Skip to content

A Tale of Two Towns

Friday, August 7, 2009

Pity David Lattizori (well, not really) the developer who bought the Perkins Farm in Stonington. All of his plans to destroy develop the parcel have been frustrated, by the residents of the nearby Stone Ridge retirement community, which itself sits on land only recently raped by another developer. Per usual, it’s the folks who took advantage of the most recent destruction who speak out most vociferously against more of the same.

The protestors have a point, of course. We don’t need more upscale shops, or more hotels, and the “increased” tax revenues may represent a zero sum game, at best. Money spent in one place in Stonington cannot be spent elsewhere.

But Lattizori’s biggest mistake is his choice of property. He should build an unneeded hotel in Groton. Not only would the town planners do everything they could to cooperate with him, they’d throw in a tax break to sweeten the deal. And, according to precedent, he wouldn’t have to be in a hurry about it, because he could wait until after he builds it to apply for the incentive.

Actually, it will be interesting to see, should Lattizori get his zone change, whether he does apply for an incentive for a project that even he admits could not presently get financing.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

So sad to be so misunderstood

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

This morning’s Times carries a puff piece about health insurance lobbyist Karen M. Ignagni, the point person for the Insurance Industry’s drive to destroy health care reform. It seems that the misunderstood insurance companies and their lobbyists were taking a friendly approach to health care reform and are now mystified, totally mystified, at the fact that the Democrats are pointing to them as the chief villains in this many villained drama:

One of the main architects of the friendly approach, Karen M. Ignagni, the industry’s chief lobbyist, personally pledged to President Obama that insurers would not stand in the way of a sweeping overhaul this time.

For a while, it seemed to be working — until recently, when the insurance industry re-emerged as Washington’s favorite target. “Villains,” Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, called health insurers. And Mr. Obama derided the industry for pocketing “windfall profits.”

Taken aback, Ms. Ignagni, the 55-year-old chief executive of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, wondered on Tuesday why insurers were being singled out when, in her view, they had accepted that change was necessary.

Yes, it was working fine until nasty Nancy Pelosi turned on them. Of course, that disregards the fact that the insurance industry has been spending over a million dollars a day to kill the bill, that it broke its pledge to co-operate within days of making it,, that its front groups have been running misleading and deceptive ads in an attempt to engender fear about the health care proposal, and that the industry and its lobbyists are behind the supposed spontaneous demonstrations of thugs who are disrupting town hall meetings around the country, all of which events took place prior to the Democratic decision to zero in more intensely on the insurance companies.

These would all appear to be salient facts, and it would seem it would have behooved the reporter to suggest to Ms. Ignagni that they might explain the mystery she can’t seem to fathom. But, no such thing. Not a word is mentioned about what is obvious to any informed observer, and not a person is quoted in the article who has a different take on the subject.


Filed in Health Care | | Comments (1)

Don’t forget!

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The Cash for Clunkers program may be out of money, but the Bulkeley House still offers Beer for Cash, or any other alcoholic beverage of your choice. If your choice be non-alcoholic, they will take your cash and turn it into some form of liquid refreshment.

Yes, it is yet again time for that select group of liberals, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters) to gather together again and lift a glass and a fork, a knife, sandwiches, whatever, in solidarity with our liberal brethren and sisthren throughout the nation.

Are you liberal enough to make it in this select company? Come to the Bulkeley House (Bank Street, New London) at 6:30 PM on Thursday the 6th and find out.


Filed in Announcements | | Comments (0)

Birthers and “truthers”

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com draws some distinctions between the “birthers” and the “truthers”. The “truthers”, if like me you’ve never heard of them before, are people who believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney and/or the CIA knew about 9-11 before it happened. Apparently a 2007 Rasmussen poll found that 61% of Democrats “either believed that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, or weren’t certain that he didn’t.” This suggests, on its surface, that we Democrats can be as crazy as the birthers.

Unfortunately, unlike Nate (probably) I don’t have access to the poll to which he links (it costs money to actually see it), so I can’t retrieve the precise question asked, but in all probability there are good and sound reasons for that high number that don’t involve tin foil hats.

Recall that, among other things, people who read the news or don’t watch Fox knew at least one thing, that Bush had ignored a CIA briefing a month prior to 9/11 in which he was, according to Condoleeza Rice, told that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.

Now, had I been asked in 2007 if Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks I would have had to parse the question carefully in order to give a precise answer. If the question is whether Bush had precise and specific knowledge of the date and the time, then the answer (even I believe) is clearly “no”. But if the question is taken more broadly, then maybe the answer is yes. He did have advance knowledge of bin Laden’s intent to attack, which he proceeded to ignore. Unless the question was precise, it would not have been unreasonable for a person to respond in the affirmative to a question merely asking if Bush had advance knowledge of the attacks. He was warned about just such an event, and told that bin Laden intended to make such an attack. In a much broader and general way, many informed people had advance knowledge of the attack, in the sense that we had been warned by experts that such an attack was a real possibility. I have been polled on occasion, and have sometimes pushed back against the underpaid person on the other side of the line because I felt the question was vague or ambiguous. Unless this question was very precisely phrased, it is quite likely that the question many people heard was whether Bush knew that Obama intended to attack, in which case an affirmative answer was in line with historical truth.

The question posed to out the birthers does not seem to be terribly ambiguous:

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?

Although one would wish that the “or not” had been left off the end, since one could argue that the only logical answer to the question is “yes”. After all, the question can be rephrased, according to the rules of grammar as follows: Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States or do you believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. (The allowed answers were “yes”, “no” and “not sure”.) Still, I think this question is clear from the common sense perspective, so the no responses probably really represent folks who have chosen to believe a fiction for which there is no evidence.

Speaking of the lack of evidence, it has always mystified me that there has been an assumption that Obama would not have been a “natural born citizen” had he been born outside the States. I had always understood that a person born to an American mother outside the country is born a citizen. Apparently, it’s a little more complicated than that, since American law, for a reason that is unintelligible to me, punishes the child of a young American mother:

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Obama was born when his mother was 19, so she could have put in the required five years in the States, and in fact she apparently did, as she never lived in Africa, but of course, that’s precisely the point at which the birthers part company with reality.


Filed in Issues | | Comments (0)

Dodd’s Mortgage Loan

Monday, August 3, 2009

If you need any more evidence that one Merrick Alpert is in the business of pushing right wing memes against Chris Dodd, look no further than this morning’s Day, where he is quoted on Dodd’s mortgage refinance:

And among the Democrats, the senator’s upstart primary challenger, Merrick Alpert of Mystic, slammed the “sweetheart deal,” calling it “disgraceful,” and “conduct unbecoming a senator.”

Of course, Alpert knows that there is no basis to that charge. As the article in the Day demonstrates, the overwhelming consensus of those who know anything about mortgage rates at that time, as well as statistics from the federal government, demonstrate rather conclusively that the rate Dodd paid on his mortgage was widely available to people just like us. Nor, as Dodd’s website, linking to this incontrovertible source makes clear, was the fact that Dodd paid no points unusual. Fully 65% of those whose loans were originated in those months were no-point loans. Remember, that includes all borrowers, not just people with Dodd’s excellent credit rating. Nor, despite the statements of one banker, was the waiver of junk fees all that unusual. This is from a June 2003 article in the Real Estate Mailbag at the Washington Post. (You have to pay for the full article. This is from the preview, which you can read here)

A mortgage “junk” or “garbage” fee is a loan charge that goes directly into the pocket of the mortgage lender or the mortgage broker. Examples include an escrow waiver fee, loan application fee, documentation fee, underwriting fee, administration fee, warehousing fee, production fee and preparation fee. When lenders run out of names, they use “miscellaneous fee.” If such fees were not disclosed on your good-faith estimate, which the lender gave you within three days of your application, you can usually negotiate these fees or eliminate them.

If the fees were waived in Dodd’s case, Dodd was engaged in “conduct unbecoming a Senator” if and only if he 1) was getting a benefit that no one else could get, and 2) he knew he was getting a benefit that no one else could get. There’s no proof of either. Sorry, but whether he was told he was getting VIP treatment or not doesn’t prove a thing. If someone told me that and I was getting market rates I’d assume that I was a VIP in the same sense that I was special because I have a Gold credit card.

The remaining charge is that Dodd got a free “float down”-a reduction in his interest rate to reflect the rate at the time of the closing as opposed to the rate at the time he applied. That is simply not true, as David Fiderer of the Huffington Post demonstrates, as he takes down Robert Feinberg, a former Countrywide loan processor who is making the charges:

More than a year ago, Feinberg, a loan processor laid off from Countrywide Financial, stole some confidential loan documents on mortgages extended to 17 Democrats, and persuaded Conde Nast Portfolio that he had evidence of a big scandal. His documents never demonstrated much of anything. The “sweetheart deals” or “VIP treatment” were mostly nickel and dime stuff, waivers of “garbage fees” that are only paid by suckers. Nothing in the paperwork suggested that anyone was paying a below-market interest rate on his loan.

So, in order to inflate the dollar benefit of the “sweetheart deals,” Feinberg made up some facts. He offered no written backup, but Portfolio, desperate to uncover a “scandal,” took his word for it. In fact, there was written documentation disproving Feinberg’s lie. But since Feinberg concealed that information, Portfolio was able to maintain plausible deniability.

“Portfolio calculated that lower rates and waived fees would save Dodd more than $75,000 over the life of the loans,” reported NPR and dozens of other media outlets. About $2,700 of those savings were traceable to written documents, and Feinberg made up the remaining $72,000.

Feinberg lied by claiming that Dodd received free “float-downs” when he refinanced the mortgage loans on his homes in Connecticut and Washington. The free float-downs purportedly reduced the interest rate on one $275,000 loan from 4.875 percent to 4.5 percent, and reduced the rate on another $506,000 loan from 4.875 percent to 4.25 percent. (For an analysis of why the calculation of a $75,000 savings was fraudulent, go here.)

But there never was any float-down. The truth is far more banal and obvious. When Dodd applied to refinance his mortgages in April 2003, the market rate was 4.875 percent. At the time of his application, Dodd did not lock in his rate. Instead, he assumed the risk that rates might rise above 4.875 percent or that they might decline further. When Dodd closed on his mortgages several months later, market rates had fallen, and he got the lower spot rates, which were same rates extended to any comparable borrower at the time.

…

Since Dodd never had a rate lock, he never had the famous float-downs that, according to Feinberg and Portfolio, saved Dodd $72,000. A float-down is a promise that you are entitled to the lower of your locked-in rate or the spot rate at the time of closing. If you don’t have a rate lock, you don’t have a float-down. Of course, Washington media types are not especially interested in things like details.

Nor are Republicans, and neither, it appears, is Alpert. Alpert e won’t get the Democratic nomination no matter what happens. Should Dodd step aside, someone like Blumenthal will step in. But he may contribute to keeping this sort of slime in the public mind and help elect a Senator Simmons. I’m not sure where he expects to go after that, but I believe our offer to run him for Town Council is now off the table


Filed in Dodd | | Comments (1)

Boston Pics

Sunday, August 2, 2009

My wife and I went to Boston this weekend to visit our youngest, which explains the fact that I didn’t post anything, except the drivel that precedes this post. Here’s a few pics, the first from the window of our hotel. We stayed at the Westin, which was definitely not our first choice, but it was a last minute thing, and the more ancient and interesting hotels were already filled.

We went to the Institute of Contemporary Art, which right on the harbor. Here’s the view from the rear of the building:

The lobby featured this really great installation of colored mirrors:

Right now there is a Shepard Fairey Exhibit (He of the iconic Obama image) centered on his “Obey” works, which, at least to my inexpert eye, appear to be at least in part a protest against mindless regimentation. The oft repeated directive “Obey” is clearly meant ironically. So, how should one react to the absurd museum regulation against taking photographs of what was originally intended as street art? Do I “obey”, or not? Well, I chose to mostly obey, but I sneaked one shot, which I managed to salvage with a bit of artful rotating and cropping.

The building itself is well worth seeing. The upper floors jut out toward the water. There’s a spectacular view, and the window plays some great visual tricks.


Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

In which I attempt literary criticism

Sunday, August 2, 2009

With some trepidation, I am about to venture beyond the political pastures to which I have largely confined myself, and venture into literary criticism. I am, after all, as well suited for punditry in the former area as I am in the latter. I leave it to the reader to decide the degree of suitedness.

But I stray.

The occasion for this foray is the fact that I am at present “reading” two early American literary classics. I put the term “reading” in quotes, for I am actually listening to one as I trundle my weary body back and forth to work, while I am truly reading the other in the old fashioned bound paper form that will soon be going the way of the dinosaur.

Lest you think that the spoken word book is at a disadvantage going into the comparison, I urge you to think again, for the opposite is true. In the hands of a good reader, a spoken book is more entertaining to the auditor and, at least in my own experience, sticks in the head longer than one that is merely “read”. Alas, the book in question is sufficient to drive any reader to distraction; we can only hope that the individual tasked with this audio performance was paid double for his time, for time must have stretched while he read it.

The books in question are these: The Last of the Mohicans, by James Fenimore Cooper, and A History of New York, by Washington Irving. I chose the first since it seemed to flow naturally from the last book I read in the car- Mayflower, by Nathaniel Philbrick. They are both about Indians, after all. I am reading Irving’s book as a prelude to another book, Knickerbocker, The Myth Behind New York, by Elizabeth Bradley. If you are like 99% of the people in this country, you won’t see the connection, but indeed it is there, for the imaginary narrator of Irving’s imaginary history is none other than Diedrich Knickerbocker, the source from which all other Knickerbockers have flowed.

The Last of the Mohicans is still read, while A History of New York lies mouldering on all shelves but mine. I am not going to try to explain that phenomenon; I will confine myself to posing the question: Why?

I’m sure there are Twain fans out there who are urging caution. That noble writer has already destroyed Cooper for all time, in prose so funny that he cannot be outdone. But have we learned from the Master? No!

We must cut Cooper some slack. Consider his origins as the son of a real estate developer. Nonetheless, we cannot, we must not, let his crimes against humanity and the reading public go unpunished.

The Last of the Mohicans is basically a pre-telling of the Dudley Do-Right stories, with an Indian cast in the role of Snidely Whiplash, and with an extra Nell Fenwick thrown in. The girls keep getting captured by this evil Indian and are just as often rescued just as the train is approaching just as the scalping knife is about to descend, each time by the fearless Natty Bumpo and his faithful Indian companions. Bumpo, by the way, seems as uninterested in the fairer sex as does his descendant, Dudley.

Let us pause to acknowledge the hopeless task of the audiobook reader, who manfully struggles through prose which would consider itself blessed to be called merely turgid. Here I must quote the great Hartford transplant. Recall his incredible ear for dialect. Is it any wonder that among the literary sins he would find most condemnable would be dialog that is inherently unbelievable. According to Twain (speaking of Cooper):

[W]hen the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject at hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say.

Needless to say, Cooper disdains such petty considerations. Consider this language, chosen more or less at random, that he puts into the mouth of the unschooled frontiersman, Natty Bumpo, as that valiant hero prepares to march once again to the rescue of the damsels:

Uncas is right! it would not be the act of men to leave such harmless things to their fate, even though it breaks up the harboring place forever. If you would save these tender blossoms from the fangs of the worst of sarpents, gentleman, you have neither time to lose nor resolution to throw away”! (Emphasis added, gagging noise to be supplied by the reader)

Read it out loud for the full effect, if you can. Now, consider again, the fate of the hapless audiobook reader, who has fourteen hours of this stuff to recite.

Now, consider the neglected Irving. A little on the long side for modern taste, considering our short attentions spans. But entirely readable, written in real English, and extremely funny. Why, Irving would have been a great blogger. He even provides links (known as footnotes in those bygone days) to support his facts, and where a good link is lacking, he makes one up, just like so many modern day pundits. Here we glimpse, as through a glass darkly, the very beginnings of the undying Boston/New York sports rivalries as he recounts the story of the (from Knickerbocker’s deluded vantage point) crafty Yankees driving the Dutch back to New Amsterdam from their outpost at what is now Hartford. To this day, Hartford is on the dividing line between the land of the just (Red Sox nation) and the Dark Side. It’s educational too. Did you know they once grew onions in Wethersfield?

Google tells me that there is no audiobook of The History of New York, though it’s dollars to donuts that it would be a better listen than Cooper, and a far more humane task to inflict on a no doubt underpaid reader.

I now arrive at the end of my peroration (that’s a word Cooper must surely have loved, and would without a pang of conscience have put in poor Natty’s mouth), seeking a fitting conclusion as desperately as Natty and Uncas kept seeking Cora and Alice. Alas, it seems unlikely I’ll pull off a dramatic rescue of either my point or Washington Irving’s book sales. I can only say, in conclusion, that the fact that Cooper’s stuff is still in print is yet more proof that there is no justice in the world, that talent does not win out in the end. In short, life isn’t fair.

Postscript: I will, by the way, keep with Natty, Uncas, Cora and Alice to the bitter end. I am a stubborn person, and will not give up until those simpering maidens have been safely stowed, the evil Indian vanquished, and the faithful Uncas goes down in history as the last in his noble line. Yes, I already know how it ends, since when I was a mere lad I read the far more entertaining and better written Classic’s Comics edition.


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-The Drifters

Friday, July 31, 2009

Well, there hasn’t been all that much sun, but as I’m sitting here right now I can honestly say it’s sticky enough to make this song appropriate for the season. This is going up early today, since I may not have an opportunity to post it tonight.

A great song.


Filed in Music | | Comments (1)

Poor Obama… and why they didn’t have wine.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Mel Brooks may have been right about how good it was to be the King, but it’s not always that great to be the President. Consider today’s meet and greet among Obama, Gates and Crowley. Crowley had “Blue Moon”, a more than respectable brew that I personally foreswore only when I learned it was a product of the evil Coors corporation. Gates had Red Stripe, a Jamaican beer with which I’m not familiar, but which I would daresay is worth drinking. What did Obama have?

Bud Lite!

The only thing one can say in its favor is that it passes unaltered through the human body, exiting in the very same state in which it enters.

Why did Obama choose the worst of all brews? Could it possibly be that he actually prefers to drink that abominable concoction? Never believe it!

Consider his dilemma, however. This is the guy who was criticized during the campaign for using a reasonably decent mustard, instead of good old American French’s. (I know that sounds odd, but you know I’m right). Had he chosen a decent brew the story of the day would have been Obama’s elitism. Sure, it’s okay for a Cambridge cop to drink Blue Moon, but for Obama, only the lowest common denominator, and I do mean both lowest and common, will do.

And this brings us to the question of wine. Many commentators mentioned that Gates was more a wine than a beer guy. But wine was out of the question. When you drink wine with someone you share a bottle. Poor Gates and Crowley would have had to drink whatever Obama had on offer, and I’m not sure you can still get either Ripple or Boone’s Farm.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (2)

A Media Mystery

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Why does Bill Kristol go on the Daily Show, not to mention Stephen Colbert? Is he a glutton for punishment. The poor fellow is hopelessly outclassed, as his latest round with Jon Stewart proves.

Why must we turn to a “comedian” if we want to see one of these guys called to account? As a certified “serious” pundit, Kristol normally enjoys the luxury of unaccountability. He can pontificate freely about anything, secure in the knowledge that no one will ever point out that he is always wrong. He can make any assertion, secure in the knowledge that no one will pursue a point far enough to make him look like the hypocritical pompous ass that he is.

So, I guess we should give him credit for his willingness to expose himself to someone like Stewart, who can unmask him for what he is. The interview is well worth watching. I’m not posting it here because it’s quite long in the unedited for TV version. Stewart deftly gets him to admit that the military gets the best health care in the country, in a government run program that none of the rest of us, according to Kristol, deserve. This from a guy who wants to assure us that the quality of our health care will surely deteriorate if we have the option of getting our health insurance from the government.

Getting back to my original question, perhaps the only reason Kristol goes on the Daily Show is that, despite taking a shellacking, he can spread his lies secure in the knowledge that, unless Stewart is forearmed, he won’t be able to catch him up. I call my wife to attest that I said “That’s not true!”, when I heard Kristol say this:

“One reason the price of health care is going up so fast is because of government programs. The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up faster than private insurance. That’s well-documented.”

Stewart didn’t have the facts as his finger tips, but as Ezra Klein well documents here, the statement was totally false.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)