Sunday, December 19, 2010
Snow Disrupts Flights at Zurich, Geneva as U.K. Braces for Weekend Freeze - Bloomberg
Snow Disrupts Flights at Zurich, Geneva as U.K. Braces for Weekend Freeze
Flights from European airports including London, Belfast and Geneva were canceled as the region braced for more snow and freezing temperatures over the last weekend before Christmas.
Belfast International will shut until at least 5:00 p.m., according to a statement on the airport’s website. London’s City Airport closed its runway earlier this afternoon. Airports including Zurich, Geneva, Schiphol and London Gatwick have also delayed and canceled flights.
“Within a turn of a head it’s like a blizzard out there,” Gatwick airport spokeswoman Sarah Baranowski said by phone. “We’ve had barely any snow at all and suddenly there’s a blanket down within minutes.”
Eurostar Group Ltd. imposed a speed limit on its rail services because of the severe conditions, the company said on its website, meaning journeys will take 30 minutes longer. Fourteen centimeters (5.5 inches) of snow fell at Frankfurt from yesterday evening until early today. About 400 flights at Frankfurt Airport were canceled today, according to Fraport AG spokesman Thomas Uber.
Lincoln, Secession and Slavery | Tibor Machan | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
Lincoln, Secession and Slavery
Lincoln, Secession and Slavery
by Tibor Machan
This article appeared on cato.org on June 1, 2002.
PRINT PAGE
CITE THIS
Share with your friends:
Over the last few years I have become obsessed with two questions: Was Abraham Lincoln a good American? And was he conducting his political life and, especially his presidency, in line with the principles of the Declaration of Independence?
When considering Lincoln, there are many statements from him that suggest that he believed what the Declaration of Independence says. But there are also quite a few policies he initiated that suggest that he was all too willing to compromise certain principles. Consider the following pro-Declaration statement from Lincoln: "The expression of that principle [political freedom], in our Declaration of Independence was most happy and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity."
Yet Lincoln has a blemished record of following the ideal of free government in his political life, as when he issued on May 18, 1864, the following order: "You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce ... and prohibit any further publication thereof.... You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison ... the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."
Tibor Machan is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
More by Tibor R. MachanGranted, during a war one might believe that there is little a president can do but lay aside certain principles, such as the writ of habeas corpus, even the rights of the First Amendment of the Constitution. But perhaps those principles are so basic that they should never be compromised, even during war.
On another point, it looks like Lincoln's belief in the union went against the Declaration's view about when people have the right to dissolve their government, a view he himself seems to have held at one time in his political career. In January 1848 he said: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
So, what then is so sacred about the American union? Why can't a substantial segment of the citizenry separate from the country and go its own way? These are important questions when we consider that Lincoln supported secession on flimsier grounds than does the Declaration of Independence. It requires "a long train of abuses and usurpations," which reduce a government to "absolute despotism," before secession is justified.
But then there is that undeniable evil of slavery, associated with the Southern rebels, an evil that would appear to make a great deal of difference to whether secession is something justified. And many of the leaders of those rebels made no secret of their support for slavery. They endorsed numerous out-and-out racist ideas, including the idea that blacks were less than human and that whites had not just the authority but even the responsibility to hold them as slaves.
Lincoln, oddly enough, apparently shared some of these views. In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)." And in 1858 Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Still, when it comes to endorsing southern secession it is not enough to point out Lincoln's failures in his position on slavery. More important is whether one group may leave a larger group that it had been part of -- and in the process take along unwilling third parties. The seceding group definitely does not have that right. Putting it in straightforward terms, yes, a divorce (or, more broadly, the right of peaceful exit from a partnership) may not be denied to anyone unless -- and this is a very big "unless" -- those wanting to leave intend to take along hostages.
Seceding from the American union could perhaps be morally unobjectionable. It isn't that significant whether it is legally objectionable because, after all, slavery itself was legally unobjectionable, yet something had to be done about it. And to ask the slaves to wait until the rest of the people slowly undertook to change the Constitution seems obscene.
So, when one considers that the citizens of the union who intended to go their own way were, in effect, kidnapping millions of people -- most of whom would rather have stayed with the union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation -- the idea of secession no longer seems so innocent. And regardless of Lincoln's motives -- however tyrannical his aspirations or ambitious -- when slavery is factored in, it is doubtful that one can justify secession by the southern states.
Indeed, by the terms of the Declaration of Independence, secession is justified because everyone has the right to his or her life and liberty. Leaving a country with all of what belongs to one cannot be deemed in any way morally objectionable. Secession can be a sound idea; it comes under the principle of freedom of association, taken into the sphere of politics. It is a special case of the broader principle of individual sovereignty.
But secession cannot be justified if it is combined with the evil of imposing the act on unwilling third parties, no matter what its ultimate motivation. Thus, however flawed Lincoln was, he was a good American.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Payrolls Drop in 28 U.S. States, Joblessness Rises in 21 in Labor Setback - BlackListed News
Payrolls Drop in 28 U.S. States, Joblessness Rises in 21 in Labor Setback
Source: Bloomberg
Payrolls decreased in 28 U.S. states and the unemployment rate climbed in 21, showing most parts of the world’s largest economy took part in the November labor- market setback.
North Carolina led the nation with 12,500 job cuts last month, followed by Massachusetts with 8,600 dismissals, and Ohio with 7,800, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. Joblessness increased most in Georgia and Idaho, while workers in Nevada faced the highest rate in the country at 14.3 percent.
The report is consistent with figures on Dec. 3 that showed unemployment increased last month for the first time since August. The Federal Reserve’s pledge to buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries by June and the $858 billion bill passed by Congress extending all Bush-era tax cuts for two years may help boost growth and cut unemployment.
Revealed: Chamber lobbied against 9/11 health bill to save foreign members on taxes
Revealed: Chamber lobbied against 9/11 health bill to save foreign members on taxes
The US Chamber of Commerce lobbied to kill a bill that would have helped cover medical expenses and compensation for first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to documents available online.
The Chamber's aim was to keep open a tax loophole benefiting foreign corporations that the $7.4 billion bill would have closed to provide funding for the American emergency workers.
In a letter opposing the 9/11 bill, R. Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president for Government Affairs, cautioned that closing the tax loophole would harm US trade relationships and financial markets.
"In typical fashion, the Chamber has not revealed which of its foreign members had asked them to kill the 9/11 bill," Lee Fang of Alternet.org wrote.
The Chamber sought to defeat Democrats during this year's election season, fought against comprehensive health reform in 2009, and pulled out all the stops to weaken Democrats' financial reform legislation. They also helped mount corporate-funded campaigns against climate legislation and sought to weaken an anti-bribery law.
Democrats and many liberal blogs alleged that the Chamber had used money donated by foreign corporations to influence US elections, but US election law is such that the Chamber was not forced to disclose its sources.
In recent months, dozens and dozens of local business groups have distanced from or broken ties with the national Chamber in key primary states because of its partisan leanings toward Republican candidates and conservative business interests.
“We didn’t like the fact that the US Chamber was supporting particular candidates,” Greater Hudson Chamber executive VP Jerry Mayotte told The Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire. “We don’t think it’s good business practice to do so. ... We take stands on particular issues considering business, but not particular candidates."
The Chamber spent over $600 million to influence politics since 1998. It dwarfed even the second-place American Medical Association's $220 million in the same period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Senate was unable to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against the 9/11 first responders health care bill, even though all but one Democrat voted for it. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voted against the bill, changing from "yes" to "no" at the last minute as a procedural tactic so that the bill could be brought up again later.
With prior reporting by Daniel Tencer and John Byrne. Editing by Stephen C. Webster
North Charleston police postpones gun buyback
North Charleston police postpones gun buyback
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) — Bank of America has joined several other financial institutions in refusing to handle payments for WikiLeaks.
The Charlotte-based bank released a statement saying it will no longer process any transactions that it believes are intended for the site, which has released thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.
"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments," the bank said.
The action comes as WikiLeaks says it plans to release information about banks. The site's founder has previously said it has a trove of documents on Bank of America.
Other financial institutions, including MasterCard Inc. and PayPal Inc., have also stopped handling payments for WikiLeaks, moves which hurt the site's ability to accept donations and support publishing efforts. The websites of some companies that have cut ties with WikiLeaks have come under cyber attack in recent weeks by hackers who support its mission.
Bank of America stops handling WikiLeaks payments
Bank of America stops handling WikiLeaks payments
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) — Bank of America has joined several other financial institutions in refusing to handle payments for WikiLeaks.
The Charlotte-based bank released a statement saying it will no longer process any transactions that it believes are intended for the site, which has released thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.
"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments," the bank said.
The action comes as WikiLeaks says it plans to release information about banks. The site's founder has previously said it has a trove of documents on Bank of America.
Other financial institutions, including MasterCard Inc. and PayPal Inc., have also stopped handling payments for WikiLeaks, moves which hurt the site's ability to accept donations and support publishing efforts. The websites of some companies that have cut ties with WikiLeaks have come under cyber attack in recent weeks by hackers who support its mission.
Ivory Coast president orders U.N. troops to leave country - CNN
Ivory Coast president orders U.N. troops to leave country
(CNN) -- Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo on Saturday ordered all U.N. peacekeeping forces out of the country a day after Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called on the disputed re-election winner to step down.
Gbagbo's reaction to Ban's statement coincides with an increase in pressure Western governments are imposing on the Gbagbo government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)