Friday, December 20, 2013

2013 has been a busy year for the apartheid dictatorship of the Castro family in Cuba

Over 30 Ladies in White Arrested Today


Over 30 members of the pro-democracy group, The Ladies in White, were beaten and arrested today, as they tried to gather for a meeting in Havana.
Just another day in Castro's Cuba.
Has the international community decided that such systemic violence against peaceful women in acceptable?

If not -- where's the outrage?
In case you missed it, here's a picture of Marina Paz, a member of The Ladies in White, being beaten and stripped of her symbolic white clothing last week:

Russia trumps US in Ukraine poker game

Moscow decided it is vital to Russia’s interests that Ukraine remains a fraternal country at any cost
By M K Bhadrakumar
Russia may have made its most significant foreign-policy gain in the entire post-cold war era when the Kremlin decisively moved in on Tuesday to offer a rescue package for the beleagured Ukrainian economy and may have taken a leap forward in leading that country into the Eurasian Union, which Moscow is planning as the umbrella organization bringing together the former Soviet republics. 
This is undoubtedly one of President Vladimir Putin’s finest hours in the Kremlin. The point is, if Ukraine moves into the Western orbit, Russia falls back on its back foot in strategic terms; without Ukraine Eurasian Union remains grossly inadequate; with Ukraine the Eurasian Union all but restores the Soviet Union in politico-economic terms. 
Unsurprisingly, the West is aghast, and the mood of the cold warriors can’t be uglier than this. Russia is beating the West at its own game of cheque book diplomacy. No need for Russian tanks to roll into the streets of Kiev as in 1956 in Budapest. 
The European Union foreign ministers have unceremoniously come down from the high pedestal from where they preached to Ukraine on the virtues of human rights record and western liberal democracy and pleaded it is prepared to sign an Association at a special summit this very week if only President Yanukovich is willing. But it seems a case of too little too late. 
Washington too is left mumbling for words, not knowing what to say. All that the West is left with now are the protestors from western regions of Ukraine on the Kiev city square. Can the CIA push a color revolution through? This remains the only ray of hope. 
The poignancy lies in this that neither the US nor the EU has any money (or the political will to find the money) to help ease Ukraine’s staggering debt burden. Whereas, Russia is offering financial support of $15 billion and the slashing of the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine by one-third and adjusting the outstanding debt of $2 billion that Kiev owes to Gazprom for past transactions. 
Besides, trade agreements have been signed whereby Moscow has given duty concessions to Ukrainian exports to the Russian market. A summit of the Eurasian Union Council is due to be held later this month in Russia and it is worth watching how yesterday’s developments morph into the integration processes of the post-Soviet space under Moscow’s leadership. 
Equally, there is a ‘China angle’ to all this. Yanukovich paid a 4-day visit to Beijing and there is every sign that China has also offered to help Ukraine.  The Chinese report on Yanukovich’s meeting with President Xi Jinping brought out the flavor of a strategic relationship in the making, which would have major consequences for Eurasian politics. Interestingly, on his return journey from Beijing, Yanukovich had met Putin briefly in Sochi, presumably to fill him in on his talks with Xi and to make it clear he keeps Moscow on board.  
It is too early to say whether the pattern of Russia-China coordination that is evident over Middle Eastern issues could repeat elsewhere. Certainly, Russia’s developing ties with Vietnam helps China indirectly by keeping the Americans at bay and, on the other hand, China’s ties with Ukraine would help create space for the latter from having to depend excessively on the West, which is something that suits Moscow as well.

Read more at:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2013/12/18/russia-trumps-us-in-ukraine-poker-game/

American Collapse, Recovery or Whatever

Collapse is in the eye of the beholder
by Makeda
“Don’t call me a whore!” a friend wrote me angrily. She was correcting me, explaining that her current work was not true prostitution because it only involved massage and hand jobs. I hadn’t paid attention to precise nomenclature as I was trying to convince her to quit. My point was that by working as a prosti…prostassage therapist she might severely limit her future employment possibilities. She was furious that I had lumped her in with women who walk the streets.
Nomenclature means a lot to our pride. People take offense if they are told they are living in a collapsed culture. Collapsed implies over. Collapsed implies hopeless. Collapsed implies that we have failed. But at some point we have to look at people like my angry friend and admit that we are failing—on many, many levels. My friend was once a middle-class woman with a college degree and a profession. She raised children on her own after her husband died. And as she tried to push forward, her career started moving backwards. And then somehow, eventually, it came to a point where she was willing to do work of questionable legality to pay her bills and keep a roof over her head. The horror that awaited her if she were to became homeless was arguably much worse than the controlled environment of the massage parlor, even taking into account the occasional police raids.
Our culture is such that half of Americans probably think “If the money is good, so what?” There is no thought given to the proper way to live and to relate to people. There is no thought given to what such work does to the soul of this woman. The American thinking process jumps to the bottom line of the financial transaction, and declares victory if cash has changed hands. The woman is “richer” so for them she is better off. These same people see the American economy as rebounding. People are spending. Some people are getting rich. What’s the problem?
When everything is calculated in a purely financial light, we start to lose any sense of decency or community. I saw the end result of this process when I recently visited Philadelphia to look at properties. There are houses there under $10,000. While checking out the neighborhoods where these properties are, I made an astounding observation. Almost every block in these neighborhoods has at least one abandoned home. These homes are impossible to miss because of the state of disrepair they were in: porches or parts of roofs are literally collapsed. As if there could be any question as to their status, the city posts large warning signs when boarding them up. The visually offensive chartreuse or neon orange signs warn that “trespassers” could end up spending two years in jail. I wondered which the city had more of—abandoned houses or homeless families. Sadly, I actually saw an occasional homeless person wander through the area. I was tempted to go purchase them some tools and hardhats, and organize a take-over of abandoned buildings by the homeless.
I got in contact a friend who is well-connected in Philadelphia politics. I pressed him with the obvious question: shouldn’t the city be teaching the homeless how to fix up these abandoned eyesores that litter the urban landscape? His answer was a resounding “No.” Apparently the city has to protect the rights of property owners, who are hoping to turn a profit on these places. I wondered what kind of financial alchemy could possibly turn a profit on ugly houses in depressed neighborhoods that are in need of serious labor. It must have something to do with “quantitative easing.”
At one point during my Philadelphia adventure I walked toward an old abandoned factory which, in a better city, would have been turned into hipster lofts, and I saw a bookstore. I was overjoyed. The bookstore seemed like a beacon of light in this dark ghetto—right until I got close enough to read what was painted in huge letters on its wall. “We ship to prisons! Ask inside.” I didn’t. I already knew these clever people were doing very brisk business. In the early 2000s I would occasionally volunteer for Books Through Bars, an organization that sent donated books to the incarcerated. Back then jailed people seemed somehow more distant. As the end of the decade approached and I returned to America after living abroad, the prison system seemed much closer. I lived with my mother temporarily, and I would ride the bus to work. Every day, on the bus, I heard men loudly discussing their parole officers on their cellphones. What I might have overheard whispered in hushed voices in my childhood was now a subject the transit riding public could hear about loud and clear, whether they wanted to or not. Nor did the women seem any more reticent, as they discussed what they were planning to do with their food stamps and benefit money. Even if I wore earplugs I would not have been able to avoid hearing these people, or smelling the drugs they occasionally lit in the back of the bus.
All life seemed to revolve around the trifecta of prisons, handouts and drugs. Every few days a van would park directly in front of our house before visiting “friends” across the street. “What are they doing?” asked my mother angrily. “Dealing drugs,” I would explain flatly. Based on their shiny new van, the dealers were certainly doing better than I was. I was waiting to be credentialed as a doctor, and worried about being unable to afford my bus rides to work. They were making so much money they could eat endless restaurant-cooked meals in their van and leave the trash on my mother’s front lawn. “I don’t know why the police don’t do something about the fact… they are littering, LITTERING!!” my mother would start screaming indignantly. “The police are in on the action,” I informed her.
On a recent trip home I noticed that the drug delivery van has left the neighborhood. I wondered whether it was a sign of the times getting better or worse. Are they getting better prices somewhere else? Have drugs finally become an item for the middle class? Had the neighborhood demographics tipped it toward prescription drug abuse? Sadly, one of the least probable possibilities is that the police had actually done their job.
When looking at a country as large and complex as the USA, one can make any number of contradictory assertions and still be factually correct. The economy doing extremely well, and the economy is going to hell. One need look no farther than the banking industry to figure that out: the banks are bankrupt and require bail-outs; the banks are doing well and making healthy profits. American banks are in every way typical of American corporations: they are corrupt, reliant on the government to subsidize and support them, and produce mind-boggling riches for those that run them. At the bottom of the bank hierarchy are the tellers. The polite, well dressed tellers wear conservative new clothes and jewelry. They exude the kind of stability and class that reflects well on the banks. Yet about a third of them earn little enough to qualify for public assistance. They have joined the ranks of retail workers, restaurant workers, hotel workers and other service industry personnel who must rely on the welfare system in order to work. I suspect they will be joined by more and more recent college graduates who can not actually earn a positive sum after subtracting their student loan payments.
But rest assured that from each and every payment or delinquency notice or collection activity someone somewhere is making a profit. In this economy every action is monetized, even our very socializing. As you randomly clicked around the Internet to find this article, you generated income for tech companies. At some point, as every last penny was pushed or pulled out of your pocket, you began shifting from consumer to producer: you became a prosumer… and the machine that is American capitalism milked more profit still from your existence. Your eyeballs and clicks generated income based on some strange calculations by marketers. American-style capitalism now has you in debt and producing for it even as you consume, but that is now a middle class privilege, and no one is forcing people to make these choices.
At the bottom of the food chain are the forced producers. Those people are so broke that they have become superfluous to the normative economy. They seem to be channeled in one way or another into the prison system, where they become the ultimate producers. Their very bodies create profits for prison corporations simply by existing in prisons, while their arguably forced labor is compelled at pennies on the dollar to produce cheap consumer goods. The American economy seems to be succeeding at monetizing everything while producing fewer and fewer goods or services of any real value to anyone but a few rich people profiting off the entire system.
America’s political economy has changed incrementally enough that many people have not noticed what is really happening. It’s over for most of us. You can call it collapse, or you can call it restructuring. You can even call it a recovery. But you cannot call it sustainable, or pleasant. The overall trajectory is toward decline, decay, destitution…
Read more at:

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Caligula in Pyongyang

This is high-IQ craziness, calculating and devious—Caligula with nukes and missiles
by John Derbyshire
You remember Caligula. John Hurt played him with creepy malignity in the old BBC production of I, Claudius. Caligula was the third emperor of Rome on a strict count (which doesn’t include Julius Caesar), the fourth of the Twelve Caesars written up by the historian Suetonius.
At age 24 Caligula succeeded his great-uncle Tiberius, the second emperor. “Some are of the opinion,” says Suetonius (ut quidam opinantur) that Caligula poisoned his great-uncle, then held a pillow over his face to make sure of the deed.
Whether or not this is true, Caligula made a grisly show of being emperor during his four years on the throne. He killed his adopted son, his brother, two cousins, and possibly also his grandmother. He banished his wife, boinked his sisters, and tried to make his horse a consul. Suetonius:
He assumed various titles: “Pious,” “Child of the Camp,” “Father of the Armies,” and “Greatest and best of Caesars”….He forbade the celebration of [his great-grandfather, the Emperor Augustus’s] victories by annual festivals….He forced parents to attend the executions of their sons….
When Caligula was dispatched by a joint army-senate conspiracy in January of 41 AD, the historian tells us that:
One may form an idea of the state of those times by what followed. Not even after the murder was made known was it at once believed that he was dead, but it was suspected that [Caligula] himself had made up and circulated the report, to find out by that means how men felt towards him.
One scary guy. Here’s another.
“I have no more idea than anyone else what’s going on in Pyongyang’s corridors of power, but I watch these events with fascination.”
Kim Jong-un attained supreme power in North Korea at age 28, and Caligula parallels are not hard to find. He definitely has the titles: “Supreme Leader,” “Great Successor,” “Sun of the 21st Century,” and a raft of others.
Kim’s father and grandfather are still celebrated by name, but the official records of their lives have been purged from the archives of the Korea Central News Agency website. And yes, if Kim’s regime executes you—as they did one of the Great Successor’s old girlfriends recently—your parents are forced to watch before being hustled off to labor camps.
Most recently we hear that Kim has offed his uncle Jang Song Thaek. Kim didn’t do the offing personally—this is a modern despotism, for heaven’s sake—but there can’t be much doubt he ordered it and approved of the exceptionally vituperative reports of Jang’s “crimes” put out by the state news agency.
Jang Song Thaek was married to the sister of Kim’s father, North Korea’s previous dictator Kim Jong-il, who died two years ago. Jang is said to have groomed Kim for the succession, just as Tiberius groomed Caligula.
Read more at:

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Boy Trouble

Family breakdown disproportionately harms young males
by KAY S. HYMOWITZ
by When I started following the research on child well-being about two decades ago, the focus was almost always girls’ problems—their low self-esteem, lax ambitions, eating disorders, and, most alarming, high rates of teen pregnancy. Now, though, with teen births down more than 50 percent from their 1991 peak and girls dominating classrooms and graduation ceremonies, boys and men are increasingly the ones under examination. Their high school grades and college attendance rates have remained stalled for decades. Among poor and working-class boys, the chances of climbing out of the low-end labor market—and of becoming reliable husbands and fathers—are looking worse and worse.
Economists have scratched their heads. “The greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not,” MIT’s Michael Greenstone told theNew York Times. If boys were as rational as their sisters, he implied, they would be staying in school, getting degrees, and going on to buff their Florsheim shoes on weekdays at 7:30 AM. Instead, the rational sex, the proto-homo economicus, is shrugging off school and resigning itself to a life of shelf stocking. Why would that be?
This spring, another MIT economist, David Autor, and coauthor Melanie Wasserman, proposed an answer. The reason for boys’ dismal school performance, they argued, was the growing number of fatherless homes. Boys and young men weren’t behaving rationally, the theory suggested, because their family background left them without the necessary attitudes and skills to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. The paper generated a brief buzz but then vanished. That’s too bad, for the claim that family breakdown has had an especially harsh impact on boys, and therefore men, has considerable psychological and biological research behind it. Anyone interested in the plight of poor and working-class men—and, more broadly, mobility and the American dream—should keep it front and center in public debate.
In fact, signs that the nuclear-family meltdown of the past half-century has been particularly toxic to boys’ well-being are not new. By the 1970s and eighties, family researchers following the children of the divorce revolution noticed that, while both girls and boys showed distress when their parents split up, they had different ways of showing it. Girls tended to “internalize” their unhappiness: they became depressed and anxious, and many cut themselves, or got into drugs or alcohol. Boys, on the other hand, “externalized” or “acted out”: they became more impulsive, aggressive, and “antisocial.” Both reactions were worrisome, but boys’ behavior had the disadvantage of annoying and even frightening classmates, teachers, and neighbors. Boys from broken homes were more likely than their peers to get suspended and arrested. Girls’ unhappiness also seemed to ease within a year or two after their parents’ divorce; boys’ didn’t.
......

Read more at :

Paul Ryan And The Republicans Are Lackeys To Democratic Party Big Spenders

The principal role of GOP in Washington is to hold the coats of Democratic spenders
By Doug Bandow
Last fiscal year Uncle Sam had some budget good news. After running $1 trillion-plus deficits four years in a row, Washington had to borrow “just” $680 billion in 2013. Victory was at hand!
True, that was the fifth highest deficit in history, 50 percent greater than the pre-financial crash record. But it’s only the taxpayers’ money, so what’s the big deal? Politicians in Washington talked about the need to start spending again. There certainly was no justification for sequestration, which imposed a shocking, brutal, horrific 2.3 percent cut in federal spending. What were legislators thinking when they approved that reduction? The government and nation almost collapsed as a result!
Now Republicans and Democrats have come together on Capitol Hill for a new budget agreement which increases both outlays and taxes. Bipartisanship in action! That the Democratic Party wants to spend more is hardly surprising. But the GOP has demonstrated yet again that its principal role in Washington is to hold the coats of Democratic spenders when they raid the Treasury.
The legislation adopted by the House drops sequestration, which actually trimmed federal outlays, and hikes spending over the next two years by $62 billion. In return, Congress promises to lower the collective deficit over the next decade by $85 billion—while spending tens of trillions of dollars. The accord raises revenue, including a very real $12.6 billion in airline taxes. There are a few spending reductions—kind of. The bulk of them are entitlement caps a decade hence, which even Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee, admits are of “dubious validity.”
After all, in the same bill the House GOP voted to drop discretionary spending cuts for 2014 approved just two years ago. Yet the new entitlement caps are slated to take effect after two presidential elections and four congressional elections. Which means the reductions will never occur. The best that can be said is that the new outlays are trivial compared to Uncle Sam’s gluttonous spending binge. The increase in so-called discretionary outlays will be overwhelmed by the coming entitlement tsunami. We won’t notice the extra bloat.
The only surprise in the sell-out was the role of House Budget Committee Chairman and 2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. Although no radical, he nevertheless had seemed committed to a more responsible budget path. Yet he traded real current spending increases for fake future spending cuts, a standard congressional tactic running back at least to the infamous Reagan tax hike of 1983.
Of course, holding only the House means the Republican Party has to compromise, as it learned during the recent health care battle. Shutting the government to defund ObamaCare always was doomed to fail. The Democrats held both the Presidency and Senate and could not be expected to abandon their only significant domestic policy achievement of the last five years. Moreover, no Congress can bind future legislators, so at most a one-year funding pause was possible. While the public disliked the federal health care takeover, most people were not inclined to hold every agency and program hostage in a GOP-orchestrated political battle.
However, a budget fight would have been far easier. The Republicans wouldn’t have had to perform the Maori Haka while chanting death threats against government agencies. The GOP merely had to support the fiscal status quo, sequester included, unless the Democrats offered equivalent alternative cuts.
The sequester was an arbitrary and inefficient tool, but it proved to be the only practical means of restraining federal spending. As my Cato CATO +0.23%Institute colleague Chris Edwards put it before Rep. Ryan waved the white flag, “In theory, Republicans have the upper hand in budget talks because current law specifies that discretionary spending will be modestly reduced in 2014 to $967 billion. Republicans always claim that they are for spending restraint, and here they just need to hold firm on current-law budget caps to save serious money over time.” Instead, the GOP tossed away its only weapon.
Earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office highlighted the stakes: “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.” The debt-GDP ratio “is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percent at the end of 2007.”
Today the national debt exceeds both $17.2 trillion and runs more than $54,000 per citizen and nearly $150,000 per taxpayer. At 100 percent of GDP the debt burden is greater than in Europe. Before the GOP cave-in the CBO figured that in the best case Uncle Sam would add $6.3 trillion more in red ink over the next decade. The annual deficit would drop to “only” $378 billion in 2015. But then deficits would begin another inexorable rise. By 2023 federal ink would be $895 billion, warned CBO. The official debt-GDP ratio would have jumped by a third. This was the agency’s optimistic estimate.
....

Read more at :

Water Wars

Another Kick to Malthus
We may soon be looking to our oceans for our freshwater—or more accurately, we’ll be looking underneath our oceans. A new study, the first to comprehensively survey the world’s known reserves of undersea freshwater, estimates that there are roughly 120,000 cubic miles—more than 100 times the amount of freshwater we’ve drilled from the ground since 1900—of fresh and nearly-fresh water trapped underneath sea beds. The upshot: we could be seeing more offshore drilling for water as well as oil in the future. Science Daily reports:
The water, which could perhaps be used to eke out supplies to the world’s burgeoning coastal cities, has been located off Australia, China, North America and South Africa. [...]
These reserves were formed over the past hundreds of thousands of years when on average the sea level was much lower than it is today, and when the coastline was further out, [lead author Dr Vincent Post] explains…”So when it rained, the water would infiltrate into the ground and fill up the water table in areas that are nowadays under the sea.
Some of these reserves will be fresh enough that they won’t need to go through the energy-intensive desalinization process, while some of them will be only slightly brackish, and will be easier and, importantly, cheaper to desalinate. In fact, this kind of offshore drilling for water is already happening; NPR notes that there are already operations in places like Cape May, NJ to drill for and eventually desalinate low-salinity water.
Water scarcity has been a favorite topic for the Chicken Littles of the world. Just 18 years ago the vice president of the World Bank was ominously warning that “the wars of the next century will be fought over water.” It’s easy to drum up fears of “water wars” some undetermined time in the future, but studies like this one, and discoveries of new water sources like this one in Kenya, or this one under the Sahara, suggest that these fears that have gripped Malthusians—and that Malthusians have in turn used to push through otherwise unworkable policy recommendations—are a lot less serious.

North America to Drown in Oil as Mexico Ends Monopoly

Adding another Nigeria to world oil supply
By Joe Carroll and Bradley Olso
The flood of North American crude oil is set to become a deluge as Mexico dismantles a 75-year-old barrier to foreign investment in its oil fields.
Plagued by almost a decade of slumping output that has degraded Mexico’s take from a $100-a-barrel oil market, President Enrique Pena Nieto is seeking an end to the state monopoly over one of the biggest crude resources in the Western Hemisphere. The doubling in Mexican oil output that Citigroup Inc. said may result from inviting international explorers to drill would be equivalent to adding another Nigeria to world supply, or about 2.5 million barrels a day.
That boom would augment a supply surge from U.S. and Canadian wells that Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) predicts will vault North American production ahead of every OPEC member except Saudi Arabia within two years. With U.S. refineries already choking on more oil than they can process, producers from Exxon to ConocoPhillips are clamoring for repeal of the export restrictions that have outlawed most overseas sales of American crude for four decades.
“This is going to be a huge opportunity for any kind of player” in the energy sector, said Pablo Medina, a Latin American upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in Houston. “All the companies are going to have to turn their heads and start analyzing Mexico.”
Unprecedented Output
An influx of Mexican oil would contribute to a glut that is expected to lower the price of Brent crude, the benchmark for more than half the world’s crude that has averaged $108.62 a barrel this year, to as low as $88 a barrel in 2017, based on estimates from analysts in a Bloomberg survey. Five of the seven analysts who provided 2017 forecasts said prices would be lower than this year.
The revolution in shale drilling that boosted U.S. oil output to a 25-year high this month will allow North America to join the ranks of the world’s crude-exporting continents by 2040, Exxon said in its annual global energy forecast on Dec. 12. Europe and the Asia-Pacific region will be the sole crude import markets by that date, the Irving, Texas-based energy producer said.
Exxon’s forecast, compiled annually by a team of company economists, scientists and engineers, didn’t take into account any changes in Mexico, William Colton, the company’s vice president of strategic planning, said during a presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on Dec. 12.
Opening Mexico’s oilfields to foreign investment would be “a win-win if ever there was one,” said Colton, who described the move as “very good for the people of Mexico and people everywhere in the world who use energy.”
....
Read more at :

The Constitution’s Vanishing Act

For decades, Supreme Court justices have been rewriting key parts of our governing document.
by Richard A. Epstein
The United States Constitution is at its core a classical liberal document. But over the last hundred years, much of it has turned into a progressive text thanks in large part to Supreme Court justices who interpret it creatively, thereby skirting the laborious amendment process of Article V. Here, I address one major, if underappreciated, cause of the problem—the fine art of making its critical words and letters just disappear through the Court’s imaginative application of its power of judicial review. This constitutional disappearing act does not take sides in the longstanding debate over judicial restraint and activism. In some cases, it unduly expands judicial power; in other cases, it wrongly contracts it. The two best illustrations of how this process works are found in the Eighth Amendment and in Article 1, which sets out the federal government’s taxing power.
Cruel and Unusual Punishments
The Eighth Amendment reads in full: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Its use of the passive voice creates an interpretive ambiguity. Does the amendment bind only the federal government or does it bind the states as well? Using the word “excessive” twice in one 16-word sentence is not a model of clarity.
But for these purposes, the most critical word is “punishments.” The letter “s” has disappeared during the arduous process of constitutional interpretation. Just Google the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” and 1,740,000 entries come up. Add the “s” and that number drops by 80 percent to 330,000 entries, most of which refer to punishments without the “s.”
The importance of the slip is evident from the 2012 Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, which struck down a mandatory lifetime sentence for a fourteen year-old guilty of murder. In writing her opinion, Justice Elena Kagan included the “s” in quoting the clause. But during the analysis, that “s” disappears, thereby transforming the constitutional text:
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” That right, we have explained, “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the offense. 
Justice Kagan faithfully references earlier cases that take her position. But the wealth of precedent does not conceal the major shift in constitutional focus. The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” conjures up a list of punishments that should be rejected because they are cruel, no matter what the offense. The issue of proportionality never arises.
That interpretation makes sense because this clause is lifted word for word from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, after it accuses the deposed King James II of inflicting “illegal and cruel punishments.” The clause outlaws the rack, the thumb-screw, drawing and quartering, and other fiendish activities. In no sense did it outlaw the death penalty. Nor could that reading be sensibly made of our own Constitution, whose Fifth Amendment contains references to the death penalty in connection with due process, grand jury presentments, and double jeopardy.
Yet once the “s” is dropped, it is far easier to read the clause as Justice Kagan did, demanding proportionality between the offense and the punishment. At this point, the Court can question the death penalty in many cases, including child rape. In 2008, the Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana found that the Eighth Amendment should be read in light of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But this line of reasoning is simply pop sociology. Historically, there has been much principled and popular opposition to the repeal of the death penalty that should not be so easily cast aside.
Even the most austere account of limited government offers no coherent theory to explain whether the death penalty should be retained or junked, and if so, for what offenses. If there were ever a legislative function, this is it. The disappearance of that “s” was not just a random event. It paved the way for the justices to create a code of criminal sentencing, whose effects are so widespread and profound that it must be regarded as a constitutional amendment, and an unwise one at that.
The Taxing Power
My second example of a disappearing constitutional provision concerns the taxing power found in Article I:
Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
This clause is a big deal because it remedies one of the major defects of the Articles of Confederation, under which the federal government had to beg the individual states for the revenues needed to discharge its own collective function. But in overturning earlier practice, the Founders were nervous about lurching too far in the opposite direction, so they limited the general power of taxation to three specified objects: “payment of debts, provision of common Defence, and the general Welfare of the United States.”
So it is important to understand that the clause is not a catchall that sweeps in every objective under the sun. Federal taxes are meant to fund only a short list of public—i.e. nonexcludable—goods that only the central government can provide. The Congressional power to levy taxes is needed to prevent free-riding by individual states. The limited purposes help prevent politically corrosive cross-subsidies between states that could sink the Union.
The proper interpretation of the clause raises thorny questions about whether, for example, the United States could provide disaster relief that benefits some but not all states. President Grover Cleveland thought that the answer was an emphatic “no” in 1887 when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, which allocated $10,000 for Texas drought relief. Under the Constitution, he did “not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
....
Read more at :


Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Financial Crisis

The rule of law has many enemies. One of them is bad law.
BY JR NYQUIST
In a book titled Theory and History, Ludwig von Mises wrote,
“Because history is not a useless pastime but a study of the utmost practical importance, people have been eager to falsify historical evidence and to misrepresent the course of events.” 
In recent history, the champions of regulation and state control of the economy would endeavor to depict the financial events of 2007-2008 as a failure of regulation. At least one historian is worried that we might have “learned” the wrong lessons if we suppose any such thing.
Historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard University says that insufficient regulation may not be at the heart of the financial crisis. Ferguson calls into question Princeton economist Paul Krugman’s assertion that Reagan era deregulation of financial institutions triggered the crisis. “For one thing,” wrote Ferguson in The Great Degeneration, “it is hard to think of a major event in the US crisis — beginning with the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers — that could not equally well have happened with Glass-Steagall still in force.”
History teaches that rule of law plus economic freedom makes for prosperity, yet we are supposed to believe that restricting freedom — or eliminating vital aspects of freedom — will somehow prevent financial ills. According to Ferguson, 
“there is something especially implausible about the story that regulated financial markets were responsible for rapid growth, while deregulation caused crisis.” 
The fact that heavily regulated markets in the past have created less wealth than free markets under the rule of law must surely count for something. Furthermore, there is no progress without risk, no advances without partial setbacks. And what does the history of capitalism show if not the fact that the advances have far outweighed the setbacks. And if freedom means progress then we must accept the consequences of that progress instead of introducing regulations that will, in the end, choke off progress altogether.
Ludwig von Mises wrote: 
“To lie about historical facts and to destroy evidence has been in the opinion of hosts of statesmen, diplomats, politicians, and writers a legitimate part of the conduct of public affairs and of writing history. One of the main problems of historical research is to unmask such falsehoods.” 
Ferguson’s unmasking of falsehood reminds us that spectacular economic progress is not found in eras of complex or heavy-handed financial regulation. The sad truth is that regulation has far more to do with causing crises than deregulation. 
“The financial crisis that began in 2007 had its origins precisely in over-complex regulation,” wrote Ferguson. “A serious history of the crisis would need to have at least five chapters on its perverse consequences….”
Ferguson wrote up a brief overview of his proposed five chapters on the role of government interference in the financial crisis, which may be summarized as follows: 
(1) incentives were given to bank executives toward low risk assets;
(2) Risk was weighed on ratings given to securities; 
(3) monetary policy consisted of cutting interest rates at the abrupt fall of asset prices, but not if they rose rapidly (as in the housing bubble); 
(4) Congress passed legislation that effectively offered home loans to people who would not otherwise have qualified, inflating real estate prices with “unhedged and unidirectional bets on the US housing market”; 
(5) Chinese currency manipulation effectively and artificially provided the United States with “a vast credit line.”
Read more at:

Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative?

Putin’s Paleoconservative Moment
By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?
While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president’s state of the nation address.
With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.”
“They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.”
Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.
No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.
President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire “the focus of evil in the modern world.” President Putin is implying that Barack Obama’s America may deserve the title in the 21st century.
Nor is he without an argument when we reflect on America’s embrace of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply of Hollywood values.
Our grandparents would not recognize the America in which we live.
Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.
The “destruction of traditional values” in these countries, he said, comes “from the top” and is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.”
Does he not have a point?
Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
America was de-Christianized in the second half of the 20th century by court orders, over the vehement objections of a huge majority of a country that was overwhelmingly Christian.
And same-sex marriage is indeed an “abstract” idea unrooted in the history or tradition of the West. Where did it come from?

Peoples all over the world, claims Putin, are supporting Russia’s “defense of traditional values” against a “so-called tolerance” that is “genderless and infertile.”
...
Read more at: