Bio

I'm a UK born California attorney, mostly focused on international corporate law. I spent way too much time in education, starting with a master's in theology, then moving on to law degrees in the UK and different parts of California. I've worked in Cayman, London, China, and Iraq, with the last job, for the Trade Bank of Iraq, being the one that I'm really proud of.

Much to my sadness, I left the bank after some political turmoil, and am now biding my time while I wait for my green card. My wife runs the collections care side for 6 museums in the Dumfries area, including some Robert Burns museums, and the place John Paul Jones was born.

If y'all have any prayers to spare, the Trade Bank of Iraq, along with much Iraqi financial infrastructure, would be a deserving recipient. The amazing potential for good, and the horror if they fail, provides quite a contrast.


People James Of England is Following (22)

Display starting at 22 of 22 followed users


People Following James Of England (42)

Display starting at 42 of 42 followers


Conversations James Of England is Following (386)

Display starting at 386 of 386 followed conversations


Conversations James Of England has Started (56)

Display starting at 56 of 56 user conversations

James Of England's Profile

James Of England
Name:
James Of England
Hometown:
London/ Dumfries
Joined:
Apr 17, 2011

Recent Comments

James Of England

BrentB67:

Obama is the single biggest threat to Catholicism in America I am aware of, but I have seen other articles quoted that Catholics by a slim margin voted for Obama. If that is true there is a story to pursue. ·

Catholics have always voted Democrat, since Van Buren got the machines humming for Jackson. That has been gradually changing, to the point where Romney's Catholic haul beat Bush's, despite Bush doing massively better amongst Hispanics; Republicans winning white Catholics is not how these things used to work.

Although Mitt did better than most (observant Catholics were a serious part of his base in the primaries, and Ryan's a good deal more publicly Catholic than Biden) the GOP in general is doing well with Catholics. The problem is that large demographics change their allegiances slowly. We could still mess it up, but it seems likely to me that any competent candidate in 2016 should be able to build on the Bush/ Romney Catholic base; so long as they're pro-life, not offensively protestant, and not Newt or Sanford, we should be solid.

James Of England

BrentB67

A Beleaguered Conservative

Joseph Paquette: Most estimates are that 3 million social conservative Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Romney.  This is a major component of the defeat that cannot be denied.

I have heard this stated before but have always wondered:  where is the evidence? .....

James of England has been on top of this since Election Day with the same statistics. ·

If it is the "Romney got fewer votes than McCain because SoCons didn't vote for him" ridiculousness then it's quick to research the numbers, and AmSpec is doubly wrong.  Romney's voters were more socially conservative than Bush or McCain's as well as more numerous.

Edited 1 hour ago
James Of England

Xennady

Uhm. Politics the game ispolitics.It doesn't matter. If I'm wrong- then Romney would have won.

I really wish I was wrong, actually. · 9 hours ago

While I agree that Romney's support for trade was probably a net vote loser, this is an absurd heuristic; abiding by this principle, Republicans should abandon every single one of their policies, as if those policies were winners, Romney would be President.  You know full well that free trading politicians regularly win at all levels. They lose sometimes, too, but the Senate and the House both support most FTAs and other trade freeing measures.

James Of England

Xennady

James Of England

While you agree with the Pope about greater governmental intervention......

Excuse me? Greater governmental intervention?

I'm not the guy who expressed the opinion that it would be great if the US intervened in Syria, because it would save plenty of Syrians and their treasure, while expending plenty of Americans lives and much American wealth.

I do not wish the armed forces of the Republic to go abroad in search of monsters to slay- or save, in the case of Syria.

 I'm surprised that you're not bothered by the dishonesty or the heresy.

I don't see the dishonesty- as I assume the pope is expressing his actual opinion- and I'm too ignorant to notice any heresy. He's the pope- and I'll personally give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not a heretic.

The dishonesty was the claim that the majority of the world was getting poorer and more violent. Did you read it?

It's true that I favor more government intervention than you in support of humanitarian and security aims, but I believe you want more protectionism; I should have been clear what intervention I meant.

James Of England

Xennady

Zafar: Why are free markets so great, then?

That's the key question, isn't it?

I suppose I could simply note the outcome of the last election, and suggest that the majority of the voting public has concluded that they are not.

Except I don't believe that.

But I also don't believe the US has anything like actual free market capitalism or real free markets in many ways.

Neither does Argentina.

Hence I am not offended by the words of Pope Francis.

While you agree with the Pope about greater governmental intervention (and that view comprises the great bulk of comments I see you post), so I understand your non-offense, I'm surprised that you're not bothered by the dishonesty or the heresy. Do you think that the income of the majority of the world's population has been "crumbling", that poverty has become more apparent, or that violence has been increasing? I get that you're less interested in the welfare of non-Americans than I am, but I'm under the impression that you're not totally apathetic regarding them.

Alternatively, do you think of material equality as a Christian ideal?

James Of England

Joseph Stanko

James Of England

My objections to Francis were chiefly the manifest and repeated dishonesty, the implied heresy, and the terrible economics.

It's the difference between Santorum's leftism (his manufacturing plan, for instance) and Michael Moore's.

Sigh... I should have left with Foxfier and Western Chauvinist.

I'm beginning to suspect Pope Francis hit a nerve, that many of you have in fact made the almighty and all-knowing Market your idol.  Market is never wrong, Market feeds and clothes us, all bow down before mighty Market!

There are three kinds of problems I have with his statements: the dishonest bits, which have nothing to do with ideological preferences (he is dishonest in support of his preferred ideology, but even informed subscribers to that ideology do not generally rely on such false data in that way); the implied heresy that inequality is a Christian wrong, which is an argument I've most often had defending deeply statist absolute monarchies rather than markets; and his attacks on markets, which I've devoted the least attention to directly (the tariff and related discussions were not really about Francis).

I do not feel it anti-Catholic to prefer JPII.

James Of England

Joseph Stanko

Is that really so different than what Pope Francis said? · 21 minutes ago

My objections to Francis were chiefly the manifest and repeated dishonesty, the implied heresy, and the terrible economics. There's a hint of the problems with economics in JPII's, but nothing so extreme, as Stephen points out. There's nothing of the heresy or dishonesty. We've had Social Democratic popes for a very long time now, but they have generally been decent Social Democrats with a keen awareness of the significance of their words and a love for the truth. It's the difference between Santorum's leftism (his manufacturing plan, for instance) and Michael Moore's.

James Of England

Joseph Stanko

........

I'm in favor of free trade with advanced Western democracies that are our allies.  I'm less sold on the idea that we should trade freely with our enemies, with totalitarian regimes, or with nations that have no environmental or worker health and safety regulations in place.

How many nations do you believe have no environmental or worker health and safety regulations in place? Honestly, that's the sort of hyperbole I expect from the Pope, not a member of Ricochet!

Seriously, I agree with you that we should place sanctions on our enemies. Today, I'm not sure that there are totalitarian regimes that are not our enemies; do you mean China?

I don't think that tariffs are an effective equivalent to sanctions. Are you talking about a 1-5% sort of a nationwide tariff or a 200-500% sort of nationwide tariff? Both have problems, but they're different sorts of problems (other than having to exit the current form of the global trading system, which would be a consequence of either approach).

James Of England

Joseph Stanko

James Of England

For many advocates of tariffs, the whole point is that protected industries get to increase their prices above the natural market level.  

Really?  I mean I'm sure lobbyists admit that in private, but in public?  I wouldn't think many people would go for it.

I had in mind debates over NAFTA, MFN status for China, and the like.  That is, tariffs targeting specific nations rather than specific industries.

Yes, really. If you look at the details of more or less any FTA or other trade agreement (not MFN since, if you'll permit a simplification, the WTO doesn't permit sectoral discrimination), you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the debates are about specific industries; cars and rice in the Korean FTA, for instance.

Unilateral measures, too, are about individual industries; Bush's steel tariffs or Obama's tires. There's a reason that "protectionism" has its name. You might find this interesting:

The House ..... 1,300 proposed limited tariff bills under consideration for inclusion in legislation.....

...the vast majority of the proposals benefit 10 or fewer companies, making them banned “earmarks” under House rules, according to an analysis by Heritage.....

Edited on May 19, 2013 at 11:02am
James Of England

Joseph Stanko

Salvatore Padula: Tariffs raise revenue to the same extent that they raise consumer prices.

But only on imported goods subject to the tariff.

And don't sales taxes also raise revenue to the same extent they raise consumer prices? · 2 hours ago

For many advocates of tariffs, the whole point is that protected industries get to increase their prices above the natural market level.  This means that the cost to the consumer is split, with part of the increase going to the government, part to the decreased efficiency of the market, and part to the protected industry.

Like the obamacare mandate, it is a form of subsidy that the government can use without the costs to taxpayers being listed as a tax (if you pay the mandate/ purchase imported goods, that is a tax, but if you buy health insurance/ domestic goods you subsidize the government's beneficiaries without appearing in the government's budgets).

How many industries do you favor increased subsidies to in forms other than tariffs, Joseph?

James Of England

Edward Smith: Just finished seeing it.

Cumberpatch does not have a tan, but he does nail the coldness and brutality of Khan better.  His Khan does not swagger, and I find that refreshing.

That's my specific comment.

My general comment on the film is this

Yowza!  Boo Yah!

As you can see, I clearly had reservations walking out out of the theater. ·

I agree that Cumberbatch is good; how is one meant to pull of "top of the genetic pile" without a crisp English accent?

I didn't like their failure to prevent the killing half of San Francisco without consequence. In my understanding of psychology, people get more upset about having tens of thousands killed than pleased by having many more survive.

James Of England

Red Feline

Cornelius Julius Sebastian

Red Feline
I read, unfortunately it was a long time ago and I have to say "somewhere", that Jews considered the early Christians a sect of Judaism. It came from Judaism and was developed by Jews, so I thought that the opinion seemed sound.

I think that this is true. You have to keep in mind that pre-revolution Judea was an unbelievably angry place, with multiple sects of what the Romans considered to be Jews keen to annihilate each other; being  considered a fellow Jew didn't imply friendship, merely that you were a monotheist in the area, and a racial tie, with the latter becoming ever weaker.

Still, "early" Christianity was definitely considered "Jewish" by some; as late as the closing of the Jewish canon (maybe 135AD), when Jews tried to write up the anti-Christian canon that Luther later adopted as more Christian than the Christian canon, there was still a sense of overlap. The error was extending "early" to Constantine. It's like saying "early Canadians until Trudeau believed that the First Nations were descended from the lost tribes of Israel".

James Of England

Crow's Nest

Joseph Stanko: The context of his remarks were set by "The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight..."

The crisis, and the opening gap between rich and poor (we'll stipulate for the moment this exists, though I think James has debunked it already) was not caused by an ideology of autonomous markets.

Just to be clear, that bit was accurate, but the reason for the gap is that the rich are getting richer faster than the rest. The lie is that the income of the non-rich is "crumbling".

If you heretically believe that inequality qua inequality is a Christian wrong, that would be as good a reason for Francis' words as profound ignorance or a desire to throw ought red meat in the style of the  Argentinian politicians he grew up under.

James Of England

Severely Ltd.

James Of England

Severely Ltd.

I think that Joseph's right that it's just a speech within the narrow limits of that comment. He was responding to charges of church involvement in politics. Saying that Francis was not violating establishment clause like issues seems very much true. Like Nazis in Skokie, you can inflict harm without crossing First Amendment lines.

Not to belabor the point, but context doesn't make his statement any more acceptable. He might have been addressing a narrow issue but he did so with a statement that goes beyond it. ·

If he had said "for those purposes, it's just a speech", would you have been fine with it?

James Of England

Severely Ltd.

James Of England

Severely Ltd.

.....

Honestly, Joseph, you're like Jay Carney defending the indefensible.

I never got the impression that he was claiming authority without knowledge or that he was saying things that strained credulity or good manners.

I'm not accusing Joseph of bad manners, his manners are always fine.

But straining credibility is another matter. It seems incredibly disingenuous to claim this was just 'a speech', as if it has little political impact. Every time a Leftist is addressing a group of Catholics he has a solid store of Papal talking points in his back pocket with which to bash capitalism. It is willfully naive to imagine otherwise.

If Obama, Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi made the same speech, would Joseph be as blase? I can't imagine it. It seems like protecting the home team at all cost. ·

I think that Joseph's right that it's just a speech within the narrow limits of that comment. He was responding to charges of church involvement in politics. Saying that Francis was not violating establishment clause like issues seems very much true. Like Nazis in Skokie, you can inflict harm without crossing First Amendment lines.

James Of England

Palaeologus

Severely Ltd.

Joseph Stanko

"Interfere in politics?"  The man gave a speech.  You're free to ignore it.

Look, if he sets up a PAC and starts making donations to the Democratic Party, or announces the excommunication of anyone who votes for lower taxes, let me know.  I'll be happy to join in the protests.

It's just a speech.

.....

Honestly, Joseph, you're like Jay Carney defending the indefensible.

I didn't care for the speech (or rather, the excerpts I've read in this thread) but... really?

Jay Carney?

Joseph is a staunch advocate for Catholicism, who understandably illumines his arguments in their most favorable light. To my recollection he has never, ever, engaged in press sec talking-point hackery.

I agree. I think that Joseph goes too far in minimizing the impact of the Pope claiming that poverty and violence are increasing because of our overly free market; that seems important and unfortunate. Still, our disagreement there seems to be one of substance. I never got the impression that he was claiming authority without knowledge or that he was saying things that strained credulity or good manners.

I agree that Joseph's record is impeccable.

Edited on May 18, 2013 at 3:58am
Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In