Skip to content

Non sequitur

Thursday, February 4, 2010

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Let Justice Thomas illustrate:

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.” (Emphasis added)


Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

A new blog on the block

Thursday, February 4, 2010

There is a new addition to my blogroll, to which I want to direct the attention of my hordes of faithful readers. It’s called WCubedBlog, the “WCubed” being derived from the fact that the three contributors all have last names beginning with “W”. It’s a very recent addition to the blogosphere.

One of them is my last born, the fruit of my loins, so to speak. All three of them are students of history, studying diligently for their advanced degrees at NYU, so they bring an interesting perspective to their writing. See if you can figure out which one’s my son.

Check it out, but make sure you come back here.

On an entirely different subject, my wife and I, along with a neighbor, are about to leave for Drinking Liberally. If you read this before 6:30, February 4th, and you are in the New London area, come join us and our very special guest, Ned Lamont, at the Bulkeley House on Bank Street.


Filed in Announcements | | Comments (1)

Reminder

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

One last reminder, that Ned Lamont will be joining us for Drinking Liberally, tomorrow at 6:30 (Ned may arrive closer to 7:00) at the Bulkeley House in New London. Come join us and meet Ned.

By the way, in response to a fellow who commented on the first announcement I made on this subject, we’d be more than happy to have Dan Malloy come join us sometime, or any of the plethora of candidates for state or national office.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Question Time

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

I’m not sure about this. In the wake of Obama’s performance last week, in which he made the Republicans look bad by being reasonable and rational, a number of people are demanding the equivalent of the British Question Time here in the U.S.

It certainly would be good to institutionalize a procedure in which the president is forced to answer substantive questions, but you have to worry that by institutionalizing it we will inevitably make it into something that last week’s event was not: a forum for both sides to posture. I am a firm believer in the ability of politicians, especially Republicans, to drain substantive content out of anything. Remember, they were sort of ambushed last week. Obama’s people asked that it be televised, and they weren’t aware of what idiots they would look like. Republicans aren’t particularly smart, but they are quite adaptable and very disciplined, so you can be sure whatever we got would not resemble rational discourse.

Still, it might still be a marginal improvement over our current discourse. I only hope if it happens that the Congressional leadership, including the minority party leadership, has to stand up and justify itself as well.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Like Children

Monday, February 1, 2010

There is a trick you can use on children, providing they’re young enough. It’s often called “reverse psychology”, and it consists of, for instance, offering an obstreperous youngster something you don’t want him to have, in the expectation that he will insist on the opposite. It’s often hard to manipulate anyone older than four with this method, but there are exceptions, and it looks like, perhaps, the minority leader of the House of Representatives might be among them:

House Minority Leader John Boehner said Sunday that defense spending should not be exempt from President Obama’s proposed spending freeze.

Now, when I find myself agreeing with John Boehner, I pinch myself. I did so this time; it hurt, and I found that I was indeed awake. I then played the scenario over in my mind. Suppose Obama had not proposed exempting defense from the freeze. What would the Republican reaction have been? Need we ask? Is it possible that Obama can get rational policy in this country simply by proposing something stupid, and then conceding to the Republicans when they reflexively propose the opposite? Certainly, at some point, they would have to figure it out, but who knows how much good could be accomplished before they do?


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Not the way I remember it

Monday, February 1, 2010

From a letter in this morning’s Day:

As nonresident taxpayers in Groton, we contact the town every fall to find out if there are any referendum items that would impact the general fund mill rate. We then make it a point to vote responsibly on the issue(s) come November.

To our surprise, we were told last fall that we are no longer eligible to vote. We contacted the mayor’s office, the Charter Revision chairman and an attorney for the town.

The answer to our query? It was an “unintended consequence of the last charter revision.”

Well, if it makes these folks feel any better, as a member of that Charter Revision Commission, I can say that, at least to my recollection, their sad plight was a fully intended consequence of the last charter revision. How sad that these folks, who live in Amelia Island, Florida, have been deprived of their right to “vote responsibly” on matters in which they have nothing but a financial stake. In this brave new world, however, they might consider going to the Supreme Court, along, perhaps, with Wal-Mart, to argue that they, along with our corporate property owners, should have the right to vote on the way in which our town is run, as I’m sure that responsible voting implies that they care, for example, that our kids have decent schools.

If it makes them feel even better, they might consider that things could be worse. My wife and I own a small piece of property in Vermont. As non-residents, our property taxes are approximately triple those we would pay were we residents. I’m not complaining. In fact, it’s something we might consider here.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Ned Lamont to join us for Drinking Liberally

Saturday, January 30, 2010

We just got word that Ned Lamont will be joining us Southeastern Connecticut Liberal Drinkers at our next get together. This is a chance for all of you folks who have thought about coming, but never quite made it, to come join us and meet the man who is the current front runner for the gubernatorial nomination and, we can only hope, the front runner to be our next governor.

Whatever your preferences for the nomination, Ned is a guy to whom we all owe a lot. He stepped up to the plate when the established politicians were too scared to do so. He exposed Lieberman for what he is, and he showed the Democrats nationwide that they could win be taking on Bush’s war, rather than running for cover. He deserves consideration now, though it’s a mystery why anyone would want what has to be a thankless job for anyone who actually tries to tackle the problems he will face as governor.

Come join us at the Bulkeley House, 6:30 pm, 111 Bank Street, New London. Mark your calendar now!

CORRECTION: D’oh! It’s hard to mark your calendar if I don’t give the date: Thursday, February 4th.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (2)

Capuano moves to muzzle the corporations

Saturday, January 30, 2010

An intrepid young reporter at the Boston Globe (who shall go unnamed, but whose last name rhymes, and more, with mine) informs us that US Representative Michael E. Capuano (who in retrospect should have been nominated for the Senate) has come up with a nifty way to all but nullify the recent court ruling handing the country over to the corporations. Taking his cue from the court’s “logic” that a corporation is merely an association of individuals, who therefore have a collective right to speak, he would require the corporation to get the consent of those individuals before it could do any speaking.

US Representative Michael E. Capuano is proposing to limit the impact of a Supreme Court decision on campaign financing by requiring companies to seek shareholder approval for most political donations.

“The money belongs to the shareholders,’’ said Capuano, a Somerville Democrat. “Let them make that decision.’’

The court’s ruling last week struck down decades-old restrictions on corporate money in politics, sparking outrage among advocates for tighter campaign finance rules and a rare rebuke of the court from President Obama during his State of the Union address. Capuano’s legislation would make it more difficult for companies to greatly expand their political activity.

The legislation would apply to any corporate donation of more than $10,000. Executives would have to convene a shareholder vote to get permission to spend such money for any political purposes. It would also require companies to report such expenditures quarterly to shareholders.

The devil is in the details in these things. The legislation must be crafted to prevent the possibility of a shareholder resolution giving the directors prospective carte blanche to spend money as they see fit. It has to require them to get authority for each and every proposed expenditure greater than $10,000.00, otherwise it is mere window dressing and a sham.

It will be interesting to see how the court would go about finding that sort of requirement unconstitutional, something it will surely want to do. Corporations are creatures of statute, and, at least up to now, the way in which they are organized and run internally are subject to statutory regulation. They are supposed to be run for the benefit of the shareholders, but to paraphrase John Yoo, that view has become somewhat quaint, given the way the profits are distributed these days. Still, in theory, a corporation is an association of stockholders, not CEOs, so it’s going to take all the originalist legal thinking Roberts can muster for him to unshackle his friends from the law Capuano is proposing.


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

Friday Night Music-John Prine

Friday, January 29, 2010

This is getting progressively more difficult, though it’s amazing how much good stuff you can dig up with roots to the bygone era in which I grew up, musically speaking (if nothing else).

If you have a smartphone, such as an Iphone, I highly recommend that you download Pandora, a free music delivery program. You can pick an artist, say Bob Dylan, and it will create a channel featuring Bob Dylan and other people who are like Bob Dylan, in some way shape or form. Given Dylan’s permutations, it’s hard to see who wouldn’t get swept in, and indeed, the selections have been pretty eclectic. That’s how I came up with tonight’s choice, both as to artist and song. Unfortunately, this is the best version I could find on youtube. The audio is not great, and it’s a bit out of sync, but what can you do?

And as a bonus, here’s Norah Jones and company doing the same song. The fellow to her right is Richard Julian, who has released at least two albums on his own, and, now that I’m reminded, I must put on my list to feature one of these weeks.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Acorn redux

Friday, January 29, 2010

The recent arrest of James O’Keefe, for “masterminding” a sixth rate break in at Mary Landrieu’s office, reminds us once again of his original claim to fame, the famous “sting” he allegedly pulled off to expose Acorn’s nefarious doings. You may recall that he and a female right winger posed as a pimp and his prostitute, he all duded out in pimp togs, seeking and getting advice on ways to carry out their business without paying taxes. Added to the mix, they allegedly got advice on how to get away with promoting the prostitution of minors.

At the time the media was taken to task for failing to expose Acorn’s failings themselves, and of course, the version of events that I’ve set forth above has become as fixed a media meme as Al Gore’s alleged claim that he invented the internet. This McClatchy article, published today, repeats the story:

O’Keefe, the Internet “journalist” who became an overnight sensation after his undercover reports revealed unethical behavior by the liberal activist group ACORN, now finds himself in the middle of his own bugging scandal.

The real media failing, as usual, was its willingness to believe a right wing lie, even one spread by a smarmy 24 year old, without bothering to look into it at all. For like the Gore meme, there is precious little truth in this one.

Turns out that O’Keefe never posed as a pimp; he posed as the boyfriend of a girl who was trying to escape her pimp. He never wore those duds during the sting, only for his star turns at Fox. Turns out also that no one ever advised the pair not to pay taxes. They were told to pay, and how to do so. You can read a full analysis here.

But, as Bob Dylan once said, now’s not the time for your tears. To get to that point, we must once again look to the Democrats, who, within days, fell all over themselves to vote for a Republican sponsored bill to deprive Acorn of all federal funding, including that already committed. (The bill, signed by profile in courage Barack Obama, has been stayed by preliminary injunction as a bill of attainder.) Did the Democrats hold hearings to hear Acorn’s side? Of course not. Why do that when you have the word of a 24 year old, costume wearing, Fox adored Republican (perhaps the lowest life form on the planet) and skillfully edited film to boot? Acorn was serving their constituency, it was registering their voters, and it was entitled at least to its day in court, but the Democrats didn’t think twice about throwing Acorn under the bus. This was a repeat of the shameful way in which the Democrats did the same thing to Moveon after the Patreaus ad, and I’m sorry to say that every single Connecticut Congressman went along with the lynching.

Well, I have to go. I have to check my email to see how many messages I got from the Democratic National Committee, or the DCCC, or the DSC, asking for my money to help them fight the Republicans.


Filed in Democrats | | Comments (1)