Jessica Olsen's List: Philosophy 103

Planning for a Steady State (No Growth) Society

Jan 11, 13

robertdfeinman.com/...no_growth.html robertdfeinman wealth economy us
Uses and Misuses of Logic. 2

Jan 25, 13

www.lhup.edu/...logic.htm logic edu www http method uses
- Theory. A model (usually mathematical) that links and unifies a broader range of phenomena, and that links and synthesizes the laws that describe those phenomena. In science we do not grant an idea the status of theory until its consequences have been very well tested and are generally accepted as correct by knowledgeable scientists. This meaning is very different from colloquial use of the word.
The Scientific Method - YouTube

Jan 25, 13

www.youtube.com/watch logic method youtube scientific investigation
PHI103: Informal Logic (ABK1301C)

Jan 25, 13

classroom.ashford.edu/...DotNextLaunch.asp phi logic edu www http method uses
Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition (Schaum's Outline Series): John Nolt, Dennis Rohatyn, Achille Varzi: 9780071755467: Amazon.com: Books

Jan 25, 13

www.amazon.com/...0071755462 phi logic edu method uses edition second series books amazon com amazon dennis john outline
Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking: Vincent Ruggiero: 9780073535692: Amazon.com: Books

Jan 25, 13

www.amazon.com/...0073535699 phi logic method uses edition dennis amazon amazon com books series second john outline feelings guide critical thinking thinking vincent com edu
Ancient Greek Skepticism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Jan 26, 13

www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci philosophy encyclopedia ancient greek skepticism
Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Jan 26, 13

plato.stanford.edu/...relativism philosophy encyclopedia stanford
Applied ethics - New World Encyclopedia

Jan 26, 13

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...Applied_ethics philosophy encyclopedia world ethics
philosophy bites: Michael Sandel on Justice

Jan 26, 13

philosophybites.com/...michael-sandel-on-justice.html philosophy justice logic ethics
Justice with Michael Sandel - Online Harvard Course Exploring Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Citizenship

Jan 26, 13

www.justiceharvard.org justice logic ethics Harvard Philosophy lectures morality education sandel
Ruggiero, V. R. _2008_. Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking _8th ed._. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. - Google Custom Search | Diigo

Jan 27, 13

www.diigo.com/...g critical thinking thinking diigo search google feelings guide information info research study new york york
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

Jan 31, 13

plato.stanford.edu/...necessary-sufficient stanford edu entries plato http symbolic education sentences conditional Philosophy logic
PHI 103: PHI 103: An Introduction to Logic - 7.1: Logic as the Study of Reasoning 1

Jan 31, 13

content.ashford.edu/...sec7.1 symbolic education Philosophy edu logic study reasoning phi http
- <section id="container"><div role="main" id="main" class=""><div id="sectionContent"><fieldset><h3 class="b-head">Further Reading</h3> Here are some suggested readings in logic, arranged by the topics they cover. Within each sub-section, texts are listed in order of increasing difficulty. <h3 class="b-head">Logic Puzzles; Paradoxes</h3> <table class="plain"><tbody><tr><td width="28%" class="invisible">Carroll, L.</td><td width="72%" class="invisible">"What the Tortoise Said to Achilles" [in many collections]</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Gardner, M.</td><td class="invisible">Entertaining Mathematical Puzzles</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible"> </td><td class="invisible">New Mathematical Diversions: More Puzzles, Problems, Games, and Other Mathematical Diversions</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Smullyan, R.</td><td class="invisible">What Is the Name of This Book?: The Riddle of Dracula and Other Logical Puzzles</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Sainsbury, R. M.</td><td class="invisible">Paradoxes</td></tr></tbody></table> <h3 class="b-head">Symbolic Logic</h3> <table class="plain"><tbody><tr><td width="28%" class="invisible">Quine, W. V.</td><td width="72%" class="invisible">Methods of Logic</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Crossley, J. N. (et al.)</td><td class="invisible">What Is Mathematical Logic? Mates, B. Elementary Logic</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Hunter, G.</td><td class="invisible">Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Enderton, H.</td><td class="invisible">A Mathematical Introduction to Logic</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Mendelson, E.</td><td class="invisible">Introduction to Mathematical Logic</td></tr></tbody></table> <h3 class="b-head">Philosophy of Logic</h3> <table class="plain"><tbody><tr><td width="28%" class="invisible">Haack, S.</td><td width="72%" class="invisible">Philosophy of Logics</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Strawson, P. F.</td><td class="invisible">Introduction to Logical Theory</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Engel, P.</td><td class="invisible">The Norm of Truth</td></tr></tbody></table> <h3 class="b-head">The Foundation of Mathematics</h3> <table class="plain"><tbody><tr><td width="28%" class="invisible">Russell, B.</td><td width="72%" class="invisible">Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Kitcher, P.</td><td class="invisible">The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Körner, S.</td><td class="invisible">The Philosophy of Mathematics</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Benacerraf, P. & Putnam, H.</td><td class="invisible">Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Wittgenstein, L.</td><td class="invisible">Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">van Heijenoort, J.</td><td class="invisible">From Frege to Gödel</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Krivine, J. L.</td><td class="invisible">Introduction to Axiomatic Set Theory</td></tr></tbody></table> <h3 class="b-head">Inductive Logic; Philosophy of Science; Miscellaneous</h3> <table class="plain"><tbody><tr><td width="28%" class="invisible">Poundstone, W.</td><td width="72%" class="invisible">Labyrinths of Reason</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Skyrms, B.</td><td class="invisible">Choice and Chance</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Carnap, R.</td><td class="invisible">An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Cherniak, C.</td><td class="invisible">Minimal Rationality</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Goodman, N.</td><td class="invisible">Fact, Fiction and Forecast</td></tr><tr><td class="invisible">Jeffrey, R.</td><td class="invisible">The Logic of Decision</td></tr></tbody></table> </fieldset> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> Constellation.Data.init.publisherList = null; </script> </div> </section> <script type="text/html" id="topic-template"> <article id="{{ topic.htmlId }}" class="discussion"> <header class="topic"> <img title="{{ topic.createdBy }}" alt="{{ topic.createdBy }}" src="{{ topic.avatarPath }}" class="avatar" /> <h4 title="{{ topic.createdBy }}">{{ topic.createdBy }}</h4> </header> <time datetime="{{ topic.createdOn }}"></time> {{ topic.section }}{{ topic.createdOnText }} <div class="clear"></div> [[ print(unescape(topic.text)); ]] <input type="hidden" value="0" /> <section class="replies-container"> [[ if(parseInt(topic["numReplies"]) > 0){ ]] <a rel="nofollow" href="#" class="mir toggle replies-closed">toggle</a> {{ topic.mostRecentReplyDate }} [[} else {]]   [[}]] {{ topic.numReplies }}| <a rel="nofollow" href="#" class="reply">reply</a> <div class="caret"></div> <ol class="replies"></ol> <form> <fieldset class="reply"> <input type="hidden" value="q905/jLFsVfQlJnEUpwwLstbFP0cDUQw" name="__RequestVerificationToken"></input> <img src="{{ topic.avatarPath }}" class="avatar reply" /> <textarea maxlength="350" id="reply-Text{{ topic.htmlId }}" placeholder="Type here to reply to this discussion."></textarea> <div class="clear"></div> 350 of 350 characters left <a rel="nofollow" href="#" class="mir cancel">cancel</a> <input type="submit" id="reply-{{ topic.htmlId }}" value="Reply" class="btn action" /> </fieldset> </form> </section> </article> </script> <script type="text/html" id="reply-template"> <article class="reply"> <img title="{{ reply.createdBy }}" alt="{{ reply.createdBy }}" src="{{ reply.avatar }}" class="avatar" /> <h4 title="{{ reply.createdBy }}">{{ reply.createdBy }}</h4> <time datetime="{{ reply.createdOn }}"></time> {{ reply.createdOnText }} <div class="clear"></div> [[ print(unescape(reply.text)); ]] </article> </script> <section style="display:none;" id="discussion-popup" class="footer-popover"> <div class="popover-title"> Discussions <a rel="nofollow" href="#" class="close"></a> </div> <div class="popover-list-shell"> <div id="discussion-activity-indicator"><img alt="" src="/images/search-loader.gif"> Loading Discussions</div> <section id="discussion"> <header id="discussion-header" class="discussion"> <form action="Discussions/CreateTopic" id="newTopicForm" method="POST"> <fieldset class="discussion"> <input type="hidden" value="q905/jLFsVfQlJnEUpwwLstbFP0cDUQw" name="__RequestVerificationToken"> <img alt="Your avatar" class="avatar"> <textarea maxlength="350" id="newTopicText"></textarea> <div class="clear"></div> 350 of 350 characters left <input type="submit" id="newTopic" value="Submit" class="btn action"> </fieldset> </form> </header> <input type="hidden" id="discussion-state" value="0"> <ol id="discussions-container"></ol> </section> </div> <div class="arrow-bottom"></div> </section>   <div style="display: none;" id="book-header"> <a rel="nofollow" accesskey="P" style="position: absolute; display: inline; top: 2072px;" title="Previous section" href="/books/AUPHI103.11.2/sections/ch07" id="previous" class="mir btn-prev navButton">Previous section</a> 7.1: Logic as the Study of Reasoning <a rel="nofollow" accesskey="N" style="position: absolute; display: inline; top: 2072px;" title="Next section" href="/books/AUPHI103.11.2/sections/biographies" id="next" class="mir btn-next navButton">Next section</a> <div id="book-search"> <fieldset> <form action="" id="searchForm" method="post"> <input type="hidden" value="q905/jLFsVfQlJnEUpwwLstbFP0cDUQw" name="__RequestVerificationToken"> <input type="text" id="searchTextInput" value="Search..." tabindex="1" name="searchText"> <input title="Search" type="image" src="/images/1x1.gif" value="Search" class="search-btn"> </form> </fieldset> <div id="searchResults" class="hidden"> <div id="localResults"></div> <div id="remoteResults"></div> </div> </div> <div id="book-print"></div> <div id="book-download"> <div style="display: none;" id="downloadForm"></div></div> </div>
http://www.encyclopedia.com/ssc/107185-philosophy-biographies.html

Jan 31, 13

www.encyclopedia.com/...85-philosophy-biographies.html encyclopedia encyclopedia com edu Philosophy logic education symbolic phi reasoning study
Modus ponens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1

Jan 31, 13

en.wikipedia.org/...Modus_ponens modus ponens logic wikipedia wiki encyclopedia encyclopedia com Philosophy study reasoning phi symbolic education
- In propositional logic, modus ponendo ponens (Latin for "the way that affirms by affirming"; often abbreviated to MP or modus ponens^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]) or implication elimination is a valid, simple argument form and rule of inference.^[5] It can be summarized as "P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.^[6]
Modus tollens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan 31, 13

en.wikipedia.org/...Modus_tollens Philosophy study reasoning phi encyclopedia wiki wikipedia logic encyclopedia com symbolic education modus tollens

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power 33

Jan 08, 13

www2.ucsc.edu/...wealth.html From Google Chrome Ashford PHI103 import bookmarks firefox html june 2013

Wealth, Income, and Power
First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
There's also some general information available on median income and percentage of people below the poverty line in 2010. As might be expected, most of the new information shows declines; in fact, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (2011) concludes that the decade from 2000 to 2010 was a "lost decade" for most Americans.

Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
  Wealth or income classMean household incomeMean household net worthMean household financial (non-home) wealth
Top 1 percent$1,318,200$16,439,400$15,171,600
Top 20 percent$226,200$2,061,600$1,719,800
60th-80th percentile$72,000$216,900$100,700
40th-60th percentile$41,700$61,000$12,200
Bottom 40 percent$17,300-$10,600-$14,800
 
 From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians.  Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.

                  
                

n the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).
Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
However, a study (Kenny et al., 2006) of the financial support for eliminating inheritance taxes discovered that 18 super-rich families (mostly Republican financial donors, but a few who support Democrats) provide the anti-government activists with most of the money for this effort. (For more infomation, including the names of the major donors, download the article from United For a Fair Economy's Web site.)
For the vast majority of Americans, their homes are by far the most significant wealth they possess.
Besides illustrating the significance of home ownership as a source of wealth, the graph also shows that Black and Latino households are faring significantly worse overall, whether we are talking about income or net worth. In 2007, the average white household had 15 times as much total wealth as the average African-American or Latino household. If we exclude home equity from the calculations and consider only financial wealth, the ratios are in the neighborhood of 100:1. Extrapolating from these figures, we see that 70% of white families' wealth is in the form of their principal residence; for Blacks and Hispanics, the figures are 95% and 96%, respectively
And for all Americans, things are getting worse: as the projections to July 2009 by Wolff (2010) make clear, the last few years have seen a huge loss in housing wealth for most families, making the gap between the rich and the rest of America even greater, and increasing the number of households with no marketable assets from 18.6% to 24.1%.
A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).
which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own
Figure 4: The actual United States wealth distribution plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions.

Note: In the "Actual" line, the bottom two quintiles are not visible because the lowest quintile owns just 0.1% of all wealth, and the second-lowest quintile owns 0.2%.
Source: Norton & Ariely, 2010.
1980s, however, the wealth distribution was almost as concentrated as it had been in 1929, when the top 1% had 44.2% of all wealth. It has continued to edge up since that time, with a slight decline from 1998 to 2001, before the economy crashed in the late 2000s and little people got pushed down again. Table 3 and Figure 5 present the details from 1922 through 2007.
Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
The rest of the world

Thanks to a 2006 study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research -- using statistics for the year 2000 -- we now have information on the wealth distribution for the world as a whole, which can be compared to the United States and other well-off countries. The authors of the report admit that the quality of the information available on many countries is very spotty and probably off by several percentage points, but they compensate for this problem with very sophisticated statistical methods and the use of different sets of data. With those caveats in mind, we can still safely say that the top 10% of the world's adults control about 85% of global household wealth -- defined very broadly as all assets (not just financial assets), minus debts. That compares with a figure of 69.8% for the top 10% for the United States. The only industrialized democracy with a higher concentration of wealth in the top 10% than the United States is Switzerland at 71.3%. For the figures for several other Northern European countries and Canada, all of which are based on high-quality data, see Table 4.
First, wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries
Second, certain kinds of wealth, such as stock ownership, can be used to control corporations, which of course have a major impact on how the society functions. Tables 5a and 5b show what the distribution of stock ownership looks like. Note how the top one percent's share of stock equity increased (and the bottom 80 percent's share decreased) between 2001 and 2007.
Third, just as wealth can lead to power, so too can power lead to wealth. Those who control a government can use their position to feather their own nests, whether that means a favorable land deal for relatives at the local level or a huge federal government contract for a new corporation run by friends who will hire you when you leave government.
Here's the argument: if we assume that most people would like to have as great a share as possible of the things that are valued in the society, then we can infer that those who have the most goodies are the most powerful. Although some value distributions may be unintended outcomes that do not really reflect power, as pluralists are quick to tell us, the general distribution of valued experiences and objects within a society still can be viewed as the most publicly visible and stable outcome of the operation of power
For example, in a study based on 18 Western democracies, strong trade unions and successful social democratic parties correlated with greater equality in the income distribution and a higher level of welfare spending
And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what they would have if wealth were equally distributed, and so we infer that they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.
United States having the most highly concentrated wealth distribution of any Western democracy except Switzerland
How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003
Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few.
Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
But it is sometimes said that income inequality is reduced significantly by government programs that matter very much in the lives of low-income Americans. These programs provide "transfer payments," which are a form of income for those in need. They include unemployment compensation, cash payments to the elderly who don't have enough to live on from Social Security, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (welfare), food stamps, and Medicaid.
As can be seen, Hungerford's findings first support what we had learned earlier from the Citizens for Tax Justice study: taxes don't do much to reduce inequality. They secondly reveal that transfer payments have a slightly larger impact on inequality than taxes, but not much. Third, his findings tell us that taxes and transfer payments together reduce the inequality index from .52 to .43, which is very close to the CIA's estimate of .45 for 2008.
First posted September 2005; most recently updated October 2012

This document's URL: http://whorulesamerica.net/power/wealth.html
Wolff, E. N. (2012). The Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of the Middle Class. New York: New York University.
All content ©2013 G. William Domhoff

Wealth or income class	Mean household income	Mean household net worth	Mean household financial (non-home) wealth
Top 1 percent	$1,318,200	$16,439,400	$15,171,600
Top 20 percent	$226,200	$2,061,600	$1,719,800
60th-80th percentile	$72,000	$216,900	$100,700
40th-60th percentile	$41,700	$61,000	$12,200
Bottom 40 percent	$17,300	-$10,600	-$14,800

31 more annotations...

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs | World news | The Observer 4

Feb 02, 13

www.guardian.co.uk/...us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs Mexico banks Wachovia drugs bank war on drugs Wells Fargo banking money uk us landering
- During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.
- "These are the proceeds of murder and misery in Mexico, and of drugs sold around the world," he says. "All the law enforcement people wanted to see this come to trial. But no one goes to jail. "What does the settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing – it doesn't make the job of law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where's the risk? There is none.
  "Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican people? It's simple: if you don't see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico, you're missing the point."
- New York and London," says Woods, "have become the world's two biggest laundries of criminal and drug money, and offshore tax havens. Not the Cayman Islands, not the Isle of Man or Jersey. The big laundering is right through the City of London and Wall Street.
- After the Wachovia case, no one in the regulatory community has sat down with me and asked, 'What happened?' or 'What can we do to avoid this happening to other banks?' They are not interested. They are the same people who attack the whistleblowers and this is a position the [British] Financial Services Authority at least has adopted on legal advice: it has been advised that the confidentiality of banking and bankers takes primacy over the public information disclosure act. That is how the priorities work: secrecy first, public interest second.
2 more annotations...
Scalia and Thomas May Have Conflict of Interest, Common Cause Says - NYTimes.com 6

Feb 02, 13

www.nytimes.com/...20koch.html thomas conflict interest says nytimes nytimes com us politics conflicts congress Koch
- Mr. Koch, a billionaire who has been a major player in financing conservative causes.
- The group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department on Wednesday asking it to investigate whether Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves in the case, involving Citizens United, because of their attendance at past retreats organized by the conservative financier Charles Koch, whose company operates a foundation that is a major contributor to political advocacy groups.
- Common Cause also cited the role of Mr. Thomas’s wife, Virginia Thomas, in forming a conservative political group opposed to the Obama administration as grounds for his disqualification.
- At the very least, he said, the group’s petition could force a “public airing” of questions surrounding the two justices’ past appearances at the Koch retreat and their connections to the group.
- Still unknown, for instance, is exactly when Justices Scalia and Thomas appeared before the group for its invitation-only retreat, which is aimed at promoting political strategies for economic freedom, or whether they were reimbursed for their expense
- The political action committee for Koch Industries, a Kansas-based energy company, spent $2.5 million in last year’s elections, according to the Common Cause complaint. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that the Koch brothers founded, is believed to have spent tens of millions more in the campaign to support conservative candidates.
4 more annotations...

1 - 20 of 26 Next ›

20 items/page

List Comments (0)

List Info

Jessica Olsen

26 items | 2 visits

Updated on Feb 07, 13
Created on Jan 11, 13

Category: Not Categorized

URL:

Jessica Olsen's List: Philosophy 103

Uses and Misuses of Logic. 2

PHI 103: PHI 103: An Introduction to Logic - 7.1: Logic as the Study of Reasoning 1

Modus ponens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power 33

The rest of the world

First posted September 2005; most recently updated October 2012

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs | World news | The Observer 4

Scalia and Thomas May Have Conflict of Interest, Common Cause Says - NYTimes.com 6

List Info