Not so United

By now you're well aware that France rejected the proposed European Union Constitution on Sunday. Apparently, French voters just don't understand that current global market forces will not be kind to their rather socialist-leaning tendencies... Voting against their best economic hope doesn't help matters any.

Read THIS article in the CS Monitor. An excerpt: "It could be a historical watershed, a turning point," predicts Dominique Moisi, one of France's most pre-eminent commentators on international affairs.
That, he says, is because few French citizens voted on the merits of the highly technical and laboriously written legal document presented for their approval. Instead, most of them were expressing their anger at their government's failure to create jobs, and their fear that the European Union can no longer shelter them from the harsh winds of globalized competition.

I have two problems with that: First, the premise that it's the government's business to create jobs is unacceptable. The only thing a government can do to create jobs for its entire population is to get out of the way of the private sector and let it create the jobs. Second, as to their fear of globalized competition, the French need to get over it. China and India may be taking many of the manufacturing jobs from around the world, but the U.S. and Europe still have the edge in terms of service industries and technical innovation. It's our job to make sure it stays that way.

What will this mean for investors? Again from the article: "People will have to go away and think again," says Denis MacShane, Britain's Europe Minister until earlier this year. "Europe will have to carry on under existing treaties, but there will be a period of stasis in European affairs that won't be cleared up until the political question of leadership in Germany, France and Italy is cleared up at elections."
That stasis, and the period of introspection that would follow the death of the Constitution, would clearly undermine French-led efforts to build the EU into a confident global counterweight to the United States. It may be more problematic for currency traders than for stock investors, but to me it looks like purgatory in the E.U. for a while...

A Bad Day for Free Speech

I believe that the First Amendment to the US Constitution not only protects your right to say anything, no matter how despicable, it also should protect you from being forced to say something... Check out this article: Supreme Court Says Beef Producers Can Be Forced to Fork Over for Ads

Basically, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of US Beef producers being forced to pay for the industry advertisements we see on television. I'm sure you remember the 'Beef: It's what's for dinner' ads. From the article: But dissenting justices said the majority ruling is flawed, in part because the beef marketing program tends to mask its government sponsorship. The tag line on beef program commercials and advertisements is "Funded by America's Beef Producers." (emphasis mine)

Justice David Souter in dissent said, "No one hearing a commercial for Pepsi or Levi's thinks Uncle Sam is the man talking behind the curtain. Why would a person reading a beef ad think Uncle Sam was trying to make him eat more steak?" Without accurate identification of the source of the speech, Souter said, the government is not accountable. Also dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns applauded the decision in a statement issued Monday. "This is certainly a win for the many producers who recognize the power of pooled resources. As this administration has always contended, USDA regards such programs, when properly administered, as effective tools for market enhancement." Johanns replaced Ann Veneman as the appellant in the case when he became agriculture secretary in January, so the decision is now known as Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association.

Lawyers representing the dissenting ranchers criticized the ruling as a setback for free speech in the face of corporate interests. "The First Amendment protects the right to dissent as much as the right to speak," said Institute for Justice lawyer Steve Simpson in a statement. He filed a brief in the case on behalf of dairy farmers who object to the "Got Milk" milk promotion program. "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has just made it a lot easier for government to compel support for the 'party line' in a particular industry, and drown out any dissent."

Pooled resources? Is that a fancy way of saying, "money extracted from taxpayers or industry participants at the point of a gun?" The next thing you know, we'll 'pool' our collective resources and come up with an organization that promotes, say, the arts. Arts that could be quite objectionable to most folks. See how you like your forced speech then. Oh wait, we already have an organization like that...

A Great Day for the Free Market and Small Business

Check out this story: Wineries that sell vino via the Internet stand to gain - Yahoo! News. Small wineries finally had their day in court to take a stand against the overly burdensome restrictions against shipping their product into several states...

The restrictions were nothing more than naked protectionism. From the article: The court's 5-4 decision could dramatically expand markets for small wineries that use the Internet to boost sales. It was a victory for small vineyards that had challenged state restrictions in New York and Michigan, and for consumers who have been prevented from buying wine online because their states' laws are aimed at protecting local producers.

And: In a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court agreed. It said the 21st Amendment, adopted in 1933, did not allow bias against out-of-state liquor producers. "States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers ... simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses," Kennedy wrote.
The decision is likely to end the current patchwork of laws, under which some states ban direct shipments altogether, others do so only for out-of-state wines, and still others require reciprocity.
Under the ruling, the states that ban or limit shipments of alcohol from out of state essentially will have a choice: Restrict all wine shipments - both in-state and out-of-state - or allow them all.
Attorneys for the small wineries are hoping states will drop their shipping restrictions. New York Gov. George Pataki said his state likely will opt for in-state and interstate direct shipping of wine, but he called for "safeguards" to ensure that minors do not get new access to wine.

Glad to see that the free market and common sense occasionally can win one. The Institute for Justice was involved in the case- chalk one more up for my favorite lawyers!

Random Picture of the Week

'The Three Stages of Life,' as seen in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York on our anniversary trip.

One Year and Counting

This blog is one year old today, and just as worthless as it was the day I started! I won't stop, however, since it's just too fun to spout off random thoughts on the internet... Hopefully, I'll continue to make the socialists out there mad, particularly over on Framptonia. Have a great day, all.

My Thoughts on CAFTA

(the Central American Free Trade Agreement) are posted here. Check it out.

Stepping Stone to the UN?

Did anyone else see the article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about the Clinton Global Initiative? While I stick with my prediction that Mr. Clinton has his sights on replacing Kofi Annan when the time comes, it seems that he is following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter and attempting to make a difference with his ex-presidential clout.

Is this project a clever stepping stone to the UN for Clinton? Is it an ongoing advertisement for Hillary Clinton's Presidential aspirations? Is it a legitimate effort at solving world problems? All of the above? Click the link and decide for yourself.

And the Mystery Destination Was...

New York City... The wife and I had a fantastic time this past weekend! Of course, all the touristy things were on the agenda. We managed to take in a little culture, visiting the American Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Both are amazing places. A visit to Ground Zero reaffirmed my hawkish position on terrorism - we are most definitely doing the right thing in the Middle East... The above photo is of myself, being not-so-stylish in Times Square...