Everything in the November jobs numbers Friday was good except for the number that usually gets the most attention.
The 210,000 jobs that U.S. employers added last month was far below analyst expectations. But most of the other evidence in the report points to a job market that is humming. An open question a few months ago — is this a tight labor market or a loose one? — is quickly being settled in favor of “tight.” …
The 210,000 jobs that U.S. employers added last month was far below analyst expectations. But most of the other evidence in the report points to a job market that is humming. An open question a few months ago — is this a tight labor market or a loose one? — is quickly being settled in favor of “tight.”
Most notably, the jobless rate fell to 4.2 percent from 4.6 percent, a remarkable swing in a single month. The speed with which unemployment has gone from a grave crisis to a benign situation is astounding. Unemployment was 6.7 percent last December. In one year, we’ve experienced an improvement that took three and a half years in the last economic cycle (March 2014 to September 2017).
Sometimes a falling unemployment rate is driven by a pernicious trend: People drop out of the labor force. The opposite was true in November. The survey of American households on which the data is based showed uniformly positive signs. The number of people working was up by 1.1 million while the number of adults not in the labor force — neither working nor looking for work — fell by 473,000.
Among people in their prime working years, those 25 to 54, the share of people employed rose by a whopping half a percentage point. It was 78.8 percent in November, rapidly approaching its prepandemic level of 80.4 percent. It’s easy to imagine that by early in 2022, people in that age bracket will be employed at rates matching the world before Covid.
Even the disappointing number on job creation, derived from a separate survey of employers, has some silver linings. For one, it was accompanied by positive revisions to September and October job growth numbers, amounting to a combined 82,000, which takes some of the sting away. Revisions have been uncommonly large, and mostly in a positive direction, in recent months, reflecting challenges collecting data in a pandemic economy. …
The share of adults in the labor force remains significantly below prepandemic levels — 61.8 percent in November, compared with 63.3 percent in February 2020. That reflects in significant part the decisions of people to retire early. And it remains unclear how many of those people might return to work as the economy and public health conditions improve. …
… Fed officials would like to see a stronger rebound in labor force participation, but that measure was at least heading in the right direction in November. And ultimately it isn’t Fed policy that will decide whether, for example, a 62-year-old who left his job during the pandemic decides to start working again.
If anything, the new numbers support the idea that the Fed has found itself out of position, with a monetary policy that is looser than it should be at a time when the labor market is quite healthy and with inflation far above its target.
Consider this: In the last economic cycle, the Fed began tapering its bond purchases in December 2013, when the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent and inflation was coming in below the Fed’s 2 percent goal. This time, it began when the jobless rate was 4.2 percent and inflation was in the ballpark of 6 percent (November inflation numbers have not yet been released).
Even if you believe the Fed was too quick to tighten monetary policy in 2013 — and the sluggish recovery of the 2010s is evidence that it was — the contrast is striking. In that sense, a more aggressive tapering plan from the Fed will be an effort to adjust its policy stance with the facts on the ground without causing too much disruption to markets or the economy.
If the Fed succeeds, the economy will keep growing steadily and the labor market will continue its gradual improvement. But it’s worth noting just how rapid the improvement has already been. In February — a mere nine months ago — the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting the unemployment rate would be 5.3 percent in the current quarter. It has ended up a full percentage point below that level.
Ultimately, this has been a speedy labor market recovery, and one that appears to have more room to run. Policymakers have every reason to take the win and continue adjusting to that reality.
I don’t know how many readers are aware that the U.S. government was almost forced to shut down this weekend. A last-minute deal averted that crisis, but another crisis is a couple of weeks away: The government is expected to hit its debt ceiling in the middle of this month, and failure to raise the ceiling would wreak havoc not just with governance but with America’s financial reputation.
The thing is, the federal government isn’t having any problem raising money — in fact, it can borrow at interest rates well below the inflation rate, so that the real cost of servicing additional federal debt is actually negative. …
Having commented the other day that those parents/friends who provide access to firearms to their children/friends are often not considered complicit in their violent crimes, it must be noted that Michigan authorities are charging the parents of the ‘Michigan Shooting Suspect’ with 4 counts of Involuntary Manslaughter. This is as it should be.
“Prosecutors in Michigan took a rare step on Friday by filing involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents of the 15-year-old accused of fatally shooting four students in the halls of Oxford High School, according to court documents.
The office of Karen D. McDonald, the prosecutor in Oakland County, filed four charges of involuntary manslaughter against James and Jennifer Crumbley, one for each of the students killed.
Law enforcement authorities say that Mr. Crumbley legally bought the 9-millimeter Sig Sauer handgun four days before his son used it to carry out the country’s deadliest school shooting this year. Hours before the attack, he and his wife met with school officials who were concerned about their son’s behavior.
It is unclear how their son, Ethan, obtained the handgun and brought it to school. But law enforcement authorities say he walked out of a school bathroom on Tuesday afternoon armed with the semiautomatic pistol and three 15-round magazines. …”
i wonder if the parent of Rittenhouse could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, or would that be double jeopardy?
logically it seems to me it shouldn’t. Kyle may have believed, not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was shooting in self-defense, but his parent ought to have forseen the danger of letting a retarded teenager take a gun to a riot.
Not only could that happen, as ‘double jeopardy’ has nothing to do with charging the parents separately, but also there is the matter of ‘wrongful death suits’ for the Kyle Rittenhouse if not his entire family.
… The federal government will likely look into whether a criminal civil rights violation occurred, a Wisconsin-based civil rights lawyer told NBC News, but authorities are not likely to bring such charges against Rittenhouse.
Could he face civil penalties?
It is possible that Rittenhouse could face a civil trial in the deaths of the two men — Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber — he was acquitted of killing. If taken to court for wrongful death, Rittenhouse may again claim self-defense.
A wrongful death claim is filed for monetary damages and is usually brought by a family member on behalf of the deceased. The plaintiff must show that the defendant, in this case, Rittenhouse, was negligent and that their actions resulted in the death of the deceased.
But the burden of proof in such suits — a preponderance of evidence — is much lower than what prosecutors were required to prove during the criminal trial against Rittenhouse. …
Although the Rittenhouse trial placed a spotlight on the violence that occurred in Kenosha over the course of several days last summer, the teen’s acquittal does not mark the end of legal action filed against authorities in response to the events. …
my question about double jeopardy was rhetorical and toungue in cheek because I am always amazed by the creativity of lawyers. i don’t know if Mrs Rittenouse had any knowledge of Kyle’s taking a gun to a riot, or “should have had” such knowledge, but I think i have heard of cases where such reasoning has been invoked. that would not be “double jeopardy because Mrs is not the same defendant, but I would expect the point to be argued that since Kyle was acquitted, Mrs could not be an accomplice, but I think such reasoning ought not to hold up…because Kyle was acquitted, we may suppose, on the “self defense” defense, which might, by ignoring the law in other cases be allowed if we narrow our focus to the second he pulled the trigger and not to his running around with a gun…where ordinary people might have been justified in trying to stop him…or..as in the case of Aubrey…where he, Rittenhouse…provoked the actions he thought he was self-defending himself from. in any case, allowing your kid to run around with a gun should be regarded as negligence leading to homicide (not “murder”) for which a parent might be held responsible…especially one who publicly endorses the killing.
note: i don’t think I am arguing with you here, just kind of reasoning outloud. i am pretty sure the civil trial would be allowed for the same reasons it was allowed agains OJ Simpson.
(AP) — The parents of a teen accused of killing four students in a shooting at Oxford High School were found hiding in a Detroit building early Saturday, several hours after a prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against them, officials said.
James and Jennifer Crumbley were captured in a commercial building that housed artwork, Detroit Police Chief James E. White said at a news conference.
The Crumbleys’ attorney, Shannon Smith, said Friday that the pair had left town earlier in the week “for their own safety” and told The Associated Press they would be returning to Oxford to be arraigned. But White seemed to dismiss the possibility that was their intention.
“This isn’t indicative of turning yourself in — hiding in a warehouse,” White said. …
which proves people don’t like to go to jail. someting the law ought to keep in mind when they resist or avoid arrest…. instead of treating it as an additional offense, deserving death by cop.
it’s not that i think the parents here are without blame, or that punishment does not deter “crime” at least sometimes, but that i think there is entirely too much punishment in our society. in the long run it is counterproductive;
try to think of resisting arrest as “self defense.”
I am serious, but I can’t say I expected anyone to understand what I was saying.
watched a you tube the other day of cops interviewing a Jan 6 rioter.
This kid did a better job of crying than Kyle. You could see he was sorry, confused, still thought he did the right thing, “His President called him.” He thought he was defending his country. You don’t punish your enemy’s soldiers, Not if you are human. Or is it only me and Lincoln who understand that?
I, maybe not Lincoln, would extend the quality of mercey even to Kyle and his parents, asking only that they attend a civics class and get a deep understanding of why it’s not good to go prepared to kill people.
I think it might work. if the teacher was a good as the cops, only honester.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
i just realized that i did not understand what you were saying. the funny thing is that i “thought” i did, and i believe anyone else reading it would think the same thing. probably exactly what you thought you were saying. but in fact you don’t actually say anything that a meaning can be attached to, except by intuition.
and I am absolutely sure that no one will understand this,
‘people don’t like to go to jail. someting the law ought to keep in mind when they resist or avoid arrest…. instead of treating it as an additional offense, deserving death by cop.’
I get that ‘people don’t like to go to jail.’ That’s pretty well understood,
and that’s why people are supposed to NOT do things that will get
them jailed. (Also, why ‘resisting arrest’ is a crime in itself,
not deserving of ill treatment by police, however.)
thank you for reply. i am not trying to make you mad. and i am not joking. would take too long to try to explain, and wouldn’t do any good anyway.
if you want to try…try looking at it from the other persons point of view: a person resisting arrest is acting from self defense from his point of view. kyle was acting from self defense from HIS point of view, from the point of view of “the law” neither of those “natural” behaviors is allowed. which is fine more or less as long as we don’t assume the arrestee…or the instigator (in the case of kyle, or the arbury three} “ought” to submit to arrest or just take the consequences of their instigation. i think that’s the best i can do for a start.
the extra punishment we assign for resisting is no more of a deterrent than the medal we give to the guy who rushes into a burning bulding to save a baby is the incentive for his act.
Here in Tucson, Arizona the city government mandated that all city employees be vaccinated against covid. The deadline was December 1st. Out of a workforce of approximately 3,5oo, only 11 employees chose not to receive the vaccines and will now be terminated. Another 10% did receive a medical or religious exemption.
well, bless their hearts. i hope they have some place to go. i wouldn’t want job termination to be a sentence to life-long poverty and homelessness.
I also hope they are people whose vaccine avoidance is political and not deep-seated personal. I have sympathy for the deep seated, but not for the political. Of course it’s tragic when the political becaomes deep seated, but that seems to be the common lot of mankind. or unkind as the case may be. (womankind too.)
the above comment (mine, here) is my personal (not deep seated) opinion and not an attack on any person or persons, however oversensitive.
you all probably know about the widespread deer infections and have likely heard that dogs and cats can get Covid too…then there’s also the big cats like tigers and not unexpectedly the great apes…to those we can now add the hippopotami…
Two hippos at Belgian zoo have COVID-19 — Two hippopotamuses at a zoo in Belgium have tested positive for COVID-19. Antwerp Zoo announced Friday that the country’s national veterinary lab confirmed two hippos contracted the disease and that the zoo would be closed until further notice, The Associated Press reported.
though they don’t look a lot like elephants, i have it on good advice that the hippos most likely to contract the disease are Republicans living in red states…
Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) says:
Everything including all reforms, changes & replacing GOP members requires votes. Saving democracy in the U.S. depends on Voting Rights. We must prioritize & deal more effectively with this issue?
I hate to be critical of the only political party that is attempting to govern in these very difficult times, but I’m afraid we have made a critical mistake on the Voting Rights issue. Unfortunately, Democratic leadership and POTUS have let the major reforms needed on voting rights and voter suppression slip away.
The leadership, distracted by, COVID, infrastructure, Build Back Better, Afghanistan and other interferences failed to prioritize and deal with the urgency of the lynchpin of American democracy — the right to vote — upon which all other issues depend.
While the GOP has been emphatic and successful in frustrating and altering that right to their advantage, POTUS, with the power of the bully pulpit, should have taken control with a vengeance to defend that fundamental right; including the critical rationale and absolute necessity to carve out an exception to the Senate filibuster rule in order to enact reforms.
He should have prioritized and explained the importance of voting rights above all else. He should have quashed the nonsensical internal bickering within his party and presented the public with relentless, hard hitting, flag waving oratory to save the U.S. democracy. He should have also individually dealt seriously and called out any unreasonable obstruction or interference by members of his party.
Instead, he let it get out of hand and has placed the future of U.S. democracy on the brink. Even if Democrats were to pass some reform legislation now; it’s probably too late to be effective against a barrage of GOP lawsuits that would delay or halt implementation prior to the November 8, 2022 Midterm elections. Those elections will likely determine the future of democracy in America.
Additionally, it appears that even the legislation that is being proposed does not address the intrinsic legal ambiguity within the antiquated Electoral Count Act of 1887 which was the root cause and erroneous justification for the January 6, 2021 insurrection and assault on the American democracy.
you are probably correct about voting rights, including too ate.
time for people to figure out what they can do to turn out the vote in spite of the obstacles set. be creative. maybe even sart a few lawsuits of your own. may not be too late for local and state courts to issue injunctions against the new laws.
but mostly, organize and register and vote and provide transportation to polls, and protection from the bad guys, and probably platooning voters to get relief from long lines, and prepare to sue for R voter fraud. learn from their book, and gather better evidence than they had.
a few strikes and boycots might help. avoid “riot” situations.
good to avoid inflammatory rhetoric too, if you can manage it.
Wikipedia: Little Russia … is a geographical and historical term used to describe the modern-day territories of Ukraine. …
Little originally meaning the smaller part, with time, “Little Russia” developed into a political and geographical concept in Russia, referring to most of the territory of modern-day Ukraine before the 20th century. Accordingly, derivatives such as “Little Russian” were commonly applied to the people, language, and culture of the area. … Prior to the revolutionary events of 1917, a large part of the region’s élite population adopted a Little Russian identity that competed with the local Ukrainian identity.
After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, and with the amalgamation of Ukrainian territories into one administrative unit (Ukrainian People’s Republic), the term started to recede from common use. …
The Biden administration’s growing alarm about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine is based in part on U.S. intelligence that Moscow has drawn up plans for a military offensive involving an estimated 175,000 troops as soon as early next year.
An unclassified U.S. intelligence document details some of the intelligence findings, including the positioning of what officials say could eventually be 100 battalion tactical groups, as well as heavy armor, artillery and other equipment. …
… intelligence depicts a Russian military machine springing into action and positioning itself for an attack against which experts say Ukraine’s military would stand little chance. About half of the Russian forces that would be used in an invasion are already near Ukraine’s border, and Moscow is moving swiftly to build up a large force of contract military reservists, according to a Biden administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. …
… the Maidan revolution … took place in Ukraine in February 2014 at the end of the Euromaidan protests, when a series of violent events involving protesters, riot police, and unknown shooters in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv culminated in the ousting of elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. … (Wikipedia)
(After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine’s government was closely allied with Russia. With the Maidan revolution, Ukraine turned toward Europe & the West)
“Peace for our time” was a declaration made by British Prime MinisterNeville Chamberlain in his 30 September 1938 remarks in London concerning the Munich Agreement and the subsequent Anglo-German Declaration. The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who, upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878, had stated, “I have returned from Germany with peace for our time”.
The phrase is primarily remembered for its bitter ironic value since less than a year after the agreement, Hitler’s invasion of Poland began World War II after France and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany following Hitler’s refusal to withdraw from Polish territory.
It is often misquoted as “peace in our time”, a phrase already familiar to the British public by its longstanding appearance in the Book of Common Prayer. A passage in that book translated from the 7th-century hymn “Da pacem, Domine” reads, “Give peace in our time, O Lord; because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.” It is unknown how deliberate Chamberlain’s use of such a similar phrase was. … (Wikipedia)
(However, this time it won’t be Germany as the main antagonist.)
Still out West and stopped by to see what was going on at AB. Too many links will get you in moderation or the trash. Keep it in mind when you wonder why your comment is not up.
… The greatest defeat the United States could suffer in Ukraine is to be drawn into war there. An accord that Russia and Ukraine signed in 2015 provides a basis for peace, but it is languishing. Now, as war drums beat, is the time to revive it. Eisenhower swallowed hard and accepted permanent neutrality for Austria. Biden should follow his example and seek the same for Ukraine.
Ukraine has a 1,300-mile border with Russia, so Russia sees the possibility of it allying with the United States much as we would see a foreign-allied Mexico. It is half a world away from American shores and has little strategic value for us other than as a tool against Russia. Our arms shipments and pledges of unlimited support send a dangerously misleading message to our Ukrainian friends. Despite all our bluster, the United States would be highly unlikely to send troops to support Ukraine in a war with Russia. Instead, we should promote a settlement that would turn Ukraine into a Slavic version of Finland or Austria: open to all, West-oriented if its people so desire, but militarily neutral.
Today’s Ukraine emerged 30 years ago from the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Its current leaders are strongly anti-Russian and would like to bring Ukraine into the US-dominated NATO military alliance. Russia says it will do whatever is necessary to prevent that. …
Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently called the US commitment to Ukraine “ironclad.” Note to (Ukraine) President Volodymyr Zelensky: Don’t take him literally. Going to war on the presumption that the United States will send troops or gunships to fight Russia would be a grave miscalculation. It’s good to reassure your friends, but if war breaks out, this promise is likely to prove falser than vows made in wine.
Russia has strong reasons for restraint. If it invaded Ukraine, it would certainly suffer heavy sanctions from the European Union. In some areas, its ground forces would encounter fierce resistance. Even if successful, Russia would have a hard time controlling a country that is twice the size of Britain.
For the United States, the list of dangers is even longer. Countering a Russian force on the battlefield in Ukraine would require large deployments, produce casualties, and quite possibly result in defeat. War would create economic upheaval across Europe and distract Congress from President Biden’s cherished domestic agenda. The big winner would likely be the Chinese, since isolation from the West would all but force Russia into their arms. China could even decide that with the United States at war with Russia, the time would be right to strike against Taiwan.
Despite this shared interest in peace, both sides are engaged in high-stakes geopolitical gambling. Russia holds better cards. It cares far more about Ukraine than we do, and it is willing to sacrifice far more to secure its position there. …
… Mr. Putin’s gambit may be a cold calculus of coercion, backed by signals that the threat of war is real — a way to force President Biden to recognize a Russian sphere of interest in Eastern Europe. Mr. Putin in recent days said Russia would demand “legal guarantees” that Ukraine would not join the NATO alliance or host more Western forces, and he is scheduled to speak to Mr. Biden by videoconference on Tuesday. …
here is something i have no right to have an opinion about. but i think mr p. has a reasonable case if this is what he’s asking for. of course if B. agrees, he’ll have to keep it secret. and how can any u.s. president guarantee what his successor will do. it’s very strange that Trump seems more likely to agree with P. than B.
We’re about a week from the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre…
It wasn’t the first, but it was perhaps the worst, so far.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members. Earlier that day, before driving to the school, he shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. … (Wikipedia)
Lanza used firearms legally purchased by his mother, who was also his first victim. He himself was his last victim.
(AP – Dec 4, 2020) The governing board in Newtown, Connecticut — where the country’s deadliest grade school shooting took place — has blocked proposed bans on carrying firearms around town from further consideration.
The decision came after the board heard from gun control activists who said they were intimidated at protests by armed Second Amendment supporters. The debate showed how the gun control discussion remains active in Newtown long after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which killed 20 first-graders and six educators. The eighth anniversary of the shooting is coming up on Dec. 14.
After listening to testimony from both sides of the issue Wednesday night by phone because of the pandemic, the Newtown Legislative Council deadlocked in 6-6 votes on whether to refer three proposed gun restriction ordinances to the council’s Ordinance Committee, effectively killing the requests.
Members of the Newtown Action Alliance, formed after the school shooting to prevent gun violence, had proposed the measures, in response to feeling threatened by gun rights advocates carrying firearms during protests outside the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group that happens to be based in Newtown. …
i don’t like knowing my fellow citizens are armed and dangerous.
but after twenty years of shouting with no results, i’d think you’d get tired of driving them into the arms of the Trumps et al.
it makes me think of sending the kids out the sally port to wave signs at the orcs “go home! we hate you! you’re ugly!… and leave a contribution for the poor on your way out!”
‘i just realized that i did not understand what you were saying. the funny thing is that i “thought” i did, and i believe anyone else reading it would think the same thing. probably exactly what you thought you were saying. but in fact you don’t actually say anything that a meaning can be attached to, except by intuition.’
You mean you did not understand that Rittenhouse’s defense was mainly that he was afraid that the men he shot were maybe trying to take his (illegally obtained) assault rifle away from him, and perhaps shoot him with it, so he had to shoot them first. And this was apparently considered by the judge & jury to be a valid defense.
Well, if he hadn’t come from out of state with an illegally obtained firearm, to defend a used car lot (because he thought it needed defending (*), not that anyone asked him to do so), maybe those two fellows who were foolish enuf to try to take his gun would still be alive.
(* or maybe figured this would give him an opportunity to shoot some people.)
… US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky received swift condemnation for posting a Christmas-themed photo of him and his family holding firearms on Saturday afternoon. …
In the congressman’s image, the Massie family of seven smiled and posed in front of a Christmas tree, guns in hand. Massie, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, posted the photo with a caption saying “ps. Santa, please bring ammo.” …
now here is a case where punishment or preventive detention would be a good idea. maybe even send a message to others who might think jesus approves of armed response.
As for postings about the Ukraine situation, I submitted a post referring to ‘where things stand at the moment’ as possibly setting-up for a World War three-peat, which seems likely & extremely dangerous, but that was not accepted. It seems we are damned if we do & damned if we don’t in this matter. ‘Going after neutrality’ for Ukraine is probably unacceptable to Russia. They would likely much prefer Poland as a buffer-state between East & West far more than Ukraine.
So, going forward, one can see a geopolitical evolution where first Ukraine remains allied to Russia, Poland is neutralized. And then, later, Poland again goes behind an Iron Curtain, and Germany is forced to accept neutrality. (Hey, it works for Switzerland.) And so on…
It’s interesting to see that the entire family has settled on US standard military style assault rifles, presumably of .223″ (5.56mm) caliber. Makes gift-giving much simpler. Except possibly the congressman himself, who appears to be holding something resembling an M-60 machine gun, which is the old 7.62mm caliber.
no, i understood all of that perfectly well. i did not understand what you were saying about it, or me.
i think kyle was playing cowboys and indians going into the situation. by the time he actually shot someone he was not capable od believing they only wanted to take his gun away from him. he could only think they were trying to kill him. that’s because that is what he would have been trying to do. i do not think that excuses him, i do not think the law allows that as a defense, or should.
on the other hand, when cops kill someone for resisting arrest i do not think they should congratulate themselves.
back to ukraine: i guess i don’t agree with you after all.
back to Kyle: was gonna leave it. you can imagine what you want about someone else’s motives. even trained psychologists know better. in your case, your imagination leads to nothing good. no possibility of anything better.
facts (as i see them)
Kyle shows up carrying gun [very bad idea]
Kyle runs away from people trying to take his gun away [does not indicate an initial intention to “shoot anybody]
kyle shoots three people [possibly by this time genuinely afraid they are going to kill him — note this does not excuse him in the eyes of the law, and is a product of his own limited mental abilities ]
question for the interesed reader: do these facts support “came to kill” interpretation better than “stupid kid playing cowboys and indians with real gun provokes people to try to take gun away, provokes primitive (phylogenetic) self defense response..not allowed by lw because he provoked situation…but allowed by jury because they set aside “law” to give kid another chance, provoking insane Right to acclaim kid a hero, disgusting people who believe in an eye for an eye “justice and incidentally hate theinsane Right. but note cops are allowed “feared for my life” defense for shooting unarmed suspect who feared for HIS life.
Why the November Jobs Report Is Better Than It Looks
NY Times – Neil Irwin – December 3
If anything, the new numbers support the idea that the Fed has found itself out of position, with a monetary policy that is looser than it should be at a time when the labor market is quite healthy and with inflation far above its target.
Consider this: In the last economic cycle, the Fed began tapering its bond purchases in December 2013, when the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent and inflation was coming in below the Fed’s 2 percent goal. This time, it began when the jobless rate was 4.2 percent and inflation was in the ballpark of 6 percent (November inflation numbers have not yet been released).
Even if you believe the Fed was too quick to tighten monetary policy in 2013 — and the sluggish recovery of the 2010s is evidence that it was — the contrast is striking. In that sense, a more aggressive tapering plan from the Fed will be an effort to adjust its policy stance with the facts on the ground without causing too much disruption to markets or the economy.
If the Fed succeeds, the economy will keep growing steadily and the labor market will continue its gradual improvement. But it’s worth noting just how rapid the improvement has already been. In February — a mere nine months ago — the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting the unemployment rate would be 5.3 percent in the current quarter. It has ended up a full percentage point below that level.
Ultimately, this has been a speedy labor market recovery, and one that appears to have more room to run. Policymakers have every reason to take the win and continue adjusting to that reality.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/upshot/jobs-report-unemployment-falls.html?smid=tw-share"<Why the November Jobs Report Is Better Than It Looks
NY Times – Neil Irwin – December 3
NY Times – Paul Krugman – December 2
Inflation pays National Debt interest (no worries!)
Having commented the other day that those parents/friends who provide access to firearms to their children/friends are often not considered complicit in their violent crimes, it must be noted that Michigan authorities are charging the parents of the ‘Michigan Shooting Suspect’ with 4 counts of Involuntary Manslaughter. This is as it should be.
“Prosecutors in Michigan took a rare step on Friday by filing involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents of the 15-year-old accused of fatally shooting four students in the halls of Oxford High School, according to court documents.
The office of Karen D. McDonald, the prosecutor in Oakland County, filed four charges of involuntary manslaughter against James and Jennifer Crumbley, one for each of the students killed.
Law enforcement authorities say that Mr. Crumbley legally bought the 9-millimeter Sig Sauer handgun four days before his son used it to carry out the country’s deadliest school shooting this year. Hours before the attack, he and his wife met with school officials who were concerned about their son’s behavior.
It is unclear how their son, Ethan, obtained the handgun and brought it to school. But law enforcement authorities say he walked out of a school bathroom on Tuesday afternoon armed with the semiautomatic pistol and three 15-round magazines. …”
Michigan Shooting Suspect’s Parents Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter
as it should be.
i wonder if the parent of Rittenhouse could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, or would that be double jeopardy?
logically it seems to me it shouldn’t. Kyle may have believed, not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was shooting in self-defense, but his parent ought to have forseen the danger of letting a retarded teenager take a gun to a riot.
Not only could that happen, as ‘double jeopardy’ has nothing to do with charging the parents separately, but also there is the matter of ‘wrongful death suits’ for the Kyle Rittenhouse if not his entire family.
What happens now that Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted
Dobbs
my question about double jeopardy was rhetorical and toungue in cheek because I am always amazed by the creativity of lawyers. i don’t know if Mrs Rittenouse had any knowledge of Kyle’s taking a gun to a riot, or “should have had” such knowledge, but I think i have heard of cases where such reasoning has been invoked. that would not be “double jeopardy because Mrs is not the same defendant, but I would expect the point to be argued that since Kyle was acquitted, Mrs could not be an accomplice, but I think such reasoning ought not to hold up…because Kyle was acquitted, we may suppose, on the “self defense” defense, which might, by ignoring the law in other cases be allowed if we narrow our focus to the second he pulled the trigger and not to his running around with a gun…where ordinary people might have been justified in trying to stop him…or..as in the case of Aubrey…where he, Rittenhouse…provoked the actions he thought he was self-defending himself from. in any case, allowing your kid to run around with a gun should be regarded as negligence leading to homicide (not “murder”) for which a parent might be held responsible…especially one who publicly endorses the killing.
note: i don’t think I am arguing with you here, just kind of reasoning outloud. i am pretty sure the civil trial would be allowed for the same reasons it was allowed agains OJ Simpson.
Of course, my reply was also ‘rhetorical and toungue in cheek’,
meant for clarification of course. Never any harm in that.
Coberly,
Too bad Kyle did not get to go to prison. He would have had a real good time there.
Parents of alleged Michigan school shooter are arrested in Detroit
which proves people don’t like to go to jail. someting the law ought to keep in mind when they resist or avoid arrest…. instead of treating it as an additional offense, deserving death by cop.
it’s not that i think the parents here are without blame, or that punishment does not deter “crime” at least sometimes, but that i think there is entirely too much punishment in our society. in the long run it is counterproductive;
try to think of resisting arrest as “self defense.”
Which is why Rittenhouse shot & killed two
people & wounded a third, who were trying
to take away his assault rifle (*), exercising
his right to ‘self-defense’. Are you serious?
(* – the one his friend bought him.)
Dobbs
I am serious, but I can’t say I expected anyone to understand what I was saying.
watched a you tube the other day of cops interviewing a Jan 6 rioter.
This kid did a better job of crying than Kyle. You could see he was sorry, confused, still thought he did the right thing, “His President called him.” He thought he was defending his country. You don’t punish your enemy’s soldiers, Not if you are human. Or is it only me and Lincoln who understand that?
I, maybe not Lincoln, would extend the quality of mercey even to Kyle and his parents, asking only that they attend a civics class and get a deep understanding of why it’s not good to go prepared to kill people.
I think it might work. if the teacher was a good as the cops, only honester.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
dobbs
i just realized that i did not understand what you were saying. the funny thing is that i “thought” i did, and i believe anyone else reading it would think the same thing. probably exactly what you thought you were saying. but in fact you don’t actually say anything that a meaning can be attached to, except by intuition.
and I am absolutely sure that no one will understand this,
‘people don’t like to go to jail. someting the law ought to keep in mind when they resist or avoid arrest…. instead of treating it as an additional offense, deserving death by cop.’
I get that ‘people don’t like to go to jail.’ That’s pretty well understood,
and that’s why people are supposed to NOT do things that will get
them jailed. (Also, why ‘resisting arrest’ is a crime in itself,
not deserving of ill treatment by police, however.)
Fred
thank you for reply. i am not trying to make you mad. and i am not joking. would take too long to try to explain, and wouldn’t do any good anyway.
if you want to try…try looking at it from the other persons point of view: a person resisting arrest is acting from self defense from his point of view. kyle was acting from self defense from HIS point of view, from the point of view of “the law” neither of those “natural” behaviors is allowed. which is fine more or less as long as we don’t assume the arrestee…or the instigator (in the case of kyle, or the arbury three} “ought” to submit to arrest or just take the consequences of their instigation. i think that’s the best i can do for a start.
the extra punishment we assign for resisting is no more of a deterrent than the medal we give to the guy who rushes into a burning bulding to save a baby is the incentive for his act.
Here in Tucson, Arizona the city government mandated that all city employees be vaccinated against covid. The deadline was December 1st. Out of a workforce of approximately 3,5oo, only 11 employees chose not to receive the vaccines and will now be terminated. Another 10% did receive a medical or religious exemption.
Nearly 100% of Tucson employees comply with city vaccine mandate | Local news | tucson.com
Jim Hannan
well, bless their hearts. i hope they have some place to go. i wouldn’t want job termination to be a sentence to life-long poverty and homelessness.
I also hope they are people whose vaccine avoidance is political and not deep-seated personal. I have sympathy for the deep seated, but not for the political. Of course it’s tragic when the political becaomes deep seated, but that seems to be the common lot of mankind. or unkind as the case may be. (womankind too.)
the above comment (mine, here) is my personal (not deep seated) opinion and not an attack on any person or persons, however oversensitive.
you all probably know about the widespread deer infections and have likely heard that dogs and cats can get Covid too…then there’s also the big cats like tigers and not unexpectedly the great apes…to those we can now add the hippopotami…
though they don’t look a lot like elephants, i have it on good advice that the hippos most likely to contract the disease are Republicans living in red states…
:<)
well, you know how them dirty hippos are.
i wonder who had to swab their noses.
VOTING RIGHTS URGENCY
Everything including all reforms, changes & replacing GOP members requires votes. Saving democracy in the U.S. depends on Voting Rights. We must prioritize & deal more effectively with this issue?
I hate to be critical of the only political party that is attempting to govern in these very difficult times, but I’m afraid we have made a critical mistake on the Voting Rights issue. Unfortunately, Democratic leadership and POTUS have let the major reforms needed on voting rights and voter suppression slip away.
The leadership, distracted by, COVID, infrastructure, Build Back Better, Afghanistan and other interferences failed to prioritize and deal with the urgency of the lynchpin of American democracy — the right to vote — upon which all other issues depend.
While the GOP has been emphatic and successful in frustrating and altering that right to their advantage, POTUS, with the power of the bully pulpit, should have taken control with a vengeance to defend that fundamental right; including the critical rationale and absolute necessity to carve out an exception to the Senate filibuster rule in order to enact reforms.
He should have prioritized and explained the importance of voting rights above all else. He should have quashed the nonsensical internal bickering within his party and presented the public with relentless, hard hitting, flag waving oratory to save the U.S. democracy. He should have also individually dealt seriously and called out any unreasonable obstruction or interference by members of his party.
Instead, he let it get out of hand and has placed the future of U.S. democracy on the brink. Even if Democrats were to pass some reform legislation now; it’s probably too late to be effective against a barrage of GOP lawsuits that would delay or halt implementation prior to the November 8, 2022 Midterm elections. Those elections will likely determine the future of democracy in America.
Additionally, it appears that even the legislation that is being proposed does not address the intrinsic legal ambiguity within the antiquated Electoral Count Act of 1887 which was the root cause and erroneous justification for the January 6, 2021 insurrection and assault on the American democracy.
JP
You were in spam. Not sure why. We did not place you there.
JP
you are probably correct about voting rights, including too ate.
time for people to figure out what they can do to turn out the vote in spite of the obstacles set. be creative. maybe even sart a few lawsuits of your own. may not be too late for local and state courts to issue injunctions against the new laws.
but mostly, organize and register and vote and provide transportation to polls, and protection from the bad guys, and probably platooning voters to get relief from long lines, and prepare to sue for R voter fraud. learn from their book, and gather better evidence than they had.
a few strikes and boycots might help. avoid “riot” situations.
good to avoid inflammatory rhetoric too, if you can manage it.
talk to the organizers in Georgia.
Before we get into it with Russia over Ukraine…
Wikipedia: Little Russia … is a geographical and historical term used to describe the modern-day territories of Ukraine. …
Little originally meaning the smaller part, with time, “Little Russia” developed into a political and geographical concept in Russia, referring to most of the territory of modern-day Ukraine before the 20th century. Accordingly, derivatives such as “Little Russian” were commonly applied to the people, language, and culture of the area. … Prior to the revolutionary events of 1917, a large part of the region’s élite population adopted a Little Russian identity that competed with the local Ukrainian identity.
After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, and with the amalgamation of Ukrainian territories into one administrative unit (Ukrainian People’s Republic), the term started to recede from common use. …
In the news…
US Intelligence Sees Russian Plan for Possible Ukraine Invasion
The Biden administration’s growing alarm about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine is based in part on U.S. intelligence that Moscow has drawn up plans for a military offensive involving an estimated 175,000 troops as soon as early next year.
An unclassified U.S. intelligence document details some of the intelligence findings, including the positioning of what officials say could eventually be 100 battalion tactical groups, as well as heavy armor, artillery and other equipment. …
… intelligence depicts a Russian military machine springing into action and positioning itself for an attack against which experts say Ukraine’s military would stand little chance. About half of the Russian forces that would be used in an invasion are already near Ukraine’s border, and Moscow is moving swiftly to build up a large force of contract military reservists, according to a Biden administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. …
(After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine’s government was closely allied with Russia. With the Maidan revolution, Ukraine turned toward Europe & the West)
Of course, what may be in the works is a set-up for a World War three-peat …
Peace for our time
(However, this time it won’t be Germany as the main antagonist.)
Fred
Still out West and stopped by to see what was going on at AB. Too many links will get you in moderation or the trash. Keep it in mind when you wonder why your comment is not up.
my take on Munich was it gave perfidious albion time to get ready for the inevitable war.(build a lot of spitfires and modern bombers).
Chamberlain took one for the team.
US would be wise to accept neutrality for Ukraine
Boston Globe – Dec 2
So, let’s do that Peace in our time deal with Russia, ok?
In general, such ‘Peace in our time’ schemes don’t work out well.
It wasn’t Chamberlain who was the problem. Rather it was Hitler. abetted by serious geopolitical errors committed in the aftermath of WW1.
And that would likely be the case again, but who’s to blame will be decided by whoever survives the conflagration.
Vlad Putine possibly will settle for a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality, but he may also be angling for Trump to be re-elected (IMO).
What’s Driving Putin’s Ukraine Brinkmanship?
here is something i have no right to have an opinion about. but i think mr p. has a reasonable case if this is what he’s asking for. of course if B. agrees, he’ll have to keep it secret. and how can any u.s. president guarantee what his successor will do. it’s very strange that Trump seems more likely to agree with P. than B.
We’re about a week from the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre…
It wasn’t the first, but it was perhaps the worst, so far.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members. Earlier that day, before driving to the school, he shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. … (Wikipedia)
Lanza used firearms legally purchased by his mother, who was also his first victim. He himself was his last victim.
And just one year since…
Newtown Board Blocks Proposed Gun-Carrying Restrictions
i don’t like knowing my fellow citizens are armed and dangerous.
but after twenty years of shouting with no results, i’d think you’d get tired of driving them into the arms of the Trumps et al.
it makes me think of sending the kids out the sally port to wave signs at the orcs “go home! we hate you! you’re ugly!… and leave a contribution for the poor on your way out!”
kinda hard to use punishment as a deterrent in that case.
Just to be clear, ‘ bans on carrying firearms around town’, i.e. ‘open carry’ in Newtown, CT, would not be a punishment, as such.
nope. but i was talking about punishing the shooter and his mom.
‘i just realized that i did not understand what you were saying. the funny thing is that i “thought” i did, and i believe anyone else reading it would think the same thing. probably exactly what you thought you were saying. but in fact you don’t actually say anything that a meaning can be attached to, except by intuition.’
You mean you did not understand that Rittenhouse’s defense was mainly that he was afraid that the men he shot were maybe trying to take his (illegally obtained) assault rifle away from him, and perhaps shoot him with it, so he had to shoot them first. And this was apparently considered by the judge & jury to be a valid defense.
Well, if he hadn’t come from out of state with an illegally obtained firearm, to defend a used car lot (because he thought it needed defending (*), not that anyone asked him to do so), maybe those two fellows who were foolish enuf to try to take his gun would still be alive.
(* or maybe figured this would give him an opportunity to shoot some people.)
Vaguely related…
GOP congressman sparks outrage for family Christmas photo with guns
now here is a case where punishment or preventive detention would be a good idea. maybe even send a message to others who might think jesus approves of armed response.
btw, i agree with you about Ukraine.
As for postings about the Ukraine situation, I submitted a post referring to ‘where things stand at the moment’ as possibly setting-up for a World War three-peat, which seems likely & extremely dangerous, but that was not accepted. It seems we are damned if we do & damned if we don’t in this matter. ‘Going after neutrality’ for Ukraine is probably unacceptable to Russia. They would likely much prefer Poland as a buffer-state between East & West far more than Ukraine.
So, going forward, one can see a geopolitical evolution where first Ukraine remains allied to Russia, Poland is neutralized. And then, later, Poland again goes behind an Iron Curtain, and Germany is forced to accept neutrality. (Hey, it works for Switzerland.) And so on…
It’s interesting to see that the entire family has settled on US standard military style assault rifles, presumably of .223″ (5.56mm) caliber. Makes gift-giving much simpler. Except possibly the congressman himself, who appears to be holding something resembling an M-60 machine gun, which is the old 7.62mm caliber.
no, i understood all of that perfectly well. i did not understand what you were saying about it, or me.
i think kyle was playing cowboys and indians going into the situation. by the time he actually shot someone he was not capable od believing they only wanted to take his gun away from him. he could only think they were trying to kill him. that’s because that is what he would have been trying to do. i do not think that excuses him, i do not think the law allows that as a defense, or should.
on the other hand, when cops kill someone for resisting arrest i do not think they should congratulate themselves.
And I think we was ‘out to shoot somebody, anybody’ and accomplished his goal.
And I think he was ‘out to shoot somebody, anybody’ and accomplished his goal.
dobbs
back to ukraine: i guess i don’t agree with you after all.
back to Kyle: was gonna leave it. you can imagine what you want about someone else’s motives. even trained psychologists know better. in your case, your imagination leads to nothing good. no possibility of anything better.
facts (as i see them)
Kyle shows up carrying gun [very bad idea]
Kyle runs away from people trying to take his gun away [does not indicate an initial intention to “shoot anybody]
kyle shoots three people [possibly by this time genuinely afraid they are going to kill him — note this does not excuse him in the eyes of the law, and is a product of his own limited mental abilities ]
question for the interesed reader: do these facts support “came to kill” interpretation better than “stupid kid playing cowboys and indians with real gun provokes people to try to take gun away, provokes primitive (phylogenetic) self defense response..not allowed by lw because he provoked situation…but allowed by jury because they set aside “law” to give kid another chance, provoking insane Right to acclaim kid a hero, disgusting people who believe in an eye for an eye “justice and incidentally hate theinsane Right. but note cops are allowed “feared for my life” defense for shooting unarmed suspect who feared for HIS life.
dobbs
ukraine “turns out i don’t agree..”
turns out i missed the joke. carry on.