Skip to content

The choice

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Having trouble making up your mind between Obama and Clinton? Good reading at the New Yorker. Lot’s of arguments, pro and con for each. Food for thought, etc. I’ve decided to vote for Edwards, but I’m still wrestling with the Obama/Clinton choice because it does look like they’ll be the finalists. This article helps, though I still can’t make up my mind between them.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

Who could ever have predicted?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

We were cleaning up here at home recently, and I came across an old printout of an article from the Onion, to which I’ve referred before. It brought to mind a recent post about all those folks who keep telling us that nobody could have predicted this or that catastrophe. This article, entitled Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’ shows how easy it sometimes is to predict catastrophe. The article was published three day’s before Bush’s first inauguration. It’s important to remember that lots of us, like the folks at the Onion, saw all this coming:

Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.”

…

“My fellow Americans,” Bush said, “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”

Bush swore to do “everything in [his] power” to undo the damage wrought by Clinton’s two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

“You better believe we’re going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,” said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. “Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?”

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

…

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge’s coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has “extensive experience” fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

…

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

“Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close,” House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. “Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton’s America.”

…

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

“We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two,” Bush said. “Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it.”

If Bush hasn’t achieved all the goals he announced in the Onion, it’s not for lack of trying, and he’s still got one year to go.

Filed in Bush | | Comments (0)

Serious news aversion

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

From this morning’s Times:

The ousted editor of The Los Angeles Times on Monday offered a scathing critique of the newspaper industry and specifically his longtime employer, the Tribune Company, arguing that cost cuts, a lack of investment and an aversion to serious news was damaging the business.

(Emphasis added)

Could this be? Could the Tribune Company be averse to serious news. It hardly seems possible, does it. Let’s take a little unscientific survey.

The Front Page story in this morning’s Times. World Markets Plunge on Fears of U.S. Slowdown.

The fact that we’re heading toward world wide economic disaster does seem like serious news, doesn’t it?

The Front Page story in this morning’s Day: Global Markets Still Need Some Help

Why it’s the same story. And why not, since by anyone’s measure it’s phenomenally important. Weird angle (“Ha Ha, world. If we screw up here we can still take you all down!), but nonetheless, serious news.

Now, how about the Courant, our local Tribune newspaper. Surely the Courant, the flagship Connecticut newspaper, will make mention of the looming economic disaster, will it not? Let’s see. Top story: “Cheshire Dispatch Log Released”. Why, it’s only the 500th story about a freak crime that is supposed to have us all scared by the rash of home invasions, the number of which remains stalled at one. It must be somewhere, though. Let’s see, also on the front page: College Price Cuts Unusual. Hmmm, well there’s one more. Let’s see: Get Out of Our Town, a story about Suffield’s opposition to a biodiesel plant.

Wait, here it is, on the lower right hand side of the front page, in a tiny box: a one sentence teaser directing us to page A3. There it is, proof positive that the Tribune Company is not averse to serious news. It just knows how to prioritize.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Reagan, yet again

Monday, January 21, 2008

Lot’s of new developments on the Reagan front. Seems that Krugman doesn’t like Obama’s implied praise for Reagan either, for a reason similar to that offered by other commentators: that it reinforces a right wing narrative that we should be attacking.

Meanwhile, despite Tim Russert’s spin, Hillary Clinton does not follow Obama down that path, though she does say that she admires Reagan’s communications skills.

I have never quite understood Reagan’s moniker as the “Great Communicator”. I was there during that time period, and my recollection is that he successfully reinforced the beliefs of the believers, repelled his opponents, enchanted the media (suckers even then), and swayed the undecided in pretty much the same way presidents before him were able to do. No one ever called Nixon the Great Communicator, but he was able to rally people behind his war just as effectively as Reagan was able to rally them behind his voodoo economics. And remember, it’s never very hard to talk people into thinking that tax cuts are a good idea. Here’s Lou Cannon, the Reagan expert, on why Reagan was the great communicator:

Reagan became the great communicator because he stood for something. In 1980, when Reagan ran for president, he talked more about issues than any presidential candidate had in years. He talked about building up the defense budget, cutting taxes and balancing the budget. Former House member John Anderson (an independent presidential candidate that year) said the only way you can do the three of them was with mirrors. But Reagan did two of the three. So he talked about substance. But he kept his message basic and simple and on mainstream American concerns.

The first sentence is meaningless. The second sentence is a blatant lie. The rest could apply to any lying Republican politician. (I like the part of achieving two of his three goals. Obviously Anderson was right. Reagan began our descent into national bankruptcy. It’s not like baseball: two out of three equals failure.) What politician does not keep his or her message basic and simple and on mainstream American concerns?

Reagan was an actor, and could lie and mislead with conviction. He was singularly inept at press conferences, since he rarely knew what he was talking about. During his debates with Mondale he showed signs of the senility that became full blown only in the latter years of his presidency. His myth is strong in Washington circles and among the clueless Republican faithful. Had he really connected he would be more widely revered, but despite their claims to that effect, he is not. His myth is perpetuated because he’s the only Republican president since Eisenhower that didn’t leave office an object of derision, or universally loathed, or both.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

Another cost of war

Sunday, January 20, 2008

According to a new report from the Pentagaon “1 in 5 American servicemen and women who have been in Iraq are coming back with brain injuries.”. The same report says that “17 percent of the soldiers returning to war could have a traumatic brain injury”. Presumably, the soldiers returning with TBI run a substantial risk of having their injuries exacerbated by further service.

Not every traumatic brain injury is totally disabling, but many are, or at least make it very difficult for the victim to function. I have had a number of disability clients with TBI, and I have seen a wide range of effects, many of which can be pretty subtle. Expect the Department of Veterans Affairs to turn down a lot of these vets when they apply for service related disability ratings.

Until this past June, it was practically impossible for a person applying for veterans benefits to get legal counsel at the first stages of the process. That’s often where it’s most important, because the later stages of the process rely heavily on the record that is built at the first stage. The reason it was impossible to get counsel in the first stage is that it was illegal to charge a fee for representation at that stage. Prior to that, there was a $10.00 fee cap (you read that right) for representation at all stages. I learn from the internet today that Congress finally changed the system to make it more like the Social Security system, which allows a claimant legal counsel at all stages and also allows a claimant to authorize direct payment of a statutorily regulated fee to his or her attorney.

A lot of vets who apply for veteran’s benefits also apply for social security disability. If the VA makes a finding that a vet is 100% disabled, that finding is not binding on social security. It would be an act of justice if that were changed. You should only have to prove your case once, it seems to me. (You couldn’t make a favorable social security ruling binding on VA because VA only takes account of service related disabilities.)

Vets can get good medical treatment from the VA, but one unfortunate side effect of that treatment is that it is often harder to get the evidence you need to support a vet’s claim for social security benefits. Social security judges depend heavily on reports from treating physicians, meaning doctors who have a lasting relationship with the patient. My experience is that it’s hard to get such reports from the VA because 1) though there may be no rigid rule against giving them, there seems to be some sort of policy discouraging them, and 2) it is often the case that the vet does not have a specific individual responsible for providing treatment (i.e., no real “treating physician”), so there is no one to ask for a report. So far I have personally been lucky with cases involving vets, but it would not be hard for any social security judge so minded to turn down a good claim and write a bullet proof decision making a successful appeal unlikely.

So among other fallout from this war, we are likely to have a huge number of individuals with brain injuries that will seriously affect their ability to function, who will likely be left to shift for themselves by the country that sent them to war for no reason.

Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Happy belated birthday to this blog

Saturday, January 19, 2008

I have now been writing this blog a little over 3 years, having started on January 15, 2005. The idea at the time was that it would be an adjunct to a newly forming chapter of DFA. That never worked out, but I soldiered on, as it helped me work through the depression of the recent election.

It seems like a long time ago. George Bush had just come out with his hubristic plan to destroy social security. It was the beginning of the end for him as a president with any base of support. It was also the beginning of an at least partial takeover of the Democratic party by the grassroots. Had it not been for us, the Democrats would have caved on Social Security. They were ready to do so until they started getting messages loud and clear from the folks back home. I firmly believe Bush would have gotten his way if we had trusted our elected representatives to do their jobs to protect Social Security. I also firmly believe that the Democratic victory in 2006 can be traced in a straight line from the grassroots refusal to allow the Democrats to cave on that issue.

Since then I must have written a couple of thousand posts. Most of the time it’s fun, but there are days that it’s hard to do, or I really have trouble thinking of things to write about. On those days, my training at Our Lady of Sorrows grammar school kicks in. When the joy of writing isn’t enough, guilt drives me forward.

On this belated birthday I want to thank those of you who stop by regularly, or even irregularly. It truly is humbling to know that there are people who take the time to read these ravings. I’m looking forward to the fourth birthday, when we will hopefully be celebrating the impending inauguration of a new Democratic president, with an enhanced majority in Congress, and a junior senator from Connecticut relegated to a legislator’s limbo. If that’s not how it turns out, then I may have no choice but to keep doing this for another four years.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (4)

Music to drink (liberally) by

Friday, January 18, 2008

The next meeting of our nascent Drinking Liberally chapter (am I using “nascent” correctly? My dictionary says “yes”, but barely, so I leave it to my resident etymologists to decide) will meet at the Ice House Pub at the Bulkeley House at 111 Bank Street in New London on February 7 at 6:30 PM. We are going to try the Bulkeley House because:

1. It’s situated in New London, and so it’s mutually inconvenient for the bulk of the people who’ve attended, most of whom were from Waterford or Groton; and

2. It has a room we can use that is separate from, but close to, the bar area. It also has more room than the Harp and Hound, where we had reached the upper limits of capacity.

We have reason to think (or hope) that we may have more participants the next time around. If we do, and if we went to the Harp and Hound, we couldn’t be accommodated.

The Bulkeley House has parking close by, in a rear parking lot a short walk from the entrance.

We expect that we’ll take a sense of the group after the next meeting and make a decision about a permanent location.

Anyone who cares to come, so long as you are liberal (or conservative and will keep your views to yourself) is invited, particularly a certain regular reader who lives in Waterford, and who I haven’t seen in too long a time. To get everyone in the mood, here’s a few songs with alcoholic themes.

The Doors, singing Whiskey Bar/Alabama Song:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbzvSYLCSo0&feature=related[/youtube]

Next, something only 60s folks will remember. I’m lifting the ban on obviously lip synched videos for this one. I was rather proud to be able to dredge it up out of memory. Mary Hopkin, discovered and initially produced by Paul McCartney, singing Those Were the Days. A bit maudlin, perhaps, but that’s often what happens when you drink too much:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KODZtjOIPg[/youtube]

Filed in Local issues, Music | | Comments (2)

Bush speaks, the market plunges

Friday, January 18, 2008

Yesterday I mentioned that my wife speculated that the market downturn may be related to foreign investors taking their money to greener pastures. Turns out that she was may have been right, at least according to Paul Krugman:

The story has played itself out time and time again over the past 30 years. Global investors, disappointed with the returns they’re getting, search for alternatives. They think they’ve found what they’re looking for in some country or other, and money rushes in.

But eventually it becomes clear that the investment opportunity wasn’t all it seemed to be, and the money rushes out again, with nasty consequences for the former financial favorite. That’s the story of multiple financial crises in Latin America and Asia. And it’s also the story of the U.S. combined housing and credit bubble. These days, we’re playing the role usually assigned to third-world economies.

Meanwhile, George Bush nipped a Wall Street rally in the bud today. After he announced his “economic plan” the market went down nearly 300 points.

Filed in Bush, Economics | | Comments (0)

Reagan redux

Friday, January 18, 2008

Now it looks like I may have retracted yesterday’s piece about Obama too soon. Turns out he did use the quoted phrases about Reagan. You can judge for yourself by watching this video clip, which unfortunately is not something I can post here.

It can certainly be argued that Obama was not endorsing Reagan, or implying that he was a good president. Nonetheless, he slipped far too easily into the standard GOP narrative about the man. I can agree that the 80s were transformative years, though I doubt Reagan would have won a state had he been forthright about his real agenda for change. He was a snake oil salesman, something he learned to do while he was working for GE and, yet again, after he took over for the old Ranger and sold 20 mule team borax on Death Valley Days.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Oooh, that hurts

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The stock market fell 300 points today. Whenever a Republican is in office I feel a secret pleasure when I hear bad economic news, since it increases the chances for removing those Republicans. Some things are more important than money, though few Republicans would agree. Oddly enough, when the Democrats are in the White House, the issue doesn’t come up, since the Dow always rises under Democrats. Funny how Wall Street never tumbled to that fact. Or could it be that they care more about a political environment in which they’re allowed to loot their corporations rather than one that enhances shareholder value?

Anyway, as I approach retirement age, I must admit that my satisfaction at the prospect of bad news for Republicans is tempered by the fact that it is also bad news for me. Between October 31st and today my 401k has lost 14% of its value. More actually, because during that time I’ve been putting money in. I understand that there’s a debate about whether we are in a recession. Seem’s like Wall Street has made up it’s mind. My wife suggests that this may be caused in part by foreign money leaving the country. I wonder if that’s true. Imagine what happens to us if they stop buying treasury notes.

In any event, I am willing to take a financial hit if it enhances our chances of getting a Democratic president and a solid and progressive Congress. I just hope that, should that happen, they’ll do something worthwhile with their power.

Filed in Economics, Politics | | Comments (1)