A few links that may be of interest…
Climate alarmist James Lovelock admits to being, well, a bit alarmist.
Voter ID laws? We don’t need no stinkin’ voter ID laws.
A Chinese company markets a new pair of sunglasses by naming them after Helen Keller.
The Obama admin embraces the implied racism of disparate impact laws.
Cool time lapse video of girl growing up, from infant to 12 years old.
Filed under: fun stuff, racism, voter ID laws | Tagged: climate change | 35 Comments »
Last week was the 151st anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, and yesterday was the 151st anniversary of Virginia’s declaration of secession from the United States. The outcome of the Civil War itself seems to have put an end to any questions about the constitutional legitimacy of secession, but there is no reason it should have. Might, as the cliche goes, does not make right, and so the constitutional question of whether the federal government is acting within its rightful powers to prevent a state from peaceably withdrawing itself from the Union cannot have been settled simply because the federal government was able to do so successfully. And of course, the Confederacy did itself and the underlying question no favors by firing on Fort Sumnter, making the withdrawal not so peaceable and providing Lincoln with a justification for sending in the troops. But I think the question still remains: Does the constitution prevent states from seceding from the Union?
It is interesting to note that between December 20, 1860 and April 12, 1961, the day on which Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumnter, 7 states declared secession from the Union, and neither President Buchanan nor President Lincoln, despite his rhetoric, took any official action against the seceding states. Following the war, Jefferson Davis was arrested for treason, but was never in fact tried, and while there were plenty of political reasons for the blanket pardon granted to those in the Confederacy, uncertainty about the lack of constitutional legitimacy of secession was certainly among them. And the southern states were not even the first to contemplate secession. During the War of 1812, a delegation of Federalist representatives from New England broached the subject of seceding, with the Massachusetts governor even considering coming to terms of a separate peace with Great Britain.
Certainly, in any event, it is difficult to square a view of the constitution as prohibiting secession with the foundation of the United States itself, of which an animating feature was the very presumption that a people could, by right, “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them”. Indeed, reading the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, one can’t help but hear the echo of the original Declaration of Independence, upon which they were so obviously modeled.
So, putting aside the moral question with which the secession movement of 1861 was inextricably linked, ie slavery, was the Federal government justified in waging war against the South, and does a proper reading of the constitution really grant it the power to wage such a war?
Filed under: Constitution, secession, states' rights | Tagged: secession, states' rights | 43 Comments »
Vital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1398.0 | 10.0 | 0.7% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2392.54 | 19.24 | .8% |
| Oil (WTI) | 100.31 | -1.35 | -1.33% |
| LIBOR | 0.4692 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 80.046 | 0.268 | 0.34% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.055% | -0.105% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 170.92 | 0.3 |
Almost all markets are closed today except for the USD fixed income market, so all Vital Statistics numbers are actually from yesterday’s close, except for the the 10y treasury yield.
Labor statistics came out this morning at 8:30. Change in non-farm payrolls came in at a very disappointing 120k (205k expected) with only a minor revision upward for last month, up 13k to 240k. Manufacturing jobs were up 37k, higher than expected (20k), and the unemployment rate fell again to 8.2% from last month’s 8.3%. But overall the numbers were very disappointing, which was reflected in the reaction of the only market open for trading.
Interesting price action on the treasuries right before today’s employment data came out. After closing yesterday at a yield of around 2.17%, the 10yr note hit 2.24% about 2 minutes before the numbers were released, and then with the disappointing employment data, the market rallied tremendously, and is now at 2.05%. The markets are somewhat illiquid with Europe on holiday and even a lot of the US market taking Good Friday off, so that can explain some of the large movement. Not a lot of people around to cover the large amount of buying after the number. But still the market seems to be hoping for, and betting on, some form of QE III, despite the minutes from last month’s Fed meeting ostensibly quelling that possibilty.
Futures markets close in about 5 minutes (11:15 EST) and the bonds will close by 1pm. So the day is pretty much over now. Europe is closed on Monday as well, so it will be interesting to see how the Euroean markets react on Tuesday to the violent move in US after a 4 day layoff. But Sunday night in Asia and then Monday morning should give us some idea if this rally is a bit overdone or if the market really is intent on seeing sub 2.00% yields again on the 10yr.
Happy Easter and Happy Passover to all who celebrate those things. To the rest…it’s looking like golfing weather is finally here.
Filed under: Morning Report | 4 Comments »
From the NYT today: Military Board Says Marine Who Criticized President Obama Should Be Dismissed
A military board has recommended dismissal for a Marine sergeant who criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page, including allegedly putting the president’s face on a “Jackass” movie poster.
The Marine Corps administrative board said after a daylong hearing late Thursday at Camp Pendleton that Sgt. Gary Stein has committed misconduct and should be dismissed.
The board also recommended that Stein be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean Stein would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.
The board’s recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.
Stein’s lawyers argued that the 9-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was expressing his personal views and exercising his First Amendment
Can the military legitimately restrict the rights of free expression of those who choose to be in the military, particularly with regard to criticism of the president? I am inclined to think that it can, especially because enrollment in the military is voluntary, and respect for the chain of command, which the president himself heads, is an important part of military culture. But I am curious what those who have been in the military actually think.
Filed under: law, Tea Party | Tagged: Marines | 27 Comments »
President Obama is nothing if not bold. Yesterday, in an abuse of language for which there is unfortunately a great deal of precedent, the president opined on SCOTUS’s recent hearing regarding the fate of ACA.
Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress
Unprecedented and extraordinary? Really? No law passed by Congress has ever been overturned by the court before?
Politics is politics, of course, and we all know the games of semantic deception that are regularly played by politicians. But, especially for a former professor of constitutional law, this is a particularly embarrassing departure from reality. Doesn’t it debase our politics even more than is already the case to have a Chief Executive who is so shameless in his disregard for the meanings of the words he uses and the reality he pretends to describe?
Filed under: 2012, aca, Obama, Supreme Court | 54 Comments »
Mich pointed something out to me a couple days ago of which everyone should be aware. It seems that, for reasons unknown (perhaps user error), occasionally a comment will end up in the trash rather than on the site as intended. I noticed this morning, for example, that a novahockey comment from yesterday is in the trash. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for it to have been trashed (in fact, I agree with it wholeheartedly!) so I am guessing it got put there inadvertently. If so, nova, you may want to go into the trashcan and reinstate it. Similarly, Mich discovered several posts in there earlier in the week, including one of her own, that didn’t belong there.
Anyway, I just wanted to make everyone aware, and perhaps it is sensible for everyone to occasionally check the trashcan from the dashboard to make sure nothing is getting mistakenly trashed.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
Vital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1345.55 | +2.19 | +.16% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2453.34 | +9.9 | +.41% |
| Oil (WTI) | 105.16 | +.48 | +.46% |
| LIBOR | 0.4746 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.882 | 0.026 | 0.03% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.957% | -0.03% |
Limited numbers out this morning. ADP employment, a precursor to the monthly employment data due out on Friday, came out on the screws (insider lingo for “as expected”) at +216K, with some minor upwards revision, +3k, to last months number. Non-farm productivity came in slightly higher than expected at .9%, and Unit Labor Costs significantly higher, at 2.8%, up from 1.2% from last week.
Greece remains a focus, as we wait for private bondholders to decide whether to accept the negotiated deal. The deadline to respond is tomorrow, but still no confirmation on when the results will be conveyed publicly. It will be interesting to see the implications for credit default swaps written on Greek debt if some of the bondholders are forced into the the agreement. Does this constitute a “credit event” triggering CDS payouts? ISDA (the International Swap Dealers Association) has said no, but also says that the situation is “evolving”. We shall see.
Equities are slightly up this morning across the globe, after yesterday’s drop down. Rates remain mostly stable after a significant rally yesterday, particularly in the longer end.
GM and Chrysler have announced plans to market LNG pickup trucks. The current cost of NG per BTU is eight times cheaper than oil. – Mark
Filed under: Morning Report | 2 Comments »
Our recent discussion about education, how it should be provided, and what kind of choices parents should be allowed to make with regard to the public provision of education has raised what to me is an interesting question. What is the ultimate purpose of having the government provide education, and more generally what is the purpose having the government provide any kind of social services at all? Is this done so as to benefit the individuals to whom the service is provided, or is it done so as to provide some kind of “social” benefit to the wider public?
Obviously the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An individual benefit may, of course, provide ancillary benefits to a wider group of people, just as a “public good” such as a road obviously benefits people individually. But I have always assumed that the primary motivation for those who advocate for the government provision of things such as education , health care, and other so-called social safety-net programs was out of a sense of compassion or duty towards the <i>individuals</i> who would derive an individual benefit from them. One of the reasons I have thought this is that those who oppose or want to limit the public provision of such things are so often accused of not caring about people and lacking in compassion.
However, recent discussions have suggested to me that at least some of you think these types of things should be provided by government primarily because of a “public good” aspect, ie that they are seen as somehow providing benefits to society at large, and that is why they should be pursued. If that is the case, then I think further questions are warranted. For example, how do we measure the “public good” provided by a particular program so as to judge whether or not the provision of the good is cost effective? Do the individuals who are clearly receiving an individual good as part of this effort then have an obligation to ensure that the desired “public good” comes to pass? If so, how do we enforce this obligation?
So I am curious who here agrees that education, health care, and other social services should be provided by the government primarily to promote some benefit to the public rather than the individual, and how do you answer the questions that arise from such an approach to the provision of these things?
Filed under: Uncategorized | 26 Comments »
So is KW turning into a slacker or is he just sick and tired of carrying the load for the rest of us? Well, if I must, into the breach once more…with cool sport videos.
Professional golfers try to skim a ball 200 yards across the water and hit a gong.
Foot volleyball. Incredible skill.
March Madness…in Legos:
A round ball, a hockey stick-like bat, a soccer goal, and football goalposts….must be Irish hurling.
Have a good weekend, all.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
Not as good as Kevin’s efforts, I’m sure, but since no one else is stepping to the plate….
Depressingly, two Australian professors and medical ethicists have written a paper arguing that newborn babies are not actual persons, are morally irrelevant, and have no moral right to life.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
After-birth abortion? I’m guessing the pro-choicers won’t be too happy with that nomenclature.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The New York Times editorial board initiates it’s own war on biology in an editorial about an attempt in New Hampshire to repeal a law legalizing same-sex marriage:
Representative David Bates, the Republican who filed the repeal bill, argues that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and he even included a sentence that says: “Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples.” This is breathtakingly dangerous foolishness.
Ah, the breathtakingly dangerous foolishness of how babies are made.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
How about a little March Madness primer:
Filed under: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
All Things in Moderation 