Skip to content

The hippies did it

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Via Kos, big news:

A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the priest sexual-abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality are to blame. Instead, the report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed in the midst of the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s.

Those hippies sure did cause a lot of problems, didn’t they? For my own part, I don’t recall any of the folks I hung with (and I confess to having engaged in certain behaviors that shall go otherwise unspecified, but were, shall we say, more stereotypically hippieish) having any particular interest in having sex with children of either sex.

But, in fact, at least by its lights, the Church’s finding is well-founded. Reading on:

Known incidents of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims. (Emphasis added)

So indeed, the hippies were to blame, for if they advocated anything, they advocated questioning authority and that attitude apparently leached through, even to the poor, scared kids that were being, or had been, abused.

it brings to mind that old saw about whether a falling tree makes a noise if no one is there to hear it. Well, at least according to the Church, not only does it make no sound, it never really fell in the first place.

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Michelle’s challenge

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

This story, about the 10th grader from New Jersey who challenged Michelle Bachman to a debate/competitive quiz on the Constitution is highly amusing. Michelle has not accepted the challenge, and I don’t blame her, for it was literally impossible for her to win, as Newt Gingrich’s recent scrapes with the truth have proven.

Michelle would have been faced with the following choice, assuming she even knows anything about the Constitution or early American history. She could answer correctly, and like Newt permanently alienate her base, or she could have answered incorrectly, whether through ignorance or by design, and lose to a tenth grader, which might not have gone over well were she ever in a position to have to extend her appeal.

So, the proposition was lose-lose for Michelle. Credit her with being smarter than Newt, and avoiding trouble. Newt has never been able to keep his mouth under control, and he now finds himself in a strange situation: the culture of stupidity that he unleashed has turned against its creator.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

JJB 2011

Monday, May 16, 2011

Just a few pics from the JJB Dinner tonight. Once again our SE CT Drinking Liberally Group filled a table. This time, either through luck, early ticket purchases or recognition of our sterling services to the Democratic Party, we were put in the front row. In previous years I’ve rated the loot left on the chairs by the candidates running for office, and I have to report that on that score, this year’s fest was the worst ever. Not surprising considering there’s no state races coming up and it’s an odd number year anyway. Susan left some tote bags on some of the chairs, but not on all, and that was about it. No chocolate, more’s the pity.

Dan Malloy was the featured speaker, and he turned in a good performance. He was the only speaker who managed to rise above the poor sound system and make himself understood where we were, where the distortion from the sound system was otherwise pretty bad. Here’s Dan with Groton Town Chair Dave Ferreira and his wife, Angela. This was a hard earned picture, as my flash’s battery was running low and it took forever to cycle on. It’s no fun keeping the governor waiting.

Chris Murphy, again with Dave and Atul Shah.

And the whole gang, except for me, which is one of the privileges of being the cameraman.


Filed in Pictures | | Comments (0)

The Times uses the “M” word

Sunday, May 15, 2011

When the United States uses them, they’re “contractors”. When the same contractors work for the United Arab Emirates, the Times finds the courage to use the right word: mercenaries.

Words do make a difference. We don’t need “ethnic cleansing”, when “genocide” will do, and no one ever calls them “Hessian contractors”.

Erik Prince, the paymaster and owner of this mercenary army, was originally enabled by the US government, and has used that initial infusion of money and quasi-respectability as a launching pad to engage in criminal activity on a massive scale. (Except, of course, if you make billions in criminal activity, the cops never seem to notice- ask almost anyone on Wall Street). These types have a way of coming back to haunt you. There was this guy named Osama, for instance.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, May 13, 2011

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned Rickie Lee Jones in one of these post, and it subsequently occurred to me that I don’t think I’ve ever put up a video of her. So , I went searching, and found this fun video, Rickie Lee Jones and Dr. John, Makin Whoopee.

Which led me to this version of the same song, with Elton John, Elvis Costello, and his wife Diana Krall


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Not exactly a Profile in Courage

Thursday, May 12, 2011

It is with some regret that I must take notice of the fact that our local State Senator, Andy Maynard, has not covered himself in glory in the past week or so. My wife has worked long and hard for Andy, and I’ve contributed both money and time. I, for one, have to wonder whether my time and money has been wasted. (I should hasten to add that I’m not speaking for my wife in this post).

Andy voted for Malloy’s budget, somewhat reluctantly. I can understand that, given the way Malloy is treating state employees, but that wasn’t Andy’s problem. My problem is with the reason Andy voted yes. He felt he couldn’t vote no after having extracted various concessions, most of which, in one way or another, benefitted the rich. It’s true that Andy has some rich constituents in Stonington, but most of us are not concerned about the possibility of a luxury tax.

But it’s Andy’s latest position shift that is truly stunning and disappointing. Andy announced he will change his vote on the death penalty. He was in favor of abolishing it, but now he’ll vote no.

Why? Because he had a talk with Dr. Petit, who apparently feels his life as a victim will improve if his family’s killers are killed. That’s Petit’s right, but here’s Andy’s rationale:

Maynard said he was particularly convinced to change his vote after he heard Petit, Chapman and Meyer detail their experience with the legal system.

At one point during legal proceedings, the defendants were referred to as “gentlemen” while Petit’s wife and two daughters were called the “alleged victims,” Maynard said.

“That statement stung me as I thought about being in his place,” Maynard said Wednesday night. “I know that is not a reason to change your mind on the position, but you’re suddenly confronted with: What in the world are we doing to people that have suffered these kinds of horrific experiences?” (Emphasis added)

Whatever side you may be on in this debate, it must be acknowledged that, at base, it’s a profound moral and ethical question. It is nothing short of appalling that someone would make a decision on such a weighty question based on the fact that someone had referred to the victim of a crime as an “alleged victim” or had not addressed a presumed innocent as “scumbag” rather than “gentleman”, all while acknowledging that his change of heart was made without sufficient reason. It is even inadmissible to make the decision based on the fact that the family of the victim feels like its gotten the run around from the judicial department. You don’t make incredibly difficult moral decisions based on what are, by any measure, totally immaterial considerations. Would Andy feel differently if the defendants in the Petit case had been treated like dirt by the authorities, and, if so, why? Apparently he would feel different if Petit were happy with the way the court proceedings are going, though one suspects that would consist of sentence first, trial after. Were that the case, would Andy have stuck with the anti-death penalty vote? It all makes little sense. If a person’s opinion on such an issue can be swayed by such trivial considerations, one must wonder whether that person has any convictions for which he would be prepared to fight.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Republicans demand mercy

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

You truly couldn’t make this sort of thing up:

House Republican freshmen admit that their so-called “MediScare” attacks on Democrats helped them win a big majority in 2010. Democrats had voted for the health care law, which included $500 billion in “cuts” to Medicare — primarily slashing overpayments to private insurers — and Republican challengers never let them forget it.

Now, they say, it’s time to let bygones be bygones.

Nearly a dozen House Republican freshmen held a press conference outside the Capitol Tuesday morning to “wipe the slate clean,” and “hit the reset button.”

“Yeah, I mean there’s been — again, this is a both-sides issue,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) when asked if GOP candidates and the NRCC had engaged in ‘MediScare’ tactics last year. “To say that one side is blameless in trying to use issues to win votes is just dishonest.”

On Tuesday, Kinzinger and 41 of his colleagues sent a letter to President Obama, asking him to rein in Democratic attacks on GOP members who voted for the House budget, which includes a plan to privatize Medicare and cap spending on the program.

“We ask that you stand above partisanship, condemn the disingenuous attacks and work with this Congress to reform spending on entitlement programs,” the letter reads.

Translation: Sure we lied about you in 2010, but it’s terribly unfair for you to even consider telling the truth about us in 2012.

I think this is one time when even Obama will resist the call for bipartisanship.

Times sure do change. Only a few short weeks ago the Republicans were telling themselves that the vote to abolish Medicare was going to reap big political dividends for them.


Filed in Hypocrisy, Republicans | | Comments (0)

This guy makes Paul Ryan look smart

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

This is truly incredible, and yet totally unsurprising. The very serious folks have been telling us that we must take the advice of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission and solve the (nonexistent) social security problem. They pretty much consistently ignore the fact that the Commission never issued an official report, and that the only recommendations were those made by the chairmen, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. The latter is a self interested banker, while the former is, as it turns out, colossally stupid, uninformed and/or disingenuous.

It doesn’t take a lot of brains to understand the concept of life expectancy. Simpson has been going around saying that no one collected social security back in 1940 because life expectancy was only 65, so no one lived to collect benefits. Even putting aside the fact that life expectancy is a norm, anyone with half a brain can see that it is not life expectancy at birth that matters; it’s life expectancy at retirement. But Simpson can’t see that, and when it’s explained to him, he still can’t understand it, or pretends not to:

HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration’s actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years.

“If that is the case — and I don’t think it is — then that means they put in peanuts,” said Simpson.

Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by “the Catfood Commission people” — a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave the president’s panel that label.

Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: “If you’re telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940 — that all of them lived to be 77 — that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he’s gonna live to be 77? Hell, that’s my genre. That’s not true,” said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September.

Truly mind boggling. If Simpson’s characterization of life expectancy were accurate, then his statement that life expectancy in 1940 was 65 would imply that everyone born in 1940 lived to be 65, no greater and no less.

This is the guy to whom we are supposed to defer on Social Security, someone who couldn’t, by the looks of it, pass 6th grade math.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Fraud-part of the business plan

Monday, May 9, 2011

This morning’s Times informs us that various states are now letting corporations and insurance companies create “captive insurance companies” within their borders. These companies serve as devices through which corporations and insurance companies can evade regulatory requirements. In the case of the insurance companies, they can evade requirements that they meet certain reserve thresholds, meaning that they can avoid the obligation to actually have the money to pay claims if a lot of bad things happen at once. In essence, these companies are openly engaging in a fraud on the public. Instead of disclosing actual reserves, they disclose the fact that their obligations to their policyholders are insured by captive company X. Captive company X, having been set up in State Y, has no legal obligation to disclose its financial condition, yet the insurance company is allowed to use the assurance that company X will come through as proof that it is retaining sufficient reserves, even though everyone knows that in a crunch, there will be no money there. The actual money that would otherwise have been held in reserve is now free to be paid out in dividends, or more likely, drained into the pockets of the insurance company executives. This is proven by the massive amounts of money the insurance companies claim to “save” by buying insurance from themselves.

If you or I pulled off such an openly fraudulent transaction, we’d be put in jail, but if a corporation does it everyone pretends not to notice. There is, after all, no legitimate reason to form these companies. In the case of the insurance companies, the scam is made easier by the fact that, for a reason that does not exist, insurance companies are not subject to federal regulation. The states can therefore engage in a race to the bottom, which they are now doing with gusto, enabling these fraudsters so they can get a few crumbs off the table. Already, according to the Times, the crumbs are getting tinier, as the insurance giants play one state off against another to the point where some of them are allowing this criminal activity for practically no charge. In this the states are behaving like typical corrupt politicians, who are so often bought off for so little, considering the benefits obtained by those who buy them off.

This scam, I believe, could be easily stopped. Given the current group of Bozos running the House, it’s unlikely that the federal government would step in, even if it could do so. The states, however, retain the right to regulate insurance companies, and it would be easy enough for insurance regulators in the bigger states, say California, New York and Illinois, to forbid any insurance company using captive companies from underwriting insurance within its borders. Don’t look for Connecticut to take action. The article points put that Connecticut has just passed a law enabling captives, so we’ll be getting crumbs too, until the time comes for the inevitable bailout.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Now we know

Sunday, May 8, 2011

I’ve become a big Doctor Who fan, and as soon as Season 7 started, I subscribed on ITunes. Who would have thought that by doing so I would learn the answer to a true historical mystery.

My younger readers may be surprised to learn that there was a time when those of us on the left were quite convinced that no president could be worse, or more evil, than Richard Nixon. Those were innocent days, as we’ve since learned that, paranoid as he was, Nixon just can’t measure up to two of his Republican successors, not to mention whatever Republican we happen to get next. These days he looks like a moderate-certainly not bat shit crazy enough to be even considered for a place on the Republican’s national ticket. Still, at the time we felt that the world had been freed from true evil when he was brought down by the tape recordings he himself had made.

But, back to the Doctor. Turns out that the Doctor is the reason Nixon installed those tape recorders in the Oval Office, something that was previously a mystery. You’ll just have to watch to find out why. There’s no way I could explain it, except to say that it’s nice to know that the Doctor rid the Earth of an entire race of evil aliens and Richard Nixon all in one fell swoop.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)