The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

What do you do to a parasite?

You kill it.

Well, how about this?

California's last nuclear power plant will close by 2025 under an accord announced Tuesday, ending three decades of safety debates that helped fuel the national anti-nuclear power movement.

The state's largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and environmental groups reached an agreement to replace production at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant with solar power and other energy sources that do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases.

There is no such source that (1) is available all the time and (2) can and will actually replace said energy source.

In point of fact California isn't and hasn't been either net electricity neutral or a net producer for a very long time.  Enron was, to a large degree, all about trying to manipulate California wholesale energy prices -- for power sold by other state's producers.

I remind you that behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy.  For a state to claim to be a "powerhouse" of economic activity while it is a parasite, and a damaging one at that when it comes to net electricity production is a monstrosity that we must not tolerate.

In short California is practicing the exact sort of nonsense that corporations are when they offshore -- they want all the filth they produce to go poison someone else while they get the benefits.

What should result from such a demand?

Refusal, in short, coupled with a nice open knife switch on the power lines at the state border until and unless the state becomes net energy neutral or better.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

You're flat-out insane, Tim.

WASHINGTON –  Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is predicting that the Roman Catholic Church may eventually change its opposition to gay marriage.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic as well as a U.S. senator from Virginia and a former governor of that state. He told the Human Rights Campaign during its national dinner Saturday in Washington that he had changed his mind about gay marriage and that his church may follow suit one day.

"I think it's going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, 'It is very good,'" Kaine said. He then recalled Pope Francis' remark that "who am I to judge?" in reference to gay priests.

No it won't, and no it shouldn't.

Indeed, if it does then the Catholic Church will cease to exist at that instant in time and will become something else -- and that, my friends, is exactly what Tim Kaine and many others want.

You can disagree with Catholic theology all you'd like.  There are some 5,000 religious paths available to you today, and if you don't like any of those you can go create your own and the government is required to leave you alone.  So says the US Constitution.

But Catholic theology isn't formed from public opinion, nor should it ever be subject to same. As for Pope Francis and his view on gay priests let me remind you that priests, gay or otherwise, are required by the Church to take a vow of celibacy.

In other words irrespective of how you feel you are required to conform to a particular standard when it comes to what you do.

The Church, and indeed nearly all Christian faiths, teach that humans are inherently sinful. That is, we're imperfect; we err both in thought and deed.  But such are in fact errors when it comes to that path, and the Church does not, and indeed cannot without destroying itself confer upon that which is claims to be error a blessing.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a civil act.  The conflation of the two is one of the worst errors the Church has undertaken, and ought to be corrected.  As I have written on many occasions, including for many years before starting The Ticker, if you want a civil contract of some sort then you should go see a JP.

If you want a sacrament to be performed then go see a priest.

The two ought to be disjoint acts.  Why?

It's simple, when you get down to it: A Catholic sacramental marriage is irrevocable until death of at least one of the parties unless originally formed under false pretense -- that is, invalid at the time it was originally undertaken, not at some point later.  This is not unique to marriage as a sacrament -- you cannot be baptized twice either.  If baptized by anyone, in the Catholic Church or not, you cannot have the ceremony performed in the Catholic faith as you're already baptized.

Sacraments are not civil obligations and conflating the two when they do not represent the same set of conditions is open, rank hypocrisy and in this case an intentional lie told before God in a sacramental context.  Such an act is quite-arguably the most-serious of sin because it not only evidences intent to deceive it is undertaken as a direct part of a sacrament that requires taking an oath as to your intentions before God.  

In short civil marriages are subject to termination any time either party wants them to be, and this is in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage as a sacrament.

Therefore, by definition the presentation of a state-issued marriage license to a Catholic priest and his signature on same is a per-se act that invalidates the sacrament itself as the moment you do so you have presented a written document bearing your signature under oath -- that is, under penalty of perjury -- which directly contradicts the oath you are required to take in order for the sacrament to be performed!

You can't have this one both ways folks and Tim Kaine has obviously never actually studied Catholic theology.  He was probably confirmed as an adolescent and thus lacked the capacity or incentive to do so, but it doesn't matter. Theology just is, and if you accept that a Catholic sacramental marriage is what the theology claims it to be and the grounds for annulment (one of them being the lack of intent, at the time of contraction of the marriage, for it to be for life) then the very act of presenting a state document that by the controlling law for same leaves either party the option of voiding their marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason at all is a per-se act of fraud upon God and the Church with the willful and intentional complicity of the priest who countersigns same!

In short all such marriages are void ab-initio and subject to annulment under Catholic theology -- that is, Canon Law.

This is theology, not politics.  I have no quarrel with gay people who wish to do whatever, including getting married in any religious path that has no problem with it, or through some civil ceremony.  But the Catholic Church, should it "allow" what Kaine claims, will cease to be the Catholic Church.  I don't believe that will happen, nor that it should.  Diversity of paths in faith is good, not bad.

Instead of Kaine's insanity the Church should insist that its priests not execute any form of civil paperwork in the context of marriage.  There is not only no law requiring it to do so no law can be passed compelling it to do so due to the First Amendment's protections.  The Church should instead register Catholic marriages internally as it does for other sacramental rites and events, including births, baptisms, confirmations and deaths, practicing the faith as its theology directs.  If Catholic celebrants wish to have some sort of civil law registration of their commitment they should go handle that separately, preferably after their sacramental marriage.

The Catholic marriage sacrament is not "marriage" as defined by civil authorities or, for that matter, other religious faiths.  It is defined by the theological rules of the Church -- sacramental procedures, requirements and rites that the Church alone has the authority to determine.  We're long past the point where restoration of that split between church and state, which once existed when it came to marriage, ought to be vigorously pursued and enforced by the Church with regard to both its priests and celebrants.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-09-19 09:24 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 707 references

We are well-past the "use by" date of political correctness when it comes to Islamic Terrorism, alleged "islamophobia" and similar politically-correct nonsense.

It is a fact that just a few short years after our nation's founding this country faced a bunch of Islamic Pirates who were kidnapping our merchant ships' complement, burning their ships and stealing their cargoes.  They were also raiding villages for the purpose of taking people to be sold as slaves.  When pressed as to the justification for these actions, the response was: "You're not Muslim."

We didn't put a stop to that crap by taking in refugees and "understanding" those who declared that they hate us because we are not willing to kowtow to the demands of their alleged "faith", although there was an initial flirtation with paying their "tribute" -- a strategy that was quickly recognized as failed when the attacks did not cease.  We shortly thereafter insisted that they cut that crap out and, when they refused, we blew them to bits.

Now we have a named suspect who is alleged to not only have set off a bomb in NYC, appears to be connected to a second device that exploded in New Jersey, and a third device found unexploded (also in NYC) but, it appears, we have recovered a satchel containing additional devices.  We're seeking him now and you get two guesses as to his religious affiliation but you'll only need one.

At the same time we have a second person who showed up in a mall the other day and decided he was feeling stabby -- while screaming "Allah Akbar!"  You only get one guess as to his religious affiliation.  Oh, incidentally, he apparently is one of those 'refugees' (good vetting job there Mr. President and Ms. Clinton) and if reports in the press are to be believed his father, who is also here and has been naturalized, can't speak a word of English.  Exactly how did he take the oath of citizenship if he can't speak our common language?

A singular event?  Nope.  There are at least 800 of these people who we not only allowed to stay we granted them citizenship!  Was the father of Mr. Stabby one of them?

And, of course, let us not forget (although the media would like us to) the fine "quite recent" set of immigrants out west who decided that a young girl was to be their sexual plaything and when they were not capable of the act they intended (as they were too young!) they defiled her anyway.  This is what refusing to vet people not only for their beliefs but also for their willingness to assimilate into our culture and not allow into our nation those with any desire to turn our culture into theirs, which I remind you is marked by sexual brutality, throwing gays off buildings and similar acts akin to those of lower animals gets us.

Never forget that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and the State Department is the part of the government that is explicitly responsible for vetting those who wish to come here whether to visit or stay and issuing them credentials to do so.  She is thus personally responsible, as the Secretary, for these failures.  I repeat: THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE FAILURES DOES NOT JUST REST WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA IT RESTS WITH HILLARY CLINTON PERSONALLY.

If you would like more of the weekends antics and more young girls sexually assaulted (just go ask Sweden about that!) then you can of course vote for the Presidential candidate that espouses "inclusiveness" and "understanding" -- of those who demonstrate, through their actions, that they intend to murder anyone who doesn't comply with their insane religious proscriptions. You can even go into a Catholic Church and put money in the plate to support a Pontiff who says the same things.  You can continue to support the clowncar brigade that has imported these people by the tens of thousands over the last many years and not only will our government not throw any of them out it will continue to bring more bombers and stabby-mad crazies into our towns and shopping malls.  That candidate for President is, incidentally, the same candidate who was personally responsible for the vetting of said immigrants as Secretary of State and thus is personally responsible for those failures -- her name is Hillary Clinton.

Or you can decide that you'd prefer to live in peace, you'd prefer if your daughter isn't raped and urinated upon, your son isn't stabbed in a mall by an allah-akhbar screaming islamic nutjob and you are not blown up while peacefully enjoying a nice evening out in New York City -- or any one of our other cities and towns across the country.  You can instead demand that our borders be closed until we can vet everyone who comes in this nation, we immediately expel those who we failed to vet and cannot pass said vetting now, and we cut the political-correctness crap and make it clear to all of these people around the world that we will not submit, we will not convert, and if they do not respect our right to worship and live as we wish then if it is war that they seek it is war they will find, they will lose, and the 27 virgins are all male gorillas who are the horniest creatures I've ever laid eyes on.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Put aside that North Korea is a nasty dictatorship with an economy that is essentially in perpetual collapse as a consequence of its form of government, while just a few miles south sits a thriving economic landscape -- and a much more-open society.

Ask yourself this: By what process does the United States, or any other nation, claim the right to demand that a particular nation-state possess (or not possess) a certain form of weapon?

Think long and hard on this one folks, because you're not going to like where it goes.  You see, if one nation (or group of nations) can tell another what weapons it may possess (or not) and attempt to enforce that with, in the extreme case, acts of war then that same nation, or any other nation may turn that same compulsion upon not only us but on the citizens of a given nation.

If you want to know how the UN gets to the position of "authority" where it can void our second amendment and force you to turn over each and every firearm you own you just found the process by which it can happen.

Note that nowhere are we talking about the use of various weapons.  The remedy for such a thing already exists in foreign policy, and it's state-sanctioned violence, otherwise known as "war."  The threat of immediate annihilation should a "someone" fire a nuclear weapon has prevented their use for roughly 70 years.

There remains a serious risk when it comes to non-state actors (e.g. terrorists); they not only may be indifferent to a retaliatory strike part of their intent in the use of such a weapon could be to cause one!  But for state actors the mostly-unspoken threat that should you use such a weapon on an "enemy" you will have your population centers reduced to smoking rubble in minutes along with everything that can be targeted militarily and politically has proved through time to be potent enough to keep the missile silo doors nailed shut.

That's not to say that the this will always be true, or that a madman might not launch despite knowledge of certain destruction of his or her nation in retaliation.  That might happen.  But thus far it hasn't.

There's a distinct difference between refusal to trade (e.g. sanctions) with someone, which is any nation's right, including in concert (just as you have a right to organize a boycott) and military or covert but offensive action and we should be quite clear where that line is.  Likewise, putting missile defense systems in place is arguably a damn good idea -- especially kinetic-style units such as the THAAD, as they have no feasible offensive purpose.  Such units are akin to putting on body armor commensurate with the expected threat profile of an adversaries with firearms -- the armor itself cannot be used as an offensive weapon, it is not perfect and might fail to stop the threat, but its presence serves as a strong deterrent against an offensive act since even a madman does not relish the idea of firing his weapon(s), have that provoke an immediate retaliatory strike he knows will come and then watch his attack fail anyway.

Something to think about....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Folks, you can argue over whether Hillary has an undisclosed medical condition or not.  I believe she does, and it's serious.

But here's the deal -- being President means being able to "switch on" at a moment's notice and have full control of your faculties.

Last night someone apparently detonated a small bomb in NYC.  It resulted in injuries, and a second potential device has been discovered (but didn't blow up.)  Here is Hillary "responding" to this event -- and I remind you, this was on her plane and not at 0-dark-screwme, when such events frequently happen -- it was in the middle of the evening!

Is she drunk?  Heavily medicated?  Barely able to keep her eyes open for some other reason?

Does it matter why she looks like she's only about 20% there?  What facially appears to have been a (albeit minor) terrorist incident just happened and you just had on display what Hillary will be able to muster as her intellectual and physical capability should one occur while she is in office.

No, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about politics.  It's about capacity to serve and Hillary does not posses it.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.