Skip to content

A word about some words

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Recently, Sarah Palin feigned outrage at the fact that Rahm Emmanuel called the people that elected his boss into office “fucking retards”. Naturally, neither she or anyone else objected to the insult to people who were only asking that Obama fulfill his promises; rather, her faux anger was voiced on behalf of the mentally retarded, such as the prop little boy that she carries with her everywhere.

This morning, my Pandora Bob Dylan radio station, served up Idiot Wind.

What do these two disparate events have to do with one another? Well, the second got me thinking (an achievement in itself) about the first, and about the malleability of language. Dylan’s song, after all, is about many things, but it certainly isn’t about the mentally retarded.

Nowadays we cheerfully use the term idiot as an insult, without a twinge of conscience, even though its original meaning (now demoted to second place behind “a foolish or stupid person”) is as follows:

A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

The term “moron” has a similar derivation, though it was applied to the less profoundly retarded. Had Rahm used either of those terms, and I’m sure he would have, given half the chance, it’s highly unlikely that it would have occurred to Sarah to take offense (being an idiot herself, she is surely unaware of the derivation) nor would anyone else. The folks at MoveOn would have had to lick their wounds in silence. These terms have, so to speak, been euphemized. The euphemism for these now quite egalitarian terms of abuse is, of course “mentally retarded”, which is now rapidly acquiring all the negative connotations (at least with respect to the class of people to whom it refers) that “moron” and “idiot” have now almost shed. Yes, the term “mentally retarded” is itself in the process of becoming euphemized. The term now is “special” or “challenged”.

But we live in a fast paced world. While it took centuries to even perceive the need for euphemisms for “idiot” and “moron”, it took only decades for the same process to require a replacement for “mentally retarded” and, unless I miss my guess, it will be far less time than that before we are seeking replacements for “special”, “challenged”, or whatever other term wins the prize. I blame the kids. You can’t fool them, and they have a boundless capacity for cruelty. Even as we speak, there are kids on the playground referring to their peers as “special” or “challenged” and, need I say it, not in a good way.

It may seem unlikely that the term “special”, for instance, could ever acquire overwhelmingly negative connotations, but stranger things have happened. I can remember when a person could say that he or she was “gay”, meaning “happy”. That meaning lives on in our dictionaries (banished to second place, like “idiot”), but lives there a person under 90 who would now use the word in that way?

Meanwhile, let us pause for a moment of silence for the fucking retards against whom Rahm directed his anger. They made the mistake, over and over, of being right on the issues and right about the politics. There is nothing that will earn universal scorn more quickly than being consistently right. Who would dare come to the defense of someone who has committed such an iniquitous act? You’d have to be an idiot.


Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

Holiday Pictures

Monday, February 15, 2010

This is a holiday, so I refuse to spend my day venting against the Democrats, such as Evan Bayh, who seems to be determined to wreak maximum damage before he leaves. I can only say, good riddance to him. If we play our cards right, we can be the minority party in the Senate, and then we’ll be in control.

So, instead, some pictures of Napatree Point in Watch Hill, Rhode Island. For those of you unfamiliar with this geographical feature, it is a peninsula, perhaps a mile long, jutting out into the Atlantic, at the end of which is a ruined fort from some past war. We did not make it to the end, deciding that we had better things to do than deal with winds that must have been upwards of 40 miles an hour.

This, by the way, is the date that, statistically, marks the beginning of the end of winter. It won’t be missed, at least by me.

I do recommend the walk, either at this time of year, for those intrepid souls who like the cold, or for normal humans, during the warmer months.


Filed in Pictures | | Comments (0)

John Conyers coming to Norwich

Sunday, February 14, 2010

The Norwich chapter of the NAACP is celebrating the 100th anniversary of that organization on Tuesday. The event will be held at the Kelly Middle School, 25 Mahan Drive, in Norwich. From the group’s flyer:

The Guest Speaker for the event will be United States Congressman and Chairman of the Judiciary, John Conyers Jr. Other invited panelists include: U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd; CT Representative Kenneth Green; U.S. Congressman Joseph Courtney, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal; William Carbone, Executive Director, CSSD; Attorney Lonnie Braxton; Terell Wilson, CT State NAACP Youth & College President, David Whitehead, Backus President and CEO; Tom Swan, Director of CCAG; and Abby Dolliver, Interim Superintendent of Norwich Schools

The Informational Forum starts at 7:00 PM, and is free. There will be a Pre-Program Social event starting at 5:30, which costs $20.00.


Filed in Announcements | | Comments (0)

Read Frank Rich

Sunday, February 14, 2010

I tend to doubt that Sarah Palin marked up her hands just to attract incoming liberal fire, and I really don’t believe Rich is serious on that point, but the rest of his analysis of the current situation is absolutely spot on.

He makes the point that the Republicans have skillfully, if mendaciously, cast themselves as the opponents of the very interests they serve, while the Democrats have stood by and let them do so.

I’ve tried to make the point here that the Democrats can only win in 2010 by forcing the Republicans to openly defend Wall Street and the corporations, by proposing, and making them vote on, bills that are both right from a policy standpoint and that play into the justifiable resentment the American people have toward the people who have caused, and now profited by, the financial mess we are in. As Rich points out, it ain’t going to happen.

I was amazed by this, which I hadn’t heard about before:

The Obama White House remains its own worst enemy. No sooner did Palin’s Tea Party speech end than we learned of the president’s tone-deaf interview expressing admiration for “very savvy businessmen” like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. With that single remark, Obama ingeniously identified himself with the most despised aspects of both Washington and Wall Street — the bailout and the bonuses. He still doesn’t understand that to most Americans, Blankfein is a savvy businessman only in the outrageous sense that he managed to grab his bonus some 17 months after the taxpayers had the good grace to save him from going out of business altogether.

Somewhere, and I can’t recall where at the present, I read speculation that Obama would actually prefer that we lose our majority in the House (the only chamber that has passed meaningfully progressive legislation) so he could run against them in 2012, like Clinton did in 1996. From a purely selfist, purely political point of view this might be good strategy, but that’s cold comfort for the rest of us. The historical dynamics here are frightening. Right wing presidents get pretty much what they want, while messing up the country and ignoring the real problems. Democratic presidents get almost nothing of what they want, except possibly (e.g., Clinton) cleaning up some of the mess, for which they get no credit, thereby paving the way for a return of the Republicans, who promptly start wreaking destruction. All the while our agencies, courts and system of taxation drift inexorably rightward.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, February 12, 2010

At the White House


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Easy for you to say

Friday, February 12, 2010

As least several times a week I get spam comments, which I must consign to perdition. I don’t know how they are generated, whether by live person or by computer. I normally just delete them, but this one I have to promote, since it appears, to the best of my ability to understand it, to be promoting an essay writing service. One can easily see why whoever wrote this comment might need a ghost writer:

Various spheres of people’s life take a lot of time and money, thence why have we to expend life time for expository essay composing? This is greater to use really professional http://quality-papers.com” rel=”nofollow”>essay writing service to purchase the expository essay at, I guess.

It is quite possible that there is a grammatically correct phrase in there, but I can’t find it.


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

The Times legitimizes idiocy

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The New York Time has a lot to answer for. Back in 2002 and 2003, it helped legitimize the Bush Administration’s push to war, running a series of poorly sourced and mendacious articles. The sources for the articles were mainly Bush administration creatures, who then used the Times articles as proof that the lies they were spewing elsewhere were true. Years later, the Times rid itself of the reporter who inflicted most of those articles on us, and even issued a half mea culpa, but of course the damage was done. Bush got his war.

What can the Times do for an encore? How about legitimizing climate change denial? The consequences of an unnecessary war pale into insignificance beside the consequences of neglecting climate change.

Well the Times is on the case. Yesterday it legitimized attacks on Rajendra K. Pachauri, a leading climate change scientist, quoting a variety of people with one thing in common: no credentials in the field. (Thanks to Wiz at WCubed for the link-I guess related minds think alike). Today the Times gives credence to the absurd argument that snow in February disproves the fact of global warming. The Times would no doubt argue that it is just presenting both sides, but there comes a point when there are no longer two sides, and covering it that way just gives aid and comfort to crazies. There are actually people who believe the earth is flat, and no doubt some that believe the sun goes around the earth, but we are long past the time when there is any reason to accord those views any respect. So it should be with global warming, and even if it weren’t, giving credence to the idea that a winter storm in the winter disproves the theory is absurd in the extreme. That kind of argument deserves only mockery.

What’s particularly infuriating, to anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject, is this: not only is the evidence cited inadmissible to disprove global warming, but it is entirely consistent with the theory. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read up on the science knows that.

There are already Democrats who are using this storm as an excuse to fold on cap and trade. The Times is giving them cover. As with Iraq, so with global warming.

By the way, here in Groton, the storm proved the existence of global warming. It’s February after all. When we have precipitation, here in New England, in February, it’s supposed to be snow. And yet—yesterday the snow turned to rain!!!! A data point! This proves nothing everything!

Once again, by the way, the most responsible coverage of this issue was on the Daily Show and Colbert respectively (okay, Rachel Maddow too).


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Is that the sound of an ox being gored?

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Truly as a public service, I’m sure, the New London Day printed a full page ad today, warning us that our right to know is being jeopardized because legal notices may move from the newspapers to the internet. This, we are shrilly informed, represents a direct threat to our democracy, since only 10% of the people go to government websites while 83% “of adults read a community newspaper every week”. My, oh my, that old saw about statistics certainly remains true. Not to take away from the other statistical stretchers, but how many of those adults, one would like to know, actually read the legal notices? And who knew that the newspapers have been playing a watchdog role in the public discourse when they have printed all those overpriced legal notices all these years?

Meanwhile, the Day, which in its day job is a crusader against all forms of corruption and hypocrisy, fails to identify the owner of that bellowing ox.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Democrats consider, maybe, possibly, fighting back, just a little, provided Republicans don’t mind

Monday, February 8, 2010

What planet do Democrats live on?

Apparently, Harry Reid is considering growing some balls, and Obama is thinking of following suit, by giving recess appointments to the nominees that have been held up by the limitless holds to which Obama’s nominees have been subjected. But the Democrats are fearful that they will be perceived as-well-as not playing fair, by the American people:

“When a senator highlights obstructive procedures — as Southerners did in the 1950s and 1960s with the filibuster, committee obstruction and more — it gives Democrats some political space to fight back, either by reform or finding ways around the normal process,” said Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University.

But Republicans say the public is already alarmed by Democratic overreach and will view recess appointments as more of the same. They dismiss the idea that Shelby’s holds give Democrats any additional political cover.

“If anyone thinks this has political significance, they need to put down the federal pages and take a trip outside the 202 as soon as the weather permits,” one senior GOP aide said. “Turns out people are more concerned with their own jobs than the appointments of a bunch of federal bureaucrats.”

In addition to [NLRB nominee] Becker, there are a number of controversial appointments whose recess appointments could inflame Republican passions — including Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Democrats said Obama could be on safer political ground if he uses early recess appointments to install national security nominees, including four to senior positions in the Pentagon.

The article goes on to discuss the fear and trepidation that the Democrats exhibit when talking about the possibility of doing the same things that Republicans did on a routine basis.
It truly boggles the mind that Democrats would still be concerned about inflaming Republicans, who cannot behave any more badly than they already are, or about the reaction of voters, who don’t give a [insert your favorite profanity here] about the arcana of Senate procedure. The Republicans lost big over the last two years, but it wasn’t because they made recess appointments, or because they ran roughshod over the Democrats alleged right to filibuster. It was because they [guess the profanity]ed everything up. Voters are going to take out their resentments on the Democrats this year because the Democrats have done nothing, which is the equivalent of [same profanity]ing things up. They will no doubt resent the fact that they have no alternative to the Democrats but the Republicans, and that may well put them in a more forgiving mood, but they will not be voting against Democrats because they made recess appointments, or curtailed absurd Senatorial courtesies, or because they passed bills through reconciliation, just like the Republicans used to do. It’s far more likely that they’ll be driving down their own base’s turnout be failing to take any steps to limit the Republican abuses, than that they’ll lose votes by fighting back.

When I read stuff like the above I begin to think that Democrats just might not be interested in actually accomplishing anything; that they are so enthralled to their corporate masters that they’d just as soon lose a few of their colleagues (who will end up as highly paid lobbyists anyway) than actually accomplish any of the things they keep promising. It is beginning to look more and more that the Party of No is providing coverage for the Party That Would Really Rather Not. Maybe Tom Tomorrow is right.

No discussion of this issue would be complete without a link to Paul Krugman’s excellent column in this morning’s Times.


Filed in Democrats | | Comments (1)

More on Bysiewicz’s woes

Monday, February 8, 2010

At the risk of beating a decomposing horse, I want to reply to a comment I received on my post about Susan Bysiwicz’s legal problems. Here it is, the first paragraph being a quote from my post:

Blumenthal responds that the amendment that made the AG a constitutional officer was enacted against the backdrop of the very statute that Susan would like to invalidate. We assume that a legislature acts with knowledge of pre-existing law, and there is no reason to believe that the legislature intended to repeal the quite reasonable requirement that the Attorney General be an attorney.

But the Legislature did not write the relevant provision (Art. 6, Sec. 10):

Every elector shall be eligible to any office in the state, except in cases provided for in this constitution.

That wasn’t written by the Legislature, but by the Constitutional Convention. The amendment that established the AG as a Constitutional Officer (Amendment I, 1969) was written by the Legislature, but they did not see fit to provide additional qualifications in their amendment. (The offices of Governor, Lt. Governor, State Rep, and State Senator all have additional qualifications.)

This is really just a restatement of the argument that the statute is unconstitutional because it imposes a requirement that the constitution does not. I actually dealt with this in my original post, but some additional discussion might be appropriate.

First, I don’t disagree with the commenter’s factual statements. This is just another way of saying that the legislative enactment (the 10 year active practice requirement) preceded the creation of the constitutional office. One could argue that the constitutional change implicitly repealed every statute on the books regarding the attorney general. It is not an irrational argument, but it would be irrational to argue that the legislature intended to do that. No one could argue with a straight face that the legislature intended to open up the AG’s job to a high school graduate with no legal training. Parenthetically, the fact that the statute came first probably weakens Bysiewicz’s case. Had the legislature tried to add qualifications by statute after the enactment of the constitutional provision, her argument would be much stronger.

It is not impossible that a judge would rule that, while the legislature clearly intended for the experience requirement to stay in place, that it blew it, and created a situation that permits any 18 year old elector to be attorney general. That is not impossible. And given that our legislature is not the United States Senate, it’s probably an oversight that the legislature would swiftly correct. A judge might reasonably anticipate just that response, and feel that s/he could safely rule the statute unconstitutional on the theory that the problem would be fixed before any harm could be done. After all, right now the only person affected is Susan, and at least all of us on this side of the political fence can probably agree that she is actually, as opposed to legally, qualified for the job. That is the argument that will have to prevail in court, and it is the argument the commenter is implicitly making.

Count me unconvinced. I wouldn’t bet my life savings, but if I had to put a dollar on either side, I’d bet that Blumenthal’s argument wins. Which gets us back to my final conclusion, which I’ll reiterate. As a person who wants to see a Democrat win, I’ll be backing one of the other candidates. Why buy into trouble?

By the way, it is possible that any group or individual voter, even a group of Democrats, could bring suit once Susan certifies herself as a candidate. I don’t know if individual voters would have standing, but it seems possible that anyone could bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Susan was ineligible. In that case, Blumenthal’s office would presumably come in to represent the state, which might be awkward, but Susan would need to get counsel of her own. Or, she could represent herself, and get in some active practice.


Filed in Lawyer stuff, Local issues | | Comments (1)