Letters to the Editor
-
Gen. Hayden's Beliefs
The general is confused, even if he and most of us here, are not lawyers.
The general can have an opinion in his briefs (or in his shorts for all I care) and call it reasonable while arguing for a search warrant before a judge.
But a "reasonable belief," as he puts it, is not anywhere near the minimal standard of proof required for a legal warrant, as outlined in the Fourth Amendment. The minimal standard is "probable cause."
Please get Sherlock Holmes on the phone.
-
Article from Hitchens in Slate...
Here is a quote:"But the most insidious enemy is the cowardly journalist and editor who doesn't need to be told what to do, because he or she has already internalized the need to please—or at least not to offend—the worst tyranny of all, which is the safety-first version of public opinion."
http://www.slate.com/id/2184493/
-
@Dirigo
You are obscuring an important distinction here. Legal searches and seizures require a warrant with probable cause. General Hayden's NSA was working mostly on illegal searches and seizures. They don't require any warrants unless someone finds out.
-
A Happy Norwegian
Interesting discussion. Living in a Nordic social democracy myself, Norway, I pay taxes that I guess would seem outrageous for most Americans. Since I favor the view of the welfare state as an efficient and non-bureaucratic insurance policy, I more than happily pay my taxes. I still get to keep more than half of my income, and don't have to shell out for health insurance, private retirement plans or saving for my children's education. I get sick? Public health, no questions asked. Temporarily unemployed? The State is my insurance. Education for my children? Excellent public schools.
Of course, some of this can be exploited, but I find universalism to be preferable to the enormous bureaucracy that follows private insurance. I don't mind paying for some freeriders. Most people enjoy working more than sitting around waiting for the next welfare check, and that's what keeps the system more than floating. The perfect percentage for me? No idea, but probably higher than most here.
Norway is probably the most productive, high growth economy on the planet. Check the numbers. Not the WSJ or conservative propaganda.
From Tyler Cowen's
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03/nozicks-wilt-ch.html
-
Fly
"But the most insidious enemy is the cowardly journalist and editor who doesn't need to be told what to do, because he or she has already internalized the need to please—or at least not to offend—the worst tyranny of all, which is the safety-first version of public opinion."
Is this Hitchens' way of coming clean about his horrible writing on Iraq? Its never too late Chris, God Forgives!!!
-
thelastnamechosen 10:37
I enjoyed the Time parody immensely.
Nicely done, sir/ma'am.
-
@JackAckroyd
Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Or vice versa.
-
Really!?!?!
You would do well to remember most of Wall St is Democrat. Shooter
You have to be joking Shooter. Most of Wall street is democrat? That's just LOL funny. You've sling a lot of BS on these posts, but this one takes the cake.
-
If Hitchens has offended you then I guess that's a start huh?
Scott Horton used this term the other day " Ludicrous Conceit" and serves this current atmosphere of the media and it's relationship to the administration perfectly.
-
Some eedjit wrote:
[William Timberman]: Well, said liberals, it's nice that we can spread the benefit of home-ownership more broadly, but we should be careful about selling things to people that they can't really afford,
[our resident village eedjit]: I can agree with this. Poor people should not be allowed stuff they can't afford, houses, large screen TV's, new cars, credit cards, and so forth.
Yes, indeed, welfare queens [and you know who "these people" are, of course <*wink-wink*>] shouldn't be buying Cadillacs. So spake that Nobel Laureate of Economics and Sociology, Sir Ronny Reagan. Of course, like everything he talked about, he was just making this sh*te up. Is our resident eedjit Sh**ter following in his shoes? I vote "yes"...
Cheers,
-
Prof. Roubini's 12 steps to financial meltdown
This is for you, Shooter and anyone else who thinks the people Spitzer prosecuted were "innocent".
Step one is still happening.
Step one is the worst housing recession in US history. House prices will, he says, fall by 20 to 30 per cent from their peak, which would wipe out between $4,000bn and $6,000bn in household wealth. Ten million households will end up with negative equity and so with a huge incentive to put the house keys in the post and depart for greener fields. Many more home-builders will be bankrupted.
Step two would be further losses, beyond the $250bn-$300bn now estimated, for subprime mortgages. About 60 per cent of all mortgage origination between 2005 and 2007 had “reckless or toxic features”, argues Prof Roubini. Goldman Sachs estimates mortgage losses at $400bn. But if home prices fell by more than 20 per cent, losses would be bigger. That would further impair the banks’ ability to offer credit.
Step three would be big losses on unsecured consumer debt: credit cards, auto loans, student loans and so forth. The “credit crunch” would then spread from mortgages to a wide range of consumer credit.
Step four would be the downgrading of the monoline insurers, which do not deserve the AAA rating on which their business depends. A further $150bn writedown of asset-backed securities would then ensue.
Step five would be the meltdown of the commercial property market, while step six would be bankruptcy of a large regional or national bank.
Step seven would be big losses on reckless leveraged buy-outs. Hundreds of billions of dollars of such loans are now stuck on the balance sheets of financial institutions.
Step eight would be a wave of corporate defaults. On average, US companies are in decent shape, but a “fat tail” of companies has low profitability and heavy debt. Such defaults would spread losses in “credit default swaps”, which insure such debt. The losses could be $250bn. Some insurers might go bankrupt.
Step nine would be a meltdown in the “shadow financial system”. Dealing with the distress of hedge funds, special investment vehicles and so forth will be made more difficult by the fact that they have no direct access to lending from central banks.
Step 10 would be a further collapse in stock prices. Failures of hedge funds, margin calls and shorting could lead to cascading falls in prices.
Step 11 would be a drying-up of liquidity in a range of financial markets, including interbank and money markets. Behind this would be a jump in concerns about solvency.
Step 12 would be “a vicious circle of losses, capital reduction, credit contraction, forced liquidation and fire sales of assets at below fundamental prices”.
Prof. Roubini: “Total losses in the financial system will add up to more than $1,000bn and the economic recession will become deeper more protracted and severe.” This, he suggests, is the “nightmare scenario” keeping Ben Bernanke and colleagues at the US Federal Reserve awake. It explains why, having failed to appreciate the dangers for so long, the Fed has lowered rates by 200 basis points this year. This is insurance against a financial meltdown."
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/242290