The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

I won't rip this off, but I damn well will link it.

And you should read it.  If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will.

....federal “gun control” law “was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.” In “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny,” Zelman, with contributions by attorney Richard Stevens, presented “the Nazi weapons law of 1938 side-by-side with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.”

Have a nice day.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2014-12-20 06:15 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 73 references

You have to wonder these days....

A University of Michigan professor already known for her partisan views confirmed the suspicions of students when she penned a column for a non-profit magazine titled, "It's okay to hate Republicans."

So what happens when you pen a column titled It's ok to hate {muslims|******s|kikes|jews|democrats}?

Just curious, you see, because people have been expelled from academia (never mind everywhere else) for expressing anything that might offend anyone -- like, for instance, saying it's ok to hate some group.

Except for hating white people.

And especially except white republicans.

You really can't have this one both ways.  Either it's "ok" to hate one group of people or another, or it's not -- irrespective of the group.  

And that's the rub when you get down to it, isn't it?  After all this isn't really about race, religion, color, creed, national origin or political affiliation, is it?  It's simply about being a jackbooted thug, which is why these "standards" for what is considered "acceptable" speech apply only to some people -- and most-notably not to others.

This is what passes for a "college" these days. The University claims for its part that faculty members are free to express themselves and the school offers a place for diversity of opinion.

Some opinion, that is.  But not an opinion that is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-life or, I suspect, anti-Democrat.

And most-certainly, not Catholic opinion on gay marriage -- not even at a Catholic university!

I think that Republicans, and especially white republicans who own and operate businesses should return the favor and hate University of Michigan graduates.  And those who are Catholic should hate Marquette.

They can both express their opinion by refusing to recognize anything that UofM or Marquette issues as an alleged "degree", finding that it's highest and best use is found in the wiping of one's ass after using the restroom.

It's just freedom of speech, yanno....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Who remembers Myspace?

A report today by Frank N. Magid Associates Inc. found that the portion of 13- to 17-year-old social-media users in the U.S. on Facebook slipped to 88 percent this year from 94 percent in 2013 and 95 percent in 2012. In the same period, Twitter Inc. and messaging applications rose in popularity in that age group, the study showed.

That's a fairly material drop, and it portends bad things.

Here's the thing -- what tends to happen with "social media" is that they appear to "plateau" in terms of daily active users but engagement falls -- and this is an easy metric to game for the company (thus they have every reason to do so.)

But the fade-to-black is in fact happening -- and is happening here too.  When you get into the single digits on "safe" or "trustworthy", well..... and Facebook has.

The happy face on people like Cramer who's spouting on CNBS this morning.... well, just remember his stellar record in the early part of 2000.

You have to look forward, and the reality of Facebook is that the lack of trust (earned by Zukerburglar, and justly so) will eventually blow up in his face.

It is simply a matter of time.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Oh please....

Recent tragic incidents involving the New York City Police Department—including the death of Eric Garner, who was being arrested on Staten Island, and the death of Akai Gurley, shot accidentally by a young police officer in the dark stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project—have reinvigorated police critics. The criticism was especially pointed amid the broader national discussion about crime and race prompted by events in Ferguson, Mo.

The NYPD’s critics object, in particular, to the department’s long-standing practice of maintaining order in public spaces. This practice, referred to as Broken Windows or quality-of-life or order-maintenance policing, asserts that, in communities contending with high levels of disruption, maintaining order improves the quality of life for residents and reduces crime.

So let's look specifically at the Garner situation.

Exactly what window was he breaking at the time of his attempted arrest?

Remember, his "offense" was (allegedly) selling loose cigarettes -- and perhaps not even at the time he was "arrested"!

The article claims:

The majority of New Yorkers, including minorities, approve of police addressing disorderly illegal behavior, such as public drinking and drug use, fights, public urination and other acts considered to be minor offenses.

Public drinking and drug use harm nobody.  Notice the conflation here; public urination is an issue, provided you give people who are on the street (whether temporarily for an evening or permanent as homeless people) somewhere to take a***** without demanding they spend money first.  Fights are clearly a matter of disorderly conduct and are (unless conducted in a boxing ring) non-consensual for someoneand frequently involve the destruction of property (e.g. the barstool you crack over the other guy's head, or he cracks over yours.)

Now note that Garner's "offense" involved purely consensual conduct and that the purchase and possession of the item he sold is lawful.  That is, it's legal to purchase and own a cigarette.  The city simply declared it illegal for him to exchange one with you for something you possess (whether it be a dollar or a drink!) and then tried to deprive him of his freedom for exchanging a lawfully-acquired and owned thing with someone else.

This sort of thing is outrageous on it's face; it is this exact sort of law that is responsible for scorpion antivenom costing $30,000 a dose at the local hospital when 200 miles away you can buy it over the counter for $100!

And while Ferguson's supporters cite the fact that Brown apparently robbed a store of some cigarillos there was no want or warrant out for Brown at the time of the confrontation; that is, while the predicate offense had happened the reason for the confrontation was that he was "walking while black" outside the confines of a sidewalk.

Exactly who was being harmed by him doing so and how did that constitute a "broken window"?

There are many who claim that NY's "broken window" policing has contributed to or caused a decrease in crime.  Well, duh, but that's not the point and the reason is simple: If I search every single house every single day, and everyone in it, I can dramatically reduce gun violence by simply confiscating every gun I find, and I'll find a lot of them!  But we (correctly) identify this sort of unwarranted intrusion into the private lives of the citizens as irrational and unconstitutional.

I have no quarrel with enforcement of "broken window" laws where actual windows are broken.  That is, enforcement of laws against vandalism, public urination (provided there are lawful and reasonably-convenient places for anyone who happens to need to***** to do so), fighting, destruction of property and similar acts.  I note that the law against being drunk in public is usually cited as "drunk and disorderly" conduct -- note the and; it's not an "or" despite police protests to the contrary.

But Garner didn't break a window; he was in no way disorderly and the item he was alleged to have exchanged was lawful to both own and his acquisition of same facially appears to have been lawful (that is, he didn't steal the cigarettes.)

Bratton is not only wrong he's intentionally wrong, dissembling and ought to be held to a standard of conduct where such intentional deception -- that is, lying about the predicate of his department's actions, is not only unacceptable but should be considered felonious, as he is using it to attempt the justification of felony violations of your civil rights.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

As they say, "oops"....

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new plan to ease the threat of deportation for 4.7 million undocumented immigrants violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge found on Tuesday, handing down the first legal ruling against the plan.

The ruling has no immediate impact, with the government saying there was no reason for Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania to address the issue in the case, which concerns 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar.

Well that (whether the Judge had a reason to address the issue) is not up to the government, you see.  Apparently, he thought there was.  Of course the government will appeal and at the district level this ruling has no immediate impact, but....

As I've pointed out a few times there are a number of issues with Obama's actions in this regard, not the least of which is that they're executive actions rather than orders.  That is, they have no force of law at all, and the predicate is the claim that as the head of the Executive Obama can choose how to prioritize (always) limited resource.  It's an argument of "prosecutorial discretion", basically.

There's a problem with it however -- such discretion is generally lawful when exercised specific to circumstances of a particular case.  For example, a prosecutor can decline to bring a charge (or dismiss one, or enter into an agreement to not enter a judgment, having the effect of making a charge "disappear") because of the specifics of the case.  This is why it's legal for a prosecutor to do those sorts of things in exchange for some key piece of information he or she needs, if (in his or her judgment) it serves the public interest to do so.

But the law does not permit the same prosecutor to issue a blanket refusal to bring charges.

We know this happens all the time, however -- Eric (place) Holder has so-admitted with his "too big to jail" statements.  That was grounds for his immediate impeachment, as he has no such power under the law to make that decision.  That choice rests with the legislature, not with the Executive.

Of course neither political party had the stones to bring this up at the time.

It's a good thing "stare decisis" only has merit in the context of actual decisions by real courts or we'd be terminally screwed as a nation.  As it stands we're not quite there.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.