Skip to content

One for the godless

Monday, May 31, 2010

The ACLU has won a preliminary injunction against the Town of Enfield, barring the Town’s Board of Education from holding graduation ceremonies in a church.

I’ve attached Judge Hall’s decision, for anyone who cares to read it. Her description of “The Cathedral” is quite good. It perfectly conveys the fact that one any non-believer or non-Christian would feel like an outcast at those ceremonies.

I always find it interesting, in cases such as this, that “religious, and thereby by their own lights at least, moral and upstanding people, tie themselves into knots by trying to claim that religion has nothing to do with their actions, despite the fact that their claims are so clearly untrue.

In the Enfield case, among other things, the chair of the Board pretty much conspired with a fundie church trade group to get the graduation in the church. The church’s principal minister also claimed that it’s collection of religious art was actually just “eclectic”. This because the religious symbolism in some was muted enough to make the pictures arguably secular.

Maybe intellectual dishonesty isn’t a sin.

I know I would have been furious had I had to enter “The Cathedral” in order to see my kids graduate. This is a one small victory for the Constitution.

Enfieldgraduationdecision

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (3)

Schiff does happen

Monday, May 31, 2010

Peter Schiff is busy gathering petitions to get himself on the Republican ballot. He’s the true tea party candidate. Assuming that he gets on, and is willing to spend some of his own money, he could make the Republican primary interesting. He probably can’t win, but if he wants to have any chance to do so, he’s going to have to run an entirely negative campaign. He can be quite useful so far as the Democrats are concerned. He can test market the various approaches to driving McMahon’s negatives, and the Democrats, at least for the moment, can leave the driving to him.

It is a constant source of amazement to me that these tea party folks are willing to fall in line behind people who are so obviously uninterested in actually doing anything for the useful idiots they choose to exploit. As Ted Mann reports, Schiff attended on of the tea party weekly rallies in Stamford a few days ago, and had this to say about his alleged difficulty in hiring people to gather signatures:

Asked how the signature-gathering is going, he remarks that the campaign is “bringing in some professionals” from out of state to finish the job by the deadline.

“It’s hard to even hire people,” Schiff says. “Figured it’d be easy with all these unemployed people. They’d just as soon collect unemployment benefits, I guess.”

Yes, of course they would. Perhaps Schiff should ask those tea partiers how they manage to find the time to demonstrate weekly, on working days, during the day. I’ve often asked myself that question as I leave work in Norwich and see the mostly working age demonstrators toting their signs outside of Joe Courtney’s office. How many of those folks are on disability, worker’s comp, or unemployment? I don’t begrudge them the benefits, but I do wonder how they can fail to see the gap between their professed beliefs and the “socialistic” government programs on which many of them depend, and most of the rest cherish. You don’t, after all, see them toting signs denouncing Social Security, the most socialistic program of them all, though Schiff is eager to cut both it and the Medicare that his followers insist should be freed from governmental interference.

But there is nothing new under the sun. Schiff, a wealthy man who opposes Medicare and Social Security because he doesn’t need them, is just one of many politicians who has made a living out of mis-directing people’s resentments. For the moment, he’s useful, and here’s wishing him well for the next few months.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (3)

Something we need: A SWAT team of accountants

Monday, May 31, 2010

It now appears that the oil spill in the Gulf will continue unabated for several months, with BP’s cover its ass approach to containment the only relief in the meantime. Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers has taken a break from his laudable efforts on behalf of cephalopods and against the forces of unreason to make what seems to me a very constructive suggestion, which is worth passing on:

Everyone is fixated on that one burning mess in the Gulf, which is probably exactly what the oil companies want — they are probably sweating pungent carcinogenic petrochemicals at the thought that someone might look around and notice all of those other rigs, which almost certainly have a paper trail of shortcuts and risks and shoddy management. While BP is struggling to catch up with its responsibilities and close off the well and clean up the poisons, I think a great thing for the Obama administration to do would be to descend on each of those other wells with a force of elite regulatory accountants, documenting all the potential and extant problems, and telling each company to fix them. Now. Without cheating, without getting any special dispensations. If they can’t fix them, shut them down or hit them with massive penalties.

I don’t know if this is even possible, since we might very well lack the “elite regulatory accountants” necessary to do the job, but if it’s possible, they should do it, both for the substance and the political theater of it. It’s becoming more and more clear that this particular oil spill involves criminal behavior, and there’s no reason to believe that it is an isolated instance. As Myers points out, there are thousands of wells in the Gulf alone. It’s more likely than not that BP and other oil companies chose the best financial case when making decisions about other wells. Obama, assuming he’d be interested, is hindered by the fact that he has to work through a captive regulatory agency, where at the moment most of the employees are probably busily covering their own asses and writing resumes. It’s also the case that what Myers is proposing is what the agencies should have been doing as a matter of course.

BP killed 11 people and has caused billions of dollars worth of damages, damage that, in the end, it will probably resist paying for. Don’t believe its present protestations for a minute. Once the leak is stopped, it will begin to walk back its assurances. If history is any guide, sometime in the late 2020s the victims of BP’s criminality might recover a few pennies on the dollar, and of course, most of the victims, the plant and animal populations being decimated, don’t even have the right to sue.

We get ourselves into a panic about every bumbling would be terrorist, but if the more effective destroyer is incorporated and has billions of dollars in assets, our response to what amounts to a full blown attack is surprisingly relaxed. Well, not surprising really.

On another aspect of the leak story: being no expert, I’m not competent to judge, butI wonder if this fellow knows what he’s talking about. It would be no surprise at all if both BP and the government didn’t care to hear from outsiders, no matter how expert they might be.


Filed in Environment, Politics | | Comments (2)

Friday Night Music-Memorial Day Edition

Friday, May 28, 2010

This being the beginning of Memorial Day weekend, I tried to think of some appropriate music, something that would hark back at least a little to the original purpose of the day. For the most part, the honored dead consist of the type of guy this song is about. Those graves are not full of the privileged; most especially the graves dug after World War II.

The likelihood is that I won’t be posting much for the next few days. I hope everyone who reads this has a good Memorial Day Weekend.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

We think we have troubles

Friday, May 28, 2010

When events like Katrina, the Gulf Oil Spill, or phenomena like Global Warming get you down, remember, it could be worse-lot’s worse.

Consider the theoretically possible, and now certainly former, inhabitants of the planet depicted below, which is currently in the process of being eaten whole by what may have formerly been a beneficent Sun. Now, those were sinners in the hands of a very angry god.


Filed in Science | | Comments (0)

Beltway wisdom

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Colin McEnroe sums up the disconnect between the Beltway crowd and the people of Connecticut on the Blumenthal issue. This is chronic with the insiders, the best example being their absolute astonishment that the majority of people in this country were sophisticated enough to realize that they had a pretty good president in Bill Clinton (especially considering the alternatives) despite his peccadillos. It galls them no end when the folks in the hinterland refuse to dance to their tune, a tune, as Bob Somerby points out, that usually involves bringing down a Democrat.

Not that the disconnect doesn’t flow in both directions. The overwhelming consensus in Washington is that Rand Paul hurt himself by retroactively opposing the Civil Rights Act. Don’t be so sure. There’s lots of folks down that way who miss those segregated lunch counters. Now, if the Democrats can smoke him out on issues those same folks care about, like Social Security, minimum wage, worker safety, etc., it might be a different story. Paul may be a little like David Duke, garnering more votes than the polls suggest because some people don’t want to admit, even to a pollster, that they’re racists.


Filed in Media, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Chicken Republicans

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The Republican Senators are all bragging about how they had Obama reeling when he came to lunch with them today. Of course, they insisted that it be closed door, so that no one can contradict them, but does anyone believe that the likes of John McCain or Bob Corker could shake Obama’s cool?


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (1)

Simmons kinda, sorta exits

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

One can sympathize, at least in the abstract, with poor Rob, done in by big money. Then again, it’s his party that most definitely wouldn’t have it any other way. Democrats aren’t simon pure on the public financing issue, but at least they’re willing to talk about it.

The fact that he merely “suspended” his campaign is interesting. He’s basically giving Republicans the opportunity to register displeasure about McMahon’s blatant purchase of a Senate seat. It will be interesting to see how many accept the invitation; it might tell us a bit about what to expect in the general. I suspect that there are still Connecticut Republicans left who are offended by McMahon.

Speaking of McMahon, while surfing around today I found several mentions in national type blogs about her being the tea party candidate. (Example here) This seems, to me, to be a gross misreading of her campaign, which just goes to show that even national commentators with the best of intentions often misread things outside the beltway. My read, and I think this is widely shared around here, is that she has, so far, avoided committing herself to any agenda, right wing or otherwise.

Her website (to which I refuse to link) has an “issues” section, which contains standard Republican pablum, but it appears to avoid the more extreme tea party positions, though I suppose you are pretty much free to read anything in that you would like. I got a kick out of the section on abortion, where she rather apologetically confesses to being pro-choice, but points out that she is opposed to “partial birth abortions” and she sounds a few more anti-abortion platitudes. Still, not the straight up stuff that you get from the real tea party nuts.

Unless Schiff manages to smoke her out, which I doubt, she will sail through the primary season without having to tack right, so she will have an easy time presenting herself as a “moderate” in the fall. And, in fact, that’s just what she may be. If she wins, my guess is that she’ll go her own way, though we’ll have no idea on the day she’s sworn in exactly what that might mean. She has no particular loyalty to the Republican party, that’s clear. She’s a little like Bloomberg in that respect-the party is just a vehicle to get her where she wants to go. Had there been a vulnerable Republican in the seat, she’d be a Democrat right now.

She is going to be a formidable opponent for Blumenthal. Republicans have, in general, developed the ability to avoid talking about their political positions-exceptions like Rand Paul stand out, and he has now retreated to talking only to safe, soft ball throwing reporters. Linda will rely on her money, and a combination of warm and fuzzy commercials (about her) and vicious attacks on Blumenthal. It may well work.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Something to ponder

Monday, May 24, 2010

This post by Matt Corley at ThinkProgress got me thinking. The subject is Rand Paul, the “libertarian” Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, and the fact that quite a few conservatives disagree with Sarah Palin’s view that Rachel Maddow was somehow unfair to him by asking about his opinions. Corley references a post by a conservative named Peter Wehner, who defended Maddow’s treatment of Paul, and then concludes:

Wehner’s post was linked without disagreement by both the FrumForum and National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. Wehner’s Commentary colleague, Rick Richman added, “it is important for conservatives to be honest about Rand Paul and not to blame his unacceptable comments on the media that ferreted them out.”

Now, here’s what struck me. What were Paul’s “unacceptable comments” according to Mr. Richman? Answer: the view that private property rights trump civil rights. This was the conservative position back when the Civil Rights Act was passed. It was not just overt racists that opposed the legislation, it was “principled” conservatives like Barry Goldwater, the Republican 1964 standard bearer and William F. Buckley, who believed exactly what Rand Paul believes today. It continues to be the case, by the way, that conservatives reflexively oppose the extension of statutory protections to any needful group not already protected.

The liberal position is now the universal position, as it is on pretty much all of the progressive legislative victories of the past 100 years. Child Labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, the Family Leave Act, laws against age and sex discrimination, etc. Progressive legislation, once passed, becomes part of the fabric of our society, and anyone advocating repeal is committing political suicide. That’s why they do try to repeal, they do it by stealth, or attempt it in increments. For the fact is, they still cherish hopes of reversing the progressive legislation of the past 100 years. I still believe, for instance, that Bush’s privatization scheme, was born of his desire to get the ultimate conservative feather in his cap. But even Bush, at the height of his arrogance and power, couldn’t touch social security. The only progressive legislation that is truly vulnerable is legislation the public can’t understand; that’s why Glass-Steagel was repealed, and we see where that brought us.

Now, quick: Can you think of a piece of conservative legislation that has become similarly embedded in the American way of life? The glorious Bush tax cuts are about to become history, or will if the Democrats keep their spines, and the country will yawn, though the Republicans will pout. Doesn’t it say something about the relative merits of the opposing political philosophies that, very shortly after progressive legislation is enacted, it is embraced by its former opponents? Witness, for example, the hypocritical attacks on the Health Care Act alleging that it would harm Medicare. They may not really like progressive legislation, but none are as foolish as Rand Paul and care to admit it. It’s why they fight legislation like the Health Care bill-not because they think it will fail, but are afraid it will succeed.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Backyard drama

Sunday, May 23, 2010

I was doing what I do best on Sundays-reading a book on the patio-when I heard some squawking from the vicinity of an Alberta Spruce about 10 feet from the chaise on which I was reclining. I glanced over and there were two robins making a rather determined effort to take down a chipmunk, who only saved himself by running in my direction and taking refuge, at least initially, under the chaise.

The robins retreated to the branches of a nearby tree, looking for all the world like they hadn’t forgotten or forgiven whatever transgression the chipmunk had committed.

The only thing that occurred to me as a reason for this little drama is a possible theft, attempted or successful, of the robins’ eggs, but I’ve never heard of that sort of thing before. Any bird experts out there?


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (1)