Skip to content

Fruit Loops, a Smart Choice no more

Saturday, October 24, 2009

When we (and that includes me, for sure) whine about Obama’s shortcomings, it’s useful to remember all of the important things that have changed somewhat below the surface, at least below the surface of everyday conversation or bloviating. A case in point is the fact that the corporate “nutritionist” front group Smart Choices has virtually agreed to go out of business, faced with pressure from the federal government, and some state governments, including our own.

Under pressure from state and federal authorities who feared consumers would be misled, the food industry on Friday started backing away from a major labeling campaign meant to highlight the nutritional benefits of hundreds of products.

…

Officials with the program said that Smart Choices would suspend most of its operations while they waited for the Food and Drug Administration to devise regulations for package-front nutrition labeling. Those rules could differ from the program’s criteria.

“I regard it as a partial victory,” said Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general, who recently began an investigation into the program to see if the labeling campaign violated his state’s consumer protection law. He called on more companies to pull out of the program.

Among the Smart Choices was Kellogg’s Fruit Loops, which, would, I suppose, be a smart choice if the only other choice was a meal consisting of pure sugar.

This is the sort of thing corporations could do unchallenged during the Bush Administration. Under Bush, Blumenthal might well have been opposed by the Federal government, which might have claimed that his efforts were preempted by Federal law. Bush did a lot of harm with the bureaucracy. He handed numerous agencies over to the corporations they allegedly regulated. Obama can undo that harm, and he is, this Smart Choices situation being just one example. Just as Bush’s moves went largely unremarked, Obama’s have been largely ignored. It’s often said that a president’s Supreme Court nominations are of prime importance, and they are. But appointments to the bureaucracy can have a huge and lasting impact. The country is a lot better off already thanks to Obama.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)

Groton Girl Hits the Big Time

Friday, October 23, 2009

Our own Liz Duarte sent this picture from Stamford, where she was the guest of Ned Lamont at tonight’s fundraiser for Chris Dodd. Seems she also shook the hand of a recent Nobel Prize winner.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Triple Feature

Friday, October 23, 2009

First, for the quality, Stevie Wonder singing Superstitious, Live on Sesame Street. I’ve been putting up these videos for several years,trying not to repeat artists, and I’m fairly sure I haven’t gotten around to Stevie Wonder, which just goes to show how deep the bench is when it comes to 60s era music. That’s actually not fair to Wonder, since he’s really a starting player, but you get my drift.

Here’s a Stevie Wonder bonus. It didn’t get top billing, since it’s obviously lip synched, but it’s worth watching for the period piece dancers. Yes, we used to watch that stuff without laughing.

And now, for something completely different.

My secretary told me about this video from the old Tracy Ullman show. You have to watch the whole thing. 99% heartwarming and life affirming, 100% New York cynical. Choreographed by Paula Abdul, I am given to understand.

I’ve been on the go a lot lately, and am on my way out of the door now, which explains the lack of recent political posts, and the fact there probably won’t be one tonight.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Better late than never

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

From the Hill, via Washington Monthly:

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.”

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

What brilliant strategy! How could something so blindingly obvious have occurred to elected Democrats? It’s simply not in their nature. Couldn’t they have come up with something even more obtuse than “public option” to sell the plan? How about “non-insurance option”. That has a deadly ring to it.

I don’t want to beat my own drum, but no one else will, so it falls to me. I’ve been saying this for months. Consider this from a a few months back, when I was bemoaning Obama’s failure to effectively sell the public option:

This is what comes from fashioning your opening bid as something that you believe can be sold to an opposition that you should know will inevitably oppose anything you do. Had he started with single payer, he could have compromised down to a public option. How hard could it have been for him to realize that neither the Republicans nor the insurance companies would have gone with his opening offer, no matter how reasonable. How hard to see that advancing a confusing plan, just like Clinton did, gives our enemies a chance to confuse while making it impossible for your friends to explain. How much simpler would our job be if we were defending “Medicare for all”? That’s a program everyone understands, even the idiots attacking the public option while insisting that their Medicare be protected.

This doesn’t really prove anything about me. It does prove something about the PR blindness of the Democratic Party, which has consistently failed to sell its programs effectively. Partly because, like the battered spouse syndrome victims they are, they are deathly afraid of vigorously advocating for what passes as their beliefs. For thirty years the Beltway wisdom has been that government is not the answer, and they have now, despite all evidence to the contrary, come to believe that’s what the people out here really think. They now find themselves in the position of being dragged to where most of them want to be by a public that can no longer be fooled, for as Steve Benen points out, even given Obama’s failure to advocate for the public option, even given the media’s almost unanimous insistence that the “centrist position” is business as usual; even given the industry’s scare tactics, the public is increasingly warming to the idea:

As it turns out, reform advocates may not even bother with the rebranding effort, since the public option already enjoys broad national support, which seems to keep going up (though one wonders if the polls would be even better had “Part E” been the rhetorical norm from the beginning). So, don’t necessarily count on a big p.r. push on this, though we may start hearing the phrase far more often.

It would be a shame if they didn’t use it. Imagine where we’d be if the Democrats had actually taken control of the debate, rather than handing the entire issue to the tender mercies of Max Baucus and his insurance lobbyist friends. How easily could Baucus have opposed Medicare for all, like he opposed the public option?

Digby weighs in on this here.


Filed in Health Care | | Comments (1)

I hate to admit it, but

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

I was only a bit surprised to see that the Obama Defense Department opposed Al Franken’s amendment to forbid government contractors from forcing the victims of sexual assault into arbitration, which is the equivalent of guaranteeing them no redress. The Obama Administration has been better than Bush on civil liberties, but it’s hard to imagine anyone being worse. Here’s the Defense Department’s rationale:

“The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract,” reads the DoD note. “It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse.”

Hate to say it, but this actually makes sense. Here’s the text of Franken’s Amendment:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

It does seem that enforcement would be a problem. DOD would be required to inquire into each contractor, and each subcontractor, right down the line. Any subcontractor who violated would trigger non-payment for everyone concerned. It’s a cumbersome way to achieve Franken’s goal.

Maybe the reason it was worded this way was to make it a budget amendment, and thus not subject to filibuster; but that hardly seems likely, since it got 70 votes. Doubtless there’s some arcane reason why Franken chose this approach.

The obvious approach would simply have been to make any such agreement to arbitrate unenforceable if the employee involved was working on any covered government contract. That would make enforcement easy, because it would be unnecessary. All the employee would have to do is prove to the court that he or she was working on a covered contract, and the arbitration clause would bite the dust. (A better approach, but don’t expect it to every happen, would have been to outlaw employee arbitration agreements completely, since they are classic contracts of adhesion.) That appears to be what DOD is suggesting, and I think they’re right.


Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

What Dems need

Monday, October 19, 2009

Via Oliver Willis



Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Democrats find a sort of a spine

Monday, October 19, 2009

The Republicans and the Media, with Harry Reid giving a large assist, have just about talked everyone into believing that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. In fact, it only takes 51. You can look it up. That’s why the Constitution lets the Vice President break ties.

There are ways to break filibusters, one of which is to pass budget items through the reconciliation process, which can’t be filibustered. The Democrats have run scared at the thought of using that process to pass Health Care reform (President Snowe might be upset) but apparently they’re ready to use it to pass another piece of legislation that is not so desperately needed, but is more of a no-brainer.

Education has kind of taken a back seat to some of the other facets of the Obama agenda, but on one measure they have sought to make tangible progress – the utterly common-sense notion of ending the subsidization of the private student lending market, and using the savings of providing student loans directly to increase Pell Grants and other awards to make college more affordable. This would redirect $87 billion dollars over 10 years from the pockets of bankers to students. It’s about as simple and clear a position as you can take.

So naturally, it faces resistance from Republicans and ConservaDems who have private student loan operations in their states. Back in April, the Senate, preparing for this resistance, authored budget reconciliation rules to move this education measure forward with 50 votes instead of having to break a filibuster with 60. And now, Tom Harkin is planning on doing just that.

Isn’t it interesting that these types of businesses tend to gravitate toward small time states that have Senators with big time power? This is capitalism in the 21st century. The system as it stands now is nothing more nor less than a tax on all of us, the revenue from that tax being transferred to private parties who take no risk and are paid scores of times more than it would cost the government to do the same thing that they do. A tax, by the way, that Republicans seem to love. So long as our hard earned money is going to a large corporation, be it student loan companies or Halliburton, they don’t seem to mind government spending. But when it comes to any program that might actually benefit the non-upper classes, then it’s a top priority to keep your money in your pocket; even if your money, added to other’s money collectively, would make your life a lot better. In the Republicans book the sole function of taxes is to transfer money from the have-nots to the haves.

The use of the reconciliation process in this context should be non-controversial, since it is perfectly consistent with past practice, but expect to hear from Republicans and the media that this is unprecedented. Not that an unprecedented use of the process would be that bad. The Republicans and Democrats both have conclusively proven that the filibuster only works for the Republicans, so it only make sense for the Democrats to destroy it by parliamentary chicanery, if that’s what it takes.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Pre-Primary Strategy

Sunday, October 18, 2009

I’ve mentioned before that I’m in a mailgroup (in which I lurk only), the subject of which is the Dodd re-election campaign. Lately there’s been a bit of debate about whether it was wise for the Connecticut Democrats to go after Linda McMahon for her rank hypocrisy (hey, she’s a new Republican and she’s trying to fit in) or keep all guns aimed at the alleged front runner, Rob Simmons.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it seems to me that it makes good sense to try to stir up some fratricidal warfare over on the other side. It’s bound to happen sooner or later, given the rather large egos of the players involved, so it might as well happen sooner.

There’s another reason. Simmons may be the darling of the Republican establishment, but that may not get him much mileage, particularly given the huge amount of money that his opponents will be throwing at him. He may, in fact, be as inevitable as Hillary Clinton.

Now, to you or me, it may not appear that there is a Barack Obama in the pack that can take him down, but we don’t think like Republicans, particularly like the extreme Republicans that populate the tea party fringe, which is a significant force in what has become a rump party. Those folks are pretty stupid, but probably not stupid enough to be satisfied with a “moderate” Republican just because he wraps his pocket constitution in a teabag. There’s no saying who can win a five or four way primary in which the winner may get no more than 35% of the vote.

I don’t care what the polls say. Except for Caluguri, they each have a shot. It’s not at all clear, too, that McMahon would be preferable to Simmons as Dodd’s opponent. The country is filled with involuntarily retired politicians who got to run against their preferred opponent.

Yes, Simmons is a dirty campaigner, but aren’t they all? Yes, he has a moderate image, but McMahon, at least, can out moderate him any day of the week. I don’t know much about her, but she can’t possibly be as personally unappealing as he is, or come across as more insincere. I remain convinced that he won in 2000 because he was not Sam Gejdenson, who unfairly or not was perceived as having completely lost touch with the district. His ability to raise money is limited. Moreover, he has a record that can be exploited when the time comes. She is tabula rasa, except for her business “achievements”, in which, by the way, she has demonstrated a remarkable ability to appeal to the very lowest in our society, precisely the people she needs to reach to win the Republican nomination.

So it seems wise at this point to go after all of these folks when opportunities arise. Now is the time to challenge her on her “PG entertainment” claims; a year from now might be too late to start. We can only hope that the Connecticut Democrats will take aim at Schiff as well. He’s the guy who will appeal to the tea party idiots. It shouldn’t be hard to come up with an approach that would turn the average voter against him, while solidifying his support among the tin hats. Now he’s an opponent we would really like to have. Who was the last person to get elected while advocating the abolition of Social Security? That’s not an issue to bring up right now, but there’s plenty to chose from that would undermine his standing with the rational, while leaving the crazies unfazed. Who knows, in a four way primary with three relatively mainstream types, he just might be able to pull in enough votes to win.

Sidenote: Oliver Willis, who can sometimes be obtuse, missed the boat completely on this one. The Democrats aren’t attacking McMahon for the content of her “entertainment”; they are attacking her for lying about it. She chose to take the issue on preemptively by labeling her product “PG” and “family entertainment”. No doubt she figured that if she repeated that claim often enough the characterization would stick. It’s the hypocrisy, Oliver.


Filed in Dodd | | Comments (0)

Pictures from today’s Groton Shindig

Saturday, October 17, 2009

This was a busy day for me, too busy for thinking, so no serious writing. We here in Groton had a little fundraiser. An excellent turnout with lots of money raised and virtually no money spent. Maybe the theme was the big draw. Who can argue with wine and chocolate?

Some pictures follow, chosen rather arbitrarily since they came out the best.

Susan Bysiewicz came by, seen here with Board of Ed member Beverly Washington.

Town Clerk Barbara Tarbox and (relatively) newly minted Democrat John Scott, and various others (below)

I didn’t really have much time to take pictures, since as treasurer I have to collect the money, which flowed rather freely (for a Groton fundraiser).


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, October 16, 2009

I have posted less frequently than usual this week. For this the world owes a debt of gratitude to The Office. I’ve spent a good chunk of my free time watching Season 3.

I noticed that a fellow named Creed Bratton was billed as a guest star at the end of each show. I had no idea who he was, or which character he played, so I went to the Google and discovered that he’s the guy who plays the felonious psychopath who does no discernible work (but then, which of them does).

But I found out something else. He was the lead guitarist for a group that sold a slew or records in the 60’s, the Grass Roots. According to one blurb I read on line, only nine bands from that era sold more records than them. They weren’t great, they weren’t bad, but they were eminently forgettable.

Well, here they are, singing Let’s Live for Today. As an added bonus, they’re introduced by Jimmy Durante. If you’re a fan of The Office, you’ll recognize Creed the minute he appears, or at least the minute he smiles.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)