Skip to content

Save the date

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.


Pundits agree: Bring Back Stupid

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.


Probably a meaningless observation

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.


Rational decision makers

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.


America for the Americans

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


Escalation of committment

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.


Utopia East-even further East, that is

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.


It was 40 years ago today

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.


Friday Night Music-James Brown

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.


Drawing lines

The Catholic Church would have us believe that it simply cannot support any health care bill that might result in a single person getting an abortion, no matter how removed the cause might be from the effect. It’s a matter of principle, don’t you see. Just as millions of Africans must die for lack of a condom, thousands of Americans must die for lack of health care, rather than risk the immortal soul of the dying African, the dying American, or aborted embryo. It just won’t do to have flexible principles, at least it won’t do if you think you have a chance of “winning” by achieving the greater good for the lesser number.

But if you don’t? Well, apparently that’s when you can afford to be flexible. In fact, that’s when you keep your mouth shut. The last I looked, birth control was as much of a sin as abortion, (mortal, both. See some of my previous writings in which I expound on the level of sin) It stands to reason, doesn’t it, that the church should be insisting that any health plan that provides birth control coverage should also be expelled from the government exchanges. Yet we’ve heard nothing about that, since that’s a bridge too far. Holy Mother is perfectly willing to look the other way if another of its infallible pronouncements is transgressed, since outlawing birth control pills strikes a little too close to the center of middle America, not to mention the center of the homes of most cafeteria Catholics. Better to maintain a discrete silence on that issue.

This is nothing new for the Church, of course. Here’s an interesting bit of trivia: Did you know that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty? When was the last time you heard about a Catholic Bishop denying communion to a pro-death politician? The Church also opposed the Iraq War, believe it or not, but we don’t see them lobbing grenades at the war mongers that brought us that war. Seems that the farther “life” is from being truly human, the more the Church cares about it.

Meanwhile, the Church is threatening to pull its charitable organizations out of D.C. if the District sanctions gay marriages. The pretext is that the church is frightened to death that it will have to extend benefits to same sex couples. Looks like the New Testament needs a re-write. How about:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me, unless of course, you would have had to grant benefits to same sex couples, in which case, you took a pass.

Just wondering, but how many openly gay people does the Church employ? I’m not talking about the priests of course.