Skip to content

God under attack in Enfield

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

An obviously communistic, fascist, socialist (and, by way of a bonus-godless) organization has invaded our fair state to try to impose its will on our citizenry. I speak of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an organization whose very name tells you all you need to know about its pernicious objectives.

Seems that these United Americans, along with some subversive citizens of Enfield, don’t like the fact that their town is plunking down good money to rent a church to hold high school graduation exercises, and they’ve written a letter to the Board of Ed threatening suit:

Since 2007 in the case of Enrico Fermi High School, and 2008 in the case of Enfield High School, the Enfield Public Schools have held their high-school graduations in a house of worship, the First Cathedral. As you may have surmised from the nature of our recent FOIA request, we have been retained to file litigation on behalf of Enfield Schools students and parents to stop the Schools’ use of the Cathedral, for such use violates the U.S. Constitution and the rights of religious minorities. But we hope that the information conveyed below will obviate the need for a lawsuit by convincing the Schools to voluntarily abandon the practice. We understand that four of the nine members of the Enfield Board of Education are newly elected and are taking office this month. We also understand that when the Board first approved using the Cathedral for graduations, it was told that the religious items in the Cathedral would be covered for graduations. In fact, this never occurred; indeed, as we explain below, religious symbolism is inherent in virtually every aspect of the Cathedral, and so secularizing the facility for school events would not appear to be possible.

As Enfield High School and Enrico Fermi High School students and family members approach the First Cathedral to attend their high-school graduation ceremonies, they view no less than five large Christian crosses that compose the front facade of the building, as well as another cross that towers over the Cathedral’s roof. To enter the Cathedral, they pass under the immense cross in the middle of the facade. They then see in the Cathedral’s lobby a fountain in the shape of a cross surrounded by a frame in the shape of a tomb — which together represent the life after death of Jesus Christ. Above them, from the ceiling of the lobby, hangs a large glass sculpture, representing the Holy Ghost descending from the heavens. Numerous religious paintings, including depictions of Jesus, also hang in the lobby. And before entering the Cathedral’s sanctuary, where the graduation ceremonies take place, students and parents pass underneath large banners reading: “The Promise is Still Good! For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘yes’ in Christ. –2 Cor. 1:20a”; and “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise. Be thankful to Him, and bless his Name. Psalms 100:4.”

The letter goes on to detail numerous other trivial architectural and design embellishments that make glancing reference to religion, such as, well, such as the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a single inch of the place that doesn’t have some religious symbol or exhortation embedded in it.

What’s the harm? What offense could any of this give to a good Christian (let us put aside the objections of those who dislike ghastly architecture and religious kitsch), and as to anyone who’s not a good Christian-who cares about them? Certainly not the Enfield Board of Education.

Unfortunately, the forces of godless atheism appear to be winning the war even before the battle is joined. What has happened to our children?

In addition, Enfield High has been using the Cathedral in the face of overwhelming opposition by the high-school’s students. Approximately seventy-five percent of the school’s 2008 graduating class and approximately ninety percent of the Class of 2009 voted against graduating at the Cathedral. And although a majority of Enrico Fermi High School students have voted in favor of using the Cathedral, a significant percentage of the students there also have opposed the venue.

There must be something in the water over there at Fermi. Maybe it’s holy water.

Shame on AU and its fellow travelers for trying to impose the First Amendment on the Enfield Board of Education. It’s almost enough to make me think about withholding my dues this year.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Save the date

Monday, November 16, 2009

Ned Lamont is coming to our area in a few weeks. He’ll be at the home of Camille and Nick Burlingham (Camille happens to be his sister) 9 High Ridge Drive, Pawcatuck, on Monday, Dec 7, from 6-8. I hope we can get a good turnout for Ned. Right at the moment I’m still uncommitted on the gubernatorial race, but as I told Ned, I’m leaning. Four years ago I felt we needed someone from outside of Hartford to take the helm, and I still feel that way, so Ned certainly meets that criteria. Add to that the fact that Ned stepped up when we needed him, and no one else had the guts. For an unknown, he ran a great race. I’ve told him I’d rather see him in the Senate, but he’s got good reasons for thinking about the governor’s office.

Anyway, whether you have your mind made up or not, save the date and come and meet Ned. It is my understanding that this is strictly a meet and greet; you can keep your checkbook closed if you like, though there will be someone there glad to take your money.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Pundits agree: Bring Back Stupid

Monday, November 16, 2009

Those Beltway types sure miss them some George Bush.

First it was David Broder:

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose — and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision — whether or not it is right.

Now, Mark Shields:

We have a president of real intellectual horse power who is cool, detached and analytical and if anything you can watch the emotional side of him emerge in this whole process. … There’s an emotional aspect, the comforter in chief as well as the commander in chief. Both roles. And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

They, of course, don’t have to pay the price for a wrong decision. They can just criticize it, assuming they can recognize it, without ever remembering that they were clamoring for George Bush-style act first, think later.

It’s not their kids that will be dying for a corrupt regime.

But, alas, I must say that while I truly believe Obama should put as much thought as he wants into his Afghanistan decision, he is fated to please both Broder and Shields. Most likely he will ultimately decide to go for “victory”, or maybe just “success” in Afghanistan. Still, where there’s indecision, there’s hope.

BIG CORRECTION: From Thinkprogress (where I got the Shields info originally)

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that syndicated columnist Mark Shields said this weekend on Inside Washington, referring to Obama’s Afghanistan war decision, that he is “nostalgic” for the days when the U.S. “had a manly man in the White House who could say, ‘Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards.’” Shields contacted ThinkProgress this morning and kindly informed us that his comments were intended to be sarcastic. We regret our error in misinterpreting his comments and for questioning his motives. Shields told us that his comments were meant to disparage those who consistently argue that more war will solve America’s problems and that his statement was directed at co-panelist and right-wing neoconservative Charles Krauthammer, who, according to Shields, was displeased with the remark. With a deeper appreciation for his wit, we extend our sincere apologies to Mr. Shields.

Alas, the Broder quote is all too accurate.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Probably a meaningless observation

Sunday, November 15, 2009

I am sitting on my patio, in the dark, pecking away at my computer. The temperature is perfectly pleasant. It is November 15th. The only problem is the insects that are being attracted to my computer screen.

Here’s my question: What business do these insects have being alive and active on November 15th? Is this normal? I realize that cold days in January disprove the global warming theory entirely, but still, this makes you wonder.


Filed in Environment | | Comments (1)

Rational decision makers

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Via Firedoglake, the right has apparently found an academic prepared to give intellectual respectability to its opposition to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a George Mason University professor named Todd Zywicki:

Zywicki and his fellow Randians think that the FCPA wouldn’t have made the slightest difference in the conditions that led to the great crash of 2008. He says all of these borrowers understood the exact nature of the loan terms in those option ARMs, and fully grasped the way the credit card companies would interpret the 63 pages of terms and conditions. They took out loans they couldn’t pay on the theory that the value of the house would go up so they could refinance the loans and borrow money to make the payments. Or something. Anyway, they were acting rationally.

Each one of those lenders was acting rationally too, since their incentive, making commissions, was to sell the worst possible loan to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, because the worse the loan terms, the higher their commissions would be.

Zywicki explains that “Virtually every credit product is valuable to some consumers.” The logical implication is that banksters should be allowed to try to make loans on any foolish terms they can think up, whether or not it makes sense for the borrower. It’s up to us to figure out whether they are cheating us. I really like the idea that Zywicki will have to read the kinds of loan agreements I slave over for hours, and see if he can figure out what the bankster lawyers are doing with the English language.

The Firedoglake writer makes a compelling argument that the actors in all those dramas were in fact acting quite irrationally. But there’s a larger point that sometimes gets lost when we let the right frame the issues. Let’s stipulate that the borrowers and lenders both were acting in their own best interests (they weren’t, but lets pretend). One things for darn sure, they weren’t acting in the long term best interest of the country, not by a long shot. The country is us-all of us. Don’t we have a right to defend ourselves from the destructive effects of the decisions that individual actors make, even if those decisions are in the bests interests of the person involved? Randian Libertarians would say no, except (as the writer points out) when corporate interests are involved. But as a society we have answered that question in the affirmative since this nation’s inception. The air we breathe would be unbreathable, and the water we drink undrinkable had we let “rational” decision makers set environmental policy. I honestly despair of this government’s ability to effectively respond to this current crisis; they should have struck when the iron was hot; either at the time of the bailout, or in the first few weeks after Obama was inaugurated. The lobbyists are moving in for the kill. What we’re likely to get is a regulatory scheme designed to fail. But that fact won’t prove that we shouldn’t effectively regulate the financial system, only that we haven’t.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

America for the Americans

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Via Jesus General. Stay with it. It sounds like the teabagger crowd never realizes it’s been played.


Filed in Video | | Comments (1)

Escalation of committment

Sunday, November 15, 2009

As he contemplates trudging off into the Big Muddy, Afghanistan style, Obama might profit from perusing this article in today’s Times:

If a business school professor is running short on cash, there is a sure-fire solution: run a dollar auction game in class.

To start, the professor offers to sell the class a $20 bill. Bidding starts at $1 and goes up in $1 increments. The winner pays the professor whatever the high bid was, and gets the $20. Here’s the catch: the second-highest bidder also has to pay, but gets nothing in return.

Typically, a few brave or stupid students — nearly always male — open the bidding but fairly quickly only two bidders remain and they discover they are in a war of attrition. The bidding slows when someone bids $20, but then resumes with neither wanting to “lose.” If the two students are particularly stubborn, prices can go over $50. (The professor typically gives the money to charity, or claims to.)

The dollar auction game was invented by a pioneer of game theory, Martin Shubik of Yale, and it illustrates the concept of “escalation of commitment.” Once people are trapped into playing, they have a hard time stopping. (Consider Vietnam.) The higher the bidding goes, and the more each bidder has invested, the harder it is to say “uncle.” The best advice you can give anyone invited to play this particular game is to decline.

Further proof that markets are not rational, and neither are governments. Obama should say “uncle” and he should defend his decision vigorously. If he leaves, he’ll be attacked by the right, as always, but the obvious retort is to ask why American men and women should die to prop up a corrupt regime.


Filed in Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Utopia East-even further East, that is

Sunday, November 15, 2009

There must be something about Hollywood that brings out the dupes in people. In today’s Globe we read that yet another small time Hollywood huckster has deluded yet another small New England town into believing a lot of hype that a little bit of due diligence would have exposed as claptrap. This time it’s Plymouth, the oldest town in New England, and the huckster is a guy named David Kilpatrick. My very local readers will immediately recall a certain Joe Gentile, who was going to bring that old Hollywood magic to Preston, until sad reality caught up to him and the Town.

At least Preston always maintained a certain amount of skepticism. It looks like Plymouth went into the thing with both eyes shut.

When Plymouth’s Town Meeting convened in October 2008 to pass judgment on Plymouth Rock Studios executives’ grand proposal to bring to town what they called “Hollywood East,’’ the results of the vote were a foregone conclusion. But the studio didn’t skimp on pageantry.

“For us at Plymouth Rock Studios this is all about our kids,’’ declared Kirkpatrick. “There is nothing more extraordinary than the wonder of making stories, making pictures.’’

The lights went down and the video rolled. TV personality Leeza Gibbons smiled on the people of Plymouth, reminding them, “You all are so fortunate that you have right in your midst . . . a brand-new Hollywood.’’

Then came a brief review of the plan and a montage of classic film scenes set to soaring music, ending with Judy Garland and her companions skipping down the Yellow Brick Road.

Soon, it was time for Plymouth’s town meeting members to debate tax breaks and re-zoning a golf course for 2 million square feet of sound stages, office space, retail businesses, housing, and a hotel.

Except there was no debate. Members voted to cut off discussion before it started, and hoots and applause filled the hall.

Yet another River City, sans trombones.


Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

It was 40 years ago today

Sunday, November 15, 2009

On November 15, 1969 half a million people descended on Washington D.C. to protest the Vietnam War, not a single one of them directly or indirectly subsidized by a TV network or an astroturfing group of lobbyists.

I made the trip to DC with some college friends. There were four of us, joined by two girls that we stopped to pick up in New York, all, somehow, crammed into a Camaro (bucket seats in front). I’m not quite sure how we did that, but we did.

We found a place to sleep at the Sigma Nu fraternity at American University. We (the men among us) were members of that fabled society, and our brothers in D.C. had no choice but to put us up, though they didn’t much “like our kind”. Fraternity trumped politics in that instance. The fraternity, we were told, was in the building where Edwin Stanton was shot, and we slept in the very room in which the deed took place.

Coming from Maine, I assumed the weather would be comparatively mild so far South. It was, in fact, biting cold, and all I had between me and that cold air was a CPO. I froze all day and into the night. My future spouse was somewhere in the crowd, presumably more warmly dressed than me.

One event of that day has stuck in my memory. We were wandering the streets of D.C. early the morning of the 15th (or was it the next day?) when we were approached by a young woman who asked us if we were hungry. She got an affirmative answer and she told us to follow her. She took us to a restaurant and paid for our breakfast. We took up two tables, and since she sat at one and I at another, I never said a word to her. It was a much appreciated act of pure benevolence, and ever since I have felt that I owe a sort of inverse karmic debt.

Back in those days, the media actually paid attention when people on the left took to the streets. At least in terms of numbers, the moratorium was pretty much replicated when the Iraq war was in the planning stage, but those demonstrations were rendered meaningless by the simple expedient of ignoring them. Conversely, a few teabaggers who can’t even articulate their grievances get a respectful hearing with Republican Congresspeople bellowing (without a hint of irony) that so many voices raised in tandem simply cannot be ignored. Whatever else you might say about them, those 60s protests were real. We now live in an age of “reality” television, in which fake reality has replaced the real thing, both as entertainment and as politics. Those 60s protests were instrumental in ending that war, though the proper lessons were never drawn from that experience. It remains to be seen whether faux demonstrations will have as much of, or more of an impact. Given the disconnect between the Beltway and the rest of us, the odds are better than even that enough Democrats will follow the money and bow to the manufactured “will of the people” as they were never willing to do when the outrage was real and the cause was just.


Filed in Issues | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music-James Brown

Friday, November 13, 2009

Fairly sure I haven’t done James Brown yet.

I’m starting with this clip as much in tribute to Ed Sullivan as James Brown. Everyone loved making fun of Ed Sullivan, but the truth was that he was great at spotting talent. Even more important, he was an equal opportunity employer before it was either hip or mandatory. Who else in that era would have let James Brown on stage. I can recall, from the dim recesses of my memory, a public service ad in which Sullivan made a plea for racial tolerance and justice. Mild stuff now, but not so much back then.

James Brown singing I Feel Good in his latter years. Good audio and video.

Finally, yet another odd pairing with Luciano Pavarotti At some point in the past I posted a video of Lou Reed and Pavarotti (you can see that video here). This pairing may be even odder.


Filed in Music | | Comments (1)