Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I don't think the fact that religions disagree on a specific issue requires the government to avoid legislating in that area. If such an idea were to prevail, it would completely paralyze government, because you can find religions that disagree about nearly everything.
"It is not the supreme court's place to pass law, but to interpret the constitution."
So what? The court thought they found something in the Constitution that prevented governments from outlawing abortion, and that is their job, even if you think they did their job incorrectly.
"There are market forces at work with respect to teacher pay."
That is just as true when federal taxpayers foot the bill as when local taxpayers do. The only difference is the size of the market.
"Federal intrusion is not required by the marketplace for teachers, anymore than any other area."
State intrusion is not required either. We as a society decide whether it is beneficial for either state or federal governments to be involved.
"I'm still trying to understand Kerry when he says he is personally opposed to abortion but favors choice for a woman. When he says he personally opposes, does he mean that he thinks it immoral?"
I can't speak for Kerry, but it is possible for a person to believe that something is wrong, but to consider prohibition of that activity to be beyond the proper role of government. For example, I believe it is wrong to advocate that there should be a master race, but I also believe in freedom of speech and the press, so I think the present day German government is wrong to prohibit selling Mein Kampf in Germany.
"Why is the choice being given to a woman?"
My guess is that it was decided that a woman has the right to control her own body, and that a fetus does not have the right to compel her to bring it to term.
"Isn't it a little gratuitous for him to even offer his opinion about what is a private matter for a woman to decide?"
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing where political candidates stand on any matter that may be affected by their actions while in office.
"Does morality have any role in governmental decisions?"
Yes, but it's not the only factor that should play a role. Another, among many, is that a proposed law should have enough people who believe it is a good idea that it will have some hope of success. A proposed ban on abortion does not currently meet that test.
"Finally, where in the constitution is a woman given abortion rights?"
As you know, it was done by the Supreme Court, not by the Constitution. That is why many people think that who will make the next appointments to that court is one of the more important issues in the coming presidential election.
"Where in the constitution is regulation of teacher salaries given to the federal government."
I don't think "regulating" salaries is in the Constitution, but it does give the Congress power to appropriate money.
"Why don't market forces apply to teachers the way they do for cooks, bakers, and candlestick makers. In other words, if Colorado (don't kknow why I chose this state as an example) can't attract enough teachers, let Coloradoans pony up more taxes to raise pay."
If Coloradoans pony up tax money, that is not market forces at work any more than if federal taxpayers do so.
"Didn't Clinton create a 'hostile work environment'?"
I don't know whether the law considers a single unwanted advance to be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment, but if it does, then I think the law should be changed. Otherwise it gets too much like Orwell's "Anti-Sex League." I think the term "hostile work environment" should be reserved for situations where there is a pattern of ongoing activity after the recipient has made it clear that they are not interested. I haven't heard of Clinton continuing to pursue Jones after she said no, nor of any adverse impact on her career.
"I know that if a corporate CEO were to abuse his position in the same manner, many of those defending Clinton's bad behavior, would be livid- calling for resignation and financial penalties."
Maybe, but I sure wouldn't be one of them. If the law proposes to punish a CEO or anyone else for a single advance, then I think the law is wrong. I believe that sexual harassment standards should be designed to address real abuses without suppressing freedom of expression any more than necessary. That goes for both government and private industry.
"We may see a replay of the Monica episodes should Kerry select Bill Richardson as his running mate..."
I'm not familiar with Bill Richardson, but I would hope that politicians would take note of the fact that polls taken during the Clinton years showed that his sexual escapades did not seem to hurt his popularity, and that he would have been much better off to just admit it and get it behind him.
It is not yet clear whether this is a correction or a bear market. That is the basis of my question.
I have a feeling that integrity matters more in presidential elections than in others, because the voters pay more attention, and are thus more likely to notice when something doesn't ring true.
Unfortunately, it is rare to get candidates with integrity, because all their lives, the voters have trained them to spin and lie (by falling for such stuff).
jwperk, the following is not against you specifically, but your post provided an opportunity to express some thoughts I have on the Clinton scandal.
I don't see how the profit motive of the media had that much to do with the exposure of Clinton's sex life. I believe that PBS covered it, and in any case, if the President gets sued while in office that is not something the media can responsibly ignore.
The motives that mattered, IMO, were those of Paula Jones in filing the lawsuit in the first place, and those of Clinton's political enemies who aided her efforts, as illustrated in this 1998 article:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/cov_02news.html
I have to say that this business of suing because someone makes an unwanted sexual advance is just going too far. As I recall he didn't force himself on her after she said no, nor cause any adverse impact to her career.
I don't think any legitimate public purpose is served by expecting government officials to be better than the rest of us in the conduct of their private lives. However, one benefit of the scandal is that it has served notice to future politicians that they need to be careful not to perjure themselves.
I don't know if the following link has been posted here before, but in any case it sounds like the Administration's handling of the abuse incidents can be added to the list.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
"100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From"
Although people call it discounting, it seems to me that a more accurate description of what the market does is to attempt to predict what the market will do 6 to 9 months ahead. As with all predictions, the market can be wrong.
The fact that we were already at war does not by itself determine whether invading any specific country was a good idea.
Does anyone think that Brinker has missed the start of a new bear market here?
For those who follow the Brinker "discussion" on the Yahoo UTEK board, I see that it has become inaccessible through the menu structure (along with the last two thirds of the alphabet). Here is a direct link for those who are interested:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topics&board=4687942&sid=4687942&type=r
I agree that people focus on that to the exclusion of other potential issues. A little while ago, I wrote up a list of reasons why I am reluctant to vote for Bush again:
1. Not including an item in the new budget proposal for operations in Iraq.
2. Carelessness with the Bill of Rights via the Patriot Act, etc.
3. Classifying the Guantanamo detainees as neither prisoners of war nor criminal suspects in order to avoid being subject to either the Geneva Conventions or U.S. due process rules.
4. Setting a precedent that preemptive war is OK.
5. Getting us into a war for reasons that apparently weren't true, which
a. made it difficult to avoid huge deficits, and
b. distracted us from the war against al Qaeda.
6. Said he was "a uniter, not a divider," yet cowtows to the right wing and ignores moderates.
7. Wants to impose *his* definition of marriage on future generations via a constitutional amendment.
Justa, on SI you commented, "get ready for a nice rally in the averages this coming week." Does this mean that you feel we have, or are about to have, a tradeable bottom?
I agree with you that "what's next" is the most important question, but we are currently in the process of deciding whether to keep the incumbent president next November. The issue of whether or not going into Iraq was wise and/or justified is very relevant in regard to his fitness for office.
The biggest pile of crap explanation I heard today was that companies have done so well that comparisons will be difficult going forward - as if this was not known when stocks were bid up in response to those good results in the first place.
On the other hand, maybe investors really are dumb enough to forget that comparisons will be difficult after a period of strong growth - who knows?
I'm starting to be a believer in HFTOM. There was a period, earlier today, where COMP had gone below the 4/21 low, but the NDX appeared to be holding at its 4/21 low, so I thought the NDX support might arrest further decline in the COMP, but they have both gone to new lows now.
After last week's low, I pointed out that we didn't yet know if that was the bottom of the correction. I'm no market seer, but the point needs to be made that it takes more than a one or two day rally to know if a correction is over.
Last I saw, Zeev's line in the sand was 1940.
The 4/21 low has yet to break on the NDX - perhaps that is still a factor.
I hate to break it to you, but the way to tell if a politician is lying is to see if his/her lips are moving.
The choice really boils down to which pack of liars do you want running things - i.e., which will do the least damage.
When I worked for Tencor before the merger, I remember that both orders and revenue tended to be up and down a lot from quarter to quarter due to the high dollar value of some of the machines. After the merger, it seemed like the combined management was much better at smoothing out the bumps.
Zeev, what do you think about the fact that KLAC went a little lower this morning than it did on Thursday? Is that enough to constitute a breaking of support, or would it need to break that level more decisively?
Our option is to vote for the Kerry of today, or the Bush of today, unless you want to throw your vote away on a third-party candidate. Neither man is the same person he was 30 years ago, although from what I've heard Bush is the one who has changed the most.
I don't think that voting for the Kerry of 32 years ago is an option, and we are very lucky that the Bush of 32 years ago is not either.
I disagree with enough of Bush's core beliefs, and am concerned enough about his ineptitude, that I am likely to put up with Kerry's comparatively minor imperfections.
Are you saying Bush never changes his mind on anything? If so, you might want to consider his promise not to get into "nation-building."
A moderate is a person whose first concern is "is this good for my country," not "is this good for my party."
"Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
I was following all the updates, and that's apparently what led me astray. But I want to ask you, how can you be so sure that 4/20 will turn out to be the bottom?
I agree with you when you say that Zeev never claims to be absolutely right, which is one reason why I am amused when others (not you) claim it for him.
I didn't say I wanted better. If the Turnips could do that well all the time we would all be rich.
Lazy bum? Sir, you wound me!
I'm not complaining about the Turnips, but I do think that it is going too far to claim, as someone did, that they called the precise date of the low.
In that April 1st post that you quoted, you wrote about a "short furious retrench" lasting no more than a week, and culminating on April 22nd plus or minus. I think we agree on that. But on April 13th you referred to a high no later than the next day, followed by a "sharp two day decline" (see #msg-2835808), which sounded to me like you were saying that the bottom could be no later than three days later, on the 16th, instead of on April 22nd as you previously wrote. That is why, on the same day, I asked if the April 22nd date was still on (#msg-2836391).
You didn't answer, but later the same day, you wrote "...if the time window is right, than after a sharp down opening tomorrow and closing of the gap from 4/1 (around 2015) we should start and put the second leg of this spring rally in place," which I took to be my answer (#msg-2839497). This reinforced my impression that you were saying that the bottom could occur as early as the 14th to 16th.
On April 15th this impression was further reinforced when you wrote about an "updated map" calling for "...maximum exposure on a daily breach of 2000 or within a window of three days from 4/14..." #msg-2861071
If I misunderstood I apologize - I am just trying to keep the record straight. If April 20th does indeed turn out to be the low, then I would consider calling the low within a week to be a remarkable achievement.
I'm not saying it was a bad call, but he gave about a one week window ending on 4/22, and we also don't yet know for sure whether that was the bottom of the correction.
When did Zeev's model predict a precise date? I must have missed that.
I think you must be right about news events being used as triggers for what the market "intended" to do anyway. Take yesterday's selloff, for example. There must have been people who thought stocks were worth owning before Greenspan spoke, and who decided, on hearing him sing praises to the health of the economy, that this made stocks no longer worth owning.
I find myself wondering about the thought processes of these people.
What exactly was it that they were hoping for, that caused them to be holding stocks before Greenspan spoke, and went away after he spoke? Were they hoping that the economy was doing badly? Or were they hoping that the economy was doing well, but that Greenspan would somehow not notice? <g>
The mind boggles.
And now we have the market's tepid response to MOT's blowout earnings...
(Yeah, I know, this is a "the market is wrong" rant, but I just couldn't help it!)
Your observations from last night were prescient. Good job!
Thanks for the reply. I wish they would have knowledgeable people from the other side of the issue to debate these things instead of just having one side on the radio at a time. It would be much more illuminating.
It always amazes me that people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to want there to be a nation (i.e., Israel) without the right to set its own immigration policy.
Zeev, as I was driving home from work today, I heard someone talking on the radio about drawbacks of the offer that was made to the Palestinians the last time they were offered statehood. She said that it was composed of a number of non-contiguous pieces such as to make it indefensible to such a degree that Israel would never accept their own proposal if someone had made such an offer to the Israelis. She also said that the proposal called for the Palestinian state to remain largely under the control of Israel. Do you know whether, or to what extent, these claims are true?
Good point!
I'm not a George Bush fan, but Richard Gwynn apparently thinks that only people who agree with himself can be democrats.
BTW, that article still doesn't offer any specifics about what U.N. resolutions require Israel to do, if that was why you posted it.