Skip to content

Just so

Friday, January 21, 2011


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

The Onion: Sarah’s Poll Numbers Rising

Thursday, January 20, 2011


Filed in Video | | Comments (0)

Those old fashioned Brits

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Here in America, we have come to understand that the bigger the crime, the less justification for punishment. That means, for example, that starting an illegal war that results in the killing of tens of thousands of people (and, incidentally, lands the invaded country subject to the influence of another country with which you are at odds) is a consequence free crime, since you can’t do anything much more criminal. Institutionalized torture and endless imprisonment of mainly innocent people, inasmuch as they compound the crime, merely serve as further reasons to forget about the whole thing. We have learned these things, in our infinite wisdom, and have put the lessons learned to work. Never look back, we firmly believe, or you might learn something.

The British, on the other hand, have this quaint notion that maybe there should be consequences, if belated, for this sort of criminal activity, so they formed a commission to look into the whole Iraq invasion thing. Such a mistake, and, coming from a country with a proud imperial tradition of its own, a somewhat mystifying one.

But the British are certainly learning, for today the British government, after politely discussing the matter with Tony Blair, refused to hand over Tony Blair’s love letters to George Bush. We know that the British government has learned from ours because, according to the British government, there are several good and sound reasons to withhold the notes, all of which sound vaguely familiar:

The Cabinet Office said the refusal to allow Blair’s notes to be disclosed conformed to the inquiry’s protocols. Chilcot said recently the protocols were “put in place to protect national security, international relations and the personal security of individuals. They are not there to prevent embarrassment.”

As any American knows this statement can be translated roughly as follows: The protocols, as we choose to interpret them, have nothing to do with national security, international relations or the personal security of individuals. They are there to prevent embarrassment.”

You see, the only people who should be able to use these notes are people who will use them to continue to propagate the lies that led to the war in the first place. In their case, exposure of (portions) of the documents are perfectly appropriate:

[Inquiry leader Sir John Chilcot] refers to passages in memoirs, including Blair’s autobiography, A Journey, and disclosures by Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, his former head of communications. Those publications, and the refusal to disclose Blair’s notes, Chilcot said, “leads to the position that individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former prime minister to review the issues, cannot”.

So, it appears that we can take comfort in the fact that the British people will remain as comfortably ignorant of the details of the criminal conspiracy as will we. We must give them credit for trying, but really, it’s hard to believe they could have been so naive as to think that crime on that scale should have consequences.


Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Joe! Reconsider!

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The folks at My Left Nutmeg were pleased to hear about Joe Lieberman’s decision to retire from the Senate (likely to a well paid gig dissing liberals on Fox). We here at CTBlue (well, that would actually be me here at CTBlue) don’t feel that way at all. We wanted Joe to stay the course.

To our minds, nothing would have been more delicious that to see Joe come in third in a three way race. Now, Lieberman might take some solace for that, since he at least he wouldn’t be tied for third with two other candidates. But more delicious than watching his humiliation would be the fact that his candidacy would have assured the victory of a real Democrat. That, in my opinion, was the real reason Lieberman wouldn’t run. Not only did he know he would lose; he knew that if he ran there would be no way for the Republican he will now endorse to win.

So, do I feel good about Joe leaving? No, though it will be good to see the back of him. I don’t watch television, particularly Fox, so I won’t ever have to hear his whiny voice again, though I’m sure the masochists who watch Fox will circulate his more outrageous statements to the internets.

I agree with my brethren at MLN about one thing, though. We owe a debt of gratitude to Ned Lamont. If it weren’t for Ned, Lieberman would still be a nominal Democrat, probably guaranteed yet another nomination despite his apostasies (he wouldn’t have endorsed McCain, but he would have done just about everything else he’s done over the last four years). Ned exposed him for what he is. Alas, it took about a year too long for reality to sink in with the majority of voters, but ultimately they tumbled to him.

Now, we just have to avoid a bruising primary and elect a real Democrat to replace the faux Democrat that was Lieberman. I’m announcing right now that I’m endorsing whoever has the best chance to win.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

An interesting dynamic

Thursday, January 20, 2011

It is an interesting fact of political life in this country that Democrats tend to elect people who either more or less reflect their values or are more conservative than Democrats as a whole, while Republicans tend to elect people that are not just more conservative than Republicans as a whole, but far more conservative than Republicans as a whole. In fact, you often have to wonder where these people hide until they run for elective office.

Consider the newly elected Senator from Utah, who feels quite comfortable saying he is against Child Labor Laws. I don’t need a pollster to tell me that even most Republicans feel that the federal government can and should regulate child labor. There are numerous examples of Republican politicians who have been elected despite holding views greatly out of step with the views of the rank and file (although embraced by the truly crazy) but I’d be amazed if there were a handful of Democrats (certainly none in the Senate) who are similarly out of touch with the views of party members from their districts. I should amend that statement to say that there are only a handful who are so out of touch to the left of the Democrats in their district. It’s fairly common for Democrats to be out of touch to the right.

This is another of those asymmetries that pulls our discourse and our laws to the right, despite the fact that, when asked, people in this country are, if anything, more liberal than conservative. I’m not talking about the labels they apply to themselves; the term “liberal” has been demonized while the term “conservative” has, to say the least, not been so treated. I’m talking about views about issues when those issues are fairly presented to them.

I personally suspect that out of touch conservatives can get elected because the media that is not forthrightly right wing is afraid to scrutinize them for fear of being labeled “liberal” and because, while Democrats will quickly run away from anyone to the left of Harry Reid, Republicans will support anyone with an R after his or her name. No matter the candidate, they will close ranks and engage the slime machine against the Democrat in the race. Thus we are now in a situation in which consensus “liberal” views of decades past (such as, that child labor should be regulated by the federal government) are now under attack from all sides, not so much because the objective situation has changed, but because the right has quite skillfully moved the rhetorical “center” ineluctably rightward, a process that legiimizes extreme views that would have been considered extreme in days past, but, despite still being objectively extreme, are now considered worthy of consideration by the folks in the Beltway. And when I say the attacks are coming from all sides, I mean it. The push is on to blame the unions that represent state workers for the budget woes of the states, when there’s little objective evidence to support that. Andrew Cuomo, an alleged Democrat, made that demonization the centerpiece of his campaign. Where did a right thinking (in the sense of “correct thinking”) voter have to go, in light of the fact that his opponent was quite possibly clinically insane?


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Our amnesiac society

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Digby takes rightful exception to the tendency of the media to portray right wing hate inspired violence as a theoretical construct at best, liberal paranoia at worst. This meme can only be spread because of widespread amnesia, whether real or pretend, by the media, both mainstream and lunatic fringe (I’m looking at you, Fox). In fact, there have been numerous incidents, some explicitly connected with the ravings of hatemongers, such as Glenn Beck. They are quickly tossed into the memory hole, because either the crazies are caught before doing real harm, or the victims aren’t important enough to care about. If Gabbie Gifford hadn’t been a congresswoman, she’d be forgotten too.

Here’s Digby’s list of examples. I feel free to repeat it in full, as she wants it circulated in the probably vain hope that at some point the non-Fox media will pick up on it. Her list:

— July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

— October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

— December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

— December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

— January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

— February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

— April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

— April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

— May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

— June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

— February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)

— March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

— March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

— May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

— May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

— May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

— July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

— September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

The second to the last example is the most obvious instance of hate radio or television inciting a potential murder. The Tides Foundation is an obscure foundation that Glenn Back decided to rant against. Without a doubt Byron Williams would never have targeted that foundation if he hadn’t heard about them from Beck.


Filed in Crazies | | Comments (0)

Supergrifters

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Christine O’Donnell has started a PAC, called ChristinePAC, the purpose of which appears to be to provide for the support and maintenance of Christine O’Donnell. The PAC will be operating out of her home, presumably to legitimize the use of PAC funds to pay her bills.

This is one bright side of the Citizens United decision. While it has paved the way for corporations to increase their already dominant position in American life, it has also enabled grifters to legally, or at least, apparently legally, siphon off vast sums of money from easily deluded right wingers that might otherwise go to effective political action. The Supreme Court has, as a by-product of its decision, legalized the grifter way of life, at least in the political realm. All that money that might otherwise have caused real harm to the body politic will now merely harmlessly enrich crazy Christine. Of course, O’Donnell’s not the only grifter worthy of Hall of Fame status. Certainly Sarah is in her league. In fact, its nip and tuck between them as to who is the greatest grifter of them all. My vote is with Christine, because she accomplished it without having to go the bother of every actually accomplishing anything. Sarah, on the other hand, got herself elected governor of Alaska. It’s not much, but it’s something.

There is nothing similar on the left. Lyndon LaRouche doesn’t count, as he defies political categorization, and he runs a cult, a different sort of beast altogether. Christine and Sarah are pure grifters, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Who can forget the shadowy Republican fundraisers who raise money nationwide for obscure and hopeless Republican candidates and manage to pocket all the proceeds while losing their elections big-time. They too serve the cause, by draining money that might otherwise be put to good use. God Bless Them All.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

We’re enthused again

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

If this turns out to be true, it’s good news for the Democrats.

If I had to name the two biggest factors that cost Democrats the 2010 election cycle it would be 2 e’s- economy and enthusiasm. A huge part of the party’s problem was the bad economy, which drove independent voters strongly toward GOP candidates. But just as important was the enthusiasm gap and the fact that Republicans turned out at a much higher rate than Democrats in almost every state in the country.

I don’t know where the economy’s going to be 22 months from now but our newest weekly national survey for Daily Kos finds that the enthusiasm problem for Democrats is likely to be quickly a thing of the past.

85% of Democrats in the country are either ‘very excited’ or ‘somewhat excited’ about voting in the Presidential election next year, actually slightly higher than the 82% of Republicans. There are more Republicans who are ‘very excited’- 62% to the Democrats’ 57%, but ‘somewhat excited’ voters are going to come out the vast majority of the time. The ones you need to worry about are the ‘not excited’ voters- and 18% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats fall into that category, virtually indistinguishable.

I hope this is true, though it would prove me wrong, as I’ve been predicting the opposite, or at least predicting that Obama would be unable to generate the level of enthusiasm he did in 2008. One thing I think is true is that Republicans have nowhere to go from here but down. If they want to keep the base enthused, they will have to drive away the Independents, which I think is what they’ll do.

Still, it would be great if the Democrats actually did, or at least advocated doing, something we could actually get enthusiastic about, other than Joe Lieberman’s retirement, which, truth to tell, actually makes me unhappy. He only did it to increase the chances of a Republican win here in 2012.

Credit where credit is due: I despair of figuring out how to link to a tweet, so I’ll just state that I got to this article via an email from my wife who emailed a tweet from ctblogger who was himself retweeting a tweet from ppppolls, which runs the website that ran the article.


Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Discrimination in New London

Monday, January 17, 2011

Should anyone doubt that Martin Luther King’s work is far from over…

The New London Day reported yesterday that the City of New London has not hired a black firefighter since 1978. At the current time it has one black firefighter (who must be a rather elderly gentleman by this time), and two Hispanics. The department just swore in a new batch of recruits, each one a white male, and each a resident of a suburban town.

But not to worry. According to the chief, what looks like an egregious pattern of discrimination is simply the inevitable by-product of the department’s insistence on getting highly qualified candidates. And indeed it is, since the department’s definition of “highly qualified” practically guarantees that no one need apply save white suburban males. The department gives heavy weight to previous experience, which white males can pick up in their suburban volunteer fire departments, an option not open to city residents. So, this is not merely a system that discriminates against minorities and women, it is one that discriminates against all New London residents, albeit the unspoken motivating cause might be a desire to keep out the minorities.

This type of faux insistence on credentials has held up remarkably well as a bulwark against opening up boys clubs like the New London Fire Department. In fact, believe it or not, it does not take a rocket scientist to be a fireman, and it would not be difficult for the City of New London to have a top rate fire department and give job opportunities to its own residents at the same time. If prior experience is so important, why not begin an internship program and bring in New London youth to work alongside the professional firefighters and give graduates of that program preference? After all, that’s essentially what the white males from the suburbs are getting from the volunteer fire departments, from which they learn their trade (without the benefit of prior experience) until they can cash in to the disadvantage of New London residents. Then again, why have an experience requirement at all, given that all new hires are immediately sent to the state’s fire academy to learn the trade once again? I repeat, this isn’t rocket science. Any reasonably intelligent physically fit person can learn how to do it.

There’s nothing new under the sun. My father was a firefighter in the ’50s for the City of Hartford. Of course, back then, it was unthinkable that a black person or an Hispanic would even be considered for the department, but the clubbiness didn’t stop there. My father managed to get hired, despite his strangely polysyllabic last name, but, he couldn’t earn a promotion despite acing the objective written test. Mysteriously, he totally flubbed the oral “test”, and the job went to a deserving son of the Emerald Isle. I know this story only from hearsay, as I was quite young at the time, but I have no reason to doubt it in any of its particulars.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Sustinet lauded by Firedoglake

Monday, January 17, 2011

The folks, or at least one contributor to, Firedoglake think very highly of the recently announced Sustinet Board’s Draft Report:

Both the new health care bill and other federal laws like ERISA make it very hard to for states to adopt my preferred solution of single-payer health care, or even my secondary choices, like a robust national public option or a comprehensive, extremely regulated all-payer system of only non-profit mutual insurers.

Assume the state can’t get waivers from the new federal laws until 2017, and this unfortunately restricts this relatively progressive proposal. I highly commend their recommendations to limit the worthless private exchanges by using the basic health plan for people making less than 200% FPL. I’m also glad they suggest a basic design that should produce a viable public alternative to private insurance for everyone in the state. Although I would prefer SustiNet to be a fully governmental agency instead of a quasi-governmental one.

In a few days, Vermont’s health care advisory board is expected to present three proposals for reforming their health care system, which I will be looking at very closely. So far, though, this is the best proposal to deal implementing the new health care law I have seen in any state. While not prefect, if Connecticut and other states adopt this model, it will be a good step at the state level toward making decent reform out of what was frankly a pretty bad new federal law.

Betsy Ritter, State Representative from Waterford and Montville, and, more importantly, one of the co-founders of SE Connecticut Drinking Liberally, was instrumental in creating Sustinet. If the legislature and Governor Malloy can now follow through, Connecticut might lead the way in showing the rest of the country how to do health care right, or at least, how to do it right given that the best ways to do it have been declared off the table.

Filed in Health Care, Local issues | | Comments (0)