Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktStocks are lower after some bearish economic news out of Europe. Bonds and MBS are rallying. The 10 year bond is right at its May highs.
Mortgage Applications increased 1.6% last week, according to the MBA. Purchases fell 1.3% while refis increased 3.8%. It looks like overall mortgage rates increased 3 basis points or so over the week, while the 10 year was flat. Refis accounted for 55% of all loans, the highest percentage since May.
Wells is getting even more aggressive in the jumbo space. Minimum FICOs for a fixed rate jumbo have been lowered to 700 from 720. They also now do cash-out refis on jumbos and are buying jumbos on second homes on a correspondent basis. This is why the jumbo space is so competitive – banks can subsidize the jumbo mortgage and use that as an opening to pitch other bank services to the customer, particularly asset management.
Walgreen’s has decided to not pursue the tax inversion trade after intense political pressure from Washington. They will still purchase the remaining part of Alliance Boots, but will keep their headquarters in Chicago. This change will cost the company about a billion in excess taxes. If I was an arb, I would be nervously looking at my Abbvie / Shire position, and my Covidien / Medtronic positions, which are blowing out this morning.
Corporate inversions are going to be a political football going into midterms. First of all, nobody likes them. Companies don’t really want to do them, but they have to honor their fiduciary responsibilities. Politicians on both sides of the aisle despise them. The tax code is going to be changed to prevent them in the future. However, Republicans don’t feel much need to negotiate now, as they are pretty much guaranteed to keep the House and may in fact take the Senate. So their negotiating power can only get bigger. The Administration is pushing the “fix the inversion part of the tax code first, and then let’s do full tax reform later” argument. Of course Obama knows that he is going to have to trade closing loopholes for lower rates, so he wants to sneak in a freebie before negotiations start. That is a nonstarter for Republicans. Which gives Obama an opportunity to demagogue the issue and paint Republicans as defenders of corporate tax dodgers as the consolation prize.
Arbs are already reeling as Rupert Murdoch withdrew his offer for Time Warner last night. Fox also announced a big buy back, so arbs are getting killed on both sides of the trade. Tough, tough day to be in the risk arbitrage business…
Watch the data. The latest ISM numbers were quite strong, and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher is predicting that rates will have to increase sooner than it projected in the June dot plot if this economic strength continues. Remember the Fed’s “dot graph” – the dots for a tightening will move up. Fisher also said that the debate among the central bankers is “coming in my direction.” Bottom line – for the last 6 years you have been able to dismiss the hawks. The ground is shifting.
Counter-argument: The bond market is warning about a slowdown. At least one market strategist thinks the 10 year is heading to 2.2%. True, when the stock market and the bond market disagree, you usually want to side with the bond market. However, you have to keep in mind what is happening overseas and the concept of relative value. The German 10 year Bund yield has hit fresh lows – 1.104%. When rates are falling overseas, they will inevitably drag US Treasuries with them, simply due to relative value. FWIW, I don’t think the US bond market is signalling weakness in the US economy. Nor does Goldman.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Frist!
That’s right, you’ve been Fristed.
LikeLike
I think that’s the first Frist for you Kevin!
LikeLike
Is this a parody?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/11012398/Is-Gardeners-Question-Time-racist.html
LikeLike
To my way of thinking, this is a great issue to campaign on.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/06/how-the-obama-administration-lied-about-insurance-company-bailouts/
Theories on why it won’t be?
LikeLike
Theories on why it won’t be?
– why do you want children to die, bagger?
– bush lied about iraq
– it wasn’t a lie, just a bad estimate
– racist
– the number of uninsured fell
– it is too early to tell if they will need a bailout
– this is just darryl issa talking, isn’t it
LikeLike
Lol!
I guess I was thinking why the R’s ain’t campaigning on it. The only theory I can come to is that R leadership and majority elected R’s are in the pocket of the insurance lobby, along with the D’s.
Does anything else make sense?
If so, is there really any reason to vote for a Republican?
LikeLike
” is there really any reason to vote for a Republican?”
spite. and guns.
LikeLike
I think the popular nullification of the Connecticut and New Jersey gun registration laws prove that there really should be no fear of a inevitable Democratic gun grab.
Is spite enough of a reason?
LikeLike
well, if you’re not willing to go 3rd party or stay home.
so if you want to stay within the 2 party system, i’d say spite is an excellent reason.
Miracle Max: Wait. Wait. I make him better, Humperdinck suffers?
Inigo Montoya: Humiliations galore!
Miracle Max: That is a noble cause. Give me the sixty-five, I’m on the job.
LikeLike
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/214434-dems-throw-kitchen-sink-at-republicans
LikeLike
@lmsinca: Nope, third or fourth Frist for me. I just don’t get ’em nearly as much as others.
LikeLike
@McWing: “If so, is there really any reason to vote for a Republican?”
If the current occupant of the seat is a Democrat, then yes.
If the current occupant of the seat is a Republican, then no.
Just keep shoveling them in and out as fast as you can. It’s our only option!
LikeLike
Also, jeeze, we can’t let the Democrats think they are in for 40 years of one party rule. They get way too exuberant.
LikeLike
They already think that… We are just a bunch of white old farts who will die off eventually.
LikeLike
Speaking of old, white farts, I just got into a debate with a dude on a movie site about racism. Basically, that it doesn’t mean a pervasive, systemic, institutional discrimination (and thus, black people can’t be racists). It means discriminating against others based on race or racial identity, thus anybody can be a racist.
Man, was I try to muddy the waters with my “words mean things” nonsense.
LikeLike
Cool!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-have-more-reason-than-ever-to-worry-about-primary-challenges/
LikeLike
I have a couple of things this morning, one from Bernie that I thought was interesting.
This judge in AL treats abortion as a “right like any other” and rules against the state closing clinics that offer abortions. A similar ruling in MS last week I think it was. Not only that, but he compares it to gun ownership. It does you no good to have the right to bear arms if we close down all the gun dealers. That argument probably won’t go over very well.
And this one from Crooked Timber. I linked it at the PL last night but the response wasn’t very satisfactory. I’d actually just like to know what you guys think of the University’s decision. I think his Twitter comments were ill advised but I don’t find them offensive to the point of being hate speech. He’s very vocal about his derision for Netanyahu and what’s happening in GAZA but I don’t think he’s being anti-Semitic. Am I wrong? It sounds more political to me than anything.
Off to the gym bright and early this morning………………..I’ll check back later.
Wake up people!
LikeLike
lms:
I’d actually just like to know what you guys think of the University’s decision.
I don’t have a particular problem with it. The university has a right not to associate itself with particular views or, perhaps more relevantly, particularly offensive public expressions of those views. The whole point of these social network platforms is to make public statements! so people ought not be surprised when one’s use of it becomes part of the hiring process. I suppose there is some issue about whether the university should have known about this guy before it hired him, and whether it made clear the standards of public behavior expected of him before he quit his old job and accepted the offer.
But beyond that, I don’t see a problem. Suppose the guy had been talking about the moral depravity of, say, homosexuals instead of Zionists. I don’t expect there would be much concern about the university changing its mind about hiring the guy.
LikeLike
lms:
Greenhouse writes:
So I’ll start with where Judge Thompson ended his opinion in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Strange and it’s a point that has gone unsaid in too many quarters for too many years: the right to an abortion is a constitutional right like any other.
That is simply wrong. It is not a constitutional right “like any other”, certainly not like the right to bear arms, which is explicitly written into the constitution. The right to abortion is not explicitly written into the constitution. It is, at least ostensibly, implied by the right to privacy, which itself is also not written into the constitution, but is instead (again ostensibly) a “penumbra, formed by emanations” of the constitution. (In layman’s terms that means SCOTUS invented it from whole cloth.)
Having been invented by the court, the extent of the right is therefore necessarily subject to the whims of the court in a way that rights that are explicitly identified in the constitution are not.
As for the regulations that are allegedly forcing abortion clinics to close down, there is nothing about the existence of a constitutional right to something that exempts the providers of that something from the same regulations that are applied to other, similar providers. An ammunition manufacturer, for example, would still be subject to worker safety regulations even if those regulations made the business unprofitable in a certain area. Likewise, there is no reason that abortion clinics should be exempted from the same patient safety regulations that other similar out-patient clinics are subject to, simply because such regulations make running an abortion clinic more difficult.
If it is true that the requirement to have admitting privileges is one that is only applied to abortion clinics and no other medical out-patient clinics, and this requirement is impossible fulfill, then I think there might be a legitimate case to be made that such a regulation acts as a de facto illegalization of abortion, which is not allowed under the current Roe/Casey regime. However, if this requirement is a standard requirement for all kinds of medical out-patient facilities, of which abortion is just one, then I don’t see a legitimate argument for exempting abortion clinics from the requirement simply because one has a “right” to an abortion. One also has a “right” to all the other procedures that fall under the requirement, too.
LikeLike
BTW, thought this was revealing from Greenhouse’s article:
Even in the face of cynical and unrelenting political attack, the right to abortion can become stronger the more tightly it is stitched into the constitutional fabric, the more that smart and gutsy judges are willing to treat it as what it is, a right like any other.
Isn’t this an implicit admission that the right to abortion is not really “stitched into the constitutional fabric” as it is written, and must therefore be “stitched” in by “smart and gutsy judges”? It takes neither smarts nor guts to recognize the right to own a gun, because it is written right there, in plain words, in the constitution itself. That it takes “smart and gutsy judges” to recognize this right to an abortion suggest it really isn’t “like any other” constitutional right.
LikeLike
I think the definition of Zionist is what’s debatable here.
LikeLike
Scott, I do think the University is within it’s rights to not hire him but what I was really wondering is if anyone considers that hate speech in the legal sense?
LikeLike
lms:
I was really wondering is if anyone considers that hate speech in the legal sense?
I’m the wrong one to ask about that. I think the whole concept of “hate speech” as a legal classification is nutty.
LikeLike
Re the abortion clinic decisions, I like the decision for obvious reasons but I do think they are possibly on shaky legal ground.
Is it possible for a judge to accept Roe v Wade as a constitutional ruling based on a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14 Amendment and then find that closing the clinics places an unnecessary burden on exercising that right? I agree it seems a little out there but it makes a little sense to me anyway. Of course I don’t want all the clinics to close so I’m obviously prejudiced to the decision, I get that.
I’m wondering though if it makes legal sense to anyone. I know it doesn’t to you and I’m sure it wouldn’t to qb…………………Mark? JNC?
I thought it was an interesting ruling that could certainly undermine the march against abortion.
LikeLike
lms:
Is it possible for a judge to accept Roe v Wade as a constitutional ruling based on a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14 Amendment and then find that closing the clinics places an unnecessary burden on exercising that right?
Unfortunately under the “living constitution” theory it is possible for a judge to accept virtually anything. But that aside, we should be clear that the government isn’t “closing the clinics”. The clinics are closing because they either cannot or choose not to abide by regulations that all other surgical out-patient clinics are required to abide by. And to me the relevant question, which no one ever answers, is why should abortion clinics be exempt from the same rules that all other medical clinics must follow? If it is an undue burden to require admitting privileges for a doctor performing an abortion, why isn’t it also an undue burden to require, for example, a lasik eye surgeon to have admitting privileges?
LikeLike
Scott
I think the whole concept of “hate speech” as a legal classification is nutty.
I’m not sure I’d call it “nutty” but I do think it is difficult to define. The reason I ask is that apparently the U of IL has some sort of statute against hate speech and I think his firing, or rescinding his offer, was based on that.
LikeLike
I have my doubts about criminalizing any speech, including shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
LikeLike
I have my doubts about criminalizing any speech
Believe it or not I actually do to McWing, but I do think there are obvious consequences and maybe his situation is just one of those consequences. I thought it was an interesting dilemma and I’m not sure the University made the right decision, not because I agree with him, honestly I don’t know what to make of the Israel Gaza conflict, but because it seemed politically motivated to me.
LikeLike
I would think that at a University anything regarding speech is a go. “Tolerance” and all that. On the other hand if it’s a public school, a state U or community college, there is a limit that I as a taxpayer, am willing to fund.
I should be allowed to yell “nigger” in public and if I get my ass kicked, well, that’s a consequence of what I said. Should the ass kicker be prosecuted? Yes. Convicted? Depending on the circumstances I might nullify. Sometimes having to defend yourself legally is enough of a punishment and of a disincentive to control oneself. Ditto the pain and expense of getting one’s ass kicked.
LikeLike
Scott
And to me the relevant question, which no one ever answers
I thought we’d already discussed this. A lot of us don’t believe the restrictions are valid in the case of abortion and that it’s simply a back door way of shutting down the clinics.
I haven’t checked all the links out in this Reason piece but there is obviously quite a bit of support for the notion that the “new” regulations are unnecessary.
While horrific cases of unclean and disgustingly run abortion mills in Philadelphia, Houston, and elsewhere lend credence to the safety issue, they are clearly outliers. In Virginia, for instance, “since 1974 state data show only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester abortions, the complication rate is 0.3 percent.”
Again, that isn’t an argument per se for or against abortion. But everyone interested in good-faith arguments should acknowledge that piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/09/abortion-is-a-low-risk-procedure-that-do
LikeLike
lms:
A lot of us don’t believe the restrictions are valid in the case of abortion…
Yes, but why? Why are they “valid” with regard to other out-patient procedures but not abortion?
Reason’s argument that “piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst” is perfectly reasonable, but it applies as a generic principle, not just in the case of abortion. There are surely innumerable types of procedures that have equally low complication rates, but are nevertheless subject to the admitting privileges requirement.
If you are arguing that admitting privilege requirements in general ought to be eliminated, or that the requirement should not apply to any procedures that fall below a minimum complication threshold, then that is a reasonable argument and probably one that I would agree with in principle. But the fact is that these types of regulations are generally championed as necessary additional patient protection in the unlikely event that something goes wrong regardless of the general safety record of the procedure. Except, of course, abortion, For some reason abortion is treated as a special case. I don’t see any sensible reason why it should be exempt from whatever regulations govern all other out-patient surgical procedures.
LikeLike
McWing
I would think that at a University anything regarding speech is a go. “Tolerance” and all that.
That’s what I think too for the most part.
LikeLike
Scott
From one of those links in the Reason piece.
In September, the remaining abortion providers in Texas face an expensive hurdle when another rule takes effect that imposes surgical center standards for clinics, even those that perform nonsurgical medication abortions.
The first rule that closed clinics in TX was that abortion providers needed admitting privileges at hospitals……………..naturally they were denied. But it’s just as effective, according to what I’ve read, going through the ER as having admitting privileges.
LikeLike
lms:
In September, the remaining abortion providers in Texas face an expensive hurdle when another rule takes effect that imposes surgical center standards for clinics, even those that perform nonsurgical medication abortions.
If a clinic performs no surgical abortions, then it seems to me to be inappropriate to hold them to a standard that only applies elsewhere to clinics engaging in some kind of surgery. But I wonder how many clinics there are that only provide medication abortions. For example, I just looked at the local Planned Parenthood website, and any client that wants to get take the abortion pill (medication abortion) can only do so up to 10 weeks, and must agree upfront to undergo an “in-clinic” abortion (a surgical abortion) in the event that the abortion pill fails. So PP obviously, and necessarily, does both. I would imagine the same is true of most other clinics.
LikeLike
Scott
but it applies as a generic principle, not just in the case of abortion.
I don’t think that is their argument actually, that it’s a generic principle. They only mention abortion and no other procedures. I think it’s somewhat blind to believe the states passing these laws are doing it because of a safety issue, rather than as a means of closing abortion clinics and circumventing the legal access that women enjoy in other states.
Even Reason gets that.
LikeLike
lms:
I don’t think that is their argument actually, that it’s a generic principle.
I don’t know whether it is or not, but that is the only way the argument makes sense. Otherwise they are left arguing that it is OK to “pile on” regulations for little or no health benefit in all cases except abortion, which should be treated differently. Knowing Reason, I doubt they would argue such a thing.
I think it’s somewhat blind to believe the states passing these laws are doing it because of a safety issue
Well, I don’t think it is just a coincidence that these laws are being promulgated in the wake of Gosnell, so I wouldn’t dismiss the safety issue altogether. But clearly they are being promulgated in states that, if left to their own devices without the interference of the Supreme Court, would probably restrict abortion much more severely than they are allowed to under Roe/Casey. So yes, making it more difficult to get an abortion is surely a big motivating factor.
But that is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. What motivates them is of no concern to me if what they are doing is simply eliminating the exemption from standard regulations that apply to all other out-patient clinics, an exemption for which there is no justification in the first place.
And, of course, I think states should be able to restrict abortion as they, not the Supremes, see fit. So if they are able to do get around the blatantly a-constitutional ruling by the court and restore some measure of power back to the people of Texas (or whatever state) that the constitution reserves to them, that is fine with me.
LikeLike
Scott
I doubt they would argue such a thing.
Why not? If there’s no evidence that legal abortion clinics are not already meeting the standards set by the medical community at both the state and federal level then their point is exactly that these regulations are unnecessary. Why they don’t take up the regulations at other facilities is up to them. The subject is abortion and the sudden “need” for new regulations. They said it themselves,
that piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst.
So yes, making it more difficult to get an abortion is surely a big motivating factor.
Thank you!
LikeLike
lms:
Why not?
Because Reason is not generally prone to making arbitrary arguments. It is usually sensible, consistent, and principled. If they oppose a given regulation being applied to abortion providers on the grounds that it does little or nothing to protect the safety of the patient, then consistency would compel them to oppose the regulation being applied to any other provider of any other service if the regulation does little or nothing to protect the safety of the patient getting that procedure. And knowing what I do about Reason, I would expect then to be consistent and principled.
If there’s no evidence that legal abortion clinics are not already meeting the standards set by the medical community at both the state and federal level then their point is exactly that these regulations are unnecessary.
But they are manifestly not meeting the same standards that the “medical community” has set. They have been exempted from those standards, for no justifiable reason.
Now you may argue, and Reason does seem to argue, that those standards will not provide any additional safety benefit. Fine. But then, it seems to me, they most certainly don’t provide any additional safety benefit for all sorts of other procedures either, yet they remain required for those other procedures. Why? Shouldn’t the other procedures also be exempted, just like abortion? If not, why not?
Is it really possible that of all the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of surgical out-patient procedures that are performed daily in this country, abortion and abortion alone is the sole, solitary one for which this particular regulation provides no additional safety value to the patient? Seems unlikely to me.
LikeLike
lms:
Thank you!
It’s a point I have been making myself for a long time. It isn’t exactly a secret. Almost exactly 2 years ago I said:
Many Republicans want to prohibit, or at least severely restrict, access to abortion. The Supreme Court, via Roe, has made it impossible for them to take on the task directly, so they have had to do so indirectly, focusing, in your terms, on targets of opportunity instead of frontal assaults. This results in, for example, attempts to defund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and the passage of laws like the Virginia ultrasound bill, and attempts to define life so as to bring the fetus under the purview of laws outside of the reach of Roe, among others But all of these “guerrilla campaigns” are designed to do one thing – end the practice of legal abortion.
LikeLike
BTW Scott, did you happen to notice that one of the sources quoted in their piece was Reuters………………LOL
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that the drafters of these laws that seem so onerous are making no secret of why they are doing it. In fact, they’re probably arguing that it’s why they were elected in the first place.
I would argue that pro-lifers should draft and push for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion as a way to remedy it. I’d also argue pro-Choicers really need to draft and attempt to institute a CA allowing for abortion.
LikeLike
McWing:
I would argue that pro-lifers should draft and push for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion as a way to remedy it. I’d also argue pro-Choicers really need to draft and attempt to institute a CA allowing for abortion.
The trouble with that is that both alternatives reject federalism as the obvious solution to an issue the type of which is exactly what federalism is especially good at resolving.
LikeLike
The CA is the only remedy for the absolutists. If your position is that any abortion is murder, how does Federalism appease you if murder is occurring in, say, MA? Think John Brown. He wasn’t satisfied with a real example of Federalism. Ditto pro-Choicers. I don’t think LMS would be satisfied with abortion legal in MA but banned in Texas.
Their positions demand a universal approach. If that’s what they think then a CA is really the only legitimate approach.
LikeLike
McWing:
The CA is the only remedy for the absolutists.
That’s a fair point.
If that’s what they think then a CA is really the only legitimate approach.
True, but the left has had so much success amending the constitution via the courts I doubt they will ever again attempt to amend it legitimately, outside of perhaps for administrative reasons.
LikeLike
McWing
I’m pretty sure that the drafters of these laws that seem so onerous are making no secret of why they are doing it.
Not quite, from the Reason link and believe me it’s widespread in the state legislature passing these new regulations.
Defenders of the new regulations say that they are simply protecting the safety of women.
“This is really necessary to ensure that woman are treated with care consistent with their human dignity,” says Mallory Quigley of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBL), a pro-life organization. A woman who chooses to have an abortion, says Quigley, should be able to do so without fearing for her health and safety.
And then Reason goes on to say; While horrific cases of unclean and disgustingly run abortion mills in Philadelphia, Houston, and elsewhere lend credence to the safety issue, they are clearly outliers. In Virginia, for instance, “since 1974 state data show only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester abortions, the complication rate is 0.3 percent.
LikeLike
lms:
While horrific cases of unclean and disgustingly run abortion mills in Philadelphia, Houston, and elsewhere lend credence to the safety issue, they are clearly outliers. In Virginia, for instance, “since 1974 state data show only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester abortions, the complication rate is 0.3 percent.
But if it will Save Just One Life…
LikeLike
Scott
then consistency would compel them to oppose the regulation being applied to any other provider of any other service if the regulation does little or nothing to protect the safety of the patient getting that procedure. And knowing what I do about Reason, I would expect then to be consistent and principled.
Except they didn’t mention any other surgical, or otherwise, standards just the abortion ones. I think they’re being consistent and principled by saying this;
Again, that isn’t an argument per se for or against abortion. But everyone interested in good-faith arguments should acknowledge that piling on regulations that do not demonstrably improve safety are mistaken at best and disingenuous at worst.
But they are manifestly not meeting the same standards that the “medical community” has set.
Yes, they were meeting the standards as set for abortion clinics. What happened is someone thought this would be a good way to close down the clinics without admitting that’s what their goal was. We all know it obviously is. I simply wanted you to say it because that’s not what these legislators are saying. They even tried to pass concern for safety issues of women off in the legal proceedings that were recently ruled on, and the judges didn’t buy it any more than Reason did.
You want liberals to just be honest about what they want…………………..okay, let’s ask conservatives to do the same.
LikeLike
lms:
Yes, they were meeting the standards as set for abortion clinics.
But why abortion clinics exempted from the generic standards required of all other surgical out-patient clinics? Do you really think it is because virtually every other procedures is significantly more dangerous to the patient than abortion? Or is it because the abortion lobby has special political pull that no one else has?
You want liberals to just be honest about what they want…………………..okay, let’s ask conservatives to do the same.
I don’t think anyone who advocates for these policies would deny that they would like to outlaw abortion. They are actually quite upfront about it. You don’t join a “pro-life organization” if you are trying to hide the fact that you want to outlaw abortion.
LikeLike
But if it will Save Just One Life…
Except that’s not their goal, their goal is to shut the clinics down and besides I did admit in my recent post that “saving just one life” isn’t actually a good reason for legislation. My point in that post was that once you’ve been through losing one life, your perception changes, for better or worse. No sympathy here for such a perception though obviously.
And I quote myself,
That old saying “if it saves one life it’s worth it”, which the guy quoted below actually says at the end of his testimony, and most of us know is not a very legitimate tool to use to bring about change
LikeLike
lms:
Except that’s not their goal,
Au contraire. From their perspective, that is precisely their ultimate goal.
Edit: Corked by McWing
LikeLike
@ScottC: “I’m the wrong one to ask about that. I think the whole concept of “hate speech” as a legal classification is nutty.”
Hate speech has basically come to mean “other people saying mean things that we don’t like”. It’s an attempt to abridge a very clear right to free speech, when applied in a legal setting. In a university, of course, they have their own rights to hire and fire who they choose within the scope of their own policies, so they can define whatever speech they don’t like as “hate speech”. But as a legal concept, it seems very weak, and often bordering on unconstitutional.
Rush Limbaugh? Hate speech! Shut the mother down.
Michael Moore? Hate speech! Shut the mother down.
And so on.
LikeLike
Those that think all abortion is murder believe absolutely that it saves lives, significantly more lives.
If you don’t think all (or any) abortion is murder then a total ban would cost lives of mothers due to complications from illegal abortions.
A interesting question is would more women die from that or die today from complications of both legal and botched abortions?
LikeLike
No sympathy here for such a perception though obviously.
That doesn’t seem to be a just conclusion. Arguing that that experience does not make for a good argument to justify action by force of law is not the same as not being sympathetic to the persons painful experience. Not (in your view) adequately acknowledging emotionally isn’t evidence of the absence of sympathy.
LikeLike
Uhhhhh, you both missed the point, they’re claiming it’s for the safety of the Mothers. Obviously, they’re opposed to abortion. The point is they’re using a bogus concern for the mothers to shut the clinics down. That would be the same mothers, that a certain percentage of, will be finding less legal and safe means to have an abortion.
LikeLike
McWing
Not (in your view) adequately acknowledging emotionally isn’t evidence of the absence of sympathy.
I’m not talking about the absence of sympathy for the experience, I’m talking about the absence of sympathy for changing one’s views because of it.
LikeLike
Okay, it’s been real guys……………off to swim a few laps………………….LATER!
LikeLike
I’m not talking about the absence of sympathy for the experience, I’m talking about the absence of sympathy for changing one’s views because of it.
I’m pretty sure no one wrote anything like that. It seems that it’s self evident that a tragedy would change one’s perspective. Is it you position that tragedy changing a victims perspective is not self evident?
LikeLike
McWing, of course it’s self-evident but where I differ from Scott, for instance, is I do believe the man who lost his sister or people like me have a place in testifying. Our reality becomes actual reality when the bodies start to pile up. It’s offensive to some that emotion is a force that I think should be recognized in changing policy where there is a shortfall. That’s all I was thinking.
I’m not completely sure that Scott’s disinterested third parties are always the best to either design law or recognize the need for new ones. It seems to me no one is really a disinterested third party in today’s culture, or maybe there never really was such a thing. I don’t know, I was only trying to point out that even a man like Daniel who considers himself a gun loving, constitutional conservative can, and will, have a change of heart when the shit hits the fan.
No reason really to re-debate the thread though…………..I pretty much got what I expected from it.
LikeLike
Did anybody say that those victims if you will should not be allowed to participate in the debate and therefore influence it? The argument was that for the same reason victims or their survivors don’t serve as judge and or jury to those that perpetrated the affront. Victim’s often testify at trials. The argument wasn’t that the aggrieved’ perspective isn’t valuable, just that it should not be the primary or overriding factor.
LikeLike
Okay McWing………………you win.
LikeLike
Hunh?
LikeLike
You win this point. I was wrong. You and Scott didn’t say what I heard.
LikeLike