We may have taken a shellacking (nationally) in November, but our spirits remain high here in New London County, as this picture from our last Drinking Liberally meeting demonstrates. This was our first meeting at Hanafin’s, since the Bulkeley House may or may not be permanently closed, though it was certainly closed this past Thursday.
This post was somewhat delayed, but better late than never, I guess.
A belated tribute to the late Captain Beefheart. I chose this video because of the high audio quality. You can just zip through the two British guys at the beginning.
What do my sons and I have in common besides our last names? You may well ask, though you probably have not. Well, we’re all bloggers now.
You can catch my son Alan’s blog at the Boston Globe’s website, where he is one of a group of bloggers at The Angle, a new opinion blog at the Globe. I heartily recommend that you add it to your RSS feeds, “like” it on Facebook, email its articles and bestow on it whatever other signs of internet approbation you can devise.
Meanwhile, my son Peter’s group blog, PhD Octopus, has won the prestigious (if I say it’s prestigious, it’s prestigious, at least on this blog) Cliopatra award from the History News Network (unaffiliated, I believe, hope and pray, with the History Channel) for best new blog:
Edgy and substantive, this lively production by five Ph.D. students covers historical theory, public policy in historical context, political art and music, sport history, and just about anything else that they think is worth sustained attention. Contributor “Luce” wrote recently, “I think the posts in this blog are enough to justify the historian’s use of the past to look with fresh and more critical eyes at the present.” But Ph.D. Octopus is much more than commentary: the history is nuanced and the writing leavened by senses of wonder and humor in roughly equal measures.
Pretty good, huh? And this despite the fact that he still starts some of his sentences with “anyways”
Anyways, that makes three, including this backwater blog. But while I may not be writing for a great newspaper, or winning awards, I can lay claim to the longest running blog in the family, a sign of either great endurance or even greater stupidity, if not both in equal measure.
I should add that my nephew Roy, also has a blog that is apparently highly thought of in the computer gaming community. I can’t comment on the substance, since it’s terra incognito to me, but his writing style is lively and fun.
Are the criminals at Goldman Sachs at it again?
Here, we find that a gold-plated division at Goldman, whose investors appear to be made up in large part of Goldman insiders, passed on the very Facebook deal that Goldman is now peddling to outsiders.
Here, we find that the Facebook deal is structured in a way to allow Goldman to peddle Facebook shares to outside investors without having to provide them the type of information that they would be required to provide if the stock were issued publicly. They are, unless I am mistaken, essentially peddling an Initial Public Offering while deleting the public part.
After news broke of the investment by Goldman Sachs in the social networking site Facebook, a harsh spotlight was cast on a nearly 50-year-old law that limits the number of shareholders in a private company.
In 1964, regulators started requiring companies with more than 499 shareholders to publicly report their financial results. It is a rule that has been debated from the outset — and the issues raised now are the same ones raised then.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the frenzied buying and selling of Facebook shares and other private technology companies in the secondary market.
To some, the structure of the Goldman deal merely looks like a way to circumvent the law. Through a special purpose vehicle, the firm could potentially pool money from thousands of wealthy clients and still be considered one investor because the entity would be managed by Goldman.
Once again, Goldman has apparently created another heads it wins, tails the investors lose situation. Ultimately, it would appear, Goldman will not truly invest any of its own money in Facebook, though it clearly stands to gain big time if the stock price goes up, just as it stands to gain big time if the investment tanks, because it is making a huge profit on the sale of what is, in all but name, stock.
In this particular instance we can’t feel too sorry for the gullible folks who are bidding this “stock” up, and, after all, it might ultimately prove to be a good investment. But we should be just a bit wary about letting Goldman break the law again in order to create money for itself out of thin air. Like the last time, it will come to no good for the rest of us, while if history repeats itself, as no doubt it will, Goldman emerges unscathed.
Urgent Notice to all SE Connecticut Liberal Drinkers. We’ve been trying to get the word out that the location for our next meeting has changed to Hanafin’s, at 312 State Street. The Bulkeley House has closed, either permanently or temporarily.
On the plus side, there will be a much better selection of beer. On the minus, we’ll miss Marilla, the super waitress at the Bulkeley House.
This, by the way, will be the beginning of our fourth year, our first meeting having taken place in January of 2008. Amazing that we’ve hung on so long and our numbers have grown a bit.
Walter Mondale has weighed in on the pages of the Times (for future reference, and in response to a commenter, any reference herein to the Times, is implicitly a reference to the grey lady) in support of filibuster reform. My wife tells me that the twittersphere (or the portion thereof that she inhabits) is alive with reports of other print media weighing in on the need for reform. Good, for Mondale, except, as with all Democrats lately, he signals a willingness to accept eventual defeat:
Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency — like eliminating the secret “holds” that allow senators to block debate anonymously.
If memory serves, we now have 54 votes in the Senate, and that includes Ben Nelson and Joe Liberman, so the reform he is suggesting would, in the main, leave us precisely where we are now, as you can bet your bottom dollar they will never vote to make these guys actually miss dinner.
How about majority rule, as they practice in every other functioning legislative body in the world? If you want to preserve the right to extend debate, provide for a series of cloture votes, each one of which requires fewer votes, until only a majority is needed. If the right to debate were really at stake, a provision like that should suffice.
Speaking of the filibuster, I would submit that Joe Biden has the power to end it at any time, with the support of the core Democrats. The Vice President has two constitutional functions. He presides over the Senate, and he casts tie-breaking votes. While the Senate has the power to make its own rules, it does not have the power to either remove him as the presiding officer or take away his tie-breaking vote. But if, as Harry Reid has said, “everyone knows it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate”, then the Senate has effectively and unconstitutionally transgressed on his constitutional powers, since a meaningful tie vote becomes impossible. The framers, who we all worship, actually intended that the Vice President preside over the Senate. Just ask John Adams, or consult his diary in any event. That means he makes rulings. All he needs is one Senator to make a point of order challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster and, as presiding officer, he can rule it unconstitutional. The framers, by the way, also expected that the majority would rule, else there would have been no reason to provide for a tie-breaker.
Today ‘s New London Day opines that we should “Stop the Politics” when it comes to the issue of end of life counseling, which Republicans transmogrified into “death panels” during the health care debate. I agree entirely. It’s good to see the Day take such a position, couched as it is with proper obeisance to the right wingers before whom its editorial board trembles.
But, what’s this. Right below the editorial is an otherwise incoherent editorial cartoon that reinforces the “death panel” meme. A bit like someone condemning arsonists while adding fuel to one of their fires.
The following post has a bit of history to it. A person quite near and dear to me has suggested that I have, of late, become somewhat negative in my attitude toward just about everything. I insist that I am merely stating the facts and responding to reality, but she insists that I am far too much of a glass half empty type of guy. Thus, this post, which has gone through two major editions, the second positing a glass literally brimming over. I told her to take her pick, and she suggested I post them both. I have therefore decided to merge them, and give my readers their choice of which set of predictions seems most probable to come to fruition. Pardon the repetition, but that is just an artifact of the piece’s evolution. I will, by the way, be checking myself, and should both this blog and this writer still exist on December 31 of 2011, I will duly report the results.
Post One: The Pessimist
Chris Hayes recently suggested, via Twitter, that we bloggers write year end posts listing the things we were wrong about in the past year. This would be a salutary exercise, I admit, but one I decline to undertake, for a number of very good reasons. First, it would require me to re-read my posts from last year, a form of torture I would not wish on anyone, even myself. (Being lazy doesn’t help either.)Second, the post would go on far too long. Third…well, there must be a third.
I have therefore decided to follow Hayes’ advice next year, with a caveat. This post will contain my predictions for the coming year. Next year, if this blog survives, I will check on my prognostications, and duly acknowledge whatever errors I may make. I sincerely hope that I make quite a few, since the future doesn’t look good, so far as I can see.
Let’s start with local stuff:
1. The Connecticut legislature will suddenly discover that it has the ability to buck the governor, and will do so whenever Malloy wants to do anything that is in the long term best interests of the state.
Okay, that’s it. My interest in state politics, never very high, has now waned. Now, on to the nation at large.
1. The United States Senate will make a gesture toward reforming its rules, but will do nothing meaningful. To the extent anything meaningful is proposed, it will be defeated in response to cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them (and didn’t because they were intimidated).
2. Republicans will make unreasonable demands in exchange for increasing the debt limit, most likely cuts in programs such as Medicaid. Unlike Clinton, Obama will be unable or unwilling to make the Republicans look like petty obstructionists bent on damaging the middle class. The Republicans will get what they want, with a fig leaf for Obama, who will proclaim that the deal was great for the country, thus undercutting any Democrat who comes out against it. Obama will earn beltway credibility for “bi-partisanship”. The deal will contain the seeds of yet another such “crisis”. Pundits on the left will therefore warn that we are being set up for another betrayal, but they will be ignored.
3. Obama will propose cuts to social security. In this context, the term “cut” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, direct cuts in present benefits, raising the retirement age, or changing the way benefit amounts are determined so that, over time, the real value of benefits declines. Republicans will go along with his suggestions, and then successfully accuse Democrats of trying to destroy Social Security. Economists who know what they are talking about will point out that there is no economic need to cut Social Security, and that lifting the payroll tax limit, a relatively painless step, would assure benefits far into the future (assuming, of course, that we avoid economic or environmental collapse). These economists will be ignored, due to the fact that they have been right about economic issues in the past, thus disqualifying them from any participation in the national discourse.
4. Republicans will demand cuts in all manner of public programs (over and above those they extort in exchange for increasing the debt limit). They will do so on the grounds that the deficit is out of control. Many Democrats will join the chorus. No one within the Beltway will note that the programs being attacked involve sums that are insignificant in comparison to the amount given to the rich by way of the tax cuts the Republicans extorted in 2010.
5. The media will continue to portray the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility.
6. We will continue mired in Afghanistan. The Republicans will hold war funding hostage to some horrible demand. No one will accuse them of not supporting the troops, and they will continue to be acknowledged to be the stronger party when it comes to foreign policy and “fighting terrorism”, the massive evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. By the way, they will get whatever they are demanding.
7. Congress will do nothing about global warming. In fact, the entire country will continue to pretend that nothing is happening, even while we suffer through one of the hottest summers on record.
8. China will open up an even bigger lead in green technology.
9. Unemployment will remain high. Republicans will blame Obama, while continuing to prevent him from doing anything about it.
Alright, I know what you’re thinking. These are all slam dunks. There’s not a chance in the world I could be wrong on any of these. Well, one can hope, can’t one, and is it my fault that 2011 comes with its history pre-written?
Okay, I’ll go out on a limb. This is one I’m not totally sure about:
Joe Liberman will announce he will run as an Independent, finally giving us liberals something to smile about. National Democrats will come to terms with the fact that one good vote is not enough to restore Liberman to favor and that the people of Connecticut are ready to kick him out of the club, and that they don’t really care what the Beltway crowd thinks.
Okay, now for the optimistic predictions, shorn of the introductory paragraphs, which remained the same in both incarnations.
Let’s start with local stuff:
1. The Connecticut legislature will continue to cave to the governor, thus allowing Malloy to effectively govern. At no time will the legislative leadership frustrate his initiatives due to petty intra-party strife.
Okay, that’s it. Once again, I grow bored. Lets get on to the nation at large.
1. Immediately after reconvening, The United States Senate, under the energized leadership of Harry Reid, will completely reform its rules. No longer will Tom Coburn get to hold up legislation forever. No longer will a minority be able to impose its will on the majority. While it is true that no meaningful legislation will pass the House, at least Obama will be able to get his appointees confirmed. To the surprise of everyone, Senate Democrats will totally ignore the cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them.
2. Republicans will make unreasonable demands in exchange for increasing the debt limit, most likely cuts in programs such as Medicaid. Obama will stand firm, and like Bill Clinton before him, make the Republican leadership objects of ridicule. Obama will earn beltway credibility for “standing up to the Republicans”. Not only will the Republicans back down, but they will agree not to engage in obstructionist tactics in the future.
3. Obama will strongly defend Social Security and expose the Republican disinformation campaign for what it is. Like Clinton, who got a minimum wage increase through a Republican Congress, he will manipulate the Republicans into voting to abolish the ceiling on the payroll tax, thereby solving Social Security’s out year problems.
4. Republicans will demand cuts in all manner of public programs (over and above those they attempt to extort in exchange for increasing the debt limit). They will do so on the grounds that the deficit is out of control. Not a single Democrat will join them. The entire Beltway pundit class will express disgust and dismay that the programs being attacked involve sums that are insignificant in comparison to the amount given to the rich by way of the tax cuts the Republicans extorted this year. Exposed for what they are, the Republicans will back down.
5. The media will stop portraying the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility.
6. We will get out of Afghanistan. The Republicans will attempt to hold the necessary funding hostage to some horrible demand. Everyone will accuse them of not supporting the troops and they will forever lose their reputation as the stronger party when it comes to foreign policy and “fighting terrorism”. In the face of massive outrage, particularly from the media, they will back down and fund the withdrawal.
7. Congress will take meaningful and effective action to combat global warming. The entire country will join the rest of the civilized world and stop pretending that nothing is happening. While next summer will be the hottest on record, it will represent the peak of the problem, as the U.S. leads the world toward a cooler tomorrow.
8. The U.S. will overtake China in green technology.
9. Unemployment will remain high. Republicans will blame Obama, while continuing to prevent him from doing anything about it, but the nation will see through the pretense, and the Republicans’ approval will plummet, with all polls showing them set to be massively “refudiated” at the polls in 2012.
10. Joe Lieberman will announce he will run as an Independent, finally giving us liberals something to smile about. National Democrats will come to terms with the fact that one good vote is not enough to restore Liberman to favor, that the people of Connecticut are ready to kick him out of the club, and that they don’t really care what the Beltway crowd thinks.
So, it’s going to be a wonderful year. I can’t see how I could be wrong on any of these, providing, of course, that there is a seismic shift in American discourse, or our brains are taken over by some benevolent alien race (I have been watching too much Dr. Who – see below).
To each of these posts I appended some apolitical predictions which were more or less the same. You might quibble with some of my political predictions, but I’d bet real money on these:
1. The Ipad will be updated, and I will find a reason why I absolutely need one, but Lon Seidman will get one first.
2. Lindsey Lohan, whoever she may be, will continue to self destruct, but people will cease to care, as some other celebrity will blaze new trails of tabloid documented self destruction.
3. I will work my way through all of this century’s episodes of Dr. Who.
4. The entire world will continue to marvel at how much all of our lives have changed now that you can download Beatles songs from Itunes.
5. The Red Sox will have a good year. And in the end, isn’t any year a good year in which Red Sox fans can chant “Yankees Suck” with full throated enthusiasm and some measure of truth?
So that’s it. Next year, I’m bound to score in the 90th percentile on one of these sets of predictions. Anyone care to place bets on which one?
There’s a lot of Christmas Music out there, and by the time Christmas actually comes around you get nauseous whenever the stuff is inflicted on you.
New Years, or more to the point, New Year’s Eve is a different story. The Music is pretty thin on the ground once you get past Auld Lang Syne, unless you want to branch into classical and play some cuts from the Fledermaus or the Blue Danube. The alternative is to play something by someone who died in the waning year, but that can be a bit of a downer, so I’m leaving Captain Beefheart until next week. (By the way, any Beefheart fans out there? Suggestions for best songs welcome.)
In any event, I have chosen a third way, a song that could at least be considered suggestive of New Years. After all, it’s the night that everyone else goes to parties, particularly the folks in high hats and Arrow collars. This being the year when the rich have really established their dominance, it seems only fitting that we leave it with a paean to their predecessors of the last Depression.
Fred Astaire Puttin’ on the Ritz.
Today’s Times has a hit piece on Lanny Davis (Lobbyist’s Client List Puts Him on the Defensive) , the lawyer turned lobbyist who helped defend Bill Clinton during the latter’s impeachment. The article is reprinted in the Day, and, I imagine, in papers throughout the country.
Now I have no brief for Davis or the squalid clients he represents. But he is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of Washington lobbyists that represent reprehensible people or corporations. So, why Davis and only Davis?
Despite the article’s title, which implies that Davis is being attacked on multiple fronts, there is nothing concrete in the text that proves that he is “suddenly scrambling to defend himself” from anyone but the Times. Whose agenda are they pushing?
The only person quoted by name (besides an administration official who takes issue with Davis’ position on behalf of an African dictator) is Meredith McGehee, a lobbyist for the California WIC Association, who was trying to prevent one of Davis’ clients from adding certain additives to baby formula. No doubt she is doing good work, but in Washington that is usually a reason to ignore someone. In any event, on that particular issue, as the article concedes, the jury appears to be out as to whether Davis’ client is right or wrong.
Besides that one quote, we have this:
Many lobbying firms have clients with checkered records. Indeed, those are the people who need help the most in Washington. But many activists — and even some government officials — said the list of clients in Mr. Davis’s firm stood out.
Besides McGehee, and the government official to whom I alluded, the activists go unnamed, as do the other government officials. And again, since when do the views of “activists” mean anything to the Times? Half a million of them can show up in Washington in support of progressive causes without rating a mention. Additionally, the article fails to establish that, in fact, Davis’ client list does stand out. The fact that “some people” are making that statement (if, in fact, the allegation is being made on the widespread basis the Times implies) does not make it so. Who knows how many Washington lobbyists are feeling aggrieved today, their pride wounded by the claim that Davis’ client list is more vile than their own.
The article is oddly reminiscent of the hit piece on Blumenthal, in which the Times alleged that Blumenthal had constructed a personal narrative with his Vietnam service at the center. One senses some presence lurking in the background. In the case of Blumenthal we immediately knew who it was, since Linda’s folks, the amateurs that they were, immediately took credit. Presumably whoever has it in for Davis will remain behind the scenes. At least in the Blumenthal case there was a context: he was running for the Senate. Davis has not been in the news, and the issue of baby formula additives has not been front and center. There is no context to this article. Yesterday Davis plied his sordid trade in relative anonymity, today we find that he is under attack from multiple unnamed sources and that he has been forced to “defend himself”.
Davis calls himself a Democrat, and perhaps that’s his unforgivable sin. If this article is followed up by similar pieces about Republican lobbyists one might draw a different conclusion, but perhaps the Times would take the position that it is entirely natural, and therefore not newsworthy, that Republicans advocate for reprehensible positions.
