Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
Filed under: 4th of July | Leave a comment »
Bye Bye, Great Britain
Posted on July 4, 2012 by ScottC
In CONGRESS, July 4 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton
Filed under: 4th of July | 7 Comments »
I LOVE THIS COUNTRY
Posted on July 3, 2012 by okiegirl
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY TO ATiM.
But beware the new immigration policy set to go into effect soon. I blame Obama. Mark, lms and I should be very afraid.
Filed under: 4th of July | Tagged: immigration | 20 Comments »
Conservatives Behind the 8-Ball
Posted on July 3, 2012 by ScottC
Ever since last week I have been contemplating writing a post about the Supremes and judicial philosophy, but have not had the time to really put my thoughts in order, so I have put it off. Today, however, William McGurn, writing in the WSJ, noted in passing precisely the topic I wanted to write about, so I figured I would just highlight what he said. His article is primarily about Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to switch votes on the ACA case for what are seemingly political rather than constitutional reasons. But what caught my attention, and what I have been thinking about for a few days now, was the following aside:
Justice Scalia’s dissent in Casey illuminates a political handicap imposed on conservatives by their own principles. Whereas the liberal belief in a living Constitution allows them to stretch its limits to justify almost any desired outcome, conservatives believe the Constitution imposes real limits.
This strikes me as a real handicap. This is not to say that conservatives on the Court everywhere and always apply that belief and those limits consistently. We need look no further than Roberts and the recent decision itself to know that. But it seems to me that conservatives are uniquely open to the charge of failing to uphold their self-proclaimed principles because they actually profess to have some.
Putting aside whether or not the charge of hypocrisy actually had merit, at the very least it is fair to question whether or not the conservative bloc ruling in Bush v Gore set aside ostensible principles (eg states rights) in order to reach a politically desireable result. But imagine a mirror situation in which the reverse had happened. Imagine that a liberal majority on the court had made precisely the same ruling resulting in a Gore victory. The liberals might be accused, as they often are, of simply ignoring the constitution out of convenience. But who could ever seriously charge them with judicial hypocrisy? If liberal constitutional philosophy is correct and it is true that the constitution is “living” and therefore its meaning perpetually in flux depending social norms, circumstances, or who knows what else, then at any given time their interpretation of it may well be the “correct” one, even if it stands in contrast with the plain words of the constitution itself.
Basically, it seems to me that conservatives advance a theory of constitutional interpretation that makes conservative opinions objectively critique-able on their own terms, while liberals do not. That is why hand-wringing over the legitimacy and politicization of the Court inevitably centers around conservative Court opinions, and never, ever around liberal Court opinions. Again, the recent ACA case is instructive. Conservatives are now attacking Roberts, not the liberal bloc that voted with him and made up 80% of the majority, for what seems to be a politically inspired opinion, not because they think liberals aren’t being political, but because Roberts seems to have gone against his principles, while the liberals were just doing what liberals do.
Filed under: Supreme Court | 24 Comments »
Morning Report 7/3/12
Posted on July 3, 2012 by Brent Nyitray
Vital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1358.2 | 0.6 | 0.04% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2309.4 | 17.3 | 0.75% |
| Oil (WTI) | 85.75 | 2.0 | 2.39% |
| LIBOR | 0.461 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.93 | 0.057 | 0.07% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.59% | 0.00% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 182.8 | 0.3 |
Markets are flat ahead of the 4th of July on a holiday-shortened day. Bonds will close at 1:00 pm, and stocks will close at 2:00. There is very little economic data this morning. We have the jobs report later this week and then earnings season kicks off with Alcoa on Monday.
Bob Diamond is out at Barclay’s after political pressure from the LIBOR pricing scandal forced him to resign. He will be in front of Parliament tomorrow to address questions regarding the scandal and is prepared to fight back with claims the regulators knew what was going on and didn’t object for fear the banking system would be further destabilized if the markets knew the truth. Needless to say, the politicians are shocked to find gambling in this establishment.
The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has an interesting paper on housing bubbles. Needless to say, they let the Fed off the hook, and continue with the standard academic “angels dancing on the head of a pin” argument about how to identify a bubble. But that isn’t the most interesting part of the paper. Most people know that Scandinavia experienced a massive housing bubble in the late 80s. When it burst, many banks failed, and Sweden effectively nationalized its banking system.
However, in contrast to the Japanese experience, house prices in Norway had a V-shaped rebound and have subsequently passed their old peak by 130%. This has caused the household debt to income ratio to increase to 210%. By way of comparison, that ratio peaked at 130% in 2007 here. If oil prices collapse and that bubble bursts, Norway will undoubtedly hit the wall. It will be interesting to see how that government reacts. But the more interesting observation is how you can have a second bubble so soon after one bursts.
The US government is pulling out all the stops trying to put the air back into the housing bubble. Most people assume they will fail. Norway shows that it is possible they may be able to pull it off.
Right now, all the pundits and talking heads are discussing how smart the Scandinavians have been with their “smart regulation.” and how we should emulate them. Similarly, everyone loved the US model in the late 90s and everyone thought the Japanese had cracked the code in the 80s. Often times, the countries that are the flavor of the day just happen to be in the glory days of a bubble that will eventually burst. That prosperity is never permanent.
Have a happy 4th of July.
Filed under: Morning Report | 14 Comments »
Morning Report 7/2/12
Posted on July 2, 2012 by Brent Nyitray
Vital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1355.4 | -1.0 | -0.07% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2280.3 | 15.5 | 0.69% |
| Oil (WTI) | 83.5 | -1.5 | -1.72% |
| LIBOR | 0.461 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.88 | 0.253 | 0.31% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.59% | -0.06% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 182.8 | 0.3 |
Markets are flattish after Friday’s furious rally and some disappointing economic data. Expect low volume this week as the 4th falls on a Wed. There are no major European events on the calendar this week. Bonds and currencies should close early tomorrow. The 10-year is up about point and a half and MBS are up slightly.
In another bullish sign for the real estate market, we have been seeing someone establishing a long position in the RPX futures market.
Merger Monday is back, as we have $15 billion in new deals this morning. Bristol-Myers is buying Amylin and Linde is buying Lincare. Dell has won the bidding war for Quest Software.
The ISM PMI showed contraction in the manufacturing sector – the first such reading since July of 09 – as new orders collapsed. Economists missed the number big-time, as the index came in at 49.7 vs expectations of 52. The drop in commodities prices dropped the prices paid index to 37 from 47.5.
The Markit PMI shows that manufacturing is not accelerating as the economy expands. The index fell to 52.5 from 54 in May. Remember that 50 is more or less the “zero point” and numbers below indicate a contraction in business conditions. In other words, the latest reading indicates conditions are getting better, but just barely. Weakness in Europe is being offset by stronger domestic demand.
Filed under: Morning Report | 9 Comments »
Late Sunday Funny
Posted on July 2, 2012 by lmsinca
Saturday Bites & Pieces: Southern Comfort
Posted on June 30, 2012 by okiegirl
I’m baaaack! There has not been time yet to catch up on all the ATiM posts and comments, but at a glance you certainly had some interesting discussions that I very much look forward to reading more thoroughly. Thanks to all of you for that gift.
Mexico was fabulous, although I only got out of the resort for one excursion so unfortunately don’t feel like I experienced any of the local culture. The food at the resort was plentiful but IMHO so-so in quality, with a few notable seafood exceptions, and obviously off-the-charts in sodium content. So I’m happy to get back to my regular low-sodium diet, and this recipe is both quite healthy and very low sodium (fairly rare on both counts for a “comfort food”).
While shopping today at my local farmers market, I was overwhelmed by the gorgeous and inexpensive produce. I wanted everything, so it took some self-discipline not to buy too much. The local okra is coming in plentifully, and it inspired me to make one of my favorite southern-style comfort foods. I love okra. If this summer is as hot as last summer, I’m sure it will be another bumper crop. I grew up eating a version of this (proportionately much more chicken) served over grits, but it’s just as good or better served over rice. The original recipe (for the below, not for what I grew up eating) calls for twice the amount of chicken and half the amount of okra I’ve included below, but my modification lowers the calorie and fat content significantly. If you are not particularly fond of okra, you probably would still like this in the original proportions or you could substitute squash or another veggie for the okra. I hope you’ll give it a try.
FB, this is another “one-pot” meal (except for the grits or rice), but I have no idea if your boys will eat okra, especially considering the texture issues many people have with okra. And it takes at most 30 minutes to prep and cook.
CHICKEN WITH OKRA AND TOMATOES
Makes 2 servings, 1 ½ cups each
Ingredients
1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil
1 medium onion, chopped
1/2 cup fresh or frozen corn kernels
4 ounces boneless, skinless chicken thighs, trimmed of fat and cut into 1-inch chunks
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 teaspoon paprika
Pinch of cayenne pepper, or to taste
1 14-ounce can diced tomatoes, preferably no salt added
2 cups fresh or frozen sliced or chopped okra
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
1/8 teaspoon salt
Preparation
Heat oil in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add onion and corn and cook, stirring often, until lightly browned and softened, about 4 minutes. Add chicken and cook, stirring often, until browned, about 2 minutes. (The chicken just needs to be browned, not cooked through because it will be cooked later.) Add garlic, paprika and cayenne and cook, stirring, until fragrant, about 30 seconds. Add tomatoes and okra. Bring to a boil; reduce heat to a simmer. Cover and cook, stirring occasionally, until the chicken is cooked through, about 5 minutes. Add pepper and salt.
Nutrition
Per serving: 175 Calories; 4 g Fat (1 g Sat); 33 mg Cholesterol; 23 g Carbohydrates (8 g Sugar, 6 g Fiber); 13 g Protein; 173 mg Sodium
P.S. I STILL l.o.v.e the Thunder. They had a great year.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Old Fashioned Sweet Cherry Conserves
From The Joy of Cooking, 75th Anniversary Edition
Makes enough for about eight 1/2-pint jars
- Wash and cut 2 oranges into very thin slices, discarding any seeds.
- Barely cover with water in a large saucepan, about 1/4 cup, and cook until very tender.
- Wash, stem, pit (see Note below) and add 1 quart cherries.
- Add 6 tablespoons bottled lemon juice, 3 1/2 cups sugar, 1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon, and 6 wholes cloves tied in a cheesecloth bag.
- Simmer the conserves, stirring frequently until thick and clear.
- Discard the spice bag and ladle the hot conserves into hot 1/2-pint jars, leaving 1/4-inch of headroom. Process for 15 minutes.
Note: To pit the cherries, I treat them like olives. First put on an old t-shirt (one that you use for painting would work well), then take the cherries, a chef’s knife, and a cutting board outside to an area that will clean up easily (a pool deck is probably perfect). Using the flat side of the blade, whack a couple of cherries at a time and remove the pit(s). Once all of the cherries are pitted, go back inside and finish the conserves.
Filed under: Bites and Pieces, recipes | Tagged: Okra | 25 Comments »
Gay Marriage Strawman 4: I Pronounce You Man and Wife and Wife and Wife
Posted on June 30, 2012 by yellojkt
Fourth is a four part series which closes out Pride Month.
I have previously discussed pedophilia and bestiality as slippery slope oppostions to to gay marriage. Another one frequently brought up is polygamy. When in doubt, the man whose name is synonymous with slippery slope (so to speak) metaphors, Rick Santorum is always good for a quote.
“So, everybody has the right to be happy? So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?”
Rick is prone to these Socratic rhetorical outbursts, but why did he pick that particular example when ‘man on dog’ had been such a winner for him in the past? Well, Eugene Volokh in the Hofstra Law Review explicitly endorses polygamy as a slippery slope gambit.
And as it happens, there probably is a large group of American listeners that neither firmly opposes nor firmly supports same-sex marriage, but pretty firmly thinks that polygamy ought not be recognized, and a smaller but nontrivial group that is open to same-sex marriage but skeptical about at least some kinds of bans on sexual orientation discrimination. People in these groups are thus potentially swayable by the slippery slope argument.
As I mentioned in my last post, the most common definition arrayed against gay marriage is that it is traditionally between one man and one woman. And while I find the gender distinction irrelevant, some people fixate on the ‘one’ part of the circumlocution. They feel that allowing gay marriage could lead to polygamy, not realizing that polygamy exists in lots of countries already, many of them highly opposed to gay rights of any variety, so the connection is tenuous at best. Polygamy is a Biblicly endorsed practice along with slavery and the shunning of menstruating women. As such, it is hardly novel or shocking.
These objections over tradition also seem oblivious to the fact that the religion of the Republican candidate had polygamy as one of its founding tenets, a practice it refuted only just over a century ago even though splinter sects still practice it. And the practitioners don’t go through the motions of civic marriage, even if they could, because that infringes on their gaming of the child welfare system that is part of their economic model.
Polygamy raises the hackles of many people including feminists who find it a patriarchal institution suppressive of women. I doubt you will find many lesbians, single or married, in support of ‘traditional’ polygamy.
The more modern form of multi-partner relationships is called polyamory in order to distinguish it from the older variety, but even it is nothing new as it is just a newer variation on the Free Love and Open Marriage movements which have been around for years. By taking the ‘gamy’ suffix out, it divorces (so to speak) the romantic/sexual relationship from the square traditional concept of fidelity. Also within the concept of polyamory is an implicit acceptance of bisexuality as at least one of the possible permutations.
For the most part, polyamory seems to be for people who just find the emotional tightrope of traditional relationships too easy and need a greater challenge. At least that is my impression from my major source of information on this topic, Dan Savage’s Lovecast podcast. Judging by his listenership the predominant paradigm in these relationships is a primary partnership, which may or may not be a legally married couple, and ‘special guest stars’ of indeterminate duration. The very ephemeral nature of the secondary partners makes absorbing them into the marriage concept complicated to say the least, and most likely unnecessary in the long term.
Conceptually the idea of extending marriage to multiple partners is simply to make marriage contracts non-exclusive. This could lead to all sorts of interlocking directorates of sorts which would really not do much except open new areas of practice for divorce lawyers. This would also require the elimination of bigamy laws which I have no qualms with since I have always considered bigamy its own punishment.
So when someone goes on clambering about how gay marriages are going to destroy society, try to realize how much society has absorbed already. Gay marriage was originally drafted as a conservative measure to draw homosexuals into society. Marriage in any form is a civilizing influence. It creates responsibility and fosters commitment, not just to a person but to a code of behavior and expectations. Love comes is all colors, sizes, and shapes and should be celebrated wherever it occurs and to whomever it happens.
On a personal note, my cousin had her civil union in Delaware on Wednesday. The Delaware rules make a ‘solemnized’ union literally indistinguishable from a marriage. Today four generations of all political stripes will gather to celebrate and honor the creation of a new family. I’m sure it will bring a tear to my eye because I find all brides beautiful and today’s ceremony will be doubly gorgeous.
Filed under: gay marriage | 195 Comments »
LIBOR
Posted on June 29, 2012 by jnc4p
New thread for the LIBOR investigation:
Here are some links:
Matt Taibbi:
A Huge Break in the LIBOR Banking Investigation
Another Domino Falls in the LIBOR Banking Scam: Royal Bank of Scotland
Reuters:
Barclays’ gift to private antitrust plaintiffs in Libor case
Bloomberg:
Barclays Big-Boy Breaches Mean Libor Fixes Not Enough
Daily Mail:
“Earlier, Tan Chi Min, a former head of delta trading for RBS’s global banking and markets division in Singapore, alleged that managers at RBS condoned collusion between its staff to set the Libor rate artificially high or low to maximise profits.
He named five staff members he claims made requests for the Libor rate to be altered and three senior managers who he said knew what was going on.
He also says the practice ‘was known to other members of [RBS]’s senior management’.
Mr Tan, who was eventually sacked for gross misconduct, worked for RBS from August 2006 to November 2011and alleges that senior members of staff knew about Libor fixing, and that the behaviour started while Fred Goodwin was chief executive”
My overarching question would be at what point do repeated patterns of criminal misconduct from the same organizations cease to be isolated incidents of specific bad actors and instead become a systemic problem with the organization itself?
Filed under: Big Banks, Europe | 10 Comments »
All Things in Moderation 