. 

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive 

as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations 

of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale 

processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation 

of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate 

regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations 

cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated 

with a strong effect from greenhouse gases. 

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the 

uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or 

modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty 

as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether 

or not such change is a good or bad thing.

This is probably epochraphal, credited to Freud, but I like it:

"This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." 

Then, there is 

Vitamin C, Flu, Pneumonia

Ken Wolfson sent info about the influenza deaths caused by pneumonia. That does not contradict the vitamin C concept. It enforces it:

...These data suggest that vitamin C is required for an adequate immune response in limiting lung pathology after influenza virus infection.

Nutritional Immunology

Vitamin C Deficiency Increases the Lung Pathology of Influenza Virus–Infected Gulo–/– Mice1

Wei Li2, Nobuyo Maeda3 and Melinda A. Beck2,*
2 Departments of Nutrition, and 3 Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: melinda_beck@unc.edu.

This study was designed to determine the effects of vitamin C deficiency on the immune response to infection with influenza virus. L-Gulono--lactone oxidase gene-inactivated mice (gulo–/– mice) require vitamin C supplementation for survival. Five-wk-old male and female gulo–/– mice were provided water or water containing 1.67 mmol/L vitamin C for 3 wk before inoculation with influenza A/Bangkok/1/79. There were no differences in lung influenza virus titers between vitamin C–adequate and –deficient mice; however, lung pathology in the vitamin C–deficient mice was greater at 1 and 3 d after infection but less at d 7 compared with vitamin C–adequate mice. Male vitamin C–deficient mice had higher expression of mRNA for regulated upon activation normal T expressed and secreted (RANTES), IL-1ß, and TNF- in the lungs at d 1 after infection compared with male controls. However, at d 3 after infection, male vitamin C–deficient mice had less expression of mRNA for RANTES, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), and IL-12 compared with male controls. None of these differences were observed in female mice. Vitamin C–deficient male mice also had greater nuclear factor-B activation as early as 1 d after infection compared with male controls. These data suggest that vitamin C is required for an adequate immune response in limiting lung pathology after influenza virus infection.