CT Blue ›

The Death of Satire

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Take this, Stephen Colbert:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) launched a special fundraising political action committee in October, pledging to use the money to fight illegal immigration and take on other issues she believes in. But based on financial disclosures filed this week, she has so far used it to do little more than buy copies of her own book.

The governor had raised only about $22,000 for Jan PAC by the end of 2011 and spent nearly a quarter of the cash, buying books from Amazon and paying a bill at the luxurious Waldorf Astoria hotel in Orlando, Fla. The rest of the money is still in the bank.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that you can mock about the corrupt campaign financing system that these people don’t do in all seriousness. Of course Jan’s a piker next to Sarah, but in her defense, she’s only just started.

One advantage we have is that while we don’t have the billionaires, we also don’t have nearly as many of the grifters, who will soak the funds from these right wingers and divert them away from politically productive uses.

Filed in Grifters | | Comments (0)

Newt defends the poor

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Newt’s still in it. Sarah says that a vote for Newt will annoy a liberal and all I can say is that I’ve never enjoyed being annoyed so much. You have to love the guy. He lives in the eternal present, totally lacking in self awareness or shame. Today he lectured Mitt Romney for saying he didn’t care about the poor:

GINGRICH: I’m fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other…the Founding Fathers wrote that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among with are life and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers meant all of us. Let me shock the Wall Street crowd. The Founding Fathers meant the 1 percent, who they called Americans. The Founding Fathers meant the very poor, who they called Americans. My goal is to find steps for every American to have a job, every American to work, every American to buy a house. I believe America was founded on a dream that we are in fact created equal and we have a chance to go out and have a chance to pursue happiness and that nobody of any background should be denied

Tomorrow he’ll be reminding everyone that he ended welfare. The next day he’ll be defending Wall Street. Whatever it takes, it’s all good, and what does it matter what he said yesterday. Yet they aren’t flip flops in the Romney sense. There’s something sui generis about Newt. May he run long and prosper, at least until August.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Republicans | | Comments (0)

High principle lives on

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Back in the 60s, I used to watch a TV series called The Defenders, about a father-son team of defense lawyers. I remember in one show the father quoted an aphorism to his son to the effect that it was better that 1000 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be convicted. Of course we’ve put such old fashioned thinking behind us, but the mathematical principle apparently live on throughout the land, as we have apparently decided that it is better that thousands of legitimate voters be turned away rather than one invalid ballot be cast.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

A new argument against gerrymandering

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

This is interesting:

.. [I]n Illinois, the bipartisan League of Women Voters is challenging gerrymandered districts based on a new legal claim: that it violates free speech. While a district court already dismissed its claim, the League of Women Voters can—and has—appealed to the Supreme Court. Because it’s a redistricting case, the court will have to rule on the matter.

“This is the first time a really bipartisan group has challenged gerrymandering as a regulation of speech,” says Thomas Geoghegan, the attorney for the group. “What’s really shocking is that in front of our eyes for years the states have been moving people from one place or another based on the views they have expressed not in the polling place…but because you have identified yourself as a Democrat or a Republican.”

The legal argument takes advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent and controversial Citizens United ruling, in which restrictions on corporate spending in political campaigns were deemed restrictions on speech. According to the court, concerns about fairness and balance were not enough to warrant the campaign finance laws.

According to appeal, similar concerns about fairness and competition are used to justify gerrymandering in Illinois. “In ostensibly acting to ensure competitive campaigns,” reads LWV’s appeal, “the state relocates citizens to new or different districts with the specific purpose of countering or offsetting speech in favor of one political party with speech from the other.” Furthermore, the appeal goes, the determination is based on people’s activism and vocal identification as Democrats or Republicans—what’s known as a “content-based” regulation of speech as opposed to a neutral piece of criteria.

(Quibble: the League is non-partisan, not bipartisan. There is a world of difference.)

The argument they’re making is certainly a compelling one. If anything should be unconstitutional, it’s gerrymandering, particularly in its modern form. When Elbridge (sp?) Gerry walked the land, the tools he had at hand were crude. Today, given computers, etc., a party so disposed can turn a transitory majority into a permanent one so long as they are in power in the legislative cycle of any year ending in zero. For us Democrats, it would be a great help to see the court rule in favor of the League, since we have a habit of losing big in years ending in zero (some might almost conclude its intentional) and even when we don’t, we have another habit of wanting to play fair with our opposition (witness Connecticut, which almost bent over backward enough to insure a Republican House member).

I’m way too lazy to do the research or read the briefs, but it seems to me that a court that holds that the First Amendment protects the rich from state funded response by the lower 99 might have a difficult time explaining why the state can be allowed to dilute or strengthen the votes of a group of voters based solely on their beliefs expressed in their voting registration and in their votes. If the state can’t provide public funds to match private spending because doing so tips the scale against the shouters, why should it be allowed to referee ideas in another forum and make decisions about redistricting using ideas as a criteria.

Of course, this argument, which might appeal to the justices if it benefitted Republicans, will get nowhere, and they’ll have no trouble finding distinctions that allow the ghettoization of Democrats while still upholding the rights of corporations to buy elections in the name of free and unfettered speech, free of government involvement. This court is probably the most intellectually dishonest in history, so even if the result the League seeks were literally compelled by their prior rulings, they’d find a way to rule for the Republicans. Nonetheless, a noble effort. Seems like good fodder for a Colbert “attack”.

Filed in Lawyer stuff, Politics | | Comments (0)

Two Nations, (One) under God

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Someone passed this graphic along to my wife, and I, in turn, feel compelled to pass it on. It illustrates the predominate term used in various parts of the nation for carbonated beverages. What struck me is how similar the pattern is to other, less trivial local variations, such as religiosity (hence, the title of the post), illegitimate birth rates, divorce rates, and…well, you name it, you’ll see pretty much the same pattern reflected in this map.

I don’t need to tell my readers that once again our region comes out ahead. For any folks from the red area that may come across this blog, the correct terminology is “soda”, followed by the almost equally correct “pop”. “Other”, whatever that may be, has to beat out “Coke” as a generic name for soda.

So even on such a trivial issue, we see the country breaks down in a somewhat meaningful way. Of course there are anomalies. Utah has no business being blue. At first, I thought to be reassured by what looked like red in what I believe are the more populated regions of that benighted state, but on closer inspection those regions actually appear to be purple, indicating a lack of data. Maybe Mormons aren’t allowed to drink soda, or, they aren’t allowed to drink what they would, if allowed, probably call Coke. We must also wonder about Southwestern Illinois and Eastern Missouri. I mean, Missouri was a border state, so while it wouldn’t surprise me to see the ramparts defended by a lighter shade of blue, it does indeed surprise and delight that the Show Me State has taken a strong stand with “Soda”.

UPDATE: a commenter (always a surprise, and always appreciated) asks how I could know that the term “soda” is most correct, followed by “pop”. Well, apart from those New England prejudices upon which I at first solely relied and which have never yet steered me wrong, I find support by referring to my Oxford Dictionary of English. Yes, I will let the Brits decide, as it was their language first, before we improved it. In that infallible tome the terms “soda” and “pop” are defined as sweet carbonated beverages, while the uncapitalized term “coke” refers to that stuff that runs through your brain. Nary a mention of carbonated beverages, though the capitalized term refers to Coca Cola only. For those who prefer an American authority, I refer them to the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition, which agrees its English cousin.

Filed in American Life | | Comments (2)

A bit of quibbling over semantics

Saturday, January 28, 2012

We’ve been hearing a lot about Romney’s tax return lately. I personally have been struck (stricken?) by the number of times I’ve read statements, even from left wingers, to the effect that Romney earned $21 million last year. Here’s one example, but it shouldn’t be hard to find more. This appeared to me to be a misuse of the word earn, so I went to a few dictionaries to see if I had a point, and I think I do. Here’s the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English (not to be totally confused with its big brother, the OED):

Verb (with obj)

1. obtain (money) in return for labour or services: he earns his living as a lorry driver; (with two objs) earn yourself a few pounds;

(with two objs) (of an activity cause (someone) to obtain money; this latest win earned them $50,000 in prize money;

(of capital invested) gain (money) as interest or profit.

2. gain deservedly in return for one’s behaviour or acheivements: through the years she has earned affection and esteem.

The American Heritage Dictionary (5th Edition, recently dearly purchased):

tr.v.earned, earn?ing, earns

To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.

Now, one can make a rather strained argument that you can apply the term “earn” to the money Romney acquired last year, but it really is a bit of a stretch. The definitions above, when speaking of individuals, apply the term to reward obtained for contemporary effort. I earn my paycheck. When I retire (if I ever can afford to retire) I will live off of my 401k and my Social Security benefits (if guys like Romney have not destroyed the Social Security System). Assume the combined amount I get in a given year from these sources is $20 million dollars. Would anyone say that I “earned” $20 million in retirement benefits last year, though I surely earned the capital and paid the taxes from which that income is derived. When the term is applied to interest or investment income, it is the money that is earning the income (see the third American Heritage definition), not the person who owns the money.

This is no small thing. We on the left have let our language be hijacked by the right, and have all too often adopted right wing slanted terminology without a second thought (e.g. “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion”, though the latter is a more accurate description of this war mongering, execution loving crowd), thus implicitly agreeing to play on their field. The word “earn” implies effort; Romney exerted no effort in order to get his $21 million dollars last year, and that’s precisely the reason why most people, who make their money by the sweat of their brows, feel it’s unfair for him to pay a tax rate lower than theirs on his income. It would be more accurate to call it unearned income; manna from heaven in amounts most of us will never see in our lifetime.

Filed in Language | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music

Friday, January 27, 2012

In the past I have tried, on this feature, to abide by a few rules, all of which I have broken when the need arose. No lip syncing, no music with only a photo to go along with it; and no repeated artists. It has been most difficult to adhere to the last of those. There have been a lot of great rockers, but sooner or later you run out, or your fading memory just can’t dredge up another one. In addition, some artists just aren’t represented in internet accessible videos. I don’t think I ever did find something worth showing by the great Sam Cooke.

Anyway, I’m going to try something different starting this week. I’m going to try to find songs that have some relevance, however marginal, to the events of the day. This seems like a good time to do this, as so long as both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in the race, they will say or do something stupid that will give me some ideas.

This week Newt announced that he would start a moon colony, which I actually wouldn’t oppose if he were willing to spend some money here on earth too, but, of course, that’s not the case.

So, this song came to mind. This performance by Bette Midler was the best live performance I could find in the short time I allotted myself before my interest ran out. I actually think it’s pretty good, and since I’ve never put her up before, I’m still playing by the old rules.

The song was originally written and performed by a Cambridge (England) University student named Jonathan King. So far as I was aware he dropped off the planet (or went to the moon) after he had his one big hit, but in fact he has an interesting life story, which is well worth a read.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Irresponsibility

Thursday, January 26, 2012

If you were to judge by the people who leave comments on the New London Day’s website, you would conclude that Southeastern Connecticut is full of right wing bigots. Actual voting results, however, would not confirm that conclusion. If you were to judge by the results of scientific polling, you would conclude that Obama’s SOTU was well received by a broad swath of the American electorate. Yet, if you were to give the Day’s online poll any credence, you would have to conclude that Southeastern Connecticut is an extreme outlier, and that here the plurality of viewers gave it failing grades. On the other hand, you might conclude that on line polls have no scientific validity, and that given the nature of the Day’s commenters it would simply be the height of irresponsibility to give such a poll prominence in your newspaper. You might conclude that, if you weren’t the editors of the Day, constantly seeking ways to placate a small but vocal group of right wingers.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Rethinking the Romney meme

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

It’s been conventional wisdom for quite a while that Romney, mass of warts and all, is nonetheless the strongest candidate the Republicans have for the general election. I bought into that, and while I’m not quite ready to declare outright apostasy, I think the argument is losing a lot of its force awful fast. Newt is every bit as big a liar as Newt, and would arguably be an even worse president, but he’s glib, and he expresses himself with a faux conviction that almost perfectly resembles the real thing.

Romney has two things going against him and they feed into one another.

The first is the fact that he is a flesh and blood exemplar of the privileged status that the rich have consolidated in this country. Of course, they’ve always had a certain amount of privilege, but it’s grown with the growth of inequality. It would be one thing if he regularly condemned his privileged treatment, as both Obama and, in the past, Bill Clinton have done. But he can’t bring himself to condemn the disparity in tax rates that requires a working stiff to fork over a higher percentage of his income than a guy who sits back and collects interest.

The second is his total inability to even feign being a normal person. He just can’t help himself. Consider this article, in which we learn that Romney, a la Clinton, feels the pain of his base:

“The banks are scared to death, of course,” he said. “They’re feeling the same thing that you’re feeling…”

Bear in mind that the “you’re” he’s referring to are flesh and blood people, who actually have the capacity to be scared. The truth is, Romney feels the banks pain in a way that he can never feel the pain of the losers who have lost their jobs and/or home on the altars of high finance. Worse, he finds it impossible to even pretend that he cares about normal people. Every time he tries, he comes across as a transparent phony.

I don’t know if the people around him are trying to rein him in or to teach him how to fake a connection to the 99.9%, but if they are, they have failed, and the fault is not theirs but in Willard. He will continue to say stuff like the above until the day of the election, if he manages to wrest the nomination from Newt.

Has ever a political party put on offer such a collection of clowns? Our local Republicans run people for the school board who are more qualified to be president.

Along these lines, I must pass along a few lines recently uttered by Fidel Castro. Hey, when he’s right, he’s right:

“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been,” said the retired Cuban leader, who has dueled with 11 U.S. administrations since his 1959 revolution.

Filed in Republicans, Romney | | Comments (0)