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 | 1620.0 | 10.9 | 0.68% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2625.8 | -20.7 | -0.78% |
| Oil (WTI) | 101.8 | 0.5 | 0.53% |
| LIBOR | 0.27 | -0.001 | -0.37% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 84.38 | 1.152 | 1.38% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.68% | 0.18% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 103.9 | -0.5 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 102.6 | -1.2 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 203.5 | -0.7 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.4 |
Green on the screen after a strong jobs report. Stocks are up, while bonds and MBS are getting hammered
Note: many desks are going to be understaffed today as senior traders take a 4 day weekend. Thin markets tend to be volatile
The jobs report was pretty good, which is why bonds are selling off. Payrolls increased 195k vs the 165k expectations and the prior two months were revised upward by a total of 70k. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 7.6%. The labor force participation rate ticked up .1%. Hourly earnings increased, while hours were unchanged.
The employment report probably does not change anything with respect to the Fed’s intentions. They plan on tapering back purchases this year, and plan to end QE entirely when the unemployment rate reaches 7%, which they expect to happen in mid 2014.
With this report, the 10 year bond yield spiked to 2.68%. We should be best-exing into 4s at this point.
The MR will be spotty next week as I will be in SF for the Western Secondary Conference.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
I’m not so sure this jobs report is all that good.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-05/obamacare-strikes-part-time-jobs-surge-all-time-high-full-time-jobs-plunge-240000
Puts the tweet of the day in context.
@iowahawkblog: Unemployment report in a nutshell: the Taco Bell that had 30 40 hour workers now has 40 30 hour workers.
LikeLike
We’re in the best of hands.
@jaketapper: State Dept spox @jrpsaki corrects previous statement: Secretary of State @JohnKerry “was briefly on his boat on Wednesday” cc: @Mosheh
LikeLike
Delicious.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/shutdown-petitionswhitehousegov/r5Wbx5hx
LikeLike
This is pretty good.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/when-pols-lie
LikeLike
I’ve said it before, I’d love to see what they edited out of the Couric interview. Ask James O’Keefe, he’ll tell ya, only the networks are allowed to edit.
LikeLike
Interesting look at the legality of the Obamacare Employer Mandate waiver.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/03/the-implication-of-delaying-the-employer-mandate/
Upshot? You guessed it, standing.
LikeLike
We did our “refi” just as rates were beginning to spike. Navy Federal offered to drop our rate 1.25%, which was more attractive than an actual refi. I estimated that it would take 5 years for a refi to save us more money with respecto a rate adjustment. As we plan to move once the kids finish elementary school, it was a no brainer.
BB
LikeLike
“Navy Federal offered to drop our rate 1.25%, which was more attractive than an actual refi. ”
I heard from one of my old navy buds that NFCU was almost impossible to work with. Maybe it was because he locked his loan before rates moved up and NFCU figured it was better to just take the gain on the hedge and not originate the loan.
LikeLike
Tweet of the day
@hale_razor: “Yeah we lied about that stupid boat thing, but believe us when we say we didn’t hack Sharyl Attkisson’s computers.”
LikeLike
Come on, it’s not like they’ve had years to set this up!
@hale_razor: “Yeah we lied about that stupid boat thing, but believe us when we say we didn’t hack Sharyl Attkisson’s computers.”
LikeLike
McWing:
I didn’t get the boat reference until I just read Ace. It’s pretty amazing the ease with which this admin will lie.
LikeLike
We’re at the point now where those in the Administration and the media are so politicized that laws no longer matter. As in their perception of their opponents as enemies allows for any lawless behavior because to lose is unthinkable. Think back to Obama calling Republicans “hostage takers”, or the claim that Tea Party protesters called Representative John Lewis “nigger.” Or that Orzag accessed IRS data on the Koch brothers. A recent poll showed something like 30 of D’s beleived that Tea Partyer’s are worse than terrorists. If you believe that, what are laws but impediments to defeating your enemy (who’s intent is the destruction of the Country) not restraints on your actions.
It’s over.
LikeLike
An anecdotal look at hunger in America: A single mother with five kids tries to feed them off of a $8/hr job but with school out the $593/month food stamps payment doesn’t cover lunches when they are out of school so they eat from a food bank bus that makes the rounds of the local trailer parks each day.
LikeLike
yello:
I wonder what happened to Dad.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
Dan Abrams follows up on his GMA prediction, acquittal for Zimmerman.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/t/story?id=19598422#.UdnkHz7DVoY&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fdrudgereport.com%2F
LikeLike
In every homicide without an eyewitness, definitive forensics, or a confession or admission by a party against criminal interest, there is no way for anyone who has not heard every bit of circumstantial evidence and weighed the credibility of each witness to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer is guilty. Yet, somehow, pundits and the public have a field day rooting for one or another of the players on the stage.
Why? Not enough drama in one’s life?
Why should one small town shooting have a nationwide audience of kibitzers?
What is compelling about these characters? I submit the answer is nothing.
24/7 cable news has a dark side. This exemplifies it.
LikeLike
I’m still in holiday mode so all I’m gonna say is homegrown tomatoes, sliced with a little Gorgonzola and a homemade Italian dressing drizzled on top, buckwheat soba with green onions, tamari and sesame oil, and grilled summer squash with onions……..it’s what’s for dinner. I love summer meals.
Update………and cantaloupe for dessert.
LikeLike
Hey all, just thought I’d let you know I’m having some trouble getting into ATiM today. Not sure what’s going on but if I’m scarce you’ll know why.
LikeLike
Wow!
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/07/cameras_catch_mystery_break_in_at_whistleblowers_law_firm
LikeLike
I looked really hard for their FISA warrants. Right.
We can speculate about who paid for this outrageous burglary. I was the victim of one during the Nixon Admin. Nothing “valuable” taken, only one set of files in a case with federal officials as defendants. So my suspicion is centered on the Justice Department and the FBI itself, from that experience. I thought the casualness of the exercise and the exposure of the burglars to the video camera was brazen.
It will be interesting to see if the DPD investigation is hindered.
LikeLike
From Ezra:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) that governs the national surveillance state is also remaking the law. But it’s remaking the law in secret. The public has no opportunity to weigh in, and Congress can’t really make changes, because few know what the court is deciding, and almost no one can discuss the decisions without endangering themselves.
One example: The Wall Street Journal reports that the FISA court quietly reinterpreted the language of the PATRIOT Act so the word “relevant” — which governs the information the government can scoop up — no longer means, well, “relevant.” It means “yeah, sure, whatever you want.”
The Journal quotes Mark Eckenwiler,who served as the Justice Department’s primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law until December, saying, ”‘Relevant’ has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, ‘everything,’ is new.”
In the New York Times, Eric Lichtbau reports that this kind of ambition has become common on the FISA court. “The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.”
He quotes a former intelligence official who puts the situation very bluntly: “We’ve seen a growing body of law from the court.”
Surveillance types make a distinction between secrecy of laws, secrecy of procedures and secrecy of operations. The expectation is that the laws that empower or limit the government’s surveillance powers are always public. The programs built atop those laws are often secret. And the individual operations are almost always secret. As long as the public knows about and agreed to the law, the thinking goes, it’s okay for the government to build a secret surveillance architecture atop it.
But the FISA court is, in effect, breaking the first link in that chain. The public no longer knows about the law itself, and most of Congress may not know, either. The courts have remade the law, but they’ve done so secretly, without public comment or review.
“The government is operating under rules different from the rules that are made public,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.
These rules have been remade in a court where the government is the only witness, and there’s no possibility for appeal, and all 11 judges were chosen by Chief Justice John Roberts, and 10 of the 11 judges were Republican appointees to the federal bench. This is not a court like any other court in the United States save for the secrecy. It’s a court pretty much unlike any other in the United States.
When asked who watches over the National Security Agency’s surveillance efforts, the administration says that the FISA courts do. Trite as it may be, that leads to the age-old question: Well, then who watches over the watchers?
LikeLike
I just can’t get past the Orwellian Kafka-esqueness that you cannot disclose (often even to your lawyer) that you have been served with a National Security Letter forcing you to disclose otherwise privileged information. This is why all the internet companies can’t divulge what and how they are giving information to the NSA.
LikeLike
What is compelling about these characters? I submit the answer is nothing
The compelling story is that before there was the outrage and the national scrutiny it seemed like a person was going to literally get away with murder simply because the victim was black. In a way this is the opposite of the typical Nancy Grace story where it helps if the victim is a photogenic blonde.
And Zimmerman is a particularly pathetic piece of work. If he serves as nothing but a cautionary tale to other cop-wannabe vigilantes it would be a service to society. On the other hand, it could just embolden the law-and-order open-carry yahoos already endangering themselves and others with their 2nd Amendment machismo.
LikeLike
Yello, if he’s acquitted by this all white jury, do you think it will be because of race? Meaning that a white jury will forgive a White Hispanic for killing a African American teen?
LikeLike
if he’s acquitted by this all white jury, do you think it will be because of race?
An acquittal (which is a distinct possibility as the only other possible eyewitness who can dispute Zimmerman’s version of the events is dead) could be spun a lot of ways. The jury will think it’s because the prosecution didn’t sufficiently prove its case. More interesting to me is that the jury is all female. Is that supposed to favor defendants in some way?
LikeLike
What would your opinion of an acquittal be? Would race play a motive? If so, how much of one?
LikeLike
If Zimmerman is convicted is it because the DA was pressured into charging him because of the racial outcry by race baiters?
LikeLike
Yello, is that what you believe?
LikeLike
I believe that a neighborhood vigilante shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.
LikeLike
Ok, and if he, a White Hispanic, is acquitted by an all white jury of killing a African American teenager, do you think racism will have been a factor in the jurists decision? If so, how much of a factor?
LikeLike
I think this case is basically a Rorschach test. for me, it’s who started it.
based on what i’ve seen/heard, zimmerman was following him. that’s not starting it.
LikeLike
The jury is not all white (there is one non-white juror, I can’t remember if she’s black or hispanic) but it is all female.
NoVA: Zimmerman started it when he elected to get out of his truck and approach Martin, against the police department’s specific instructions.
LikeLike
My understanding is that Zimmerman was not in his truck at the time of the dispatcher’s comment:
Zimmerman was not in the car at the time of the comment “we don’t need you to do that.”
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/in-busting-zimmerman-myths-jonathan-capehart-perpetuates-the-greatest-myth-of-all/
Interesting read.
LikeLike
Transcript of Zimmerman call to the police dispatcher. He knew they’d told him not to follow, George. Why do you feel this seemingly pathological need to stick up for the guy?
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
LikeLike
Where have I demonstrated this pathology?
I think he’s guilty of manslaughter. But that doesn’t mean the prevailing narrative in the media is correct.
LikeLike
But that doesn’t mean the prevailing narrative in the media is correct.
If you think he committed manslaughter, I’m trying to figure out what narrative you object to.
LikeLike
Yello, the narrative that Zimmerman is a racist and or was motivated by bigotry and or racism.
Also, Ok, and if he, a White Hispanic, is acquitted by an all white jury of killing a African American teenager, do you think racism will have been a factor in the jurists decision? If so, how much of a factor?
LikeLike
if he, a White Hispanic, is acquitted by an all white jury of killing a African American teenager, do you think racism will have been a factor in the jurists decision?
Once again you keep asking the same question over and over again because you seem not to like the answers you are given. I am beginning to suspect you are a frustrated trial lawyer with this constant cross-examination.
Here’s another answer: This is America. When is race ever not a factor? As for how much of a factor, that remains to be seen. But how does one even quantify that? On a scale of OJ Simpson to Rodney King?
LikeLike
George, at least as reported by the news outlets that I’ve been following (NBC and Reuters, but not all that devotedly) racism hasn’t come up.
And the jury is mostly but not entirely all white, so your question is pointless.
LikeLike
Yello, I admit I’m am fascinated by your refusal to provide a direct answer. Why the reluctance? Obviously you are not obligated too but it seems strange.
LikeLike
I admit I’m am fascinated by your refusal to provide a direct answer. Why the reluctance?
There’s no reluctance to give you a straight answer when I have one. I try to give nuanced thoughtful responses but that isn’t what you are looking for. You just seem constantly overeager to drag accusations of racism or homophobia out of me when that isn’t what I’m accusing people of. It’s often not even what I’m discussing until you bring it up. It’s like a dog with a bone to you. In a courtroom you’d be fined for badgering the witness.
LikeLike
Fascinating.
LikeLike
Whatever. I’m not your dancing monkey or your living strawman.
LikeLike
Thank you for clearing that up. I’ll put away the organ grinder and matches.
LikeLike
yello:
You just seem constantly overeager to drag accusations of racism or homophobia out of me when that isn’t what I’m accusing people of.
I wonder why you keep referring to the guy Zimmerman shot as an “unarmed black teenager” unless you think his race is somehow relevant.
LikeLike
yello:
it seemed like a person was going to literally get away with murder simply because the victim was black.
That seems a pretty clear indication that you are the one bringing racism into it. And if anything, Mark “dragged” it out of you, not McWing. Although “dragged” hardly seems like an accurate characterization.
LikeLike
“Zimmerman started it when he elected to get out of his truck and approach Martin, against the police department’s specific instructions.”
unless I’m mistaken (very possible), the dispatcher testified that he is not permitted to order anyone to do anything. so while it may have been ill-advised, zimmerman was under no obligation to say in the car.
LikeLike
While I can’t type much right now. I agree 100% with Yello. And while it was only “suggested” he not follow, that does not excuse acting without common sense and one would think anyone with common sense would have halted all activity and wait for the REAL police to show up
Anyone who wants to take on the cause of being a vigilante, with a loaded weapon (as it was already loaded, 1 in chamber and safety off) should also take on the responsibility of shooting someone who has committed no crime, unarmed and only on his way home. He was indeed only 210 feet from his door when shot… that’s only a couple doors away from his own door. Nowhere near where Z parked his truck or where Z lives.
LikeLike
“should also take on the responsibility of shooting someone who has committed no crime, unarmed and only on his way home”
this basically comes down to who threw the first punch. Z either accosted Martin and is guilty. and following him while armed is not accosting him.
or, Martin didn’t take kindly to Z following him and picked a fight with an armed man. in that case, tough shitski.
LikeLike
nova:
the dispatcher testified that he is not permitted to order anyone to do anything. so while it may have been ill-advised, zimmerman was under no obligation to say in the car.
If you read the transcript of the 911 call, all the dispatcher says is “We don’t need you to do that” when Zimmerman says he is following Martin. And at that point it is not clear whether he is following Martin in the car, or is already out of the car.
LikeLike
Whether Z was in or out of his vehicle by the time they “suggested” he not follow, is irrelevant. Whatever happened to common sense? While they could not “order” him to stop following him, it was their “polite” way of saying “do not follow him, we have police on the way, it is their job to confront him”. Combine that with all instructions given to NWGs to never follow or confront, but ALWAYS contact the police if you suspect wrong doing and LET THEM HANDLE IT, hence the term “watch”, not “act”. He completely ignored any and all “suggestions” or “common sense” in continuing on his vigilante quest. And Z is the ONLY one still alive to “tell us truthfully” just what occurred.
Bottom line is, if any person, not in law enforcement, takes it upon themselves, to follow someone, anyone, with a loaded gun, ready to fire, with the intent to stop them from committing a crime, which they ONLY BELIEVE may occur, and ends up killing that person, should have to face the consequences of their actions. Vigilante actions is and should never be rewarded.
LikeLike
” Combine that with all instructions given to NWGs to never follow or confront, but ALWAYS contact the police if you suspect wrong doing and LET THEM HANDLE IT, hence the term “watch”, not “act”
why. they’ll just show up and shoot your dog.
LikeLike
I would rather my pet, whom I love very much, be shot, than an innocent person being stalked and killed by a vigilante. And I think your comment is worthless.
LikeLike
it was a bit glib.
my apologies.
LikeLike
NP Nova. We all get a little carried away at times.
LikeLike
nova:
this basically comes down to who threw the first punch.
I totally agree with you, nova.
LikeLike
And we will never ever know who actually threw the first punch as we only have the word of the one with the gun.
LikeLike
And the physical evidence.
LikeLike
Geanie:
And we will never ever know who actually threw the first punch as we only have the word of the one with the gun.
And still you want to throw the guy in jail, despite admittedly not knowing the key fact?
LikeLike
Keep in mind also that there are different degrees of criminality. Saying that Zimmerman isn’t guilty of murder doesn’t mean he’s not culpable in some manner.
LikeLike
As I said, we will never know, only Zman knows and he would never admit to it IF it was him. Either way, I see no reason for him to simply walk away. He stopped what he was doing, spied on someone walking, followed someone walking, called and reported it (good move there), used horrible racist language in one of the phone conversations, did not return to his vehicle when it was “suggested” he not follow T, and at some point, made sure his gun was ready to fire. And while many want to say that T turned back to surprise Zman, he was shot just doors from the entrance to where he was staying. IMHO, this was pure vilante and nothing more by someone who was determined to not let “this f*ing punk” get away.
But that is just MHO.
LikeLike
I know I know… vigilante, not vilante… stupid fingers don’t work very well these days.
LikeLike
And the injuries to Zimmerman were self inflicted? The stalked him and shot him in the back theory doesn’t seem very persuasive.
LikeLike
No one said anything about T being shot in the back. The problem is, no one knows who threw the first punch, right?
Well, since T was shot and killed 70 yards from the door of the residence he was staying at, that’s 210 feet, that’s about 2 doors away, seems to me Zimmerman followed him that close to his home. And we are to take Zman’s word for it that T jumped out and surprised him and beat him. Sounds more plausible to me that with Zman following him that far, that it was Zman who probably threw the first punch and the fight between the 2 followed.
But again, it’s only an opinion based on facts. Doesn’t mean T did not also strike at Zman. But it’s a long way from proving that T deserved to die. After all, he was so very close to the destination he was heading for, while Zman followed him the entire way.
I don’t trust Zman to tell the truth any further than I can throw him. He was out to stop T no matter what. And he succeeded.
LikeLike
Devotees of the trial of the week will enjoy these two former prosecutors who now teach crim law and crim procedure at G’twn Law and Alabama Law.
http://www.npr.org/programs/tell-me-more/
Their bottom lines: very very weak case for murder; tension is between guilty of lesser included manslaughter (their preferred charge) and not guilty. Race not a factor in the courtroom but is in the press and with the public. Sloppy job by prosecutor.
I don’t care about it at all. But it was on the car radio as I returned from a meeting, and as it was not the opinion of mere idiots I listened.
LikeLike