Even though it was pretty clear headed into the weekend that France was going to reject the EU Constitution, currency markets apparently are still reacting this morning. As of this writing, the euro is valued at $1.23, or about 12 cents off its peak this year.

CW has the dollar short because of low interest rates and massive federal deficits, and the euro long because it is, after all, the currency of the world’s second largest economy (the euro zone) and its members have been imposing fiscal and monetary austerity in order to complete economic union.

Leaving aside for the time being the question of the wisdom of free-floating currency markets, and the laughable premise of “efficient markets,” it seems that this market is “reacting” to France’s “non” vote with great apprehension. Are they going to buy yen? dollars? Sterling? Who knows, but the euro isn’t a weaker currency because of this. The economic union of the countries in question has existed in some form or another for almost 50 years. A financial crisis, not a political one, will signal its demise, if there is to be one.

It appears that this may give the Fed and the housing market yet another temporary reprieve, as the bond market reacts to this news as well.

UPDATE: The Euro fell again today. The UK pound only twitched. Given the fundamentals, this is not a bad price for the euro. The Dutch ‘no’ vote means, I’m pretty sure, that this draft of the EU constitution is dead.

As I discussed below, Hillary is leading the markets for the Dem 2008 nomination. I have sold that share short; I don’t think she’s getting it.

Today, a USA Today poll has her at 53%. Now, granted that’s before the right-wing smear maching is coming up against her. But I wonder–is that 53% for Hillary, or 53% for the Clinton years? If so, as also mentioned below, I say support Gore instead.

Hilary leads the market at 43.7, with VA governor Warner a distant second at 10.2, followed by Evan Bayh at 9.3, John Edwards at 7.0, Kerry at 6.0, and Al Gore also at 6.0.

All we need is 1,000,000 troops and 70 years to win! Ferguson must be on crack. What’s to fear? Plus, he gives great odds too (33% chance of success).

Maybe Ferguson is the single most politically color blind person on Earth, or at least with a Ph.D. A majority of Americans no longer support the war in Iraq, and if Bush had said “we need one million troops and 70 years” you can bet it never would have happened. Maybe in Ferguson’s mind, it’s worth the loss of life, but I can’t see much long term import of Iraq.

Oh, and I wish he would quit thinking that everything under the sun happened to the British Empire.

Kaus : “But the mere postponement–until, presumably, a Supreme Court seat opens up–favors the Democrats,” becuase people will be paying attention at that point, and it may be harder for shit to be pulled.

I’m warming up to this, bravo Harry Reid.

The CW seems to be saying that the compromise is a win for the Dems. In the now, it probably is based on what I’ve read. I wasn’t in the room and I don’t know how many votes were there–if it really was 50-50 and there were no waverers, I might be more excited about this.

The thing is, I’m pretty sure that this is going to bite the Dems in the ass later. When they go to use this filibuster they think they’ve preserved, they are going to be accused of breaking their deal, breaking their word, etc. The Supreme Court nominee will be far more mainstream than Brown or Owen, whom the Dems let pass on this one, and the Right-Wing echo chamber will have plenty of time to build up the “mainstream” credentials of whomever Bush nominates.

This also probably means that if Bush wants to elevate Scalia or Thomas to Chief, it would be awful hard to call it “extraordinary” circumstances. Also, doing that may complicate the picture enough to get a replacement on as associate justice also as not “extraordinary.”

We’ll see what happens. Bush may only get one justice in eight years and most likely onely one before the 2006 elections, and it will probably be to replace the ultra-conservative Rehnquist, so it’s possible no ground will be lost.

I’m also not sure what value this agreement will have when the Dems get power back. Probably none. Different rules apply to Democrats, as Bill Clinton well knows.

But it is apparently sending the rightwingnuts ballistic, so that means it must be good.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Dems will get hit in the press if they ever use the filibuster. What a bunch of pussies. Bush will nominate whomever he wants, and they will just show how they’re not “extreme.”

And using some of these judges that will pass as examples, they might even be right.

Roll Call is now saying that Reid has 49 votes. I heard on Thursday that Frist has 49 as well. The Note, on the other hand, says there are 4 more up for grabs leaving it 49-47-4. I don’t believe the claim that Hagen and Dewine are up for grabs (maybe it’s changed), so that leaves Specter and Warner as the deciding votes. If either of them side with Frist, Cheney comes out of his undisclosed location to take the chair, and they’ve got it.

My money is on Specter siding with Reid, but Warner not having the balls to be 51 and so it will pass. If it’s clear they have the 50 votes, I wonder if the other Republicans will bother voting, and that could take some heat off of Cheney too.

I’m anxious to see what happens.

UPDATE: CBS News confirms my count at 50-50.

I’ve been trying to write something thorough about labor conditions in America. This is something that I’ve become a bit of an expert on through my day job. Here’s a first attempt.

First, anyone my age or older probably has some urban myths (or even true stories) about comic union excesses. And even though these stories were circulated by the patrician caste, they gained traction with many of those who did not get that kind of largesse out of resentment. And as fewer and fewer Americans belong to Unions, there are more people to join this resentment.

But I rarely, if ever, have heard about how this connects to excesses at the higher end. We blamed it on the Japanese in the 80s, and increasingly so on illegal alien labor. The 90s saw a lot of blame be placed on NAFTA. The Democrats tried to place a lot of chips on the decline of manufacturing in America in the 2004 election. None of those xenophobic explanations explain the low wages of endemic jobs, like service jobs, the fastest growing sector in the above-mentioned timeframe.

Conversely, during the post-bubble scandals of Enron, WorldCom, et al., we heard about the plight of a few pensioners and shareholders, and we focussed our anger at the Ken Lays of the world on those basis.

But I never heard “What would you rather have, America? A few extra foremen hanging around a worksite, or multi-millionaire rip off artists?” Every beer-bellied foreman hanging around a worksite doing nothing is another kid or two in college with health care. Can we say the same for Ken Lay’s wreckage?

As union membership has declined, some states have replaced them with agencies and wage laws that apply to all workers. So, instead of a broad number of employers having to pay prevailing wages instead of low wages, a few employers here and there will be hit with gigantic lawsuits for what often amounts to clerical error or a misunderstanding of byzantine regulations.

Likewise, the lack of a internal complaint system that has teeth is probably to blame for plenty of sexual harassment and other dscrimination claims that often lead to large ticket lawsuits as well.

If I had the time and the money, I would love to do a study and see what cost these lawsuits have on American business and what percentage of them could likely be solved by union reps and union grievance procedures, and then take that amount and spread it around and see if it would approach a union wage for the affected businesses. My guess is that it probably wouldn’t get there, but it would take a lot of risk out of doing business for some employers.

Re-unionization is probably not going to be a political reality, however. People change jobs often and increasingly work for smaller and smaller firms. These firms are not well equipped to handle giant projects like collective bargaining and health care the way, say, Ford was in the 50s.

Despite a long cold coservative winter, the momentum for these solutions seems to be increasingly headed for government.

I liked Revenge of the Sith. I thought it could have been better, but compared with the two before it, it was excellent. 50 years from now, when they remake these movies, they’ll have plenty to work with, but at least it will all make sense.

Some people think Empire is the best one, but I always liked the original star wars the best. I thought it was more pure of heart and didnt suffer from the apocalyptic and fattening mythological pretense that the last two did. I mean, it was just fun after all (even if you want to smack Luke often–but when don’t you?).

The dialogue was embarrasingly bad, but the plot seemed to flow much more naturally than almost any previous Star Wars movie (oh, we just happened to run into the ewoks, or the jar jar people, or whatever…) and it actually, in my opinion, made the other ones better by making them make more sense and have a more unified story arc.

And was that the millineum falcon we saw for one second in the distance? We needed more Lando and or Han Solo than that. Someone who you could see dancing or having a good time, or being a human being, instead of seeming like they were on a serious dose of ritalin.

So, I had fun with that movie…

but, Napoleon Dynamite. So many people told me to see this, and I can’t understand why. Maybe I don’t relate, maybe I don’t get it, but this movie was frustrating, depressing, and pointless. Only the “bad guy” characters even seemed to be alive. Everyone else seemed like they were talking in their sleep. Therer was no discernible plot, theme, or message.

Movies like this freighten me. I think they encourage kids to believe that they will one day “win” if they are unpopular or outcastish. Sending the message that different cliques of students represent good and evil and that if only people knew me everything would be ok is totally counterproductive. I knew better than to wear after ski boots and elastic jeans to school, and I probably got many less ass kickings because of it.

Anyway, I’m not even sure that “nerds are all right too” was even the point of that moive. I think it was trying to reflect Americana a little too with some of the imagery, especially in the credits and the online relationship thing. But it was just yucky, awkward and pointless.

Anyone who likes this movie, I suspect, is trying to like it or wants to like it. Ick.