Showing posts with label la times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label la times. Show all posts

Sunday, February 28

Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling

LA Times:
Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

A ruling overturning the Chicago ordinance would open the door to gun rights suits nationwide. "You will see a wave of lawsuits against state and local gun laws. This is just the first shot in a broad-based gun rights offensive,"

Monday, July 6

"Glut of oil could push gasoline prices back down below $2 a gallon"

Oil analysts think the current surplus will further sink prices, writes the LAT:
Downward pressure on oil prices is so great that crude could trade for as little as $20 a barrel by the end of the year -- less than a third of what it traded for this week and an 86% drop from its peak last year, analysts said...

The reasons are simple, said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an expert on energy markets at the University of Calgary in Canada: The still-sputtering economy has lessened demand at a time when there is already a big surplus of oil.

For eight straight months, oil supplies have been running about 2 million barrels a day higher than the global demand of 83 million barrels a day, Verleger said. Eventually, he and others predicted, suppliers will tire of paying to store all of the surplus oil and flood the market.

"That is the largest and longest continuous glut of supply that I have seen in 30 years of following energy prices," Verleger said. "It's a huge surplus. There has never been anything like it."

The market will eventually correct itself, pushing prices down, Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., wrote in a note to investors. "Excessive speculation and a weak dollar have lifted oil prices to levels not sustainable by market fundamentals," Gheit wrote.

Crude has traded in the range of about $70 a barrel for much of the last month, closing Thursday at $66.73. The markets were closed Friday.

With so much oil available and so little need for that amount, investors, oil companies and even some banks have bought and stored surplus oil everywhere they can. By one estimate, before oil surged to its high this year of $73.38 a barrel in June, as many as 67 supertankers -- each capable of carrying 2 million barrels of oil -- were being used as floating storage.

Verleger said it represented a largely risk-free investment for those who could sell that oil for huge profits on the futures markets.

But the glut has gone on for so long, he said, that the cost of all of that storage is bound to rise. When it rises enough, some suppliers will refuse to pay and a lot of that oil will be dumped onto the market.

"Oil will drop to $20 a barrel by the end of the year because this situation just cannot be sustained," Verleger said.
(Via naked capitalism)

Sunday, May 17

Link blag

TMV: There are legal consequences to defining "life" (really, personhood) to begin at conception. Abortion opponents—particularly Republicans who support a Human Life Amendment—ought to consider the actual ramifications of their quixotic position.

Conor wonders how anyone can insist that Obama is a radical with ties to terrorists who wants to turn the country into a socialist dictatorship and that he should be asserting more executive power.

Daily Beast: Did Rumsfeld ruin Bush? A disturbing profile of what happened when at the highest levels we had an incompetent reporting to an ignoramus—and the reason people like Bush and Palin should never serve at such levels.

LA Times: Kuwait elects women.

Yglesias advocates free market sports.

NYT: Nick Gillespie wants to legalize and tax everything.

The Eiffel Tower at dusk.

Your tax dollars at work: The Social Security Administration has a very special announcement.

Wednesday, May 6

Link blag

Ambers: How about a gay justice? It's already aired out bigot Sen. Thune (R-SD)

Megan details why the auto bailouts are all about the unions.

Ordinary Will looks at teaching reform.

Conor says power to the principals.

Thinner people spend more time eating.

America's first face transplant offers some improvement over being shot in the face with a shotgun. I'd still consider a veil, though.

The nation is ready to be lied to about the economy again

Tuesday, May 5

Link blag

I endorse Will Wilkinson's ramblings on libertarian democraphobia.

Daily Beast looks back at the wackiest moments of Michele Bachmann, batshit crazy extraordinaire. Spoiler: She sees this as her divine calling!

Also, a manifesto for young voters.

TPM: Et tu, DeMint? Cato has more thoughts.

(video) Obama gets more respect from the press than Bush did. My guess is reporters stood for Bush during his first term. After 2005, not so much. I'll further speculate it's in part because they'd grown very accustomed to him by 2008, he seldom had anything bright to say, and at this point by any reasonable standard his presidency was a terrible failure.

Criticizing Obama shuts down conversations? I guess it's like how those of us who objected to Bush's policies when they were popular were said to hate America, etc.

WSJ: Meet Desirée Rogers, keeper of the Obama brand.

Ordinary Mark Thompson is serious about American exceptionalism, in a good way. William Brafford objects to the term.

It's official: The Obama administration loves MSNBC.

Sunday, March 29

Reading the LA Times

STEVE LOPEZ: Former judge fired up on making pot legal

All right, tell me this doesn't sound a little strange:

I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.
Not strange...as it should be, if people were honest rather than trying to further a career in drug law enforcement.
"Please quote me," says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. "What we are doing has failed."

As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He's not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there'd be rehab on demand.

So here he is in coat and tie -- with a U.S. flag lapel pin -- eating his oatmeal and making perfect sense, even when talking about the way President Obama flippantly dismissed a question about legalizing marijuana last week during a White House news conference.

"Politicians get reelected talking tough regarding the war on drugs," says Gray. "Do you want to hear the speech? Vote for Gray. I will put drug dealers in jail and save your children."

I had gone to visit Gray in part to discuss his support for a bill introduced last month by Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who is calling for marijuana to be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.

Does the bill have a chance?
Maybe not yet, but eventually.  All we can do is raise awareness.
I wouldn't bet a pack of Zig-Zag rolling paper. It's a provocative idea that gets dusted off now and again, but the usual reaction is either ridicule or sober concern about sending the wrong message to youths, among others, and making substance abuse a greater problem than it already is.

But take a look at the world, people.
Are you sure that's not asking too much?
Mexican drug lords are better armed than police and killing thousands who don't buy into the corruption -- with the violence crashing our borders -- and American enemies abroad are financed by the opium trade.
Stop right there. Some people simply can't understand that if drugs were legal, our enemies wouldn't have a monopoly on them and be out of their lucrative business. So when you tell them enemies are financed by opium, they think we need to double down on the task of eradicating drug trade. They have no perspective on how intractable that is, or how badly we've been failing at it for decades.
Ten days ago I visited a Los Angeles elementary school where students practice dropping to the floor and making themselves as flat as pancakes to avoid stray bullets from the gang-infested neighborhood, and drugs play a role in that violence. On Wednesday I strolled through downtown Los Angeles and marijuana smoke filled the air, a mocking reminder of the impossible task of eradicating drugs, despite the trillions spent and the thousands of people we've locked away in our jails and prisons.
Oh so you're paying attention, then.  Sadly most people aren't.
Bravo to Hillary Rodham Clinton, says Gray, for admitting last week that American demand for drugs is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico.

"But she got the facts right and the solution wrong," he says, just as everyone else has in a war that's been escalating for decades.

Gray was on the Municipal Court bench in the 1980s when he took his first hit from the reform pipe. The vast majority of the cases coming before him were alcohol-related, he said, and he was able to divert defendants into screening and recovery. But he couldn't do the same in drug cases, and he was frustrated, both in Municipal Court bench and later on the Superior Court bench.

"Our jails are filled with low-level users who sold to support the habit," says Gray, who believes that the tougher the criminal justice system gets on drug offenders, the fewer resources it has to go after rapists, robbers and other criminals.
It's a tragic state of affairs.  But one I think most people should be able to understand, once they're prodded into really thinking about it.
In 1992 he called a news conference in Santa Ana and stated his case for legalized drugs. In Orange County, that was like coming out in favor of communism and nose rings, but Gray never flinched from insisting that the drug war was a waste of tax dollars and that it was putting too many citizens and police in harm's way. He became a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It." "His book drives a stake through the heart of the failed war on drugs," says a back-cover blurb from Walter Cronkite.
Many such stakes have been driven, but it doesn't count for much when so few people are paying attention or able to think meaningfully beyond "drugs are bad, please protect my kids for me".
Gray, by the way, is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Navy lawyer who now counts himself a Libertarian, all of which reminds us why we love California. He says his conservative roots make him the best man for the campaign to legalize drugs.

"Who better than a conservative judge in a conservative county who's never used any form of illicit drugs?" he asks.

When Ammiano's bill was introduced, Gray was invited to the news conference by the openly gay Democrat.

"I have received standing ovations from the ACLU and the Young Republicans of Orange County," says Gray. "It crosses all political lines."
But apparently not age lines.  Note "Young Republicans".  As with legalizing gay marriage, we're stuck waiting for enough narrow-minded geezers to die.
Not everyone thinks he's citizen of the year, though. Gray says he's often asked about sending the wrong message, and he responds with a reality check. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can easily get them, but doing so may put them in harm's way. Wouldn't it be smarter to sell the drugs at government stores, so advertising could be outlawed, taxes collected on one of California's biggest cash crops and drug gangs eradicated?
I didn't realize advertising was such a problem, but I'm all for eradicating the black market and associated violence.
If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana -- which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it was no longer forbidden and the novelty wore off.

I'm not sure I agree with that point, but I say we give it a try, and I do buy into Gray's argument about who the winners are in the current system.

First, there are the drug lords in Mexico and beyond. Then the drug gangs that peddle the stuff here. Next come the law enforcement agencies, prison contractors and prison guards, which use the war on drugs to demand more resources. And finally, there are the politicians who have wooed voters since the Nixon administration by pledging to support the war on drugs.

"My personal opinion," says Gray, "is that we couldn't have done worse if we tried."
Well let's not be hyperbolic. I think offering little kids free heroin injections might qualify as possibly worse. But as pertains to consenting adults, yes, prohibition is one of the most harmful policies ever enacted in otherwise free societies.

Wednesday, February 11

Link blag

NYT: some banks want to return government money.

Excellent. That's exactly how it should be. Stop freeloading on the taxpayers: if you can get along fine on your own and keep your cushy seven figure bonuses then by all means do it.

Drezner: Bad things are happening in East Asia, but cut the schadenfreude. Their problems interlock with ours and we need to work together on this.

Ambinder: State secret legislation has been reintroduced. (It's nice to occasionally be proud of my state's Senator)

LA Times: Solicitor general nominee says enemy combatants can be held without trial and has a pernicious view of what constitutes an "enemy combatant". Ugh.

Will Wilkinson posts about missing the point of libertarianism. I'm with Will on this, as usual.