The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or 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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

Well look what we have here...

The attack unfolded around 8:40 p.m. when the black suspect snapped at her 31-year-old victim, "Take off your mask!" in front of 411 W. 42nd St., cops said Monday.

The attacker swung a hammer at the victim, hitting her on the left side of the face, according to police.

Cops recovered the hammer, but the attacker is still in the wind. The incident is being investigated as a hate crime, authorities said.

No kidding?  You mean someone hated someone else when they decided to attack the victim with a hammer?  C'mon man, that had to be a crime of looooove!

Idiocy abounds, I see.

But I also see that for once we're calling racism what it is when it's not a white person doing it.

This may well be a first!

Can we catalog the percentages of suspected attackers by race when it comes to Asians?

And can we also look at the other crimes in relationship to perpetrator races compared with their percentage of the population?

The FBI does compile data like this, but nobody ever wants to talk about it.  I wonder why not?

I also wonder why Burn, Loot and Murder doesn't want to talk about it.

We not only should, widely, we must.

On to the next topic -- Gates' Divorce.

His adult offspring and he have asked for "privacy."

Well, no Bill and Melinda.  You won't get it because you have never left the rest of the world alone. Indeed you believe you have the right to do things like shade the sun, force vaccinations on people and that population growth is a "challenge."

Gee, what might come if the "challenge" isn't met the way he wants?

This is the basic problem with people who want it both ways; the answer must always be "NO!"  And while it's not fair to include very young children in the penance applied to their parents this is not true once said "kids" take to the stage on their own or remain within the orbit after adulthood.  No, you don't get to jet around the world and enjoy the billions of dollars without being accountable for how they were earned and how they are being spent.  Nor do you get to play Greta and open your mouth as a public figure yourself and then demand privacy.

Life doesn't work that way.  Take the risk, take the reward -- for good or bad.

Maybe -- just maybe -- there's something really bad that's headed out toward the public, eh?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-05-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 322 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's Mother's Day, not "birther's day."

Name me one biological man who has ever given birth.

Just one.

Without a uterus giving birth is, of course, impossible.  It is also impossible for a man who has had his external genitalia altered to put menstrual products to productive use, notwithstanding the stupidity of marketing people who want to try to sell them such products.  They have no purpose for such a person and both the sellers and people clamoring for such "inclusion" know it.

It's similar to Obamacare forcing health insurance policies sold to women to include prostate cancer coverage, or that sold to men to include coverage for uterine or cervical cancer.  Since a biological man has no uterus or cervix, he obviously cannot get said cancers; a woman has no prostate, the primary purpose of which is to produce seminal fluid, and thus cannot contract cancer in that body part.

Altering the appearance of a man or woman does not make a man a woman, and vice-versa.  You can cut something off but all you've done is removed things.  A man who cuts off his penis and testicles is still a man; he still has a prostate and he still has the same sex chromosomes he did before.  There is nothing you do about that irrespective of what sort of cosmetic surgery you have performed upon your flesh; in every single cell of a human save the germ cells that distinction remains and will remain, irrespective of what you do with a knife, plastic surgery or drugs. from the moment of conception until death.

We have put up with the insanity of calling something what it is not and now it's spreading to deliberately derogate women by claiming that mothers are no longer distinct and, as a precondition of becoming a mother, one must first be a women.

Simply put Mother's Day is about the unique biological reality of being female; a series of experiences that only a female person can experience.  You can pretend to experience them otherwise, but you never can have those experiences.  I will never be able to give birth no matter how much I pay someone to chop me up and what drugs I take.  It is simply not possible.

Likewise Father's Day is about the unique biological reality of being male, only a male person can experience those things.  You can pretend to experience them otherwise but you can never have those experiences.  No biological woman will ever sire a child, no matter how much she pays someone to chop her up or what drugs she takes for she lacks, and always will lack, the ability to do so.  It is simply not possible.

This is not just or even mostly about appearance, and our alteration of said appearance does not change it any more than my wearing a dress would make me female.  It is in fact about the developmental, hormonal, mental and physical differences that exist from the first fusion and then division of the zygote.  It is what it is, and cannot be changed.  You can be unhappy with what resulted from that fusion and effort to try to improve your happiness but you can't change it.

Like it or not you're stuck with the specific sperm and ova that fused, and everything in the arrangement of genetic material in them, until the moment you die.

My mother has passed; she died of colon cancer a few years ago after a long life.  Everyone dies of something, and this was her cause. It wasn't "early" nor was she taken before her time; she lived a full life and, when the diagnosis came very late in said life, decided to live out what was left with dignity on her own terms.  Other than the last couple of weeks she succeeded and it was never anyone's place to tell her otherwise.  Those around her, including myself, were wise in respecting her decisions.

Those who deny the fundamental biological facts of a mother's existence are simply wrong.  It is identical, in fact, to denying gravity.  No amount of denial will change facts.  We all have the right to inflict whatever we wish on ourselves, but not other people who do not consent, and it is exactly there that the harm comes from this sort of nonsense, specifically when it comes to children who are effectively or even affirmatively told that one or both of their parents didn't really create them -- and those who raised them aren't who they in fact are as they try to bend facts to suit their own adult refusal to confront that which simply cannot be changed.

A core element of the transition from childhood to an adult is the separation of fantasy and reality.  It is utterly essential to independent function and evaluation of the world around us as human beings, along with the ability to interact with others in society while respecting the boundaries of individual, pre-political human rights.  One who is never capable of that is not an adult, irrespective of physical age.

This is not "birther's day", it is Mother's Day, whether you like it or not.

Kids deserve not to be abused by telling them that you deny the fact that exactly one man, and one woman, caused them to exist, exercising what is arguably the most-profound power a sentient being can have.  It has never, and will never, be otherwise.

Whether those same individuals are raising said children or not facts are what they are and that anchorage to facts is not only important it is critical, especially for children.  Not all mothers gave birth, but all mothers had the biological equipment necessary to so do, whether it was in fact in good working order and used to produce a specific child or not.

All women are not mothers, but all mothers are women.  Period.

Those are facts and no amount of mentally-deranged bull**** can or will ever change said facts.

Celebrate Mother's Day and ignore -- or even mock -- those who try to redefine it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-06-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 194 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now let's talk drugs for a minute -- along with the jackassery in both the States and Washington DC.

Everyone is outraged about the number of opioid deaths -- and the peddling of synthetics, such as fentanyl.  In fact I can make a pretty clean argument for closing the Mexican border and nuking Beijing on that alone.  But..... how about something more-mundane?

30% -- or about 1 in 3 American adults -- don't drink at all.  20% more have less than one drink a month.  The next decile (10%) consume about one drink every two weeks.

The next 10% consume about one drink every three days; odds are they have them both in a given week on one day, probably Friday.  The next 10% (we've now accounted for 80% of adults) have slightly less than one drink a day.

Now it gets interesting.  The second-to-top 10% consume about 15 drinks weekly, or about two a day.  This is the limit, according to physicians and such, for alcohol consumption that is generally not (all that) harmful.  I have news for you -- as I've reported here before, I can, from the physiological data off my Garmin, tell you on which days I've had one drink, two drinks, or more.  So if you say it doesn't do any harm with the first one, well, yes it does.  And so does the second.

But the top decile -- the top 10% , which incidentally means more than 20 million Americans -- consume an unbelievable 73 drinks a week or more than 10 a day, on average, every day.

To put this in perspective if you add up all the drinks the other consume you get about a third of those that these people consume.  That's right -- 3/4 of all alcohol consumed goes down the gullet of 1/10th of the American adult population.

73 drinks is over 7,000 calories a week as a result of alcohol consumption or more than 1,000 a day.  That's enough to put on more than two pounds a week, all other things being equal.  Put another way the average sedentary person who is drinking that much is consuming roughly 60% of their caloric requirement in alcohol alone; if that booze is being consumed in the form of beer or mixed drinks that contain sugar in their mixers it's even worse, likely 2-3x as bad!

ALL of these people are raging alcoholics.  ALL of these people are either outrageously obese or nutritionally deficit at a level sufficient to do very serious metabolic damage or kill them, not counting the damage from the alcohol itself.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT EVERY SINGLE PRODUCER AND SELLER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IS BOTH UTTERLY RELIANT ON SUCH PEOPLE TO SURVIVE IN BUSINESS AND THUS THEY ARE ALL AIMING THEIR ADVERTISING AND MARKETING EXPENSE AT THEM -- THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO STAY IN BUSINESS.

I personally do not care if you are (1) an adult and (2) wish to drug yourself to death.

But -- I refuse to sit quietly for the hypocrisy both from politicians who bitch and whine about far less dangerous drugs than alcohol (e.g. marijuana and especially CBD, which has no known intoxicating effect) while at the same time there is a store on every single corner that intentionally stocks, markets to and sells dangerous drugs that they know damn well are, 75% of the time by volume, going into the gullet of people who are committing slow suicide.

Further, while you certainly have the right to commit suicide, whether slowly or not, you don't have the right to demand that I pay for it.

What shocks me in these statistics, however, is that it's 10% of the population.  I knew two people who have drank themselves to death, am absolutely certain that's both what killed them and have no trouble believing they were consuming 70 drinks a week.  But what these statistics say is that this is an amazingly common thing.  1 in 10 American adults?!  Seriously?  1 in 10 adults in America are clinically alcoholic and well on their way to killing themselves by being so?

Well now that does put some perspective on things, does it not?

It also puts perspective on state and federal government activities related to various drugs -- including a whole host of them that are illegal, yet clearly are less-harmful than booze is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

So we have Louisiana poised to sign an anti-abortion Bill, Alabama has just passed one, and there are others.

On the other hand as I noted New York and Virginia started this latest round of insanity, with both states basically attempting to declare that a child in the process of being born could be aborted.  Then the US House refused to pass a bill that would require a fetus that survived an abortion attempt to be given medical care as a child.

I don't know how much more-clear you can get than that as to intent; the House clearly stated that a born infant, who was attempted to be aborted but survived, has no right to life even though it is now independently alive outside of the mother.

Essentially, the left -- all of it, including all elected Democrats in Congress, have declared that there is no such thing as a baby until and unless the mother declares that it is.  At any point prior to that declaration she can declare it nothing more than an unwanted growth irrespective of that "unwanted growth's" ability to survive independently, independently of her negligence, or independently of the random odds of survival, which said child beats, while she's actively trying to kill it.

Let's cut the crap; the left's position on this is transparent and obvious: A woman who doesn't want the financial and personal costs of raising a child must have the ability to evade that at any moment up to the baby's first breath, no matter what happens from that instant in time forward.  She may defer that decision through personal avarice, negligence or even intentional misconduct up to that moment in time and none of that bears on the merits of the decision.

At the same time a man has no rights whatsoever, even if his sperm is stolen from a used condom.

The far right's position is equally-clear: Your legs were open if a women or your pants off (or at least unzipped) if a man.  Tough crap; you undertook an adult act, now behave like an adult.  If you got raped that's unfortunate and a criminal act but even under that circumstance it's not the baby's fault so you don't get to kill the child.  Go after the rapist.

These are polar opposite positions.

The USSC in Roe, however, played Solomon and "split the baby" so to speak.

And when these laws get to the USSC, and they shall as they're intended to do exactly that it is my belief that the Court will do the logical and appropriate thing.

Specifically, I don't think Roe falls.  In fact I don't even believe that despite the statements from some of these state legislatures they expect Roe to fall.  They may wish it but I doubt very much they expect it to.

But I do believe the USSC will send back these laws with a remand consistent with Roe.

Let me remind you what Roe actually holds:

  • In the first trimester a woman has the presumption of supremacy for two reasons -- personal medical privacy and the fact that no 1st trimester fetus can survive outside the womb.  That is, the fetus is inextricably tied to the woman in question and if she acts as an adult, having undertaken an adult act or as a victim of a crime implicating an adult action forced upon her, she, in concert with a physician that elects to do so under his rules of conscience has the right to stop the progression that would otherwise lead to a birth.

  • In the second trimester there is a balance of harms and benefits to the woman which is left to the states to decide and regulate, with the exception found below (that is, a state cannot require a woman to sacrifice her life.)  That is, the people of the 50 states have the right to tilt the scale of supremacy in either direction provided they can justify it on the basis of maternal health. There are likely to be 50 different answers depending on the specifics of the circumstances found in said states -- and that's constitutional.  This balance of harms and benefits test is logical because any woman who desires to know she is pregnant before the expiration of the first trimester may discover same and by that point she has had a reasonable amount of time to contemplate the risks and benefits of both paths available to her in the context of both state law and the regulation of medical practices within a given state.

  • Beyond fetal viability (which is almost-exactly concordant with the start of the third trimester) the states have the right to put into law a presumption that the fetus has a right to live.  At this point the woman has decided either through negligence or intentional action to continue the pregnancy for two thirds of the requisite time.  In addition with each passing day it is increasingly likely that should there be a birth the child can survive independently of that specific woman; in other words it in the event of delivery said child is no more or less dependent than any other baby in that anyone can feed, clothe, diaper and protect it; there is no longer a biological requirement that a given specific woman do so.  Exactly where that line is changes over time but that it certainly occurs somewhere early in the third trimester is a fact.  However, even here the duty is not absolute: A woman is not required to sacrifice her life for said soon-to-be--infant, any more than you are required to stop and render aid to a motorist in a crash.  In fact there is no circumstance, not even under admiralty law on the sea, where you're required to sacrifice your own life to save another.  You may choose to, but you're not required to.  Therefore absent such a clear requirement in trade -- life-for-life or clear and convincing evidence that the mother will have her health severely and even permanently harmed -- states are fully within their rights to bar as a matter of law all third-trimester abortions.

That's what Roe found folks.  It did not confer an absolute right to an abortion at any time.  The Supreme Court has never issued such a ruling.

Ever.

The screaming liars on the left have claimed that Roe in fact goes all the way to birth -- and even during birth.  This is flat-out nonsense.  Here is what was actually held in Roe, from the actual text of the decision:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

There is no unrestricted right to abortion, as found by Roe, beyond the first trimester.

Period.

A State may therefore find that abortion beyond the end of the first trimester implicates maternal health, including mental health, damaging same, and so regulate it -- including a prohibition except where the manifest trade-off mitigates otherwise.

A state may not, in other words, enact a law that requires a pregnant woman to sacrifice herself for the fetus she is carrying.  However, beyond the first trimester a state may find as its legislature determines on the balance of harms.

Further, since the states are explicitly in Roe reconfirmed in their power to license physicians and thereby set standards for the conduct of medical practice the State can determine what appropriate medical judgement is -- in other words a State is fully within its rights to declare, for example, that "health" in this context means severe and permanent physical disability (for example) and not something such as "well she doesn't have any money therefore that implicates her health."

The State is also empowered to prohibit any and all abortions not performed by a physician defined by the licensing and practice scheme within in the State.

Note that fetal viability is medically defined as the point where there is a 50% rate of survival.  This is approximately 24-25 weeks or during the sixth month of pregnancy.  By the 27th week the rate of survival is roughly 90% and survival beyond that is >95%.

Therefore an appropriate remand on such a law at the USSC would be:

  • Prohibitions on abortion at a state level prior to the passage of three months from last menstruation are inconsistent with Roe and void.

  • Prohibitions at a state level beyond three months may be enacted provided they comport with state-licensed medical practice rules that protect maternal health, provided that they cannot require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy that, in the reasonable opinion of licensed physicians, will kill her.

  • States may, beyond fetal viability, which is approximately congruent with the third trimester, ban the procedure entirely except where the mother's life or, congruent with the above objective medical licensing standards, serious maternal health issues are implicated.  Note that this does not create a "carve out" for economic or speculative impact (e.g. "psychology") such as, for example where a fetus is known to have a material but survivable defect or deformity.  A state may choose to permit abortion in such a circumstance but is not required to permit it.

That's what I expect the USSC to hold as it is entirely consistent with Roe and yet at the same time upholds most of what these states seek to do.  As such "heartbeat" laws are likely unconstitutional -- but just barely, by a couple of weeks, and as such instructions on a remand would move that barrier to 14 weeks after the initiation of last menstruation.

That decision would in fact not eviscerate Roe -- such a judgment would reconfirm Roe, and leave the States in the position of setting enforceable and definitive medical standards and licensing requirements defining the balance of harms tests for maternal health and the protection (or lack thereof) for fetal life which they are explicitly empowered under Roe to do.

It would "reset" and underline what has been a rampant and outrageous pack of lies by the left as to what Roe actually held -- a good thing that has been needed for the last three decades -- while at the same time moving the barrier on the "heartbeat" people to a legally-defensible place in conformity with Roe itself.  While that change would be significant all-in the states that enacted "heartbeat" legislation would likely find it to be a win as they'd get 90% of what they enacted and which is almost-exactly what Roe first put into place.

Alabama would be the sole exception: they would be forced to accept Roe "as written."

In addition such a decision does not implicate the 1st Amendment (e.g. establishment) where a decision to toss Roe would have severe trouble in that regard.  The Establishment Clause issue can probably be worked around but there's utterly no reason for the Court to twist themselves into knots to go there, and as a result I don't expect them to.

We'll see.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

That's really what this op-ed is:

This plea is made to the suburbanites among us: If you have disengaged from Baltimore City, please consider re-engaging. My appeal is not based upon vague notions of virtuous acts. I appeal to nothing other than your self-interest.

So many of you tell me that you no longer go to the city. Often, I sense a hint of pride in your voice, as if you have managed to kick a bad habit. It may seem irresponsible to ask people to frequent the City That Reads Healthy Holly given its deeply regrettable state of affairs.

Uh huh.

From the demographc report, as of 2010 (last census):

Black: 63.7%
White: 29.6% (non-Hispanic: 28%)
Asian: 2.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.4%
Two or more races: 2.1%
Other race: 1.8%
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish of any race: 4.2%

So, you have a majority black population and the city has gained a reputation for being a ****hole to the point that white suburbia has both fled and won't even come downtown to shop or partake in whatever it offers.

Oh, the writer of the OpEd actually admits this too:

Your retort to me might very well be, “If I go to the city, I’m likely to end up at Shock Trauma.”

“No place better,” I might respond, “They really know what they’re doing — world class.”

And there it is.  Getting shot, knifed, raped, robbed or beaten ought to be on your agenda!  We have a great hospital to take care of that!

But of course it's raciss to point this out.  Except that I'm not the one pointing it out, of course, so stop calling me the racist.  Point your ire at the author of that OpEd.

Except.... facts aren't raciss.  They're just.... facts.

Never mind a mayor who seems to have the magical ability to cut sweetheart insider deals to make a ton of money selling..... children's books (the aforementioned "Healthy Holly") through the University of Maryland medical system while on its board!  The FBI just raided City Hall along with a number of other locations related to this nice bit of cronyism (and potential felony, given that the FBI is involved) while...... the mayor is nowhere to be found. Uh..... yeah.

Re-engage with such a place?  **** you.

Hehjackass!  Reality in Baltimore is not much different than in ****cago, well, with one exception -- there are places in the city where (still) you might not get shot.  But, last weekend..... 5 killed, 29 wounded -- over Easter Sunday.  The bunny wasn't one of them.

Clearance rate on all those murders?  12.2%.  So much for the cops; they suck too.  And between black and hispanic in ****cago that would be 94% of the victims (and, likely, the shooters -- the media only reports the race of the shooters, most of the time, if they're white.  Total of such reports in said city thus far this year?  Zero.  You can therefore infer that none of the shooters were white as they'd be both caught and paraded around by the Sun Times and Tribune as proof of how raciss all of us white people are.)

Never mind the Wednesday before Easter in that "fine city" (which I'm sure Baltimore emulates) where five hundred teens (guess their predominant race!) decided to play "mob of the apes" (with apologies to actual Apes for maligning them) in the shopping district on MagMile, going on a smash-and-grab fest both against citizens who had their purses and phones stolen along with stores that had merchandise robbed.  By the way that's the "high rent, full price" retail district in town just in case you don't know.

Now that's the culture we should make the hallmark of our nation -- right?

Baltimore doesn't have HeyJackass but it does have this site from the Sun, which says 89 homicides so far this year.  For comparison ****Cago has managed 125.  Of course ****cago has 2.7 million people in the city while Baltimore has 611,000!  So on a per-capita basis ****cago manages 1 in 21,600 killed thus far this year while Baltimore has done 1 in roughly 6,800, or three times ****cago's rate.

The city wants you to "come back" into a ****ty that has three times ****cago's murder rate?  Recreational cannabis is not legal in Maryland -- but it's clearly being smoked in abundance by the writer of this editorial!

Baltimore is in the middle of collapse during the biggest stock-market boom in history and with record-low unemployment to the point that the city believes it has to "reach out" to suburban whites and those blacks who left due to having both a brain and decency pleading with them to "come back"?

It's not like white males and culture built all of those cities to start with, right?  Why do all these great city folks need any of us?  Everyone's equal, all cultures and socio-economic choices are equal, there are no gang-banger wanna-be's all over your city who form into mobs of people to sack stores and steal purses --and it's raciss to suggest otherwise or even report the mathematical facts.  Why do you give a crap about all those suburban dudes and dudettes?  If there's nothing "superior" about one culture, values and level of industriousness over another then why isn't Baltimore thriving with its awesome and industrious population, showing us all how wonderful and productive said population and culture is?

I have one question: How much of Baltimore -- and Chicago, with dozens of other similar cities -- will be on fire as soon as the next recession hits?

I have the answer to that too: ALL OF IT.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)