Skip to content

Hillary starts a conversation

Monday, April 13, 2015

When I first saw this video, I thought it was an official Hillary video:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vh858HsQlw&w=560&h=315]

But, watching it again, I see the final disclaimer. Nonetheless, it is almost inconceivable that Hillary had nothing to do with this, given the voiceover.

So, my  first reaction was that it was either the most cynical campaign commercial in history or a really great thing, given all the wonderful things that Hillary seems to be advocating here.

My problem is that, like Hillary, I’m a lawyer, and what I’m hearing is very possibly lawyer speak, which one uses when one wants to appear to have said one thing, while preserving one’s ability to deny any such thing. 

For what is Hillary promising here? Answer: a conversation.

I know that I’ve been a party to thousands of conversations in which I’ve exchanged political views with others. I am always willing to change my position should my interlocutor convince me he or she is right and I am wrong, though of course that’s never happened. The amazing thing is that the deluded people with whom I have these conversations rarely if ever change their opinions despite the unaswerable arguments that I have made. 

So, at the end of our conversation with Hillary, what will be the result. We will vote for her, of course, given the alternative. And while she converses with us many of us might become very enthusiastic and work our asses off to get her elected, just as we did for the not-so-bold Obama. But the proof of the pudding will come on January 21, 2016 when we find out whether Hillary has been at all persuaded that the future lies in boldness or with Wall Street. 

I haven’t lost hope, though that word is now highly suspect. It’s unlikely we’ll be seeing any Shepard Fairey posters featuring that word in this campaign. Maybe she’s returning to her roots. Maybe she can put all her sympathy for those poor folk on Wall Street behind her  Maybe she really will advocate for the types of things mentioned in this ad. 

Just don’t count on it.

Filed in Hillary Clinton | | Comments (0)

Cal Thomas catches us in the act

Monday, April 6, 2015

Cal Thomas has caught us out. We manipulated the Indiana Republican Party into passing a law encouraging bigotry, and then took advantage of them when they fell into our clever trap:

The uproar about Indiana’s law was political theater. It is also a trap set by the Left, which Republicans risk falling into. It works this way: Find a Republican state (Gov. Pence is a Republican and the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican); pick an issue you can twist to your political advantage — and Republicans’ disadvantage; enlist the help of a gay-friendly media; threaten a boycott of the state by prominent individuals and businesses; use this issue in the next presidential campaign to brand Republicans as racists, bigots and homophobes.

via The New London Day

We are so evil. Why would anyone seriously think that Republicans are racists, bigots, or homophobes. Most of them don’t have a racist or homophobic bone in their bodies. Just ask them, they’ll tell you. They just play racists and homophobes to please their base. It’s just politics. Cal understands this. Why don’t we liberals?

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Easter comes to Our Lady of Sorrows

Saturday, April 4, 2015

I have mentioned in the past that I learned everything one need know about religion and the Catholic Church (a redundancy, since the Catholic Church is the one true church) at Our Lady of Sorrows School grammar school in Hartford, Connecticut. This institution of lower learning is no more; there has been some progress in the past 50 or so years, but the affiliated church lives on. My wife forwarded a link to me about the church this morning:

More than a dozen parishioners from Our Lady of Sorrows Church played the roles of soldiers and Jesus disciples during their annual Stations of the Cross procession Friday. The Roman Catholic Church on New Park Ave. has been performing the ritual on Good Friday for decades.

via The Hartford Courant (Emphasis added)

Okay, first off, what bums be out about this is the fact that this event has been going on for decades, but it was not happening when I had the good fortune to spend my Sundays fantasizing about this or that while the priest droned on performing his magic tricks, not to mention part of my Fridays shepherded to the church by the nuns so I could confess my sins to what I now realize was probably a very bored priest. That decades is seriously depressing. I console myself with the thought that, at least technically, the term could refer to a mere twenty years.

Anyway, the article includes a slide show, and I have to say that the guy playing Jesus looks the part.

So, if next year you’re bored on Good Friday, take a trip to Our Lady of Sorrows Church (yes, it’s really called that) and watch Jesus trudge toward Calvary. When he’s finished, he ends up here, where he learns a valuable lesson, which I must reprise, as it is an Easter Time tradition (I’m actually a day late) here at this humble blog.

And, for your viewing enjoyment, another version. This song has staying power:

Filed in Music, Religion | | Comments (0)

Legal Acumen

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Who knows, maybe this is Steve Beshear’s way of taking a fall:

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s administration is arguing the state’s ban on same-sex marriage isn’t discriminatory because it applies to straight people, too.

“Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law,” the Democratic governor said in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on March 27.

via The Huffington Post

I like it. It’s one of those kinds of statements that immediately strikes you as making no sense at all, but it’s mind bogglingly hard to say why. A bit like grappling with Zeno’s paradox. In fact, I suggest someone go to the Supreme Court and try to re-open the Hobby Lobby case, for would not the above logic apply with equal force, to wit:

Obamacare treats the religious and non-religious the same and is facially neutral. Corporations and other employers, whether religious or non-religious, are obliged to provide insurance coverage to their employees that includes birth control, and corporations and other employers, whether religious or non-religious, cannot provide insurance that does not include birth control.

No, it’s not the same. Mine actually makes way more sense. Anyway, hats off to Beshear’s lawyers. It takes a lot of damn gall to put something like that in a brief, so give them credit for a certain form of courage. And who knows, given that they’re making the argument to people like Scalia, Thomas and Alito, that tortured logic may become the law of the land.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Student strikes, modern edition

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

We need more of this:

Calling themselves the ‘‘Corinthian 100’’ — named for the troubled Corinthian Colleges, Inc., which operated Everest College, Heald College, and WyoTech before agreeing last summer to sell or close its 100-plus campuses — about 100 current and former students are refusing to pay back their loans, according to the Debt Collective group behind the strike.

They met Tuesday with officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent government agency that has asked the courts to grant relief to Corinthian students who collectively have taken out more than $500 million in private student loans.

The Education Department is the group’s primary target, because they want the department to discharge their loans. A senior department official is scheduled to attend the meeting.

via Boston Globe

Their common complaint is that the education they got was worthless, and the Education Department had every reason to know that was so when it enabled Corinthian. How likely is it, however, that a Department headed by Arne Duncan would recognize that “for-profit educational institution” is an oxymoron.

There is an easy fix to this problem. Stop subsidizing for-profit schools. If they want to go into the business, fine. (Well, not really fine) They have no god given right to a subsidy. Unfortunately, this country doesn’t do easy fixes. They too often involve diverting the flow of money away from the pockets of the rich, and we wouldn’t want that.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Unrepresentative democracy, an American tradition

Monday, March 30, 2015

I am currently reading a biography of John Quincy Adams, by Fred Kaplan. Both of the Presidents Adams have gained in stature recently. JQ Adams, like his father, had some admirable qualities, mixed in with some faults that truly make the mind boggle. Franklin’s quote about the father seems applicable to the son. But that’s not what this post is about.

One thing Kaplan keeps returning to is something that receives far too little attention in most histories of the time: the pernicious working of the three fifths rule. It goes almost unmentioned in high school history, of course, or if it is mentioned at all it is passed off as a necessary compromise. Each slave was counted as three fifths of a person, thereby increasing the number of slave state congressmen and slave state electoral votes. Needless to say it never crossed the minds of those congressmen that they should take any note of the actual interests of these non-voting constituents. As a result, the two Adams presidents may have been the only presidents prior to Lincoln who were not creatures of the slave power in one form or another, and that includes the shame of my alma mater, Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. Had each slave counted as zero people, the slave power would have had less power, the North would have predominated politically, and, ironically, the interests of the slaves themselves would have been better represented. Whether we could have avoided civil war is another matter.

This is all history of course, except we are now in the process of reinstituting a version of the three fifths clause for the second time in our history. The first time was after the civil war, when the South gained even more political power because each former slave now counted as a full person, meaning the South got yet more representatives and electoral votes, but since blacks were not allowed to vote they still went not only unrepresented, but repressed by their nominal representatives. That sort of ended with the Voting Rights Act, but we are bringing a variant back with the various voter suppression statutes that are being passed, all of which, I predict, will withstand Supreme Court “scrutiny”. I suppose one could argue that this particular variant of the three fifths rule is not as racist as its forebears, as it sweeps up not only the minorities against whom it is primarily aimed, but some poor whites as well. Whether that’s a virtue or a vice is pretty much beside the point.

So, throughout most of our history, the equal representation that we are taught is a prerequisite to representative democracy has been a myth, and that’s before you take the equally pernicious effects of gerrymandering into account. In all that time, the beneficiaries of the various devices I’ve mentioned above were, without exception, the slave power, the racists and the rich. Nowadays, of course, the Koch corporate types benefit as well. The issue really is the defining one of our times. Unless we can stop the voter suppression movement (and it may already be too late), we will lose any legitimate claim we might have to being a functioning representative democracy. For all intents and purposes, the country will be littered with rotten boroughs, all of them in the hands of the right wing.

Filed in Dysfunction | | Comments (0)

Quid meets quo

Friday, March 27, 2015

The bankers don’t like Elizabeth Warren and they’ve met with Democratic Party officials to tell them so:

JPMorgan representatives have met Democratic Party officials to emphasize the connection between its annual contribution and the need for a friendlier attitude toward the banks, a source familiar with JPMorgan’s donations said. In past years, the bank has given its donation in one lump sum but this year has so far donated only a third of the amount, the source said.

via Reuters via Daily Kos

I don’t know what kind of response they got, but it seems passing strange that the banks could make the quid pro quo so clear and no eyebrows get raised. I always thought these folks liked to preserve the facade that when they donated money they absolutely had no expectations of getting anything in return.

It would be nice if the Democrats told the banks to pound sand, as loudly as they could. They will always get less Wall Street money than the Republicans, so why not make a virtue out of necessity? Odds are that Warren is raising more money for the Democrats than the crumbs from the Wall Street table they can expect to get. Unfortunately, odds also are that the Democratic Party officials to whom the banks have been talking will fold like a cheap suit.

Filed in Corporate Crime, Corruption, Democrats | | Comments (0)

Editor wanted

Friday, March 27, 2015

I have noted in the past that whoever writes the titles for the articles in the New London Day has a rightwing bent, as the titles often give a conservative cast to articles that turn out to not quite say what the title implies. Whoever this mystery person is (and I admit I could be imagining things. No, I’m not), he or she sort of goofed up today. Try to figure out what this means:

Royals help lay to rest comeback King Richard III

I’ve been trying to puzzle it out, but it eludes me, even after reading the article.  (I couldn’t find the article on line.) I think maybe it means that the royal family in England participated in Richard’s recent reburial, and the “comeback” refers to some historical revisionism, there being the possibility that Shakespeare’s great play did the man a disservice. If that’s what the title means, it’s odd, because the royals (at least the queen) kept her distance.

Speaking of King Richard, I’ve read stuff on both sides of the controversy (monster or not-monster?) and I’ve come to the conclusion that a skeptical agnosticism is the proper position to take. History is written by the winners, after all. 

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Saudi apologia

Monday, March 23, 2015

The New York Times has a rather remarkable story in today’s paper, telling us that Saudia Arabia’s “justice system” is not really all that bad, because some people who might otherwise get their heads or hands chopped off, don’t. Consider the case, the Times tells us, of Bandar al-Yehiya, who, Allah be praised, did not get his head chopped off after all:

Saudi Arabia’s justice system is regularly condemned by human rights groups for violating due process, lacking transparency and applying punishments like beheading and amputation. Criticism has grown as Saudi cases have made news abroad: a liberal blogger caned for criticizing religious leaders; activists jailed for advocating reform; a woman held without charge for more than two months for driving a car.

Such rulings have prompted comparisons to the Islamic State, which regularly beheads its foes and also claims to apply Shariah law.

But Mr. Yehiya was saved because of checks in the Saudi system on the use of harsh punishments. His case wound its way through a yearslong odyssey of law and tradition. Mr. Yehiya reformed in prison, sheikhs and royals appealed for his life, and he was ultimately spared by a daughter of the man he had shot dead.

Mr. Yehiya’s reprieve was the product of a justice system little understood outside the kingdom, one that is based on centuries of Islamic tradition and that prioritizes stability and the strict adherence to Islamic mores over individual rights and freedoms.

via The New York Times

The system is indeed merciful:

A Riyadh judge recalled a case of four thieves who had broken into someone’s living room and stolen the furniture, television and refrigerator. The crime met the conditions for amputation, but the judge allowed them to confess to a lesser charge and sentenced them to two years in prison and 100 lashes each.

Only a hundred? Why, they’re positively soft over there. What a kind and caring judge.

The point of the article is to favorably contrast our esteemed ally’s “justice” system with the “justice” meted out by our enemy, ISIS. The fact is, both systems are barbaric. And I fully realize that compared to most of the civilized world, we are also barbarians. You might say that American justice is to European justice what Saudi justice is to ISIS justice. The fact that we look good compared to the Saudis speaks volumes about just how bad their “justice” system is.

One must wonder about the motivations behind this article, which reads more like a PR man making the best of a bad situation than objective reporting. If the same humane system was used in, let’s say, Iran, it’s hard to believe the Times would be invoking “tradition” in order to justify it, or would be highlighting those parts of the system that somewhat mitigate its harshness, which, at least in Mr. al-Yehiya’s case may come down to something that is a universal in all societies: who you know makes a difference. The guy whose head is chopped off is the guy about whom “sheikhs and royals” remain silent. Same as it ever was.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Underestimating the criminal mind

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Gretchen Morgenstern reports in this morning’s Times about a Public Citizen’s shareholder’s proposals to hold the top executives at Citigroup at least financially responsible for their criminal activities:

.. [The proposal] would require that top executives at the company contribute a substantial portion of their compensation each year to a pool of money that would be available to pay penalties if legal violations were uncovered at the bank. To ensure that the money would be available for a long enough period — investigations into wrongdoing take years to develop — the proposal would require that the executives keep their pay in the pool for 10 years.

via The New York Times

This proposal seriously underestimates the resourcefulness of the criminal mind. Citigroup is opposing the proposal, which is non-binding in any event, but these executives are smart people, sociopaths that they may be. It won’t be long before they see it as a gift.

When someone makes a proposal like this it is always best to game it out; try to figure out how you could get around it, or, better yet, turn it to your advantage.

Bearing in mind that their Boards of Directors are stacked with their fellow criminals, who are always willing to enable them, what are they likely to do? Each and every one of those directors would be easily convinced that withholding a dime in salary from their poor, misunderstood compadres would be terribly unfair, and that it is therefore only fair for the corporation itself to pick up the tab for the sequestered payments. The obvious solution is to simply increase the executive pay in an amount equal to the sequester. That way, if their criminal activity is uncovered, they basically lose nothing, while if they manage to escape detection, they get the money back, which essentially turns it into a bonus for a criminal job well done.

One can certainly understand the motivation behind these proposals, given the government’s decision to give these guys a “get out of even being considered for jail” card. But the fact is that so long as jail is off the table, no corporate governance rule is going to make any difference.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)