Skip to content

Same as it ever was

Monday, November 23, 2009

There’s nothing new under the sun, as digby reminded us yesterday.

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK’s assassination. Here, as she points out, is a leaflet passed around in Dallas the day he was killed.

Seems Obama wasn’t the first traitor we’ve had as a president. But check out the last item in the Bill of Particulars. Obama has his birthers, and JFK apparently had those who insisted he had a secret marriage.

But I’m not quite right about there being nothing new these days. Nowadays, the people who put out this sort of stuff have been warmly welcomed into one of our major parties. That is something new.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Simmons pledges fealty to the crazies

Monday, November 23, 2009

Rob Simmons apparently thinks that the road to the Senate lies through the teabaggers. He has sent a fundraising appeal pledging to be the guy who assures that the Democrats never get that 60th vote to advance their big government agenda. Here’s a snippet from his appeal:

The fight in the Senate is just getting started. A tough road lies ahead for the Democrats, with members of their own party — including Senator Lieberman — voicing objections to key provisions of the Dodd plan.

But that’s no reason for complacency. If we know anything, it’s that Democrats led by Senator Dodd will do anything to get this trillion-dollar plan through. And the only reason they’ve gotten so far is that their party controls 60 votes and all the levers of power in Washington.

I am running for the Senate to take away that 60th vote and restore balance and sound fiscal management to Washington.

If we continue to show strength in our race against the architect of government health care in the Senate, the Democrats will begin to think twice about ramming through a plan in 2010 that Americans don’t want and can’t afford.

This is language designed to warm the hearts of the crazies. Simmons apparently intends to have them carry him to the nomination, after which he’ll have to figure out how to distances himself from them while retaining their votes. The question is whether they have gotten tired of being played for suckers, as they have been for so many years. I also understand he’s trying to get Jim Demint’s endorsement, another not so subtle message to the nutjobs.

But let us pause and give the Republicans credit. The Democrats have stood by and allowed the Republicans to frame the Health Care issue in such a way that it is not only politically acceptable, but in some cases politically advantageous to be a running dog for the insurance companies. Only the Democrats could have pulled that off. It’s what comes from compromising yourself into a corner, trying to appease your opponents. Let’s count all the votes that the Democrats gained in the Senate by neutering the health care bill and making it far more difficult to either explain or defend to the American people. Here’s the total: Exactly no votes.

Imagine if the Democrats had announced in advance that they intended to use reconciliation, and told the Republicans to pound sand when they complained. The Republicans would have been facing a completely different reality-a reality in which they could wrest concessions only by actually making constructive suggestions and by actually voting for the final product. They probably had more chance of getting 60 votes by going that route than by making a declaration of weakness at the start.

Still, it’s hard to see that opposition to health care reform is a winning strategy in Connecticut. We have our faults, but we still have a higher level of intellectual functioning than they do in Alabama or Arkansas. Simmons is counting on Dodd losing, rather than Simmons winning. Time will tell whether that’s a good strategy.


Filed in Simmons | | Comments (1)

Dodd redux

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Seems that I’m mentioned in a front page article in the Courant today.

The reporter, Daniela Altimari, sent me an email asking to talk to me about an “open letter” to Chris Dodd that I posted a few weeks ago. In that letter I bemoaned Dodd’s statement to the effect that Lieberman should suffer no consequences for his latest betrayal (at that point) of the Democratic party’s agenda.

I am always ambivalent about talking to reporters. It always seems that they are looking for the quote that fits their agenda. On the other hand, if you write a blog like this you sort of have a responsibility to defend your point of view, so I called her.

The result is here.

The part about me reads as follows:

Some express anger at Dodd for refusing to punish his colleague, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Viewed by many Democrats as Public Enemy No. 1, Lieberman has taken a hard-line stance on health care, pledging to quash any proposal that contains a government-sponsored insurance plan. Dodd and other Democrats dismissed the idea that Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, ought to face consequences for his stance.

In an open letter to Dodd, John Wirzbicki, a member of the Groton Democratic Town Committee and a Dodd supporter, expressed his disenchantment.

“Enacting a health care program that is not a sham will enhance your re-election prospects,” Wirzbicki wrote in the Oct. 28 letter, which was posted on his blog, CT Blue. “Coddling Joe Lieberman won’t, particularly if by doing so you torpedo health care. If we end up with another Republican Senator from Connecticut, your supporters like me will be disappointed.”

In an interview, Wirzbicki emphasized that he remains a Dodd fan. “But something happens to people when they spend a lot of time in Washington. They start to become part of a culture that’s disconnected. For him to come out and immediately close ranks, it sort of makes you think the guy isn’t really aware of the feelings of people he relies on the most.”

Despite it all, count Wirzbicki among the Dodd faithful. “Dodd’s not perfect, but the fact of the matter is, you couldn’t ask for a much better senator. … I’m not going to abandon him because he’s human.”

I can’t speak to the rest of the article, but I can’t say that Altimari misrepresented my statements, though I’m not sure anything I said lends that much support to her main thesis. I wouldn’t have used the word “anger” to describe my reactions to his statements about Lieberman, nor would I use the word “disenchantment”, but those are actually minor quibbles.

She really didn’t produce much evidence in support of her claim that there is a sense of panic among Democrats about Dodd. We all recognize that he has a fight on his hands, but it’s a winnable fight, made more difficult by the fact that he will undoubtedly be dealing with a Connecticut press that will be pushing the same meme as Ms. Altimari. Meanwhile, we can count on his opponents to go unexamined (and I’m not talking about Alpert) until it’s too late to make a difference. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the press will stick that “moderate” label on Simmons at every opportunity, despite his proven record of slavish obedience to his right wing masters, not to mention the teabag he claims to have wrapped around his pocket constitution.

Dodd can win. He is advocating some popular, progressive legislation right now. When the time comes, it would be helpful if he could maneuver his opponent into taking a stand on the issues he’s currently championing. Is Simmons for or against capping outrageous credit card rates? Inquiring minds want to know, and either way Simmons responds he loses. Still, when all is said and done, Dodd does need to energize his base, and he won’t do it by mollycoddling Lieberman, who, by the way, will stick a knife in Dodd’s back at the earliest opportunity.


Filed in Dodd | | Comments (0)

Where the truth lies

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Always in the middle it seems. From this morning’s Times:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus packagePresident Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.

These long-running arguments have flared now that the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new “jobs bill.” But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working. (Emphasis added)

Yes, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Those liberal economists, blinded by their passion, could not possibly have been completely right.

And yet… The balance of the article appears to consist of one “dispassionate” person after another saying that the stimulus has worked in exactly the sense the liberals predicted-it has staved off disaster, but it is not enough to lift us out of this mess, particularly the employment mess.

But there are criticisms, mainly that the Obama team relied last winter on overly optimistic economic assumptions and oversold the job-creating benefits of the stimulus package.

Optimistic assumptions in turn contributed to producing a package that if anything is too small, analysts say. “The economy was weaker than we thought at the time, so maybe in retrospect we could have used a little bit more and little bit more front-loaded,” said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, another financial analysis group, in St. Louis.

It is an odd thing. The truth really does not often lie in the exact mid-point between two extremes. Ask Galileo and the Catholic Church. He was right, they were wrong. A compromise between them would have been just as wrong.

But the stimulus is not really a good example of a conservative/liberal divide with the liberals being right, because the opening premise of the Times’ article is highly misleading. At the time the stimulus was proposed, there was wide agreement across the ideological spectrum (of economists, that is) that a stimulus was needed. The Republicans were reduced to advertising for economists that would support their do-nothing position. They got some, but, as Brad Delong pointed out, “no current or former member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers–Democrat or Republican, living or dead, sane or insane–has signed up for the Republican House caucus’s list of economists opposed to the stimulus package.” Since no economists are quoted in the Times article as claiming the stimulus was not needed, it is impossible to say who the “some conservative-leaning” economists are that are referenced in the second paragraph of the article. In fact, some of the conservatives quoted in the article, all of whom agreed that a stimulus was needed, criticize exactly those portions of the plan (tax breaks, for instance) that were opposed by liberals at the time as relatively ineffective in comparison to the “direct federal spending” that even conservative Martin Feldstein is quoted in the article as favoring.

This may be a case in which a divide was assumed that never existed. Of course it’s always possible to find a person with credentials who will take a position that his or her peers find absurd. There is probably a biology professor out there somewhere that doesn’t accept the truth of evolutionary theory. But that doesn’t mean that there is a dispute among biologists, anymore than the existence of a few ideologues with degrees means there was any real dispute among economists about the stimulus.

All that being said, the liberals, including the Times’ own Paul Krugman, were particularly prescient regarding the stimulus. They opposed the tax break portions of the plan, they called for even more spending, and they warned against removing the direct aid to the states, something thrown in as a sop to gain a veneer of bi-partisanship, which, as Krugman said it would, turned the governors of our states into 50 Herbert Hoovers. The article proves them right, sub silentio. So why does the article imply that the truth was situated in the mythical middle?


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Them

Friday, November 20, 2009

A very young Van Morrison leads his then band mates in what I believe was their first state side hit. No doubt about this being a live performance. Sorry about the long intro.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

God under attack in Enfield

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

An obviously communistic, fascist, socialist (and, by way of a bonus-godless) organization has invaded our fair state to try to impose its will on our citizenry. I speak of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an organization whose very name tells you all you need to know about its pernicious objectives.

Seems that these United Americans, along with some subversive citizens of Enfield, don’t like the fact that their town is plunking down good money to rent a church to hold high school graduation exercises, and they’ve written a letter to the Board of Ed threatening suit:

Since 2007 in the case of Enrico Fermi High School, and 2008 in the case of Enfield High School, the Enfield Public Schools have held their high-school graduations in a house of worship, the First Cathedral. As you may have surmised from the nature of our recent FOIA request, we have been retained to file litigation on behalf of Enfield Schools students and parents to stop the Schools’ use of the Cathedral, for such use violates the U.S. Constitution and the rights of religious minorities. But we hope that the information conveyed below will obviate the need for a lawsuit by convincing the Schools to voluntarily abandon the practice. We understand that four of the nine members of the Enfield Board of Education are newly elected and are taking office this month. We also understand that when the Board first approved using the Cathedral for graduations, it was told that the religious items in the Cathedral would be covered for graduations. In fact, this never occurred; indeed, as we explain below, religious symbolism is inherent in virtually every aspect of the Cathedral, and so secularizing the facility for school events would not appear to be possible.

As Enfield High School and Enrico Fermi High School students and family members approach the First Cathedral to attend their high-school graduation ceremonies, they view no less than five large Christian crosses that compose the front facade of the building, as well as another cross that towers over the Cathedral’s roof. To enter the Cathedral, they pass under the immense cross in the middle of the facade. They then see in the Cathedral’s lobby a fountain in the shape of a cross surrounded by a frame in the shape of a tomb — which together represent the life after death of Jesus Christ. Above them, from the ceiling of the lobby, hangs a large glass sculpture, representing the Holy Ghost descending from the heavens. Numerous religious paintings, including depictions of Jesus, also hang in the lobby. And before entering the Cathedral’s sanctuary, where the graduation ceremonies take place, students and parents pass underneath large banners reading: “The Promise is Still Good! For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘yes’ in Christ. –2 Cor. 1:20a”; and “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise. Be thankful to Him, and bless his Name. Psalms 100:4.”

The letter goes on to detail numerous other trivial architectural and design embellishments that make glancing reference to religion, such as, well, such as the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a single inch of the place that doesn’t have some religious symbol or exhortation embedded in it.

What’s the harm? What offense could any of this give to a good Christian (let us put aside the objections of those who dislike ghastly architecture and religious kitsch), and as to anyone who’s not a good Christian-who cares about them? Certainly not the Enfield Board of Education.

Unfortunately, the forces of godless atheism appear to be winning the war even before the battle is joined. What has happened to our children?

In addition, Enfield High has been using the Cathedral in the face of overwhelming opposition by the high-school’s students. Approximately seventy-five percent of the school’s 2008 graduating class and approximately ninety percent of the Class of 2009 voted against graduating at the Cathedral. And although a majority of Enrico Fermi High School students have voted in favor of using the Cathedral, a significant percentage of the students there also have opposed the venue.

There must be something in the water over there at Fermi. Maybe it’s holy water.

Shame on AU and its fellow travelers for trying to impose the First Amendment on the Enfield Board of Education. It’s almost enough to make me think about withholding my dues this year.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Save the date

Monday, November 16, 2009

Ned Lamont is coming to our area in a few weeks. He’ll be at the home of Camille and Nick Burlingham (Camille happens to be his sister) 9 High Ridge Drive, Pawcatuck, on Monday, Dec 7, from 6-8. I hope we can get a good turnout for Ned. Right at the moment I’m still uncommitted on the gubernatorial race, but as I told Ned, I’m leaning. Four years ago I felt we needed someone from outside of Hartford to take the helm, and I still feel that way, so Ned certainly meets that criteria. Add to that the fact that Ned stepped up when we needed him, and no one else had the guts. For an unknown, he ran a great race. I’ve told him I’d rather see him in the Senate, but he’s got good reasons for thinking about the governor’s office.

Anyway, whether you have your mind made up or not, save the date and come and meet Ned. It is my understanding that this is strictly a meet and greet; you can keep your checkbook closed if you like, though there will be someone there glad to take your money.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Pundits agree: Bring Back Stupid

Monday, November 16, 2009

Those Beltway types sure miss them some George Bush.

First it was David Broder:

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose — and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision — whether or not it is right.

Now, Mark Shields:

We have a president of real intellectual horse power who is cool, detached and analytical and if anything you can watch the emotional side of him emerge in this whole process. … There’s an emotional aspect, the comforter in chief as well as the commander in chief. Both roles. And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

They, of course, don’t have to pay the price for a wrong decision. They can just criticize it, assuming they can recognize it, without ever remembering that they were clamoring for George Bush-style act first, think later.

It’s not their kids that will be dying for a corrupt regime.

But, alas, I must say that while I truly believe Obama should put as much thought as he wants into his Afghanistan decision, he is fated to please both Broder and Shields. Most likely he will ultimately decide to go for “victory”, or maybe just “success” in Afghanistan. Still, where there’s indecision, there’s hope.

BIG CORRECTION: From Thinkprogress (where I got the Shields info originally)

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that syndicated columnist Mark Shields said this weekend on Inside Washington, referring to Obama’s Afghanistan war decision, that he is “nostalgic” for the days when the U.S. “had a manly man in the White House who could say, ‘Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards.’” Shields contacted ThinkProgress this morning and kindly informed us that his comments were intended to be sarcastic. We regret our error in misinterpreting his comments and for questioning his motives. Shields told us that his comments were meant to disparage those who consistently argue that more war will solve America’s problems and that his statement was directed at co-panelist and right-wing neoconservative Charles Krauthammer, who, according to Shields, was displeased with the remark. With a deeper appreciation for his wit, we extend our sincere apologies to Mr. Shields.

Alas, the Broder quote is all too accurate.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Probably a meaningless observation

Sunday, November 15, 2009

I am sitting on my patio, in the dark, pecking away at my computer. The temperature is perfectly pleasant. It is November 15th. The only problem is the insects that are being attracted to my computer screen.

Here’s my question: What business do these insects have being alive and active on November 15th? Is this normal? I realize that cold days in January disprove the global warming theory entirely, but still, this makes you wonder.


Filed in Environment | | Comments (1)

Rational decision makers

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Via Firedoglake, the right has apparently found an academic prepared to give intellectual respectability to its opposition to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a George Mason University professor named Todd Zywicki:

Zywicki and his fellow Randians think that the FCPA wouldn’t have made the slightest difference in the conditions that led to the great crash of 2008. He says all of these borrowers understood the exact nature of the loan terms in those option ARMs, and fully grasped the way the credit card companies would interpret the 63 pages of terms and conditions. They took out loans they couldn’t pay on the theory that the value of the house would go up so they could refinance the loans and borrow money to make the payments. Or something. Anyway, they were acting rationally.

Each one of those lenders was acting rationally too, since their incentive, making commissions, was to sell the worst possible loan to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, because the worse the loan terms, the higher their commissions would be.

Zywicki explains that “Virtually every credit product is valuable to some consumers.” The logical implication is that banksters should be allowed to try to make loans on any foolish terms they can think up, whether or not it makes sense for the borrower. It’s up to us to figure out whether they are cheating us. I really like the idea that Zywicki will have to read the kinds of loan agreements I slave over for hours, and see if he can figure out what the bankster lawyers are doing with the English language.

The Firedoglake writer makes a compelling argument that the actors in all those dramas were in fact acting quite irrationally. But there’s a larger point that sometimes gets lost when we let the right frame the issues. Let’s stipulate that the borrowers and lenders both were acting in their own best interests (they weren’t, but lets pretend). One things for darn sure, they weren’t acting in the long term best interest of the country, not by a long shot. The country is us-all of us. Don’t we have a right to defend ourselves from the destructive effects of the decisions that individual actors make, even if those decisions are in the bests interests of the person involved? Randian Libertarians would say no, except (as the writer points out) when corporate interests are involved. But as a society we have answered that question in the affirmative since this nation’s inception. The air we breathe would be unbreathable, and the water we drink undrinkable had we let “rational” decision makers set environmental policy. I honestly despair of this government’s ability to effectively respond to this current crisis; they should have struck when the iron was hot; either at the time of the bailout, or in the first few weeks after Obama was inaugurated. The lobbyists are moving in for the kill. What we’re likely to get is a regulatory scheme designed to fail. But that fact won’t prove that we shouldn’t effectively regulate the financial system, only that we haven’t.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)