I don't think I ever welcomed aboard Monty -- I think I was planning a welcome post and he beat me to posting. I'd asked him years ago but he only recently said yes. (He joined up in the reserves; I think that was part of the reason he couldn't.)

Actually I don't think I've officially welcomed any of the cobloggers, really. I'm not good with formal stuff.

Well, welcome. Sorry, Maetenloch.

And finally I'll welcome someone before he posts -- Michael at Innocent Bystanders suggested that Geoff come on board here, with his economic bodyblow postings against Disaster Obama, and that maybe it would be good to give his analyses greater exposure. I wouldn't have poached him had Michael not suggested it.

Geoff agreed, and so he's on the team now.

As LauraW. says, you always need a chart-guy. If you have a chart-guy, it looks like you know what the hell you're doing.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

I actually read all 1 million pages of the decision (okay, itÂ’s like 186 pages but trust me, it felt like a million). As I went on my rage grew at the contempt in which Judge Walker holds the process of a free people deciding the form their government will take, the plain meaning of words and social structures that have evolved over many centuries.

Let me start by saying this isnÂ’t a complete take down of the decision and that IÂ’m pretty much a lukewarm supported of same sex marriage. So long as it is freely and democratically instituted (or I used to be, more on that in a moment) IÂ’m kind of ok with it. What I am unalterably opposed to is judges imposing some new found right upon people or distorting the concept of marriage and the right of the people to define it, to suit an equal protection cause of action.

With that said, what struck me most about the decision is how eminently sensible it is from a legal standpoint and how divorced that standpoint is from the precepts of a republican form of government. Decisions like this are reached by judges finding facts and identifying/applying the relevant laws. Sounds easy in the abstract but how do judges do this and how do they do it in a theoretically consistent way? They use various “tests” which are often established by justices in Supreme Court cases.

In this case the Judge found that marriage was “a fundamental right” as part of the plaintiffs Due Process challenge. Once he made that determination he went on to examine if prohibiting same sex partners from exercising that right violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is where the famous 3 tiers of scrutiny come in. Since the judge found that “a fundamental right” (pg 109 of the decision) was at issue he was obligated to use the “Strict Scrutiny Standard”. This is the hardest one for the defenders of Prop 8 to win on because it requires…

“The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest”

The easiest grounds for defenders of Prop 8 would have been the lowest threshold, the Rational Basis test.

“The government need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.”

The amazing thing about Walker’s decision is that while he recognized that to survive, Prop 8 would have to meet the Strict Scrutiny standard he said it didn’t even meet the lowest standard of ‘rational basis’ (pg 117 of the decision).

This is where the divorce between the legal priesthood and many people starts.

Just look at and unpack some of the assumptions that lawyers, judges and a lot of people simply accept, without question, to get to this outcome…laws have to be rational or related to a state interest, “voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough.” (page 24 of the decision) and that judges and only judges, (not the legislature, not the executive, not the people) can decide if a given law meets these judicially manufactured standards.

When exactly did we decide that judges are the sole arbiter of what laws are ‘rational’? And by the way, when did we even agree that laws had to be ‘rational’ in the first place and that ‘legitimate state interests’ was required for a law to survive challenge? What part of the Constitution requires these tests? What law authorizes them?

The short answer is, none. In fact the whole notion of this multi-layered scheme goes back to a Supreme Court decision from 1938. Well, not even a case really but a footnote in a decision.

A judicial footnote, written by one judge, in a case most people have never heard of (US v. Carolene Products) is the basis of the system we as a nation use to determine the Constitutionality of many of our laws. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:02 AM | Comments (574)
Post contains 1740 words, total size 11 kb.

They're also putting out this press release/fact sheet. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:08 AM | Comments (162)
Post contains 930 words, total size 7 kb.

Addition by subtraction!

I believe Eric "Otter" Stratton had a keen observation about the perils of trusting someone.

This quote would usually, I think, be inflammatory and cause all sorts of problems within the raucus caucus.

But now? Gotta think that the fact that it's true, and that these "difficult" Democrats now depend on the less-difficult ones to help them get lobbying jobs, makes it less of a thing that it otherwise would have been.

Still... his gloating over screwing over more moderate Democrats and giggling about their impending ouster is unseemly.

“I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line — the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said.

Waxman, one of the Democratic PartyÂ’s stalwarts, is simply voicing publicly what many in his party have said privately as the reality of the looming November elections sets in. If Democrats retain a majority, it will be smaller but more cohesive.

He's "simply" doing that? Protective much?

As Waxman sees it, the fractious coalition of Democrats that House leaders have cobbled together to pass sweeping healthcare and energy bills is not markedly different from the bipartisanship of the past, when Democrats partnered with centrist and liberal Republicans, whom Waxman says are “practically nonexistent at the moment.”

“We’ve been trying to get the Democratic conservatives together with the rest of the Democratic Party, so in effect we’ve gotten bipartisan support among Democrats in the House,” the chairman said with a laugh. “Now we’ll have to work on genuine bipartisanship in the future.”

Laugh. Giggle.

Hey wait -- I thought they were trying to be bipartisan and it was the GOP acting as the Party of No...?

Here we have Henry Waxman admitting that the only "bipartisanship" he practiced was liberal Democrats offering concessions to less-liberal Democrats -- no actual bipartisanship extended to the other actual party.

You'll never see mention of this quote again.

After all, he was "simply" publicly voicing what many Democrats concede in private (but which the MFM refuses to report).

Posted by: Ace at 08:57 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Really? Unexpectedly? Still?

Unexpectedly, two hours after I eat McDonald's I have to make an urgent trip to the bathroom.

Unexpectedly, you understand.

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Climb to Three-Month High

By Bob Willis - Aug 5, 2010 10:08 AM EDT

Initial jobless claims climbed by 19,000 in the week ended July 31, the most since April and exceeding the highest estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington.

Initial jobless claims climbed by 19,000 to 479,000 in the week ended July 31, the most since April and exceeding the highest estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits dropped, while those getting extended payments rose.

A cooling economy means employers will resist taking on more staff in coming months, raising the risk consumer spending will weaken further. The jobless rate rose last month as payroll increases werenÂ’t large enough to keep up with gains in the labor force, economists forecast a government report tomorrow will show.

“There really is no upside momentum in the labor market, and that’s a critical long-term determinant of where the economy is going,” said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. “People just aren’t getting jobs.”

Unexpectedly.

And this from a news wire that is supposedly mostly economic/financial in nature.

But by gum, they keep getting surprised by unexpected developments!

Via Instapundit.

By the way -- retail sales were down too.

Reason?

Why, the cold, snowy winter, of course. Global warming! Proving we need cap and tax to save our economy.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

As liberal MSNBC (white, of course) host Dylan Ratigan sagely observed, the GOP is using the foulest of Italian stereotypes to hurt the Italian (by way of Greece) Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias... Such a classic Italian name.

You'd sort of have to be a whitebread jackass to not realize that name was Greek, right? The sort of guy born with the surname "Ratigan," whose hippie-dippie parents named him "Dylan," right?

Anyway... when will this anti-Italian assault on the descended-from-a-country-just-an-Andriatic-away-from-Italy might-as-well-be-an-Italian stop?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 170 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm kind of getting into a Beck groove right now. I'm getting it.

Not completely. But some. I can't say these guys are following the revolutionary socialist playbook but they sure aren't making any moves inconsistent with it, either.

The other day JustKarl reminded his readers of "the long march through the institutions."

For Karl Marx, a capitalist society’s economic recessions and practical contradictions would provoke the working class to revolution in deposing capitalism — and then to restructuring the existing institutions (economic, political, social) per rational, socialist models; thus, beginning the transition to a communist society....

To understand this, Gramsci posits a strategic distinction, between a War of Position and a War of Manoeuvre. The war of position is intellectual, a culture war in which the anti-capitalist politicians (communist leaders sponsors, socialist scholars, and ideological subversives) seek to have the dominant voice in the mass media, other mass organisations, and the schools (and actively conduct ideological subversion). Once achieved, this position will be used to increase class consciousness, teach revolutionary theory and analysis, and to inspire revolutionary organisation. On winning the intellectual war of position, communist leaders would then have the necessary political power and popular support to begin the war of manoeuvre — the armed insurrection against capitalism.

The phrase "the long march through the institutions" is today commonly used in Marxist speech to refer to a war of position, alluding to the Long March of the Chinese Red Army in the 1930s.

And the institutions of capitalism are now being compelled to directly subsidize the institutions of socialism, which will in turn be back in another couple of years for a fresh bite at the apple.

In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims.

There was then a search for those victims -- people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment -- who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a "qualified organization" approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money -- that will be determined by the Department -- then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the "qualified organization."

The arrangement was used in a recently-settled case, United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance. [U]nder the terms of a March 19, 2010 consent decree, AIG agreed to pay $6.1 million to "aggrieved persons who may have suffered as a result of the alleged violations."

That is standard procedure in such cases. But then AIG also agreed, in the words of the consent decree, to "provide a minimum of $1,000,000 to qualified organization(s) to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, and other related educational programs targeted at African-American borrowers." The money would come from unspent funds in the victim-compensation fund. But if it turned out that, after paying off the victims, there was less than $1 million left in the victim-compensation fund, AIG agreed to "replenish the settlement fund so that it contains $1,000,000 for distribution for those educational purposes."

...

The Department followed a similar procedure in another case, United States v. Sterling....

The defendants did not admit any wrongdoing, and there was no factual finding of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, in a November 3, 2009 consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay $2.625 million to compensate alleged victims. On top of that, the consent decree stipulated that if there weren't enough alleged victims on which to spend the $2.625 million, then what's left "shall be distributed...to a qualified organization(s) mutually agreed upon by the United States and defendants...for the purpose of conducting fair housing enforcement or educational activities in Los Angeles County."

Hinojosa says that in the Sterling case, $40,000 will be split between the victim fund administrator and a group called the Southern California Housing Rights Center. According to the Center's website, its goal is to promote "freedom of residence" through the use of "education, advocacy and litigation." Thus, money used to settle a lawsuit over alleged discrimination might well go to fund yet another lawsuit over alleged discrimination.

Nice.

Posted by: Ace at 07:32 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 819 words, total size 6 kb.

Is Daddy too remote, too feckless, and a generally bad head of household?

Well buck up sunshine. Daddy just might give you a nice shiny twenty dollar bill.

Do you love Daddy now?*

* Some people take this as referring to themselves, that by "Daddy" I mean those who got underwater with mortgages. No, I meant that Obama is the Big Daddy, but he's a bad Daddy, and so he has to bribe his family with money to love him.

Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages – one in five – are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help. The actual vehicle for the bailout could be the Bush-era Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, a sister program to Obama’s loan modification effort. HARP was just extended through June 30, 2011.

The move, if it happens, would be a stunning political and economic bombshell less than 100 days before a midterm election in which Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses. The key date to watch is August 17 when the Treasury Department holds a much-hyped meeting on the future of Fannie and Freddie. A few key points:

1) Republican leaders believe this is going to happen since GOPers and Democratic moderates in the Senate are unwilling to spend more taxpayer money on more stimulus. But such a housing plan would allow the White House to sidestep congressional objections and show voters it is doing something tangible about an economy that seems to be weakening.

...

What is the "multiplier" for reducing a fixed cost that people struggled to pay? Something like 0.3? Less?

I guess that doesn't matter. The only multiplier that matters concerns the conversion of billions of dollars into millions of votes.

Thanks to DrewM.

Who's Laughing Now? Remember Peggy Joseph? We giggled at her naivete about Unicorn Skittle Poop, her assertion that Obama would pay her mortgage.

I guess we were the ones hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Led astray. Run amok.

Thanks again to Drew for that.

Posted by: Ace at 06:46 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm sure there's a constituency for this sort of oddball religio-political theorizing.

I fear though that constituency isn't much more than 25% of the population, and the rest of the 26% she needs to win will find this... too exotic.

The conclusions she gets to are good. It's the path she takes to get to them that's odd.

That's what Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate, said in an April 21 interview with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wiles. I have obtained audio of the interview, previously unnoticed, which contains some startling rhetoric from the candidate who has said running for office was a calling from God. But in this interview, she goes much further:

"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And thatÂ’s really whatÂ’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. WeÂ’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

This mindset will further reinforce to some that religion infuses everything Angle believes but also might explain her hostility to government programs, believing essentially they are produced by a false God. And she frames the race as one she has been praying over for some time, a war of ideologies and faith: "And I knew that all along when I started praying over a year ago over it. And this just seemed to be the battle that I needed to go to war with. And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change."

I had begun to hope that a rising Republican tide would lift Angle's boat over 51%. I am back to thinking this candidate seems intent on popping off philosophically instead of buckling down and winning an election.

Posted by: Ace at 06:24 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

From Michael Bloomberg to various bloggers and commentators, more than a few liberals have taken to charging those who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque with intolerance and attempting to curtail religious freedom.

Much like most of the charges of racism we hear from the left these days, this is a content free way to put your adversaries on the defensive and shut down debate without engaging your opponents on the merits of the issue. If they can also stigmatize conservatives in the process, so much the better.

From Bloomberg's histrionic speech that is garnering so much praise.

“This morning, the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend -- not to extend -- landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

From Adam Serwer of the American Prospect.

I'm glad Bloomberg is standing up for religious freedom and tolerance, and defending the rule of law against the passing bigotries of the moment is part of his charge as mayor.

...The Islamic community center near Ground Zero will most likely be built, but that doesn't solve the underlying problem--one of the two major American political parties is increasingly committed to denying equal rights to an unpopular group based solely on who they happen to be (the GOP), while the other party, which knows better, is too cowardly to do something about it (the Democrats).

The Atlantic Wire has a round up of those praising Bloomberg and deriding Republican 'bigotry'.

Here's the problem with Bloomberg and those praising him...they don't actually have any evidence of people wanting to deny Muslims the right to practice their religion. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are the two most high profile Republicans to take on this issue. Read their respective statements and show me where any of them call on the government to enforce their political will on the Mosque organizers.

Read Dan Senor's "Open Letter" in the WSJ to the mosque organizers. Show me the religious intolerance, show me the attempt to stifle freedom of worship. I'll wait. The thing is, you won't find any because there is none. What there is is an appeal to decency and an understanding of the sensibilities involved. Qualities Senor notes Americans have shown to Muslims before.

The American people have shown themselves to be respectful of Muslim religious sensibilities—even in cases in which it was not clear to them why or how those sensibilities were being offended. We shall confine ourselves to one example among hundreds. The original name for the military operation against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was "Operating Infinite Justice." Several leading Muslim scholars and clerics objected that the term was offensive to Muslims because "infinite justice" can come only from Allah. The American government immediately changed the name to "Operation Enduring Freedom," with the full support of the American people.

The name seemed to us to be immaterial to the mission—which is why we judged the change to be a worthy gesture to people whom we did not wish to offend but hoped to honor. Similarly, the exact street address of your cultural center cannot matter to the performance of its mission—but it very much does matter to the perceptions of your fellow Americans. We urge you to reconsider.

Those who charge 'intolerance', 'bigotry' and the see the death of freedom of worship never actually quote anything a mosque opponent says, they just throw out the charge and move on. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:19 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 1319 words, total size 9 kb.