a curious Yankee in Europe's court

Among other criticisms that some Tea Party movement followers have been voicing about “big” government in the U.S., is some (rising) rumbling against the separation of church and state as historically established in constitutional law.

This week on the occasion of Thanksgiving, a New York Times op-ed by Harvard Divinity School Professor David D. Hall took a look back at some specific details of the holiday’s history. (“Peace, Love and Puritanism” Nov 23, 2010).

Whether what Hall writes may have any influence on those denying the constitution’s separation of church and state, I don’t know. But he doesn’t offer them any ammunition for historical argument, it seems to me.

Hall wrote about why it’s so important to get our facts straight about the deeply religious Puritans. And he precisely reviews some of the values and practices of these 17th century settlers who hold such a symbolic place in U.S. history and national mythology.

In regard to church and state, he wrote this:

And although it’s tempting to envision the ministers as manipulating a “theocracy,” the opposite is true: they played no role in the distribution of land and were not allowed to hold political office. Nor could local congregations impose civil penalties on anyone who violated secular law. In these rules and values lay one root of the separation of church and state that eventually emerged in our society.

For those interested in a true debate of this issue, I think it’s informative to read Hall’s history lesson — see here.

In his battle against financial corruption in the U.S. Congress  —  a fight that I support and track on this blog — Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig displays unwavering dedication, bi-partisanship, an open mind and a whole lot of patience.

Yesterday blogging for The Huffington Post, he brought all of these attributes into service in writing a surprising appreciation for the much publicized Tea Party movement in the USA. First pointing out his strong disagreement with some aspects of the movement, he then writes:

…I am a genuine admirer of the urge to reform that is at the heart of the grassroots part of this, perhaps the most important political movement in the current political context.

He goes to elaborate:

My admiration for this movement grew yesterday, as at least the Patriots flavor of the Tea Party movement announced its first fight with (at least some) Republicans. The Tea Party Patriots have called for a GOP moratorium on “earmarks.” Key Republican Leaders (including Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman John Boehner) intend to introduce a resolution to support such a moratorium in their caucus. But many Republicans in both the House and Senate have opposed a moratorium. Earmarks, they insist, are only a small part of the federal budget. Abolishing them would be symbolic at best.

This disagreement has thus set up the first major fight of principle for the Tea Party…

(Earmarks are, according to FactCheck.org, “government funds that are allocated by a legislator for a particular pet project, often without proper review.”)

Read the full post here:

Are we talking about the ship QE2?

No.

Are we, metaphorically speaking, talking about the Titanic?

According to Naked Capitalism‘s Yves Smith, yes, we are in terms of its prospects for the U.S. economy.

Smith is referring to the Federal Reserve (known as the Fed) and its just launched $600 billion quantitative easing program QE2. Yesterday Smith sat for an in-depth interview with Paul Jay at The Real News (videos below).

Smith is a graduate of Harvard Business School and runs a financial management consulting firm in New York. Her website is one of the most read in the world, according to Wikipedia.

(On a post on her website today Smith apologized for speaking so fast in this interview, saying she was rushed for time – but there’s a transcript below the videos for anyone who gets a bit lost).

Interview intro:

Paul Jay: So let’s see if I have this right. The Fed’s going to take $600 billion and buy government bonds that are owned by the big banks. Except they’re not going to just buy them from the banks, they’re going to let other people buy them from the banks and then sell them to the Fed and make money on that.

I mean the whole thing seems rather bizarre. The critics are saying that this move, as many other moves of the Fed, seems to have absolute benefit for the big banks and relative to dubious benefit to the economy. So what’s your take?

Yves Smith: I would agree with that…

Smith goes on to explain just why the Fed’s QE2 is not a great idea. Along the way, she provides an expert view of the Wall Street (and elsewhere) financial world before, during and after the 2008 crisis. She also talks about the Tea Party movement in the U.S. and why its followers are so angry. A succinct analysis of what President Obama has done to make matters worse is also included.

Highly recommended viewing. In the past couple of weeks I’ve been doing a bit of reading about QE2, and I think this interview with Smith offers as clear and complete an understanding of the confusing and complicated FED and its various QEs as you may be able to find. (Tip: on the Real News webpage, the bottom video is segment one, and the top video is segment two of the interview).

Warning, you may need a good stiff drink afterwards.

Interview, segment one:

Interview, segment two: