Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1409.1 | -3.4 | -0.24% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2469.1 | -21.2 | -0.85% |
| Oil (WTI) | 96.73 | -0.1 | -0.11% |
| LIBOR | 0.431 | -0.003 | -0.63% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.02 | 0.108 | 0.13% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.77% | -0.02% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 192 | 0.2 |
Stocks are lower this morning on no real news. Dell missed. Existing Home Sales are scheduled to be released at 10:00 am EST. The minutes of the last FOMC meeting are scheduled for 2:00pm EST. Bonds are up a half a point and MBS are flat.
Mortgage Applications fell 7.4% last week as refis slowed.
Greece needs some breathing room to pay its debts.
FHFA has revised their short sale guidelines to allow homeowners who are current on their mortgage (and have an eligible hardship) to sell their home in a short sale. Importantly, job relocation qualifies, which should help people who are stuck with underwater homes in places with no jobs to leave. Second Lien holders will be given $6,000 to expedite a short sale.
Toll Brothers reported better than expected earnings, with a 41% increase in revenues, 59% increase in backlog, and 66% increase in contract signings. Toll is in the McMansion business, so it isn’t necessarily representative of the whole market, but it is another positive data point, especially for the jumbo part of the space. The stock is up a few percent pre-open.
Fannie Mae’s economic outlook for the rest of the year is generally gloomy, although it does predict that housing activity will be a net positive to GDP for the first time since 2005.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Brent, I cancelled my FT access last month because FT overwhelmed me with email. This morning Ezra cites a Sebastian Mallaby article on the labor market in America that I would like to read. No longer having access, I cannot read it without signing up for the deluge. If you, or anyone, can post it, I would be appreciative and say “thank you”.
In fact, to my benefactor, I say thank you in advance for your attention and consideration.
LikeLike
Way OT
After careful consideration we (mostly I) have decided that our next book will be Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand for the Book Review. I’m sure many of you have already read it, I know Scott has and said it was excellent btw, but if you haven’t, I’ve heard from numerous sources that it was a terrific read and very well written. Hillenbrand also wrote Seabiscuit which is a favorite of mine as I grew up around horse racing.
I’d like to use the Book Review as a way of attracting more participants to our unusual (in my opinion) website and as such have left a message at the author,s website (awaiting moderation right now) with a link to ATiM and the date of our discussion. If anyone is interested in checking out her website it is here:
http://laurahillenbrandbooks.com/contact/
My comment is under Guest Book. I’ve waited awhile to read this book and am looking forward to it. I’ve also noticed that our Bites & Pieces also attract visitors so lets keep those up also everyone.
LikeLike
lms
do you know if she ever got past the fatigue syndrome from which she suffered?
LikeLike
mark:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08d1eeae-ead3-11e1-984b-00144feab49a.html#ixzz24HhoOeuw
A quarter of a century ago, the US workforce was a wonder. Laid off in one corner of the economy, Americans quickly landed jobs elsewhere. But over the past decade, a profound change has come about. If US leaders understood what was at stake, their fights on taxes and spending would assume a different character.
In 2000, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, US unemployment was the lowest in the G7 group of countries. Because jobs in America were easy to find, Americans felt confident in seeking them: the labour force participation rate was the G7’s highest. Combining these two effects, the share of US 15-64 year-olds in work, at 74 per cent, stood head and shoulders above competitors. Within the G7, only the UK, with 72 per cent, came close.
More
On this story
US consumers build confidence
Retail results show economic bright spot
US labour market stabilises
Jobless generation puts brakes on US
US jobless claims fall unexpectedly
On this topic
Graham Allison Thucydides’s trap
Gillian Tett Fiscal brinkmanship is the real US threat
Editorial Less than a dream
Editorial Betting the farm
Sebastian Mallaby
Why I work on my summer holiday
This will not be enough, Mr Draghi
Sebastian Mallaby Finance must escape the shadows
Show some real audacity at the Fed
Click to enlarge
Fast forward to 2012. US unemployment has gone from lowest in the G7 to third highest. Because workers have become discouraged, the US labour force participation rate has slipped from the top spot to the middle of the pack. In consequence, the share of Americans in work has declined by fully 7 percentage points, a fall nearly three times more drastic than experienced in the UK. Meanwhile, in the other five G7 countries, the employment-to-population rate has actually risen.
This is not Ronald Reagan’s America – nor Bill Clinton’s, come to that. A once enviable labour market has consigned millions to material and psychological want. Nor is it simply the amount of joblessness that has exploded. Back in 2000, the US could boast that just 6 per cent of its unemployed workers had been out of a job for 12 months or more. But by 2011, that share had jumped to 31 per cent.
Why has the US lost its advantage? The answer is bigger than the financial crisis. The US employment rate began falling before then, sliding from 74 per cent in 2000 to 72 per cent in 2006; besides, the UK experienced a similar financial bust without an equivalent employment setback. Rather, the truth is that US labour market arrangements, which worked brilliantly for a generation, are no longer adequate.
The US labour market formula has traditionally consisted of a stick and a carrot. Americans were barred from receiving unemployment insurance for more than 26 weeks, which pushed them to accept jobs even if they involved moving home or taking a pay cut. Meanwhile the government dangled a juicy negative income tax in front of low-income workers, boosting pay for those who re-entered the work force.
Limited welfare and low taxes combined to minimise the US “participation tax rate”. Take an American worker with two children who moved in 2009 from short-term unemployment into a job paying half the average wage; he could expect to be better off to the tune of 62 per cent of his new earnings, according to the OECD. If that worker was exiting long-term unemployment, the reward for returning to work was even stronger. These sensible incentives stood in contrast to perverse incentives elsewhere. In Japan and Ireland, some unemployed people faced a participation tax rate of over 100 per cent. Taking a job would leave them worse off.
America’s low employment-tax wedge remains a huge strength. But it is no longer enough. Technological change has reduced opportunities for low-skilled men and a lousy school system has failed to equip them for this challenge. By 2005, fully a quarter of working-age US men without a high-school diploma were out of the workforce. When the crash wiped out low-skilled construction jobs, that share leapt to 35 per cent.
Faced with this cadre of hard-to-employ men, the US has had to recognise that the old time limit on unemployment insurance is harsh and unhelpful. Starting in 2009, the limit has been extended; some workers have collected for as long as 99 weeks. Meanwhile the number of Americans receiving disability payments has shot up from 5m to almost 9m since 2000. Such benefits have no time limits.
If the labour market stick has cracked, the carrot is decaying. The key challenge is low-skilled men, many of whom are not married. But America’s negative income tax is overwhelmingly targeted at parents. The US has spent a generation boosting incentives for high-skilled workers by cutting top marginal tax rates. But payroll taxes have been allowed to take a rising share of low earners’ incomes.
In an important recent paper, the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department surveys some ideas US politicians might heed. Payroll taxes should be reduced, especially for low-income workers. Enrolment on disability should be policed for abuses, and the disabled should be encouraged to re-enter the workforce where possible. Unemployment insurance could be financed by individual accounts, strengthening workers’ incentive to return to work promptly. Shorn of effective time limits, insurance benefits should be tied to participation in training programmes that push workers into jobs.
So far, none of these ideas has received serious attention from leaders. The politicians’ idea of a tax debate is a slanging match about top marginal rates, not an intelligent rethink of the payroll tax wedge. Their idea of a spending discussion is to bicker about whether discretionary outlays should be cut aggressively or downright savagely. The cramped terms of the debate help to explain why work training schemes in the US have actually shrunk recently and are a pale shadow of the standard model in the rest of the rich world. As for the vital challenge of retooling US education, neither candidate seems interested. The US labour miracle may be left to die quietly. It deserves better.
LikeLike
Thanks, donjuan. Mallaby misses the rise of community colleges in the last generation, in his narrative, but I think his Rx translates to more CCs – a small investment for a big return, IMO. I think of it as local or state, rather than federal, and I think localities with strong CC systems will prosper from them.
LikeLike
oops, I’m now an international outlaw it would seem.
LikeLike
RBS is in the news again and not in a good way again, following the Standard Chartered settlement.
LikeLike
John
Here’s an interview with Hillenbrand from the NYTimes last year discussing CFS. She leads a very limited life outside of her home, her husband and her writing. I’d actually forgotten she was ill, and it’s odd because for a brief time this year my doctor thought that’s what I had but I guess it’s rather difficult to diagnose and luckily for me I got better.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/an-author-escapes-from-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/
LikeLike
lms:
I believe these things are infections that go undiagnosed, just as they have now found that a limited number of arthritis types are caused by infections or viruses.
I know several people who had undetectted Lyme’s Disease for some time.
LikeLike
You can add stadium financing to the list of ecnomic concepts that escape Benen
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/22/13414202-the-return-of-a-self-defeating-attack?threadId=3547507&commentId=69192563#c69192563
LikeLike
yes to the CC’s, but of course we are all shocked by the idea Romney asserts there is a relationship between loan money available and the unstoppable rise in the cost of college tuition.
LikeLike
John, speaking from my experience this year, many infections are difficult to diagnose. I was sick from the end of Feb until the end of June without a real diagnosis and had a low grade fever, fatigue and weight loss the entire time. It wasn’t until I was hospitalized and given IV antibiotics that I actually began to get better even though they thought I had pneumonia, which I didn’t have, the antibiotics finally knocked the infection down. I am having a little fun now trying to slowly gain weight again…………………….. 😉 and really do feel fine ………….thank God. Also, they’ve ruled out just about every conceivable form of cancer so I’m hoping for another 20 years at least, as my heart and lungs are in tip top shape for my age, yay swimming. It’s a shame someone so talented and young like Hildenbrand has to deal with such a debilitating and little known disease.
LikeLike
“Already in New York City for next week’s U.S. Open where she was to serve as a line judge, the 70-year-old (Lois) Goodman was met Tuesday with a felony arrest warrant from her hometown of Los Angeles, where police and prosecutors say she beat her 80-year-old husband to death with a coffee mug in April.
That’s pretty hardcore. He probably said something just one too many times, like “the floor is pretty dirty” and she snapped!
LikeLike
Or he may have said “I’m gonna shove this tennis racket so far up your ass it will come out your nose”, in which case, under USLTA Rules, it is justifiable homicide.
LikeLike
lms:
Glad to hear that you are getting better. It’s cases like yours that walk us back from the idea of how much doctors actually know about what’s going on in our bodies, even when they are highly competent.
LikeLike
“I’m gonna shove this tennis racket so far up your ass it will come out your nose”, in which case, under USLTA Rules, it is justifiable homicide.
Good thing I wasn’t trying to swallow a gulp of herbal tea when I read that……..hahahahaha. The majority of our customers are mom and pop tennis shops across the country. Hubby is getting an earful this morning as you can imagine.
LikeLike
lms:
Put away all the coffee cups first.
LikeLike
Lms,
I’ve worked with all kinds of MD’s for about 15 years. It’s been my experience that unless you have one of 20-30 easily diagnosed illnesses, most primary care / internal medicine doctors are going to run out of ideas. Once the primary care doctor runs out of ideas, then it’s up to the patient to find out other possibilities.
CFS diagnosis and treatments have been driven almost entirely by patients. It’s my opinion that a majority of MD’s still do not believe in it or actually believe it to be depression. I’ve come to believe that it is a low-grade, chronic auto-immune disorder. For what ever reason, perhaps an as yet undetected viral infection triggers the immune response. Not to sound flippant, but like how an allergen triggers a histaminergic response, this viral infection triggers an immune response that can last weeks/months/years.
LikeLike
then it’s up to the patient to find out other possibilities.
Yeah, I’m a webmd, mayoclinic.com, livestrong.com junkie now. What I thought was interesting about the experience is the assumption that it’s almost always cancer if they can’t diagnose it at first. What I found most discouraging is how long it takes to schedule and receive results from the various tests and biopsies. I’m still waiting for results from one on a test that was first requested on June 17th…………yikes. I’ve had lots of “accidents”, broken bones, stitches, concussions, etc. but I’ve never really been sick before so it’s been a real awakening. In the middle of all the testing at the end of May I landed in the hospital with no diagnosis but in intensive care for two days. Luckily for me, it was treatable with antibiotics and I made a pretty quick recovery after that.
LikeLike
Lms,
Huge fan of Livestrong.com. Lost 80 pounds tracking calories with their iphone app for what it’s worth. When I was a kid, I had something very similar to what you are describing though I never went into the hospital. It finally just went away after about 6 months. I think in retrospect they called it “walking pneumonia” with a viral origin. But during the midst of the illness, a lot of talk of leukemia because my white cell count was chronically off the charts high.
Ultimately though, diagnosis of anything other than the most common 20-30 illnesses it’s a crap shoot and I suspect that most correct diagnosis’ after that come from the patient (and their families) research.
LikeLike
With my limited experience this sounds right to me, but we have much better bond judges here than my poor efforts. In this piece I hear echoes of the top of the housing market, when there was always a little more room to run!
What Bubble? Why Bond Pros Are Still Betting on Junk
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48751326
LikeLike
Climate alarmist Michael Mann is suing National Review.
NR officially responds, and Rich Lowry tells Mann to get lost.
LikeLike
Fed promises additional easing, sort of, maybe, at some point, again!
LikeLike
Can’t wait for NR’s discovery!
LikeLike
Fed promises additional easing, sort of, maybe, at some point, again!
Getting a little too close to the election IMO. Bernake doesn’t want to appear like the Fed is on Obama’s payroll.
LikeLike
Careful, Scott–your use of the word “alarmist” may make us his next target. . .
LikeLike
I believe in climate change, because I subject everything to a risk reward analysis.
If they’re wrong about climate change, we will have spent billions needlessly. If they’re right, we’re in a much much bigger mess that throwing more money at won’t necessarily cure at any price.
LikeLike
I believe in climate change because it makes sense to me and my daughter knows too many scientists who say it’s real and we’re contributing to it. I’ve been reading a long piece re the subject and it’s difficult to deny imo. Besides, like banned says it’s only money and if it’s true we need to be doing something about it, although I don’t think we’re doing enough right now. We need to convince people who are over utilizing our resources (all of us) that they need to slow down before we can accomplish much.
LikeLike
banned/lms:
I believe in climate change because the climate has been changing since the earth came into being, so it surely still is changing.
LikeLike
NR should have played on the hockey stick theme and said “Get Bent”
LikeLike
The arguments over whether or not climate change is “real” are a proxy for the real fight on climate change which is whether or not it is more economical to prevent it or adapt to it. This also has distributional consequences vis-a-vis the developed vs the third world.
I don’t expect that government regulation of emissions will be successful. We will either have a technological solution (fusion powered atmospheric reprocessing) or adapt to it, or disaster will strike.
Naomi Klein notes the actual ramifications if you accept the math on what is required to reduce emissions:
Good luck to the politician who runs on the platform of Americans should consume less because economic growth is reserved for the third world. Among other things, this approach goes against any sort of Keynesian solution for the economy that is predicated on increasing consumer demand.
Edit:
Paul Krugman on climate change economics:
LikeLike
jnc:
You and me on the technological breakthrough, in time hopefully.
LikeLike
scott:
While you and I could talk about climate change all night like men discussing the pros and cons of different forms of childbirthing, i would rather have your expert opinion on the bond article I linked to!
LikeLike
banned:
While you and I could talk about climate change all night like men discussing the pros and cons of different forms of childbirthing, i would rather have your expert opinion on the bond article I linked to!
Unfortunately I have more experience with childbirthing than with the high yield market. Where’s Milken when you need him?
I do think we are in a Treasury bubble, but it ain’t over yet, despite the sell-off over the last couple weeks. Europe is still Europe, and as you noted the Fed is still promising, well, something. Everyone’s only just getting back from vacation. (Most of Europe is still on their, what, standard 6-week summer break?!?!) Today’s rally will be extended. I don’t think we have yet seen the last of 1.55 on the 10yr note.
Now, either answer Mcwing’s question or we’re going to have to get into this childbirth controversy.
LikeLike
because I subject everything to a risk reward analysis.
Which is why I don’t put that much stock in the fact there is an “overwhelming consensus.” If you dare disagree with AGW CW, you have pretty much disqualified yourself from academia. You will become toxic at that point and no one will hire you. Plus you become a target. So why do it? Even if you disagree, it is better to keep that to yourself.
So in terms of risk / reward, there is zero upside to bucking the system.
LikeLike
banned
like men discussing the pros and cons of different forms of childbirthing
Seriously funny, what’s with you guys today? That would probably draw even me out of the protective shell I’ve created for myself here……………………lol
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm said:
jnc:
You and me on the technological breakthrough, in time hopefully.”
You may like the Krugman article I added after my original post. He’s more Krugman the economist than Krugman the polemicist in the article in that he’s making the case for cap and trade vs those on the left who want to ban pollution outright as immoral.
LikeLike
jnc:
I’ve looked at cap and trade briefly and I don’t get the economics. It worked for utilities because that is what they do, and the only thing they do. I’m extremely skeptical that it will transfer to the larger economy.
LikeLike
brent:
I disagree a bit. Mark Zandi for instance gets a lot of tv time because even though he is usually wrong, he loves publicity and will represent the unpopular side. Krugman the same way in his column. Being one of the Borg doesn’t get you fame, whereas being lone wolf in the current media madness makes you a star.
LikeLike
Worth a read:
“‘Superbug’ stalked NIH hospital last year, killing six
By Brian Vastag, Wednesday, August 22, 3:06 PM”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/superbug-stalked-nih-hospital-last-year-killing-six/2012/08/22/5be18b1a-ec66-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html?hpid=z2
LikeLike
With the injury to Michael Vick, Nick Foles might become the only NFL starting QB worth less than his father:
“Larry Foles has said he started out as the manager of a Shoney’s; last October, the Austin American-Statesman reported that Larry and partner Guy Villavaso had sold their eight national Eddie V’s Prime Seafood restaurants and their three Wildfish Grilles for $59 million.”
LikeLike
lms:
If you’re needing to put weight back on, maybe you need to go back on the antibiotics! 🙂
LikeLike
jnc:
Thanks for the link to the Klebsiella story. Nosocomial infections scare me — the bugs you can pick up in the hospital are usually worse than things you might get just walking around.
I don’t know how many new antibiotics are in the pipelines (Troll?) but bacteria are developing resistance to pretty much everything we’ve put out there.
LikeLike
Haahaaahaaa michi, antibiotics make me sick to my stomach which added to the weight loss. I’ve been eating more frequently and also making a protein shake or smoothie in the afternoon. That should do the trick, so far I haven’t resorted to extra fat but I’m thinking about it……………………….lol……………………and chocolate, lots of chocolate.
LikeLike
Mark and George–
What is it with some of your fellow Texans? You got something in the water down there??
LikeLike
In TX the County Judge in a big county is not a judicial officer, but the presiding officer over the County Commissioners. The County, will of course, have contingency plans if blue helmeted UN troops land outside their courthouse. Wake me when that happens.
As for water, there is none in Lubbock County outside the campus of Texas Tech University.
I guess the blue helmets could sneak into town during a Red Raider football game, on a Saturday night, or during church services on Sunday.
If you have never heard the great Angela Strehli sing “Two bit Texas Town” or any of the Flatlanders get outta Lubbock music you have to imagine the musicians’ desire to leave that place from the Chicks song I linked. Austin is chock full of Lubbock refugees.
LikeLike
Mike
but bacteria are developing resistance to pretty much everything we’ve put out there.
That scares the crap out of me. And have you guys heard about the closing of another slaughter house out here? Sick cows again………………….even though I don’t eat cow, that scares me too.
LikeLike
“Well, you know, look. I’m proud of my record,” Ryan said when asked about differences between himself and Romney regarding abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered, a similar answer to the one he gave in a Pittsburgh TV interview Wednesday morning. “I don’t – I’m proud of my record. Mitt Romney’s going to be the president. The president sets the policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction. I’ll leave it at that.”
Romney supports such exceptions, while Ryan opposes them.
Asked about his co-sponsorship of legislation that would seek to tighten restrictions on abortion and which initially used the term “forcible rape,” Ryan told reporters, “That bill passed, I think, by 251 votes. It was bipartisan. … I’m proud of my pro-life record.”
A step in the direction of defining “forcible rape”?
“That proposed amendment was blocked in what was a Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee. Ryan and only one co-sponsor, Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, proposed a change to health-care legislation that would have required health insurance cover abortion services.
The Ryan-Johnson failed amendment did specify limited exceptions, permitting abortion coverage including when the life of the mother is at stake, and in line 16 of the proposed text, “…unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest.”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/22/1341…
(Attention Sam Johnson, be very careful, there is a bus looking to run you over and it has Paul Ryan at the helm!)
LikeLike
banned:
Can you explain to me the objection to the term “forcible rape”? I assume it simply draws a distinction between statutory rape, which involves consensual sex, and all other rapes which do not involve consensual sex.
LikeLike
My contention is that implicit in the very concept of morality, no matter what moral claims one is making, is that morality exists as an objective, universal reality.
My contention is that implicit in the concept of morality some behavior is better for the society than other behavior. The more inclusive the society, the more the norms of morality approach the Golden Rule, or a reasonable variant therof. Once a society sets some persons off as not worthy – women, blacks, Jews, Cherokees, etc. the further from the Golden Rule it will stray.
I came to the GR through my religious upbringing, but Confucius came to a reasonable facsimile of it by thinking through what happens to people who do not treat each other with respect.
I was first taught the GR was objective and universal. Then I learned that it could be posited from subjective thought experiment based on human behavior.
Those of you who posit “objective and universal and timeless” are not claiming a current revelation, to you, here and now. You are claiming a revelation to someone, sometime, that you accept. That makes it subjective, written by you. A choice you made to accept another human’s view because you think it was revealed to that human by God. Your acceptance of that is subjective. It is as far removed from revelation as my acceptance of Confucius or Kant.
LikeLike
Um, “force” means “without consent”.
Not exactly.
“Without consent” is a broader category than “force”. It includes duress, trickery, and taking advantage of a child.
Force means simply physical overpowering the victim. It does not include the other means of obtaining compliance without consent.
LikeLike
mark:
“Without consent” is a broader category than “force”. It includes duress, trickery, and taking advantage of a child.
Does this mean that when the FBI uses the term “forcible rape” when listing crime types in it’s Uniform Crime Report, it is failing to account for all rapes that have been reported?
LikeLike
The FBI used to characterize all rapes either as “forcible” or “statutory”. I don’t think this # accounts for all rapes reported but I do not know, with certainty.
edit – I see Mike answered with details, and this comment by me was redundant.
LikeLike
mark:
My contention is that implicit in the concept of morality some behavior is better for the society than other behavior
I am happy to address this, but I must note that you continue to talk around my point/contention without ever actually addressing it or presenting an argument against it. Again, I think all moral claims, including even your golden rule, represent a claim about a presumed universal moral code, ie something that applies to all people, even if those people think otherwise. Am I incorrect? If so, why?
As for the above, I confess I am not sure what to make of it. It is surely true that some behavior is better for society than others, but I don’t see what it is about the concept of morality that implies it. Perhaps you think that morality requires actions that redound to the benefit of society, but if so, that is simply a claim about the content of morality, no different from it’s opposite claim, ie that morality requires actions that redound to the benefit of the individual actor.
BTW, I think your so-called golden rule is a perfectly reasonable moral guide, but based on some of your political positions I don’t think you apply it correctly. For example, you seem to think that your support for laws against a store owner’s discrimination is justified by the GR, which says that the store owner should treat others as he would want to be treated. But in fact the GR also governs your behavior towards the store owner, and presumably you would not want force to be initiated against you in order to force you to take an action you didn’t want to take. So while the GR may indeed instruct the store owner not to discriminate, it also instructs you not to initiate force against the store owner. So in fact the GR condemns rather than justifies your support for such anti-discrimination laws.
A choice you made to accept another human’s view because you think it was revealed to that human by God.
Incorrect. I don’t even think God exists.
LikeLike
Mark:
BTW, one more thing on this:
Your acceptance of that is subjective.
Noting that a belief in the truth of specific moral claims is derived subjectively does not imply, as you seem to be suggesting, that there is no existing objective truth. People have subjective views about objective reality all the time. Again, to introduce a familiar subject, the question of God’s existence is a matter of objective reality. He either does, or does not, exist, regardless of what any person thinks about the matter. Still, plenty of people have a view on the matter, and those views are subjective.
LikeLike
Clearly you just weren’t on the right antibiotics, lms! But I think that chocolate is a far better method for weight gain. . .
When I ran my last marathon I didn’t lose an ounce, as I used all the extra training as an excuse to eat anything I wanted to; toward the end I had a couple of 6,000 calorie days! Of course, I had to stop eating like that afterwards, which wasn’t nearly as much fun.
LikeLike
Michi:
Must be the West Nile encephalitis.
LikeLike
lms:
I thought the slaughterhouse closing was because of inhumane practices?
LikeLike
Mike
This is a new one I think and the paper today said they had recorded evidence of sick cows and inhumane practices. There may be another big recall in the works last I heard, unless you have more updated info than I do.
LikeLike
Mike:
Heh. 😀
LikeLike
scott:
Thanks for your answer
Is there a universal moral law?
yes if you are being time and place specific, no otherwise.
LikeLike
banned:
yes if you are being time and place specific, no otherwise.
Well if it is time and place specific it is by definition not universal.
Does this mean that you think something that is immoral today in Iowa might not be immoral in 1850 Mississippi? Like, say, black slavery?
LikeLike
lms:
Looks like the closing was because of inhumane treatment of downer cows. It is unclear if that meat was placed in circulation.
LikeLike
Thanks Mike, those stories make me feel sick. It looks like they’re still investigating whether some of the animals may have been sick or not but it appears it was mostly cruelty. They won’t recall the meat unless they have evidence of illness I don’t think.
LikeLike
scott
don’t ask me, ask Paul Ryan or Todd Akin.
LikeLike
banned:
don’t ask me, ask Paul Ryan or Todd Akin
That doesn’t seem like a sensible idea, as they don’t appear to object to the phrase. Seriously, do you know what the big deal is? What am I missing? Or is it just cynical politics by Dems, acting scandalized in order to taint their opposition with the vague whiff of scandal? (you are the self-described cynic here, so you seem the right guy to ask.)
LikeLike
scott:
yes the definition of what is moral changes with place and time
that is so completely obvious, I don’t know why it would need a discussion.
LikeLike
banned:
yes the definition of what is moral changes with place and time…that is so completely obvious,
It’s not obvious to me, so please indulge me.
So, just to take an example, was rounding up Jews, stealing their property, and putting them in concentration camps moral in 1940’s Germany? And, however you answer, how did you go about determining it?
LikeLike
scott:
how can I tell you what is meant by forcible rape?
As a former attorney, I only know of two, those acts of sexual intercourse that occur against or absent the consent of the victim and those that occur to those who legally don’t have the power to give consent.
LikeLike
banned:
how can I tell you what is meant by forcible rape?
As I said, I already think I know what it means. My question was if you understood the big hulabaloo over the term. I guess you are as out of the loop on that one as I am.
LikeLike
that would be two types of rape
of course there are many other categories of sexual assault.
LikeLike
scott:
because Western civilization had by 1940 determined that what would have been routine 200 or 400 years earlier was no longer acceptable by then.
You seem to want me to say something, so tell me what is is that you want me to say.
LikeLike
banned:
because Western civilization had by 1940 determined that what would have been routine 200 or 400 years earlier was no longer acceptable by then.
I assume you are saying it was not moral, and the above is how you determined it. So are you saying that, had a non-western civilization done the same thing in 1940, it would have been moral? Or if Germany had done it in 1740 instead of 1940, it would have been moral?
Also, it was obviously acceptable in 1940s Germany, despite what Western Civilization had determined. So when you say it is changes with time and place, how do you know what “place” to look to for a determination?
You seem to want me to say something, so tell me what is is that you want me to say.
I don’t want you to say anything in particular. I am just investigating this notion that you think is completely obvious but which to me doesn’t make any sense at all, and which I think is actually a destructive philosophy to hold. You certainly aren’t the only one to hold it, and since you got involved in the discussion not out of interest but only to be polite to me, it’s perfectly fair if you want to opt out. I won’t complain, but I remain interested in how you (or anyone who agrees with you) would address my questions above.
LikeLike
As someone who understands the law much better than Akin, Ryan or anybody else that is involved in this particular “distinction”, I know exactly what rape is, legally speaking.
For some other defintion, ask those who wrote the legislation in question to define it.
LikeLike
banned:
For some other defintion, ask those who wrote the legislation in question to define it.
Again(why is this unclear?) I have not asked for any definition of anything. Why you keep saying this baffles me.
once again, legally speaking rape is not about force or even about sex. It’s about consent and only about consent.
Um, “force” means “without consent”. So to say it’s not about force but is about consent doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
LikeLike
BTW
once again, legally speaking rape is not about force or even about sex. It’s about consent and only about consent.
LikeLike
Donjuan has defined rape as it is defined in criminal law in Anglo-American jurisdictions. Statutory rape is based on the presumed inability of a child to give consent to an adult.
LikeLike
lms:
People are now pretty good about not putting downer cows into the food stream since the whole BSE problem in the UK. I would be surprised if they had to recall the beef because of contamination with downer cow meat.
However, the cruelty aspect is enough to shut them down for a while. The WaPo article said that there were two USDA inspectors stationed at that slaughterhouse. I wonder what they were doing when the video was shot. Of course, the video could be a fake too …
LikeLike
mark
takes you back to your early years as a scrapping attorney does it not?
LikeLike
mark:
My father is old enough to remember when Anglo-American was an oil company, not an ethnic distinction. Sadly he didn’t buy any stock!
LikeLike
Mark, that post is beautifully put. Thank you.
LikeLike
“Um, “force” means “without consent”. So to say it’s not about force but is about consent doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”:
Even obtaining compliance is not necessarily a factor. For instance having sex with someone too drunk to give consent is or can be rape, even if they are otherwise old enough and mentally competent enough under normal circumstances to give consent.
LikeLike
right, dj.
LikeLike
scott:
I will tell you a story where any kind of universal code of morality is entirely absent. I can confirm all of it to be true except the very last part upon which I rely only on the type person involved as to the final truth.
My father’s friend, still living, was a gunner on a B-17 flying runs over Bremen. On his last mission, his plane got shot up and the crew knew it wouldn’t make it all the way back. Even though none of them had ever had any training in doing so, the whole crew bailed out at the last possible second. He was thrown out of the plane literally because he was shot up with fragments.
Im not sure where he landed exactly but when he woke up he was being kicked by local women who found him and then turned him in.
He next woke up again in the hospital of a POW camp or a civilian hospital nearby, the details are fuzzy. He was tended to by nurses a few of whom spoke english after a fashion. After a day or two, a doctor visited him and said something in German. the nurse translated it as saying that his one eye needed to come out because it was badly damaged and the doctor was worried about his good eye. The operation was performed and his other injuries healed. They even gave him a glass eye. which he used for many years after the war.
Just before he left the hospital to return to the general POW population, one of the english speaking nurses said good bye to him. He asked her why she was always so said. She said it was because of the war and the fact that she had lost her mother and sister in the bombing of Bremen.
Did she know that he had been in one of crews? Was this her only way of passing judgement on him? Did she want him to live with that forever? Could she have asked the doctor to get rid of him without anyone caring?
How can the same people who committed such atrocities to the Jews have saved the life of a flier who killed many of their people (especially since the Japanese would have killed him without hesitation)
There are no answers
LikeLike
banned:
I will tell you a story where any kind of universal code of morality is entirely absent.
It’s certainly an interesting story, but I fail to see how it shows the absence of a universal morality. How a person may have acted in a given situation has no bearing on how they should have acted, which is what a moral code defines.
LikeLike
From the Post:
“In a 25-minute speech, Obama attacked the presumptive GOP nominee’s budget plans, which the president said would slash education spending by 20 percent, jeopardizing 1 million students’ Pell Grants over the next decade.
With student loan debt having surpassed credit card debt, Obama has attempted to ease the burden on students and graduates, announcing a series of smaller-scale initiatives during stops on college campuses over the past year. In June, Congress approved a plan to extend by a year low-interest rates on some federal student loans, a move Obama pushed for in several speeches.”
If you assert the way to counteract the massive student loan debt in this country is by slightly lowering the interest rate while expanding the total amount of loans available; either you really are the tool of Wall Street that some say you are OR you simply don’t understand the nature of the problem!
LikeLike
Mike
The story was all over the local news here this morning so we’ll see what the evening news has to say. The other plant that was shut down was not too far from us.
LikeLike
I do think it is strange that the government has armies of people to ensure the electric company and the telephone company don’t stick an extra 5 bucks on your bill, will jawbone the oil companies if gas prices get “too high,” but don’t bat an eye if colleges charge 50k a semester.
LikeLike
scott:
“Again(why is this unclear?) I have not asked for any definition of anything. Why you keep saying this baffles me.”
For clarification, I have been replying to this post from you:
“Can you explain to me the objection to the term “forcible rape”?
I was attempting to point out in various ways that it’s not a legal term but a political one and so I could not explain the difference that those who use it are attempting to make.
LikeLike
banned:
I was attempting to point out in various ways that it’s not a legal term but a political one
According to this site it is indeed a legal term.
LikeLike
scott:
no idea how they divy things up, for instance as you can see there are no categories for sexual assault listed either. possibly they are under some other heading. I’m not a big fan of the FBI as you may have noticed before.
LikeLike
Scott:
Does this mean that when the FBI uses the term “forcible rape” when listing crime types in it’s Uniform Crime Report, it is failing to account for all rapes that have been reported?
Yes. The FBI defines “forcible rape” as:
“the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.”
I believe the Director Mueller has now changed the FBI definition (as of last year or earlier this year) to include males as victims of forcible rape. The original definition dated from the 1920s.
Ah. The new definition is:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
LikeLike
Mike (and mark):
I believe the Director Mueller has now changed the FBI definition…
Yes, thanks for that. It was changed in January of this year, at the behest of Attorney General Holder. The Ryan-sponsored bill that included the “forcible rape” term and is the subject of all this consternation was written in 2010. So it seems that Ryan is now under attack for having used a term that actually reflected the legal definition of rape at the time it was written.
I’m now quite certain that this is all simply politically manufactured outrage in an attempt by Dems to create the sense of a scandal where none exists.
Banned – given your penchant for cynicism, I’m surprised this one got past you.
LikeLike
scott:
He killed people he didn’t know who weren’t trying to kill him, because someone told him that was his job. She helped saved the life of a man who was quite possibly responsible for the death of her family members because someone told her that was her job. If the same thing had happened half a world away, he would have been killed by someone else who was told that was their job.
When it come to morality, time and place aren’t the most important thing, they’re the only thing.
LikeLike
mike:
now we get into various state statutes. For instance the common law definition of rape does not include oral sex of any kind
In some states they still adhere to this definition and make the other sexual assault or sodomy. some states have expanded the statutory definition of rape to include other acts beyond intercourse in the same sub heading
LikeLike
scott
That legal opinion is very poorly written:
“Forcible rape is a rape where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim.”
notice that the addition of the word forcible does not change the sentence at all.
They could have written that:
Rape is where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim
and they would have had exactly the same result.
I presume as mark suggested that it’s an attempt to distinguish between statutory and non-statutory rape but it is spoor legal analysis because as I wrote above the key to a charge of rape is not force but consent.
LikeLike
“He killed people he didn’t know who weren’t trying to kill him, because someone told him that was his job.”
There’s no way either of them could be doing what they are doing for reasons other that because they were told to? Really?
You don’t think either could have come to a logical reason independently of an order? Could the bomber crewman have reasoned that his country was at risk and that striking the enemy first was better than, say, not striking at all?
Do you really think people are that two dimensional?
LikeLike
george:
I have never been a soldier, let alone a combat one, but in conversations with my father and his friends, no those subjects never came up. They did the job they were supposed to do, for as long as they had to and then they came home as soon as they could.
I don’t know if that is typical, but I have heard those who were actually in combat say they weren’t fighting for their country, but for the lives and respect of their friends, and their own lives.
LikeLike
On the lighter side, we here in Maryland pride ourselves on having perhaps the worst uniforms in all of college football. Notre Dame has decided they don’t want to be the worst, but they want to be included in the discussion:
http://college-football.si.com/2012/08/17/notre-dame-uniform-hell-panic-collected-reactions/?sct=obnetwork
LikeLike
scott:
My last post of the night
“Ryan is now under attack for having used a term that actually reflected the legal definition of rape at the time it was written.”
You are throwing around terms of art willy nilly sounding like Greg talking about finance:
I have never seen a charge of forcible rape. In Maryland and under the US Code there is no such thing. Force is an element of rape, depending on how a jurisdiction subdivides it’s sexual crimes, however in MD for instance there is Rape in both the 1st and 2nd degree and force is a required element for one but not the other. The US Code does not even use the term rape as a charge. It falls under the term sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse, which reflects a much wider variety of sexual misconduct than that of common law.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_18.shtml
The FBI collects crime figures using it’s own categories. It does not define legally those crimes either Federally or for state purposes.
Now as to Ryan and Akin (remember Akin used the term “legitimate rape” in the interview) I presume that what they were doing is attempting to make those attemtpting to get an abortion claim that force was used during the rape in an effort to discourage women. They would not only have to prove that they had made the accusation of rape, but that MORE than the legal defintiion of rape would be required since rape does not REQUIRE force but it may be, and more often than not is, an element of rape.
It’s not that I don’t enjoy the lengthy discussion but that you are using terms without regard to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid college loans that are being accumulated by men and women struggling with the precise legal meaning of the same!
LikeLike
banned:
You are throwing around terms of art willy nilly sounding like Greg talking about finance:
Bizarre. The only term I have referred to is “forcible rape”, which is the very subject of the brouhaha that you introduced here. And far from “throwing around terms willy nilly”, what I have done is a) accurately demonstrated that it is a term used by the FBI and b) linked to a legal website which purports to legally define it. I see that I did make one mistake, referring to the “legal definition” when I should have said “FBI’s definition”, but still your characterization of my comments is just bizarre.
BTW, it wasn’t as if I had to scour the internet to find a purported legal definition of the term hidden on some disreputable web site. All kinds of sites provide a legal definition, like here, and here, and here, and here..
My point here is not to challenge your expertise on the legalities of rape, but rather to show that the term is hardly some nefarious neologism invented by Ryan. By all evidence it is a commonly used term, even in legal circles.
The scandal here escapes me. Ryan is on record as opposing abortion, even in the case of rape. Given that fact, what does his sponsorship of a bill which, at worst, narrows but does not eliminate the rape exception, tell us about him that he hasn’t already proclaimed openly? It’s all just political maneuvering, designed by strategists to whip up the vague sense of scandal around Ryan and force the topic of conversation away from Obama’s weakness…ie his record of governance. I would have thought that you of all people would recognize that.
Particularly regrettable, BTW, is your joining in the transparent efforts of Obama’s media proxies to associate Ryan with Akin’s “legitimate” comment from the other day. Very cheap, and insulting if you really think I am dumb enough to fall for it.
LikeLike
The scandal here escapes me. Ryan is on record as opposing abortion, even in the case of rape. Given that fact, what does his sponsorship of a bill which, at worst, narrows but does not eliminate the rape exception, tell us about him that he hasn’t already proclaimed openly?
I had not been following so I did not know this was the springboard for the discussion. I see your point.
However, it is fair game to criticize Ryan for placing a limiting modifier on “rape”, as the crime is defined virtually exclusively by state law, and the kind of statute he proposed, if I understand this correctly, would cause hair splitting where none existed before. From what Mike and you wrote, at the time Ryan drafted this bill, or sponsored it, the FBI split its stats in a way that excluded, as I had suggested, statutory rape. If he intended to make that distinction, it is one that has nothing to do with the criminal law, which is state law, and which is built on the doctrine of no consent, but something to do with which victims get some benefit [I do not know the context – insurance? Medicaid?].
Noting that a belief in the truth of specific moral claims is derived subjectively does not imply, as you seem to be suggesting, that there is no existing objective truth.
But it does imply that the objective truth, if any, is unknowable, regarding morality.
It does imply that asserting that morality is objective truth ends the conversation because that objective truth, if any, is unknowable.
I believe that I have directly addressed your assumption that morality is universal, timeless, and knowable. I will not proceed from that assumption to discuss morality. Faulty premise would lead to faulty conclusion.
LikeLike
Mark:
But it does imply that the objective truth, if any, is unknowable, regarding morality.
It certainly implies that it is unknown. I do not think that it implies it is unknowable.
It does imply that asserting that morality is objective truth ends the conversation because that objective truth, if any, is unknowable.
I agree that if one asserts that objective morality is unknowable, there is no point in having a conversation about morality. For instance, it makes little sense to talk about the rights that people have if it is impossible to know what those rights are. Which is why I am baffled by the routine appeal to moral notions by people (Bernie L. from PL is the epitome) who proclaim not only that the truth about moral claims is unknowable, but that there is no truth to be known. How can it be asserted that person A’s rights have been violated by person B if the content of person A’s rights are unknowable?
I believe that I have directly addressed your assumption that morality is universal, timeless, and knowable.
I do assume that, but, again, that has not been what I am arguing. I guess i am not making myself clear. I am arguing that, regardless of whether or not a universal, timeless and knowable morality exists, all moral claims, including yours, implicitly make the assumption that it does. The assumption is inherent in the very notions of morality and the language we use to express them. Asserting that the assumption is incorrect does not address whether the assumption is being made.
Indulge me in a different approach. Do you think the following 2 sentences convey the same idea, or 2 different ideas.
1) I don’t like the practice of slavery.
2) I think the practice of slavery is wrong.
If, like me, you agree that they convey two different ideas, what is different about them?
I will not proceed from that assumption to discuss morality.
But you do every time you make a moral claim. That is my point.
LikeLike
But you do every time you make a moral claim.
Then I have not made myself clear.
I think we can either agree on a basic moral principle and build from there, or failing to agree on a basic principle argue subjectively from human experience as we and others have observed it what principle(s) serve(s) the entire human race. Perhaps we can come to agreement.
For example, having read it argued extensively, I buy into GR, on grounds other than the religious one I was first taught. If all of us do, we do not have to argue whether it is external truth, or not, to apply it. We can argue about its application, instead.
If you have ever read the letters between the Syriac Fathers [RC] and the Babylonian Rabbis [J] from the Second Century you would recall them with fascination. Agreeing that “life” was valuable, for instance, they would pose each other conundrums.
A wise man and a child are adrift from a shipwreck on a boat. They are three days from shore but only have enough water for one person to survive.
Do they share and both die?
Does the child get preference?
Does the wise man get preference?
The arguments rage. They both start from share the water and move away from that, because certain death for both denies the value of life. The Rabbis argue that a wise man is a known quantity who would be more useful alive than would a child, in that case. The priests argue that the child has more potential years to live. The Rabbis argue that the child has not yet demonstrated the potential to give to society. The priests argue that a child is a gift to society, for without children society would cease. The Rabbis on their own decide the problem with their position is that if the wise man takes the water because he can, it is murder. The priests, on their own, decide that if the wise man voluntarily gives the water to the child that is suicide.
I am simplifying. I suggest there is room to engage on applications if we agree on principles. We don’t need no stinkin’ objective truth to agree on principles.
LikeLike
mark:
I take it that you are not willing to indulge my question. That’s too bad.
Then I have not made myself clear.
It has nothing to do with you or how you express yourself. It has to do with the nature of the concept of morality.
I think we can either agree on a basic moral principle and build from there, or failing to agree on a basic principle argue subjectively from human experience as we and others have observed it what principle(s) serve(s) the entire human race.
The principles which serve the entire human race are objectively determinable. We simply need to understand (define) what it means to “serve the entire human race”. You are, of course, also assuming that the function/purpose of moral notions is to “serve the entire human race”. Depending on what you mean, that is open to question.
Perhaps we can come to agreement.
Perhaps. I propose as a principle that interaction between humans should be conducted in the absence of initiated force or fraud. I also propose that “force” be understood to mean impositions on persons or property without consent. Agreed?
LikeLike
I propose as a principle that interaction between humans should be conducted in the absence of initiated force or fraud. I also propose that “force” be understood to mean impositions on persons or property without consent.
As a principle I would agree that interactions between individual competent adults should be free of fraud or initiated force. For this purpose I would agree that force would include any imposition against knowing consent.
Corollary:
I would agree that a self governing group should rule by the consent of the governed, and here I refer to the majority, but not the entirety, of the members or citizens.
Other principles might be agreed whereby a majority cannot change the self-governing group so that it becomes cohesive over time, so that it cannot lose its functionality upon a mere majority vote, and so that it cannot take from a member that which would destroy her membership, absent a compelling reason.
***
I would examine the relationship of competent adults to children and incompetents separately. I would examine “property” separately.
***
When you write that the principles that serve the entire human race are objectively determinable do you mean by an algorithm?
If a universal moral notion is to serve less than the entire human race, then, of course, it will not be universal, correct?
It is easier to design morality for the USMC and a Code of Ethics to go with it than it is to design for the universal, because we know what the function of the USMC is, and what behavior will redound to the USMC’s long term functional success. We may be able to do that for a nation. For all of humanity, it will be difficult.
LikeLike
Mark:
When you write that the principles that serve the entire human race are objectively determinable do you mean by an algorithm?
I mean that if you know what is meant by “serve the entire human race” (I don’t know what you mean by that) and you know how to measure it, you can determine what actions are required to achieve it.
If a universal moral notion is to serve less than the entire human race, then, of course, it will not be universal, correct?
I’m not sure I know what you are asking/implying. But I think moral notions exist to guide the behavior of individual, rational beings. So to say they are universal is simply to say that they apply in the same manner and same respect to all rational individuals. If there are members of the human race that are not rational, then they will not apply to them. And if there are non-humans that are rational, they will apply to them.
LikeLike
This made me chuckle: the OED has released its list of new words and
BWAHAHAHAHA is one of them. I think 12BarBlues (of PL fame) should collect royalties.
LikeLike
Gene Kelly would have been 100 today.
LikeLike
I suppose this study or survey just confirms what most of us already know.
The Pew study found that some of the shrinkage in the middle class came from people moving into the upper-income tier, which represented 20% of the nation’s adults in 2011, up from 14% in 1971. The lower-income group rose to 29% of all adults, up from 25%.
But the money only went in one direction, Taylor said. Over the same period, only the upper-income group increased its share of the nation’s overall household income and now accounts for 46% of that total, up from 29% in 1971. The middle class garnered 45% of the total, down from 62% four decades ago. The lower-income group took in 9%, down from 10%.
Since 2000, the median income for America’s middle class has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487, the researchers found. But net worth plummeted over that period, with the median declining by 28%, erasing two decades of gains.
LikeLike
I had not known anything about these stats, so thanks. At first blush, they do appear to be a jumble of apples and oranges. Follow me:
If the middle class has shrunk because more people moved up than moved down, then the remaining group has skewed downward. If 14% were uppers in ’71 and 25% were lowers, than 61% were middles, in 1971. If you took the similar 61% of the population and arbitrarily labeled them the middle class in 2011, apparently their median income would have risen.
Does this not seem obvious to all of you from these numbers?
I am actually heartened if that is the case.
LikeLike
Every blogger needs one of these.
Logitech has released the K310, its first washable keyboard.
We’re not just talking about “splash proof” either — you can take the K310, immerse it in up to 30cm of water (12in), and give it a good scrub. The only limitation is you can only use standard washing up liquid — oh, and Logitech says you should try to keep the USB connector out of the water, too. Once you’ve washed the keyboard, simply leave it to dry. The user guide says it takes eight hours to air dry, and that you shouldn’t use a hair dryer. There are actually drainage holes on the backside of the K310, to help speed things along.
LikeLike
I noticed that also Mark. But then the other stats show that what remains of the middle class has fared worse over the last decade. I guess trickle down worked for a few and failed the rest?
I also just finished a piece from Kevin Drum, apparently our educational system isn’t doing as poorly as is being portrayed by some. Based on test scores, unless someone has a better gauge, all whites, blacks and hispanics have improved over the past 30 years.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on August 22, 2012 at 4:18 pm said:
In TX the County Judge in a big county is not a judicial officer, but the presiding officer over the County Commissioners. The County, will of course, have contingency plans if blue helmeted UN troops land outside their courthouse. Wake me when that happens.”
Perhaps they can change the remake of “Red Dawn” to “Blue Dawn”. I suspect the UN would make for a more realistic villain than the premise of an invasion by North Korea.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234719/
LikeLike
I suspect the UN would make for a more realistic villain than the premise of an invasion by North Korea.
Or aliens, the outer space kind. Sounds like Lubbock and Midland have a lot in common.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on August 23, 2012 at 8:42 am said:
Or aliens, the outer space kind. Sounds like Lubbock and Midland have a lot in common.”
It’s been done already:
“Cowboys & Aliens (2011)”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
LikeLike
I forgot about that one jnc. We watched a little bit of it this weekend clicking through the movie channels………………ugggghhhhh.
LikeLike
Ha. I remember seeing the trailer for that in the theater. My wife said, ‘what is this?” before the title was displayed, i said “dunno, looks like Cowboys and Aliens to me.”
LikeLike