Skip to content

The Pope visits England

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Ooh, that must hurt. Benedict failed to sell out in Glasgow. Apparently, the Brits, who are, if anything worse than us politically, are far more enlightened when it comes to religion. Of course it doesn’t help when this sort of thing happens:

The start of the trip risked being overshadowed by remarks by one of the pope’s advisers, German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who said compared arriving in multicultural London to landing “in a Third World country.” He also told a German magazine that an “aggressive atheism” was spreading in Britain.

The British media, expressing outrage, cited the remarks as the latest example of a gaffe-prone papacy. Kasper’s office later said he would not be coming due to illness.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, former head of the Catholic Church in England, tried to limit the damage from those comments.

“I’m not really sure why Cardinal Kasper said what he said, he is a good man and a good friend. Perhaps he was having a bad day,” he said.

Yes, perhaps he was having a bad day. I’m not really sure who should be more offended, the British, or the people of the third world. One thing’s for sure, a cardinal should stay away from racially tinged statements, and that goes quadruple for a German cardinal, especially one working for a German pope with a questionable history, Nazi wise.

The problem for the Catholic Church is that its approach to the outside world hasn’t changed much since the 15th century. It never enters the heads of these people that they are answerable to anyone other than their pope, and they all agree that he is answerable to nobody. Instead of adapting to a changing world, the church has, with the notable exception of a few papal terms (we miss you, John XXIII) spent its time hunkering down. Instead of trying to lead by moral example, it merely legislated, at least for itself, what was no longer recognized by a once submissive Europe: its own infallibility.

It is rapidly becoming an irrelevant anachronism, reduced to obsessing about the normal sex lives of others while tolerating deviant sexual practices within its own ranks. Yet it still can’t quite understand why people are beginning to despite it.

So folks like the Cardinal can’t really help themselves. They don’t understand the world, and don’t care to do so. They say what they think because they are convinced they are right and they don’t really care what anyone else thinks. When the shit hits the fan, like it did for the German cardinal, they may backtrack for show (by, for example, as in this case, lying about being sick), but they remain mystified about why anyone could question them. It’s unlikely anything will change soon, particularly under this pope.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (1)

It’s getting warm out there

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

If I read this right, it appears we have just passed through the warmest summer in a very long time. The article is very wonky, but the thrust of it appears to be that July was extremely hot, and so were May and June. Funny, how Fox always seems to talk about global warming on those very few extra cold days we have in the winter, but has nothing to say when we endure weeks of extra hot weather. I know you can’t draw any definitive conclusions from even one super warm summer, but it’s a lot more significant than one cold day.

It now appears that we, as a nation, have officially decided to adopt the “pretend it’s not there” solution to global warming. It’s beginning to look like the chickens will be coming home to roost a lot sooner than anyone thought.


Filed in Environment | | Comments (0)

Nothing succeeds like failure

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

From this morning Times:

For 16 years, Marshall A. Cohen served as a director of the American International Group, stepping down just months before the company’s near-collapse in 2008. Several months later, Mr. Cohen was again in demand, joining the board of Gleacher & Company, a New York investment bank.

Gleacher expanded its board last year to include not only Mr. Cohen but Henry S. Bienen, who served as a director of Bear Stearns from 2004 until its rescue by JPMorgan Chase in March 2008.

On the second anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, appointments like those of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Bienen highlight how the directors of the companies at the center of the financial crisis — A.I.G., Bear Stearns and Lehman itself — still play an active role in the governance of corporate America.

“In too many cases, the radioactivity of a board member of a collapsed company has a half life measured in milliseconds,” said John Gillespie, a longtime Wall Street investment banker and the co-author of “Money for Nothing” (Free Press), a recent book on corporate boards.

It is a fact of life that among our betters, failure is the only sure path to success. It’s one of the few things on which both political parties seem to agree. Obama turned to the Democrats most responsible for screwing up the economy to fix it. Apparently, like the directors who claim that they have learned from previous failures, we were supposed to assume that Geithner and Sommers have learned from theirs. Truth is, they never do.

Can we forget the Republicans who never learn from the failure of the tax cutting road to peace and prosperity (okay, this is a special case, since they don’t really believe their own guff), the pundits who cheered us into Iraq, the “deficit hawks” of both parties who will spend on war to our last penny, but can never see their way clear to spending money to help real Americans, or the economists who couldn’t see the housing bubble as it grew to mammoth proportions?

All of these folks have one thing in common. They have thrived as a result of their failures. Meanwhile, those who were right on these various subjects are still dismissed as kooks.


Filed in American Life | | Comments (0)

Defending Social Security Disability

Monday, September 13, 2010

My friend Matt Berger passed on a link to an article at Slate by James Ledbetter called America’s Hidden Welfare Program, about the Social Security Disability Program. The program, according to Ledbetter, is a welfare program that encourages people not to work.

Now, let us stipulate that I have a financial stake in this, as I represent these lazy people who prefer to live on, as Ledbetter points out, an average of $12,000.00 a year rather than work at one of the jobs that are out there in such numbers.

Ledbetter is not totally callous:

Of course, many SSDI recipients are truly incapacitated. Others, however, are certainly employable in some fashion. All of them have had jobs at some point. And since the American workplace is demonstrably not more dangerous to life and limb than it was 30 or 40 years ago, it’s not immediately obvious why a large group of somewhat- or once-impaired people has more trouble getting and keeping jobs than their counterparts did in the recent past.

Need I point out that the third sentence is a non sequitur? People get disability because they can’t work anymore, either at their own job or at any other job for which they are reasonably qualified by dint of their age, education and experience. By definition, since you have to buy into the system to qualify, all people receiving disability once worked. That fact proves nothing.

Let’s stipulate also that applications for disability do go up when times are bad, meaning that some people apply for disability both because they actually have a disabling medical condition and because they can’t find work. And here we get to another point that should be obvious: it is, in fact, “immediately obvious” why a large group of people has more trouble getting and keeping jobs than their counterparts in the recent past. This country, a former economic and job creating powerhouse, has been shipping jobs overseas as fast as it can. After a while, those numbers add up. The first to feel the pinch are the marginal types, which we are creating in record numbers, given our failing economy, our failing educational system, and our failed health care system.

Ledbetter actually asserts that were these people denied disability we would undergo an economic resurgence because “[t]hese millions of workers extricated from payrolls represent untold lost billions in tax revenues and all manner of desperately needed economic activity (consumption, home purchases, etc.).”

That’s right, if not for these people who choose to live in a blissful state of poverty rather than pay taxes, earn money, buy houses, own cars, etc., the economy would be supercharged, because Ledbetter assumes that if they were not getting disability they would be working, despite the fact that about 10% of the people who consider themselves capable of working can’t find jobs.

Lets remember that the disability program is funded by the same Social Security Trust Fund that pays for regular benefits. It is an insurance program and it pays for itself. The people who apply for benefits have paid in to the system like everyone else. It is not a welfare program, at least by any definition of “welfare” that is consistent with the pejorative way in which Ledbetter is using it.

In these times, the Social Security Disability Program, like unemployment benefits, is the ultimate stimulus program. Every dime these people get is spent, meaning every dime represents economic activity. The problem lies not so much in where the money goes, but from where it comes. Because the payroll tax limit is so low, most of the money flowing into the trust fund is coming from lower middle to middle class people. If we taxed the rich a bit more, the stimulative effect would be even greater.

I would be the last person to say that there are no undeserving people on SSDI. There are. There are also people who have been denied benefits, even though they deserve them. That’s the nature of any imperfect adjudicatory system.

I don’t have the time to check all of Ledbetter’s assertions, but many are suspect, or misleading. The fact, for instance, that enrollment in the first year of the program was a tiny fraction of the number of people now enrolled is a good example. Most people are turned down in the early stages. It takes, on average, a good two years to even get approved. And of course in the first year of such a program there would be fewer enrollees than later, as enrollees accumulate and as cases are processed. Ledbetters’ argument is equivalent to arguing that Social Security is out of control because there are more people getting social security checks now than there were in 1940. Similarly, his assertion that Congress has been making it easier to get disability is not borne out by recent history, as far as I’m aware. Congress denied benefits to alcoholics in 1996. That cut a lot of people off the rolls. I’m not aware of any similar action that Congress took to broaden eligibility.

It doesn’t shock me, as it does Ledbetter, that 4% of the adults in this country are disabled, or that it’s costing us $200 billion a year to keep them out of complete destitution. That’s less than it cost for our unnecessary wars, and every dime is spent here. Nor do I believe, as Ledbetter apparently does, that only people who are about to die should be considered disabled. It certainly is strange that our pundit class is so capable of finding a crisis in a fully funded program that is paid for primarily by the working people it largely benefits, but finds it so hard to see a problem with government policies that have systematically shifted wealth in this country from those same working people to the top 1%.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (2)

Refinancing and recovery

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Boston Globe’s front page article (Refinancing boom, but little lift for economy) reports on something about which I’ve heard from our real estate attorneys: that refinancings are going strong but home sales are not. The headline puts a negative spin on the refinancing phenomenon, but it might as accurately have noted that despite a large number of refinancings, we are not reinflating the real estate bubble. The only way refinancing can lead to a “lift” for the economy, is if people borrow off of their homes and spend the money on things that, generally speaking, they don’t need. Since most people don’t have much, if any, equity in their homes these days, any recovery led by refinancing would almost by definition require reinflating the bubble that got us where we are at present. Thankfully, at least for the moment, banks have become reluctant to lend money based purely on the expectation that home prices will increase at a rate exceeding both the increase in rents and the increase (if any) in median income.

Home prices nationwide still have a way to go down before they start going up, and as Dean Baker pointed out in the linked article, we have no reason to believe that consumers can spend us out of this depression, either with their own money or with money borrowed off of their homes. We need spending by the government in massive amounts. We need to get money into the hands of people that will spend it. We will, of course, not do that, because we have one party too spineless to try to act, and another that sees non-action as a way to political success. We also have a “serious” pundit class that, against all the evidence, sees deficits as the major problem facing the country. It is, of course, easier to think that way if you personally have a job paying you many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

The odd thing is that the real estate bubble was a sort of twisted form of deficit spending, cheered on by the very pundit class that is now afraid of deficits that would cause far less harm. It was that real estate fueled deficit spending that gave us the illusion of prosperity. It was an illusion because the borrowed money was never going to be repaid, something that should have been, and probably was, obvious to the bankers and Wall Street hucksters that ran the scam. Collapse was inevitable.

In any case, there’s no reason to bemoan the fact that mortgage refinancing is not leading us toward a recovery, because any such recovery would merely lead us into yet another, and probably bigger, bust.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Am I becoming a curmudgeon? (with pictures)

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Am I unreasonable? Don’t answer that. Rather, consider this one case.

My wife and I are up here in Ogunquit, Maine, having dropped a pretty penny to stay at a glorified motel with beachfront rooms. Here, as proof, is a picture of the sun rising over the Atlantic, this very morning, taken from right in front of our room.


This week is some sort of special week here in Oqunquit, and as part of the festivities they held a “lobster dash”; a five mile race up the beach and back, which started at 8:00 AM in the morning, the timing dictated, I assume, by the tide, which was very low at that point. Now, I have nothing against runners, I actually ran cross country in college and was reasonably good, but I couldn’t stand the pain so went back to swimming, and was unreasonably bad, but for some reason enjoyed it.

But I digress.

At 7:40 in the morning, or thereabouts, we were treated to the amplified strains of the Star Spangled Banner, apparently marking the beginning of the race. The speakers were located more than a quarter mile from our room, but no matter, the sound was as clear as a bell and incredibly loud. Apparently, this being 9-11 and all, one playing of the world’s most unsingable song was not sufficient; they played it again about 10 minutes later. Then, they began playing music, loudly and incessantly. The only people not subjected to it were the actual runners who were, presumably, out of earshot once they ran a mile or two, although, to be fair, it may have been loud enough for them to hear the whole time.

After about half an hour my wife and I decided to complain. We didn’t expect to get satisfaction, but figured we would feel a little better for venting. I suggested to the fellow in charge that he was imposing a bit on people who had every reason to expect to enjoy the pleasures of the calming ocean noises, for which they had paid dearly, rather than loud blaring music. I also pointed out that the music, consisting of third rate country, sucked, which added insult to injury. My wife pointed out that she had been trying to sleep. He pointed out that they only did this once a year, which we didn’t feel was a particularly cogent argument, since we only come once a year. As I said, we didn’t expect satisfaction, but by some miracle, they did turn off the music, from which, along with other indications, we concluded that there were other curmudgeons who resented having their vacations ruined.

Hence my question, was I (or were we) unreasonable, or do people have the god given right to blast loud music at everyone else anytime they desire, which does seem to have become a custom in this country. Is there a time and place for everything, or is every time and place for anything?

Here are some participants in the race. By the way, the winner came in suspiciously far ahead of everyone else. He was either a world class runner or a male Rosie Ruiz.


Digressing further, a few more pictures. Once the race was over, the kite fliers took over. Apparently, they had no need for musical accompaniment.


We took a cruise to the Cape Neddick Lighthouse in the afternoon. If all of the pictures every taken of this Lighthouse (purportedly the most photographed in the world) were stacked on top of one another, the stack would certainly fall over. But if it didn’t fall over, it would reach the moon or some other improbable height. But that didn’t stop me from adding to the pile, at least metaphorically, since my pictures were composed of pixels.


The cruise we took left from Perkins Cove, went to the lighthouse, and returned. The coast of Maine between those two points is littered with houses that are incomprehensibly large. If proof were needed that we are in another gilded age, that stretch of coastline would be Exhibit 1. I don’t know what people do with houses as long as a football field. This is an example of a medium sized cottage. Had I been thinking of blogging about this subject I would have gotten some shots of the big houses.


We really do need to start taxing these people like we did in the fifties. So many of our problems would dissolve.

Thus endeth this rant, which I freely admit is without structure or theme. But I’m on vacation, even if it is only a mini-vacation, so I do not feel compelled to maintain my usual standards, as low as they may be.

Filed in Rants | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music-Is this a repeat?

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Have I done this one before? I’m too lazy to check it out. Of all the one hit wonders from the sixties, Iron Butterfly may have been the wonderest of them all. You had to be there, I guess, but who can forget In a Gadda da Vida?

Amazingly, it appears, via youtube, that those guys are still out there, still singing that song.

In answer to my query about who can forget the song, apparently the writers of the Simpsons are among the group that can’t. This little bit is hilarious:



Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Obama continues Bush’s assault on the law

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

The Constitution really is on life support.

Citing the Obama administration’s evocation of the state secrets privilege, a divided federal appeals court agreed Wednesday to toss a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary accused of helping the CIA transport detainees to secret foreign prisons where they allegedly were tortured.

Ruling 6-5, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was bound by a 1953 Supreme Court precedent requiring judges to dismiss cases if litigating them could expose government secrets and imperil national security.

“This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security,” Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the majority. “Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.

“On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s admonition that ‘even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake,’” Fisher continued.

The honorable judge doth protest too much, methinks. In fact, the States Secret Privilege was first adopted in a case in which the United States government committed a blatant fraud on the court, and it has been successfully employed for just that purpose ever since. It may be a “rare” case in which it is raised, but it is an even rarer case where, once raised, the claim is seriously examined. It’s hard to believe that any judge really believes that there are state secrets involved in these cases; the privilege is raised for the purpose of avoiding responsibility and publicity. As in the case above, the government’s real motivations are always painfully obvious.

It’s truly depressing that the Obama administration has utilized these doctrines, though I suppose one could argue that Justice Department lawyers are only taking advantage of a legal principle that a misguided Supreme Court established. It is expecting too much, I suppose, to hope that Obama would break the mold, take the long view, and attempt to preserve a republican form of government.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Yet another petition

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

The Connecticut Democratic Committee has started a website (For all of you who have been frustrated by their official website, this is not a joke) taking aim at Linda McMahon’s bulk mailings, which have apparently been inundating mailboxes throughout the state. I say apparently, because my wife and I appear to have been exempted. We have gotten exactly one, and that was a while ago.

There’s a petition to sign, and I guess it wouldn’t hurt to sign it, so go to the link, sign, and watch the video.

I don’t know if this is an internet only campaign, in which case it’s probably just a device to build a mailing list. I refuse to believe that anyone who isn’t already committed to voting for Blumenthal would visit the site. But if they run the video on television it might actually do some good. Some people need to have irritating things pointed out before they even realize they’re irritating.

If she does the same thing with robocalls she may find that she has spent herself to defeat. Junk mail is commonplace, but no one whose ever been interrupted from a meal, or from doing something they consider more important than listening to a tape, needs to be told that they’re irritated. It’s the first thing that comes to mind. Blumenthal might consider pledging to leave our phones alone; he might gain a lot of votes that way.

Filed in Linda McMahon, Local issues | | Comments (0)

Stupid or uninformed?

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Currently David Vitter, a/k/a Diaper Man, is leading his Democratic opponent in the Louisiana Senate Race. One would think that a family values guy who frequents prostitutes would be having a tough go of it, but apparently his criminal activity hasn’t made much of a dent, either on the law enforcement community or with the voters.

The Louisiana Democrats would like to change that, at least as far as the voters are concerned:

In a bid to raise awareness of David Vitter’s ethical scandals, Louisiana Democrats are raising money to run a TV ad recreating an encounter Vitter had with a prostitute.

“We need to get Forgotten Crimes on television in Louisiana,” reads a fundraising letter the LA-Dems sent to supporters this morning. “A recent independent poll found that an astonishing number of likely voters in Louisiana are unaware that David Vitter admitted breaking the law but was never held accountable.”

One would think that the Louisiana media would not allow the public to forget the incident, not to mention that one would expect that the public would have been adequately informed in the first place. If the Louisiana public is indeed as unaware as the quote suggests, then the media is incompetent, or the people are unbelievably stupid. Given that we are talking about the American South, either option is a distinct possibility.

By the way, the video is quite good, and I think it approaches the issue from the right angle, making the point that Vitter is getting away with a crime because he has friends in high places. You can view it at the link above.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)