ndmckinney|net

Today marked the something-th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. I hate this ruling.

I don’t hate it because it attempts to legislate from the bench (read: trimester rulings). I don’t hate it because it creates new rights from the 14th Amendment (which it doesn’t do). No, I hate this decision because it brings hordes of irrational and obnoxious protesters to Washington, DC.

Every year, the nearby Catholic high schools (and, I suspect, children even younger) bus scores of children in to serve as pawns in their “we don’t agree with your policy so we’re going to shout slogans on the steps of the Court” agenda. High school children do not have a valid say in the nation’s abortion policy, despite what they say. If you’re concerned about “family values”, don’t let your child wander around Union Station (where they’re interfering with my commute) unattended and unruly. Children who dress like prostitutes to protest abortion are not being taught the right lessons.

I’m not saying that the outcome of Roe was incorrect; but I’m not so sure that this is an issue where the federal government should be getting involved.

I’m sure that I’d fail this question if it came up on the bar exam, so don’t take my word for anything.

The world economy is going into recession. The US is sinking fast, and the world markets are being dragged down with us.

I know that for most policy makers, the US stock market is the amorphous “market”, but there is something extremely dangerous about the

The interest rates will fail for two reasons. First, the problems with the economy are more systemic than the Fed is wiling to admit. The solution is much like applying a simple bandage to someone who’s already lost a leg.

Secondly, the purpose for an interest rate cut is to increase the supply of money, but the current woes of the global economy are about a lack of available credit in the first place. With most major banks reporting losses of several billion dollars each, it is unlikely that there is much more money that can go into the economy.

Thirdly, there is the looming problem of inflation. With oil and food prices rising substantially, there are already inflationary pressures that threaten to dismantle the economic engine, no matter what the Fed decides to do.

While it may hurt, we need to take more of a Paul Volker approach to the economy. Instead of giving short-term interest rate cuts, we need to keep steady or even raise interest rates in order, painful though it is, to defeat inflation allow the economy to fully correct itself.

[From Fed Cuts Key Interest Rate as Asian Markets Drop for Second Day]

Sometimes, the best way to take a look at yourself comes from outside. This is why I think it is important for everyone to read the foreign press, especially foreign-language press.

Le Monde has a section on their website on the US election. While the French are no experts on the US electoral process (neither are Americans, but that’s another topic of discussion), the articles they provide

In partucular, I would suggest reading the article regarding the Iowa primaries. It gives a fairly concise description of the process, the timeframe for the primaries. For the French, the primaries on 5 February are the end of the story (and to some extent, they’re right).

The interesting bits come from the difference in interpreting what is important. For example, the French seem to suggest that more weight should go to the 22 primary on 5 Feb. but acknowledge that “[t]he parties – and the press – attach extreme importance to Iowa, which is the first poll after a year of campaigning.“

Le Monde does not seem to endorse a particular candidate, but it does spend far more time discussing the position of the democratic candidates than the republican candidates, suggesting that may give an endorsement to whomever wins the party nomination.

The paper also acknowledges that Obama and Edwards have a far more difficult challenge with the election, noting that these candidates must win or at least have a very strong showing in Iowa in order to convince other states of their importance.

[From Le Monde.fr : Les élections américaines]

John Barron of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has an entertaining op-ed piece in the Washington Post that provides an entertaining comparison between Australian and U.S. national elections.

A new U.S. intelligence assessment regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program reports that the Iranian government abandoned a suspected nuclear weapons program. According to the Washington Post report, Iran was working on a covert nuclear weapons program, but abandoned the program in 2003 in the face of international pressure. As I read it, the Iranians are certainly smart enough to know when to back down from their bombastic anti-Western rhetoric and act in the interests of their state.

Apparently, as M. Bush reads the report, this is bad news.

Instead of continuing to seek a diplomatic solution, where the spectre of war can be avoided, Bush is using the opportunity to promote a military conflict. The logic, deduced from a White House press conference today, is that since the Iranians had a covert weapons program, they must intend to start another one (“What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”) Bush has taken this opportunity to not only distort the analysis of his own NIE assessment but to show the world that his diplomatic intentions are not pure.

[From Bush: Iran Intelligence Report is Warning Signal - washingtonpost.com]

UPDATE: The International Herald Tribune has a copy of the NIE posted to their website, available from this link.

They may not have a government, but the Belgians do have one thing: frite week.

According to the Telegraph, 98.5% of Belgians find that the lowly fried potato is the symbol of national unity. Apparently, it’s the only source of agreement amongst the entire kingdom.

Oh, did I mention that the Belgians still do not have a government?

[From Divided Belgium may have had its chips - Telegraph ]

Or, Sarko’s on the market.

Shortly after a debilitating transit strike in France, a spokesman from palais de l’Élysée announced that M. Sarkozy and his wife, who had not been seen in public with the French President for weeks, have divorced by mutual agreement.

The ploy appears to be working. Most of the French papers are devoting an enormous amount of attention to the issue, although not necessarily giving the lead. If only the US could learn from this…

Oh wait.

[From Frozen by strikes, France is transfixed by Sarkozy's split with wife - International Herald Tribune]

[See also Le Temps - Nicolas et Cécilia Sarkozy ont divorcé]

According to Friday’s Marketplace [American Public Media], the FDA will be given new powers to monitor pharmaceuticals once they’ve been released onto the market, but the new Senate bill does not go as far as some. According to the report, advertisers claim that marketing of pharmaceuticals is protected by the First Amendment.

How is advertising protected by the First Amendment? Certainly the Constitution looks to protect the individual from oppression by the government by prohibiting the banning of political speech. But how far should that protection go? Even political speech is not absolute, and the Supreme Court has spent generations trying to figure out just how far that protection should go.

It is undisputed that the Congress has the power to regulate business and commerce. But I find it highly suspect that the Congress intended to grant a greater protection to commercial and business speech than to political speech is ludicrous. Whatever the impact on commerce, commercial speech is not and should not be beyond the reach of the government.

[From Marketplace: FDA bill stops short of drug-ad bans]