Made Enough Money?

Made Enough Money?

I can't take Obama seriously when he talks about people who have made enough money--since he apparently made $5.5 million last year--but I confess that there are times when you can understand why, in a nation where millions of people can't afford health insurance, some people see red (and start to think red) when you see ads like this:

2007 Ferrari F430 Spider - $199,900 (obo)

About This F430

Mileage: 2,950 Body Style: Convertible Exterior Color: Red Interior Color: Beige VIN: ZFFEW59AX70151484

Engine: 8 Cylinders Transmission: Automanual Get a CARFAX Record Check

Features: Remote Keyless Entry, Leather Interior, Power Seats, CD Changer, Premium Sound

Selling Points: Loaded with all the right and necessary options with a 253k sticker. I also am selling my 07 F430 Coupe with custom interior from the Ferrari factory.

How cute! Matching Ferraris!  A convertible for the nice days, and a coupe for the rainy days!

I suppose if Ferraris were reasonably cheap (you know, $30,000 for a slightly used one), I could consider owning one.  But when someone has $400,000 worth of transportation, reality really should arrive.

British Sniper Takes Out Two Taliban From 8120 Feet

From the May 2, 2010 Daily Mail:

An army sniper has earned a place in military history by killing two Taliban machine gunners from more than a mile and a half away. 

Craig Harrison's record breaking shots felled the insurgents with consecutive bullets  -  even though they were 3,200ft beyond the official range of his rifle. 

The Household Cavalry veteran's kills from a distance of 8,120ft beat the previous record by 150ft. 


He was using the British-built L115A3 Long Range Rifle, the Army's most powerful sniper weapon. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270414/British-sniper-sets-new-sharpshooting-record-1-54-mile-double-Taliban-kill.html#ixzz0mvafsS4D

Another Bond Called

Another Bond Called

A few days ago, it was Fannie Mae 6.5% bonds being called.  No great surprise on that.  Now, some 5.5% Ford bonds due next year are being called.  What's going on?  If you are expecting interest rates to rise dramatically, I don't think that you call existing bonds.  This almost looks like a dramatic reduction in interest rates is coming.  Or am I missing something?  Or is it just that Ford is flush with cash and doesn't need to borrow money?  Or are they able to borrow so much so cheaply between now and next year that it makes sense to call the bond?

The Scientific Revolution

The Scientific Revolution

After a number of weeks of covering witchcraft trials, people being burned at stake for heresy, religious intolerance, unique forms of torture invented during the Thirty Years War--it is so nice to spend a week teaching the Scientific Revolution on the 17th and 18th centuries.  The only torture or unpleasant death is the threat implicit in Galileo's trial by the Inquisition.

John Eastman for California Attorney-General

John Eastman for California Attorney-General

Professor Volokh endorsed Professor John Eastman for California Attorney-General.  To my surprise, because of Volokh's endorsement, Eastman is a rock hard conservative.  See where he stands on illegal immigration, religious liberty, and same-sex marriage.  Eastman is fighting the Los Angeles County District Attorney for the Republican nomination; the winner gets to take on the looney-tunes San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who will be the Democratic nominee.  (See here for why I consider her looney-tunes.)

I've made a small contribution to Professor Eastman's campaign; feel free to do likewise.

How Hard Is This?

How Hard Is This?

The question of the constitutionality of the Arizona law.  We have a surprisingly similar case already decided by the Supreme Court involving a state attempting to regulate the arrival of immigrants.  From New York v. Miln (1837):

In February, 1824, the Legislature of New York passed "an act concerning passengers in vessels arriving in the port of New York." By one of the provisions of the law, the master of every vessel arriving in New York from any foreign port or from a port of any of the states of the United States other than New York is required, under certain penalties prescribed in the law, within twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make a report in writing containing the names, ages, and last legal settlement of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him during the voyage, and if any of the passengers shall have gone on board any other vessel or shall, during the voyage, have been landed at any place with a view to proceed to New fork, the same shall be stated in the report.

...

The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was "intended to prevent the state's being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such." The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government.

Is there any question that the problem of pauperism and public charge is a motivator for Arizona's law?

It is obvious that the passengers laws of the United States only affect, through the power over navigation, the passengers whilst on their voyage and until they shall have landed; after that, and when they shall have ceased to have any connection with the ship, and when therefore they have ceased to be passengers, the acts of Congress applying to them as such, and only professing to legislate in relation to them as such, have then performed their office, and can with no propriety of language be said to come into conflict with the law of a state, whose operation only begins where that of the laws of Congress end, whose operation is not even on the same subject, because although the person on whom it operates is the same, yet, having ceased to be a passenger, he no longer stands in the only relation in which the laws of Congress either professed or intended to act upon him.

A state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation when that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.

It is not only the right but the bounden and solemn duty of a state to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends where the power over the particular subject or the manner of its exercise are not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.

All those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation or which may more properly be called internal police are not surrendered or restrained, and consequently in relation to these the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

Is there any question that Arizona's interest in dealing with public education expenses, public medical care, and criminals unlawfully present in Arizona falls under the police powers of the state?

Persons are not the subjects of commerce, and not being imported goods, they do not fall within the reasoning founded upon the construction of a power given to Congress to regulate commerce and the prohibition of the states from imposing a duty on imported goods.

I understand that there is some question as to whether Congress, by regulating immigration, has a legitimate basis for action, but unless Congress acts (and for practical purposes, they have not acted), the state seems free to do so.

How Often Have You Wanted To Say This?

How Often Have You Wanted To Say This?

I think all of us, at one time or another.  From the London Quarterly Review (1835):

Newton was now president of the Royal Society, and Halley obtained that professorship, which in 1698 had been refused to him by Bishop Stillingfleet, in consequence of his being an infidel, which he was at no pains to conceal. This, as appears on the authority of Dr. Maskelyne, was well known to Sir Isaac Newton, who, however, we are told, ' never permitted immorality and impiety to pass unreproved ;' and when Halley ventured to throw out any thing disrespectful to religion, invariably checked him, saying, ' I have studied these things—you have not.'

 Apparently astrologers (yes, there are gobs of them who insist that we should taken them seriously) have taken to quoting this out of context as a proof by authority that you should listen to them.