Mosque on Park Place

From Olberman to Hannity everyone is talking about the proposed mosque on Park Place. Big debate on free speech and freedom of religion and hurt feelings and what not. I thought it would be amusing to throw a wrench into the works.

How would the different parties react if say the NYT (they'd never have the balls, so how about the NY Post, Zuckerman might be up for it) decided to print the Danish cartoons of Mohammad as a suicide bomber on their front page? Would the group behind the mosque be supporting NYT's freedom of speech or try to emulate the depicted suicide bomber? Or would they be squealing the same garbage about hurt feelings and what not that Gingrich and Palin and now vomiting? Where would Zakaria or Bloomberg stand? Sure would have been interesting.

Hypocrisy all around.

Read more!

AZ Senate Bill 1070

The AZ Senate Bill 1070, also known as the Arizona Immigration Law has come under much scrutiny. A more readable version of the text can be found here. The main requirement of the law seems to be the following:

1. Violations of federal immigration laws are now state crimes in Arizona and the laws are now enforceable by state police.
2. Foreigners are required to carry immigration documentation at all times (this is actually a federal statute).
3. The law effectively requires citizens to carry some sort of identification, in absence of which they are presumed to be aliens and hence subject to detention.

Several professors at the University of Arizona have posted a preliminary analysis of the law at SSRN. However, the main precedence might have been set by the Supreme Court decision in Hines v. Davidowitz U.S. 52 from 1941 in which the court found that Pennsylvania could not require foreigners to carry their registration cards and could not make it a state crime. More discussion after the fold.

Several aspects of this law deserve discussion:

(a) A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

This seems to put the burden of proof on the accused (citizen or foreigner) and not the accuser (the law enforcement officer), this idea of presuming guilty unless proven innocent is absurd. While it is one thing to require foreigners to carry documentation, it is quite another to require the same of citizens. There are no requirements to have driver's license, state ID or passport; a person might not be carrying his wallet at the time and many such situations can be easily foreseen. What kind of harassment if any is reasonable for citizens to bear?

(b) For foreigners however the above are not sufficient. The federal law states:

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

For elucidation, jaywalking is also a misdemeanor. The above law can be complied with by carrying the I-94 or the green card. While many argue that this is unreasonable, that is the current federal law, so I don't think that foreigners can reasonably complain about the Arizona law except for possible harassment and in some cases racial profiling.

(c) Irrespective of all of the above the racial profiling aspect has caught the attention of most people. Proponents argue that racial profiling is explicitly prohibited by the law. For example,

"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

But the original text did not have this clause, this was added only after considerable criticism. Hence those who are usually worried about original intent issues should conclude that the original intent of this law was indifferent to concerns of racial profiling which in itself is rather remarkable and of great concern.

(d) Other aspects of the law also seem troublesome. For instance, there are no exceptions for children which is also ridiculous.

(e) The federal government is arguing that AZ SB 1070 encroaches on federal jurisdiction. In that regard of possible interest is another case Chamber of Commerce v Candelaria in which Arizona (under Janet Napolitano) enacted a law requiring state employers to use E-verify and imposing penalties for employing illegal immigrants. This however was upheld in both district and appellate courts and now working its way to the Supreme Court, putting the Obama administration in an embarrassing situation.

(f) A new an related debate is starting on modifying or reinterpreting the 14th amendment. That's a whole can of worms which I will touch upon soon.

.

Read more!

Was the Civil War Constitutional?

In the following the constitution refers to the constitution of the United States or the Union and not that of the Confederacy. I will argue that

(1) From Lincoln's perspective he was not violating the constitution, to the contrary he was defending it, and
(2) From the perspective of the Confederacy Lincoln was not violating the constitution

Since these are the two primary perspectives I conclude that the Civil War was not a violation of the constitution.

Article 1 Section 10
Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation; ... link

The states came together to form the Union, hence their existence is independent of the Union and the powers prohibited, at least from the Union's perspective were not conditional. This is exactly what the Supreme Court found in 1877 in Williams vs Bruffy.

The Confederate perspective was to invent an additional qualification, Powers Prohibited to States (as long as they don't secede). Of course no such qualification exists. But from the Confederate perspective, the states seceded and were no longer obligated to uphold the constitution and hence the Confederacy was legal since the law/constitution was not applicable since it was the law of a foreign land. From this perspective the Civil War was not a civil war at all but a war between two nations. There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting warfare with foreign nations, conquest and and even plunder as happened several times during history, with Mexico with regards to Texas, or with native tribes etc.

Hence irrespective of the right to secede or not the war was not a violation of the constitution.
Read more!

Israel and the Turkish Flotilla

Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza, the legitimacy or effectiveness of which is not a subject of this post. Some activists, diplomats and agitators had put together a few ships to break the blockade and take emergency supplies to Gaza. Israel intercepted these ships in international waters (closer to Egypt than Israel) and took possession of these ships, during which between nine and seventeen activists were killed.

The first point has been raised by many. Israel does not have jurisdiction in international waters, invading these ships was an act of piracy; the activists had every right to defend themselves against illegal boarders just as any ship would defend itself against the Somali pirates. Don't want to be treated like a pirate? Don't behave like one.

The second point has been missed by many and worth mentioning. There are repeated references that the Israeli commandos weren't prepared for any resistance, some of them were even armed with paint-ball guns. This gives me pause. The flotilla were seen by Israel as an existential threat, still the propaganda minister of Israel is going on about how the activists consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary guards, they might have been smuggling rockets and missiles which would then be used against Israel. For all these reasons Israel had to intercept these ships. But wait, trying to intercept a lethal ship and the commandos not prepared for any resistance? Armed with paint guns? Where's the disconnect here?

On the other hand if these ships were stopped within Israeli waters none of these arguments would arise. Israel would have had every authority to intercept the ships, and refuse entry to any activist without a valid Israeli visa. Any resistance to Israeli forces would be a crime and hence none of these criticisms would apply. So what happened?

David Igantius (the unofficial spokesman for the CIA at the Washington Post) puts it thus:

The answer is that over many years, Israel has become accustomed to unchallenged freedom of military action in the Middle East. Operating boldly and often far from home, it has attacked and intimidated its adversaries. This confrontational approach worked brilliantly when Israel's foes were backward guerrillas and incompetent Arab armies, but it has been less successful in the era of the Internet and missile proliferation.

Hubris and blatant disregard of any international norm had become a modus operandi of Israel even when it is completely unnecessary as in this case. Israel is slowly "checking out" of whatever is referred to as the "international community". This should be very worrisome to all those who wish Israel well, the ignorance and arrogance of it's leadership make Israel more and more isolated, an isolation that Israel (no matter what the jingoists say) can ill afford.

Read more!

The State of the Euro Zone

In the early decades of the twentieth century Germany experienced two great shocks, the hyperinflation of the twenties eventually followed by the second world war. These two events shaped German policy in the post WWII era, the twin imperatives of anti-inflationary monetary policy and European integration. Today however the two policies are coming to a head with the collapse of the Greek economy. What kind of policy should Germany pursue, tolerate a large deficit or expel Greece from the Euro zone. Martin Wolf at the Financial Times discusses the above conundrum in his opinion column.

The situation in Greece has enormous implications for the Euro zone, both economically and politically. Unlike the United States Greece can't print its way out of the crisis, since the printing press of the Euro (the European Central Bank) is in Germany. At some point Greece will find it more convenient to leave the Euro; however the political ramifications will be enormous. On the other hand Martin Feldstein argues that this is inevitable.

Hence the pandering has begun, and here's probably one of the worst articles from the Economist, both praising German restraint and demanding a more Anglo/Saxon (the British/American) model of overconsumption to stimulate the rest of Europe. The comments on the article are actually more insightful although the article lays down the context. Read more!

China and Currency Manipulation

A couple of interesting posts on the currency situation with China, from Krugman and the Telegraph. Both articles argue that the Treasury should officially declare that China is manipulating its currency which would immediately trigger punitive measures starting with the imposition of tariffs on Chinese products.

Unfortunately I think both articles are wrong as most of the comments on Krugman's article point out. Take tariffs for example, Walmart will spend a fortune to water down any bill so that is unlikely. Even if it were possible, the manufacturing isn't going to come back to the U.S., it will move to Vietnam or some other low cost nation. Once the manufacturing base is destroyed it's difficult to rebuild it overnight, especially since investors are not sure how long the tariffs will last.

I agree that this is a mutually assured destruction, while it will hurt America some, it will wreck havoc in China, massive unemployment leading to unforeseeable consequences. In America this will lead to some inflation but more could be in the offing. The current low interest rate levels are sustainable specifically because China is still buying bonds to keep the yuan pegged to the dollar. As the rates increase, it would trigger a new round of defaults etc. Moreover, the US is about to lose the triple A rating, so the consequences for the US could be substantial as well.

Read more!

Public Transportation

I was talking to a Houstonian about the public transportation system in New York, and her comment was that people in Texas are very independent, and she would not be able to give up the freedom of having a car, New York would be a nightmare for her. A few days later I experienced the first traffic jam and started thinking about independence and public transportation.

Cars don't get you much freedom at all, of course in Houston cars are essential. But consider this, a car makes you dependent on a) the car running properly, b) fuel in the tank, gas station, gas prices etc. c) the traffic running smoothly, and other road conditions, d) your own concentration while driving e) other drivers around you driving safely.

On the other hand the time spent driving is a complete waste, you can't read or do any kind of work. In New York you'd wait for a train, if the train is delayed just get up to the street and hail a cab, and if everything is blocked you can just walk. For all their independence Houstonians can't depend on their own two legs to get them anywhere. I think the meaning of independence, freedom and liberty really needs to be thought over.

Read more!

Executive Pay on Wall St.

The best option I have heard so far is that of the escrow account. A trader puts on a twenty year trade and books a mark-to-model profit and gets a percentage as a bonus. The bonus instead of being held by the bank is put in an escrow account, with the same vesting period. Thus if the trade tanks, the bank can claw back some of the money, on the other hand the trader does not lose the bonus if he decides to leave the bank. Read more!

First Dinner

I have to admit that the food was really first class. The Tex-Mex place is called El Tiempo Cantina and here's the dish (enough for at least two large meals)

Red snapper with tomato and olive sauce with lump crabmeat and jumbo shrimp. Had so much to eat that I had to pack and bring the rest home, so am not feeling like checking out the local pub, maybe tomorrow.

Tomorrow will have to walk to work, the prediction is that it'll rain, in which case I will have to call a taxi. I will definitely rent a car during lunch and start looking at new places.

On the other hand the meetup already has five members, so I will probably set up the first meet and greet very soon. Read more!

Arrival in Houston, TX

The flight from Laguardia was uneventful. Saw the first prius on the highway, didn't look all that small next to the SUVs, so I am still optimistic. The apartment complex where they have put me up is ridiculous to get in, there's no "on-foot" entrance, only cars can go in. Once the driver dropped me off, I realized there was no elevator to go to the second floor. I didn't want to haul my 70 pound suitcase up the stairs, so had to get back into the taxi and drive to the second floor of the parking lot, from where accessing the residential part was relatively easy. Welcome to Houston.

Got out to check out the route to the office, no sidewalks. No sidewalks, but still there are London style telephone booths, I bet they are phoney decorations. Walked a bit and saw a bus stop, a woman was waiting. On my way back, she was still waiting.

The fields are manicured, and not a sole (excuse the pun) has ever walked on them. The area feels lifeless although I did see a few people playing baseball in the park across the street, a few girls with dogs and an ambling couple.

However I located the best Tex-Mex restaurant in these parts, and also a local pub, so will go over shortly. Read more!

Personness of Corporations

Proposition: Rights of persons are exogenous to any constitution and hence some rights can be inalienable; rights of corporations are derived from the legal system within which they are incorporated and hence corporations can not have inalienable rights.

The idea of corporations as persons has risen to the fore due to Citizens United vs. Federal Eelction Commision. The central point in the case is whether the government can restrict free speech of corporations (in this particular case unlimited spending in an election). The supreme court decided in favor of Citizens United, that (a) as corporations are a manifestation of persons constituting them, hence their freedom of speech can not be restricted, and (b) "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

My view of rights echo the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...". Hence, in this hierarchy at the top is the creator, next are person or persons who then come together to make a grand compromise in the form of a constitution.

In this view the constitution does not grant people any rights but only take away rights for the sake of a functioning society. Hence freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution, but the constituion concents to the fact that people would not have to give up their freedom of speech (which is inherently their's) in order to live in the territories in which the constituion is effective.

In this hierarchy, corporations come below the constitution or the legal framework. An entity like the NRA which is an adovocacy group could exist without a constitution, however not so for Citi Group. Hence Citit Group can not have inelienable rights, the individuals forming Citi Group will still have their individual freedoms (individually or as organizations which are not incroporated). However, if they are dependent on the legal system ofr the existence of their organization then they are at the mercy of the legal system.

Of course in practice if the system is too restrictive (say like North Korea or Burma) then industries would not find that too appealing a business environment. So there's some trade-off with regards to what rights a corporation can have. But for me the main point is that the government can restrict rights of corporations.

The second point is more nebulous. Of course the courts recognize the need to restrict speech, for example shouting fire in a crowded place. As someone said, the constitution is not a death wish. But who decides? It may be obvious to many that allowing corporations a free hand in an election is a death wish for democracy. The exact text of the first amendment is obviously flawed or incomplete and hence this rigorous application is simply foolish.

Read more!