Skip to content

Another Republican frame adopted

Monday, May 23, 2011

It has been observed often, but always bears repeating, that the media in this country, whether consciously or unconsciously, sides with Republicans by adopting their terminology and the frames they put around issues. A good case in point is this article in this morning’s Times, about the special election in New York tomorrow.

Several times the reporter refers to the Republican’s plans to “revamp” Medicare. In this, he bows to the Republican insistence that their plan to replace Medicare with an entirely different program is not a plan to replace Medicare with an entirely different program. (I guess I should point out here that the reporter in question is Raymond Hernandez, and we in Connecticut know how anxious he is to carry Republican water.)

My American Heritage Dictionary defines revamp as follows:

To patch up or restore; renovate.

It is not accurate to say they are revamping Medicare. Keeping the name, and abolishing everything else is not a revamp. This is buying in to Republican spin. When the Yankees tore down Yankee Stadium, built a new stadium, and called the new stadium Yankee Stadium, they had not revamped the old Yankee Stadium. They tore it down, plain and simple, and that’s what the voucher system would do to what we now call Medicare.

There’s more buy-in to Republican spin in the article, since the reporter calls the Ryan plan a “deficit-cutting plan”, when, if we consult the facts, it is clear that it is not a deficit cutting plan, for it calls for using the “savings” realized by screwing the elderly to finance yet another tax cut for the rich, leaving us with the same projected deficit, and millions of elderly who won’t get decent medical care to boot. But in fact, there will be no savings to society, only to the federal government, for the elderly will still be getting medical care, and the money will come from somewhere. Medical costs are expected to soar, and whether through taxes or higher premiums, we in the lower 99% will end up paying, so our effective “taxes”, whether paid to the Feds or to Aetna, will go up. The Ryan plan is yet another Republican plan to transfer wealth to the top 1%, and it’s disingenuous to call it anything else.

Filed in Media, Republicans | | Comments (0)

The fruits of bi-partisanship

Sunday, May 22, 2011

We can all take heart that bipartisanship is indeed not dead. When it comes to depriving the American people of their civil liberties, Republicans and Democrats are able to come together with amazing alacrity. Witness the recent announcement that Harry Reid has reached agreement with the Republicans to continue the egregious provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, which simultaneously deprive us of our basic rights while providing virtually no additional security.

The three controversial provisions being extended are the warrantless ‘roving wire tap’, the government’s warrantless access to business and library records, and the ability of the state to monitor non-US citizens at will and in the absence of any probable cause.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has found evidence of FBI abuse of the PATRIOT Act.

We have come to a sorry state in this country when the only person speaking out against such an obvious abuse is Rand Paul. Joe Courtney, our otherwise excellent Congressman, is a reliable bad vote on this issue. It’s a toxic mix in Washington’s la-la land. You have those who absolutely favor a national security state, and then you have those who don’t, but are so afraid of being labelled “soft on terror” that they vote for this stuff out of fear.

It’s somewhat ironic, also, that the same people who keep telling us that the domestically mild Obama is a nascent dictator are perfectly willing to grant him near dictatorial powers when it comes to the “war on terror”, a war that all too often is a war on civil liberties.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

The Last Friday Night Music?

Friday, May 20, 2011

According to mathematician and Biblical Scholar Harold Camping, the world is going to end tomorrow, so I am going to take this opportunity to bid adieu to anyone who might actually be wasting their time reading this blog on their last few hours on earth. I know I’m not going to waste any of my precious time as the hours trickle down to a precious few. This may very well be my last post.

To celebrate the occasion, a few musical masterpieces that are on topic. First, and I want to thank Matt Berger for letting me borrow his idea, a little R.E.M:

And, as a sort of coda, this chestnut from Skeeter Davis, circa 1965, and could it be circa any other year considering that hairstyle. Yes Virginia, women really did wear their hair that way.

That’s all folks. Good-bye and good luck. See you on the other side of the rapture.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

A certain asymmetry

Friday, May 20, 2011

Recently the Wall Street Journal ran an article about an Administrative Law Judge who grants nearly 100% of the claims before him. There was also an implication that he was able to steer cases from one particular lawyer to himself. Predictably, this has led to calls from Republicans for Congressional investigations into the entire disability program.

This is the area of the law in which I do most of my work, so it hits a bit close to home. I don’t agree with Tristero, over at Hullabaloo, who believes the judge in questions is a hero who Tristero compares, half seriously, to Oskar Schindler. Any lawyer worth his or her salt believes in the rule of law. There are rules under which these judges operate, and it is the judge’s job, if the legal system is to work, to apply those rules. Excusing a judge that grants everyone implicitly okays a judge who grants nobody, as, almost by definition, they are both being arbitrary. There is simply no way that all those applicants qualify for benefits.

In addition to the bad odor it gives off to any lawyer who believes in the rule of law, this behavior inevitably leads just where it has led here: to calls to “investigate” the system, which can lead only if they lead anywhere, to further restrictions on benefits. The right will use this judge to call the disability system itself into question.

And here’s where the asymmetry mentioned in the title to this post comes in. This judge will be investigated, and others like him will be sought out. But no attempt will be made to hold the judges who groundlessly deny claims to account. Two examples from my own experience. A New Haven ALJ found that my client lacked credibility because she refused to acknowledge that she was an alcoholic. The judge’s proof that she was an alcoholic? The fact that she filled out an intake sheet at a doctor’s office and stated that she drank three times a month. Not to excess mind you, but three times a month. I had to go to federal court with that case and recently won the right to get another hearing before the same judge, because the federal judge wouldn’t grant my request to have another judge hear the case. I don’t quarrel overly much with the federal judge, but I know that when I get back before that ALJ she will find some way to either deny the client, or limit her benefits to an unreasonable period. Example two: An ALJ in New Haven denied my client benefits on the grounds that he had failed to undergo prescribed treatment. I went to federal court and the US Attorney agreed with my claim that there had been no treatment prescribed since the man wasn’t getting treatment, which he couldn’t afford, and anyway, the doctors that had treated him before his insurance lapsed said his condition was permanent. So, back to that judge we went. By this time my guy had to use a walker. His own doctors (he is now on Medicaid) said he couldn’t work. This time the judge said my client had been disabled, but magically stopped being disabled when his medical insurance ran out. The judge didn’t believe he had no insurance, though he didn’t say why, and he felt that right up to the date of the hearing the guy could perform light work, which requires standing at least 6 hours a day. This despite the fact that he needs to use a walker to get around and was using it at the hearing. So back to federal court we will go, and when it gets remanded again we will finally get a different judge. In the meantime, my guy has gone three years without benefits to which he is clearly entitled and will probably go another year or more before he finally gets benefits, assuming of course that the new judge is not the judge who decided the three drinks a month lady was an alcoholic. Oh, by the way, to add insult to injury, the period during which the latter client was found to be disabled was so long before he applied that the law bars him from getting paid for that period, so despite the “partially favorable” award, he won’t get a red cent.

Nationwide, stories like this are far more common than the wrongly granted claims, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the Wall Street Journal to report on them, or for Congress to investigate them. These judges are just as lawless as the judge who was written up in the Journal, but you’ll never read about them or the lives they ruin.


Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

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)