Thursday Open Thread
Yahoo takeover battle takes dramatic twist - This is interesting and could have a reshaping effect on the internet's big powerplayers:
If Yahoo’s maneuvering raises the pressure for a higher bid, Microsoft reportedly may mount its counterattack with a surprising ally — Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., whose media empire already includes the Fox television networks, The Wall Street Journal and the popular online hangout MySpace.com. If Microsoft and News Corp. were successful in a joint bid, it would unite three of the Internet’s most popular Web sites — Yahoo, along with MySpace and MSN.com. The New York Times reported Microsoft’s discussions with News Corp. late Wednesday, citing people involved in the discussions.
Have a great Thursday!
Submitted by Ender on Thu, 2008-04-10 08:23
Tags:
Comments :
California Supreme Court shoots down S.F. handgun ban
GoRight will be pleased. The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.
San Francisco had essentially said that handguns couldn't be bought, traded or even possesed in the City & County of SF. I was living up there going to school when they passed the law. For the record, I voted against it. One of my roomates wanted to kick me out at the time because I had guns (locked up and stashed away, not accessible). He left so it became a non-issue. I always figured the law would be thrown out because it was so broad.
What does this tell me? Whenever one extreme tries to dictate it's views on the populace, there is a cosmic pendulum push back. It happened here with the courts (the majority of the citizens in SF probably still wants it). Same thing is happening wrt Darth Cheney and his drive to raise the power of the Executive Branch. Yea, they have another 7 months where they can run out the clock with their regime, but in the end, they are going to end up hurting their cause more than furthering it. You just wait. Come next Administration, particularly if it's a Democratic one (it will be), there are going to be a slew of laws limiting Executive Branch powers. And guess what? Republicans will be first in line proposing all these restrictions. If McCain won, they wouldn't, but then again, I just think they are a party of hypocrites so, I'm just projecting, that's all.
Go ahead and freely vist SF now GR....but don't try to fly in with your guns.
That is good
And I can't wait for the USSC to rule on this issue as well. Something definitive would be nice.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If the voters approved the ban...
how is it "one extreme [trying] to dictate it's views on the populace?" How can a view be seen as "extreme" in a populaion if more than half the people evidently agree with it? And how are the power grabs of individuals in government (such as Dick Cheney) comparable to the will of the people as expressed by the people of San Francisco in their choices at the voting booth?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
the voters of San Fran
are extreme by default. So most things they try to impose by majority decision are probably unconstitutional by default as well.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
"Extreme" and "unconstitutional" are not the same thing
This should be obvious when you consider that the constitution has been amended 27 times. So forget about whether gun bans such as San Fransisco's are unconstitutional for a moment and explain to me what is "extreme" about a city wishing to institute a gun ban within its own borders if the majority of the people in that city want that gun ban.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I would saying proposing and
I would saying proposing and then passing clearly unconstitutional laws is "extreme"
Banning sidearms is not least restrictive means
for the people of SF to curtail illegal gun use.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
exactly
The ban is unconstitutional and therefor extreme. It is also extreme when compared to the general practices and gun laws elsewhere. A majority should not be able to pass extreme unconstitutional garbage - and I am glad court threw their crap out.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The ban is
So, is the idea of term limits for Congress extreme? They are unconstitutional, to be sure, but not "extreme", I would argue.
Great Britain, our #1 Ally in The Global War On Terror, has a handgun ban. So is the San Francisco ban really all that extreme by Western standards? We have majorities in our major cities approving of handgun bans, and liberal western democracies passing them.
What if the process of challenging the law in court was the most effective path to raise awareness of the issue and eventually challenging and amending the constitutional clause that stands in the way of the desired regulation? Would it be extreme to follow that course of action, even if it meant passing local laws which will likely be struck down in the courts?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ends Jusitfy the Means?
As far as I remember there is no explicit ban on limiting Congressional terms.
I'm sure Great Britain doesn't have the right to bear arms.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
English Bill of Rights 1689
"That the subjects which are Protestants may
have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as
allowed by law." So the right is there, but specifically modifiable by law. Guess if you're a Catholic you are out of luck, though!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Good point
You are correct that term limits are not banned in the Constitution. Not the best example on my part :-) I think I was recalling that they tried to amend the Constitution to add term limits.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The ban is not unconstitutional
The SCOTUS has never ruled on the Second Amendment individual vs. militia issue. So who's to say the constitution permits gun ownership outside of militia membership?
That's what the case currently before the SCOTUS is supposed to decide. Frankly, it's about time.
Politically, banning gun ownership is a surefire way to lose elections unless you are in a city like DC or San Francisco. And I can't imagine the Supreme Court striking down private gun ownership. But it'll be interesting to see what kind of semantic gymnastics the court engages in when they decide that case.
qui tacet consentire
Well the view point might
Well the view point might not be ""one extreme [trying] to dictate it's views on the populace" , but it still could be an extreme even if that "extreme" is popular in small geographic area.
The populace of SF spoke and they are willing to curtail other peoples rights.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Are the Brits genereally "extreme"?
Because they have a handgun ban not dissimilar from the San Francisco ban.
Point being that the San Francisco law is not "extreme" in that sense of being radical or revolutionary.
And many if not most laws curtail some right. There's nothing extreme about that.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
eh come on man
Extreme obviously only in the context of the United States. Restricting rights might not be automatically extreme - but eliminating constitutional rights altogether is extreme in the United States.
This is the legitimate function of the US Government - to protect our constitutional rights from external and internal threats - like the people of San Fran.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
excluding
habeas corpus or how to pick and chose
which constitutional rights you feel like supporting.
I guess everyone has their priorities as to which constitutional rights they choose to give more weight to.
I'm only half stupid
The Constitution is built to be modified.
Are the people of San Francisco really a threat to the Constitution, or are they merely taking the first steps towards future changes to the Second Amendment which would allow the states more freedom in crafting gun laws?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
My view of what is OK and what is extreme on guns -
Mind you, these are my opinions, they aren't grounded in any legal opinions, just my own thoughts.
I think putting restrictions on guns is constitutional. For example:
I fully support citizens not being able to own machine guns for example (fully automatic weapons). I think citizens should be able to own semi automatic weapons though.
I support handgun restrictions like limiting concealable weapons and requiring trigger locks and magazine sizes. But I don't think banning hand guns completely is unconstitutional.
Now some may say I'm at odds with what I'm claiming. I don't think so. I think I'm being moderate and prudent. I do understand that I'm not a constitutional authority though, but what I was driving at up-thread was that I think a complete ban is not moderate and unconstitutional and apparently the CA Supreme Court agrees with that.
Now as far as the rest of my post....it isn't that hard to find middle ground for an issue like gun ownership rights and limitations. Find the middle ground and go there. We aren't talking about slavery after all.
AG Ashcroft said "History Will Not Judge This Kindly"
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency
(via ABC News). The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
Duh!
Markets and War
The famed ex Fed chairman, Alan Greennspan, who followed Ayn Rand's cultish doctrine of laissez-faire economics, that is highly allergic to any form of regulation or market interference, is taking some heat for pronouncing that:
a) the economy is in the worst shape it has been in in 50 years
and
b) as Fed chairman for two decades, he bears no responsibility for the state of the economy.
Greenspan's comments that he had no knowledge of the extent of the problems in the sub-prime crises boggles the mind.
Eric Halperin of the Center for Responsible Lending
"Greenspan's legacy will be the failure to see predatory and abusive practices in the subprime market and to make any attempts to regulate them."
What is astonishingly naive and contradictory about the 'hands off the markets' view of business and markets is the stark awareness that wars are justified as a prescription against evil. Taking the position that on a national scale there are times when men's motives are so impure, that whole nations must be invaded to 'regulate evil' out of existence.
Yet Geenspan's advocacy for war as an intervention or regulation, if you will, against bad motives by bad people, was not applied in any way to the markets.
The failure to recognize that the markets are subject to the same bad motives that necessitate taking out 'evil dictators' (according to Greenspan), and recognizing safeguarding the markets with some controls is at least as important if not more so as keeping evil dictators at bay.
Hopefully this will be the end of the Ayn Rand philosophy of in the markets.
The markets need to be protected by regulation, to weed out the bad actors or evil dictators of the business world, and unfortunately one of them is Alan Greenspan, who's failure to recognize that the same dynamics that play out in war, will play out in the markets.
There will always be some people that don't play by the rules, but if you don't believe in any rules at all, it is an invitation to chaos.
I'm only half stupid
I'll ask again
Which of Rand's points of philosophy did Greenspan employ as Fed chairman?
an allergy to regulations
that 'interfere' with the pure beauty of capitalism.
I'm only half stupid
how so?
I'm trying to understand here...
In case you missed it
from my post above:
"Greenspan's comments that he had no knowledge of the extent of the problems in the sub-prime crises boggles the mind.
Eric Halperin of the Center for Responsible Lending
"Greenspan's legacy will be the failure to see predatory and abusive practices in the subprime market and to make any attempts to regulate them.""
I'm only half stupid
what does that mean?
What should he have done?
Game of questions
He ignored the problem. He gave speeches that said there was not problem. He had it within his purvue to warn, caution, deflate and not encourage the crises in lending that has led to a crises in the markets. (with global ramifications)
Lenders made unethical loans sold them, made their commission fees and went out of business. Greenspan thought that was fine and even encouraged folks to continue with these unethical practices.
Unethical behavior should not be condoned, sanctioned or encouraged and that includes the markets.
In the war analogy Greenspan's inaction, feigned ignorance, perpetrated a violence upon the economy that has trickled down into a socio-economic injustice, not only for the poor but also for the wealthy.
What would you have done?
I'm only half stupid
what would I have done?
I'm not sure. A less interventionist position that didn't pervert incentives would be a decent starting point. :)
BTW, keep in mind...
this recent post
.
From the link:
Things are not neat and linear. Everything is the result of previous actions, rules, restraints and regulations. Think of it like going back in time and bumping into someone....which causes him to NOT bump into someone else a few minutes later which leads to a variety of events far removed from that innocent little moment.
Likewise, the arena of financial regulation exists and there's plenty of it. The behavior you think of that needs regulation is the product of reactions to previous regulations and interventions in an effort to reach a desired result. Everything is symbiotic.
Of course, a lot this has little to do with Greenspan and more to do with legislation....which goes back to my original point.
I am talking specifically about
Greenspan and how his actions affected the markets. And there is no question what so ever that he influenced the markets, and history will likely judge his tenure in a negative light.
I am not interested in going back to the caveman days re: the markets. Just very recent history.
Your original point was a question, "How so?", so I missed what your point was, because you never originally made one.
Though your response here is more specific...... linear time trave? :)
I'm only half stupid
original point:
here
...not "how so?".
I think negatively of Greenspan as well.....just not for the same reasons. Mine are related DIRECTLY to what he DID as Fed Chairman....not what he THINKS PHILOSOPHICALLY as an aisde. Like Tabarrok said in that same link I provided:
Like I've said in the past:
You don't like Greenspan? Fine. Great. I don't really like him either....but not for his opinions....I dislike him for actions as it relates to WHAT HE DID and the double talk excuses for them when things went wrong.
Sooner or later, Bernanke or someone else is going to have to jack up rates like Volcker did in 1981....but only when all the smoke and mirrors loses the impression of working.
Civil War within the Republican Party!!!
The NY Times has an article out today titled "2 Camps Trying to Influence McCain on Foreign Policy"
.
Essentially it says that the pragmatists within the party are starting to get worried that the neo-cons are warping McCain's views, beliefs & statements to the point where Republicans won't be able to be elected dog catcher in the November '08 elections.
Me? I'm making some popcorn. This looks like it could be fun! I guess I could live with a Republican as a dog catcher, but I'll certainly be a lot happier if Hillary or Barack call the White House home come Jan '09.
ps- who are these mythical pragmatist republicans that I hear the press speak of from time to time?
If Bush were elected dogcatcher
Rabid dogs would be running wild in the streets.
qui tacet consentire
No need to catch dogs
The market would sort itself out.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...