Skip to content

Looking ahead

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Now we have to hope that Malloy is as good at spreading the truth about Foley as he was at spreading lies about Lamont.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (2)

Greetings from Vermont

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Just keeping my hand in here. While the folks at home are worrying about the primary, we’ve put all that behind us. I’m writing this using WordPress for the Ipad, which is quite primitive. I’ve inserted three pictures (the maximum allowed) but I have no way of previewing to see how they look. Anyway, we’re having fun, and rooting for Ned.

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music-A Summer Song

Friday, August 6, 2010

I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that Chad and Jeremy were among my very favorite acts at the start of the British Invasion. I well remember being greatly disappointed when they backed out of headlining a “Big D Big Show” at the Bushnell in 1965 or thereabouts. I bought all their albums. What can I say?

Anyway, it occurred to me that their big hit, a Summer Song, was certainly timely. I searched youtube, and there’s no videos of live performances from the 60s, but, believe it or not, they’ve reunited and have apparently been touring for several years, which just goes to prove that while there may be no second acts for Americans, there must be for Britishers.

Back in the day, their harmonies were tighter, and they could hit the high notes.


Filed in Music | | Comments (1)

Because I know you’ve been waiting: CTBlue primary endorsements

Friday, August 6, 2010

We shall soon be heading for the Green Mountains, for two blessed weeks away from work. Before I leave I feel it is incumbent upon me to tell everyone out there how to vote.

Let me say first, that we have, for the most part, a fine roster of candidates. Whoever wins will have my support, with the exception of one candidate. See if you can guess which one. By the way, since I’ll be away, I’ve already put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. My absentee ballot is safely ensconced in the Town Clerk’s office.

Governor: Ned Lamont. I support Ned for a number of reasons. One is purely emotional. I feel like we owe Ned big time. He’s the guy who stood up when no one else would. Dick Blumenthal would be senator now if he’d done what Ned did. Ned lost in 2006, but he showed Democrats that they had to deal with the Iraq war issue, and he arguably helped save the party from itself, since before he came along every Democrat in Congress was running from the issue.

I also think that Ned would actually be more capable of dealing with the legislature than Malloy, though I think it will be a daunting task for either. He also seems prepared to make the hard choices that need to be made, some of which I know I may not like, to get this state moving in another direction. It’s an unfortunate fact of modern political life that after the Republicans destroy a governmental entity-and make no mistake, in this state it’s the governor that rules- a Democrat (or independent, e.g., Lowell Weicker) has to come in and clean things up, at the risk of being a one term governor (or president, or what have you). It’s an unfair world out there. I think Ned is more willing to follow in Lowell’s footsteps and do what needs to be done.

One final point: I had hoped that both candidates would operate on the premise that the need to get a Democratic governor was more important than that they personally get the nomination. I had hoped, but of course knew better, that they could keep the debate positive. Malloy was the guy that turned it negative, forcing Lamont to do the same. That’s a strike against him in my book.

Lieutenant Governor: Mary Glassman. Strictly because I think the governor should have the lieutenant governor of his or her choice.

Secretary of State: I voted for Gerry Garcia on the first ballot at the convention, but switched to Denise Merrill on the second. Something about Garcia’s attempt to switch his supporters to Jonathan Harris didn’t sit well with me. Only later did I realize that there had been an even more objectionable part of the deal, which gave New Haven’s delegate block to the loathsome, repulsive, Jarjura of Waterbury. I like Garcia personally, but anyone who had a part in easing Jarjura’s path to the primary should have to pay a price, if not in this life, then in the hereafter. Since I don’t believe in the hereafter, I’m going with Merrill here below.

Comptroller: Kevin Lembo. Kevin is a decent, honest and honorable guy. He would make an excellent comptroller.

Being no Shakespeare and incapable of adequately expressing my contempt for the guy, I will leave it to the bard to describe his opponent. He is:

A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir to a mongrel bitch: one whom I [would] beat into clamorous whining if [he] deni’st the least syllable of [his] addition.

Gosh, that guy could write, couldn’t he? (The foregoing, by the way, is merely an expression of opinion, no factual assertions are either expressed or implied, and of course it’s all in the spirit of constructive criticism.)

I understand that negative campaigning is a feature of political campaigns, but any decent person knows some limits, however difficult they may be to define. This is especially true in a primary. Jarjura’s fact free slime leaped over that line in a single bound. Besides, the guy is not even a real Democrat, given that he’s holding those tea-partiers so close (among other things).

Finally, there’s the fact that 1) he’s Mayor of Waterbury, and 2) he saw fit to hire John Rowland for a cushy job. Neither fact is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but either would constitute probable cause to believe that he’s not someone you want anywhere near your money.

So, there you have it. Now, go out and vote for the candidates of your choice, so long as you are voting for the candidates of my choice. Or, at least, don’t vote for the person I can’t support in November, if you can figure out which one that is.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Nit-picky

Thursday, August 5, 2010

As a long suffering Town Committee treasurer, who tries to go by the book, I want to second Representative Tim O’Brien’s (New Britain and Newington) complaints about the State Election Enforcement Commission. He takes issue, justifiably in my opinion, with the Commission’s assertion that he has to put a “Paid for by ” disclaimer on his blog or facebook page, despite the fact that he isn’t paying anyone for either the blog or the facebook nor is he getting any kind of deal, since blogspot and facebook are free to anyone.

My wife ran into a situation where she was trying to send a mass email for a fundraiser, and was told that the email would be considered a contribution, on the theory that she pays for internet service and she was giving some of it away to the candidate in question. This sort of stuff gets a little absurd, and, as O’Brien points out, is so de minimus that it should properly be ignored.

Our town committee stopped doing tag sales because I concluded that it was literally impossible to hold one and comply with the law, because I would have to have accounted for every piece of junk that someone donated, give it a value, and keep track of what was paid for it. Easy enough if you’re doing a high priced auction; not so easy if you’re selling hundreds of donated items for a few bucks apiece.

If you start out with the proposition that no one in their right mind would be interested in bribing town committees (okay, except for Linda McMahon) and that most of them are low budget affairs, you might very well conclude that it would make sense to exempt them from disclosure requirements altogether, so long as their total expenditures/contributions in a year don’t exceed some reasonable figure. That would make life easier for a lot of people, without undermining the law’s purpose at all. That would be a legislative solution of course.

On the plus side, I must say the folks at the Commission are helpful, in that they will give you an answer to any questions you might have very quickly. I may not always like the answers, but at least I get them.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (2)

Chris, don’t let the door hit you on the way out

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Chris Dodd appears determined to prove his critics right: he has been in Washington way too long. As his final act as a Senator, he has chosen to lead the charge among Democrats to assure the survival of the filibuster and the continued dominance of the Republican party, no matter who is in the minority. Yesterday he met with freshman Senators who are a bit fed up with this little bit of Senatorial privilege and tried to set them straight:

“I made a case last night to about ten freshman senators, you know, you want to turn this into a unicameral body? What’s the point of having a Senate? If the vote margins are the same as in the House, you might as well close the doors,” Dodd told reporters in the Capitol.

The Senate has served as a counterpoise to the House since the beginning of the Republic. It was designed that way by the Founders, who clearly envisioned that the “vote margins [would be] the same as in the House”. Longer terms, larger constituencies and a smaller body all operate to make the Senate a far different institution than the House.

For all but a sliver of the time since the Republic’s founding, the Senate has operated on the majority vote principal, the filibuster being more or less relegated to a tool used by Southerners to deprive blacks of their constitutional rights, and to preserve sacred American traditions like lynching. Somehow the Republic survived (though not some of the black victims of this sacred institution), and the Senate thrived, despite the fact that the norm was that only a majority was required to pass a bill and filibusters were rare. Yes, even the bigots of the past, who at least were up-front about their bigotry, were more restrained than the Republicans of today.

There are 49 bicameral state legislatures in this country, and the states have managed to survive, despite the fact that “the vote margins are the same” in both houses, although we must caveat by pointing out that California has effectively destroyed itself by enacting a super majority requirement to pass budgets, effectively holding itself hostage to a determined minority, driving itself into bankruptcy in the process.

There are, in addition,many ways in which you can assure the minority plenty of time to debate while still requiring that at some point, it end. But Chris, apparently, thinks it’s important that McConnell and his ilk be able to stop anything, the unemployed, uninsured, and uneducated be damned.

This type of stuff from Chris would not be so infuriating if there were examples of any substantial good the filibuster has ever done when the Democrats were in the minority. The Republicans demand up or down votes and the Democrats cave. In any event, the filibuster is an inherently anti-progressive institution, and at the present it is positively reactionary. It’s purpose is to stop things from getting done, and its continued existence guarantees that this country will move ever rightward, no matter what the people want.

I hate to say it, but so far as Dodd is concerned, good riddance.

UPDATE: A commenter suggests that a rule change now could help the Republicans if they win in November. That’s true, except for procedural reasons, the Democrats can’t change the rules until the new session. If they are in the minority, they can’t do it, nor can they stop the Republicans from changing them, as, at that point, rule changes can not be filibustered. The Republicans are unlikely to change them, should they take over, because with a Democrat in office they will not be particularly interested in actually trying to pass anything. They will spend two years investigating Obama, everyone will get disgusted with them, and he’ll be re-elected in 2012 and the Senate will go back to the Democrats. But that’s not going to happen because the Republicans are not going to take over. Were the present situation reversed, you can bet the Republicans would be threatening to abolish the filibuster right now, in order to make Democrats stop using it. We know that’s true, because it’s exactly what they tried to do when they were in the majority with a Republican president, and they intended to do it by breaking the rules. Of course, the Democrats cowered, they always do, so the Republicans did not have to follow through on their threat, so the (in this case, judicial) filibuster survived so they could use it against Obama’s appointees.


Filed in Democrats, Dodd | | Comments (1)

What I tell you three (or three million) times is true

Monday, August 2, 2010

This morning’s New London Day has a puff piece about the three Republicans vying to get crushed by Joe Courtney in November. This sentence caught the eye of my vigilant spouse, and impressed me as well:

Along with fellow Republicans, they want to reverse Democratic policies like the health care reform bill, enacted by Obama and Democrats in Congress earlier this year, decrease federal spending and restore the Bush tax cuts to reduce the federal deficit…

Now I realize that we are living in an age where many journalists consider themselves mere stenographers, but isn’t this a bit much? There’s not a word in the article that questions the efficacy of balancing budgets by reducing revenue.

Perhaps Joe should tell the Day that he proposes increasing spending by a trillion dollars (roughly the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy over the next 10 years) over the next 10 years in order to reduce the deficit. Would the Day swallow that whole without gagging, or would they point out that Joe was losing his mind? I should add here, parenthetically, that unlike the three Republicans, he does have a mind to lose.

The ironic thing is that, given present conditions, increased spending now would mean lower deficits over the long haul, depending, of course, on what you are spending the money on. Giving tax breaks to those least likely to spend the money is a proven deficit creator. Those seeking further proof are referred to the 1980s and the Bush years, respectively.

This all reminds me of these lines from Lewis Carroll’s Hunting of the Snark:

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true.”

The Republicans have told us that tax cuts lower deficits about 3 million times, and apparently, at least for the Day, that makes it true.

By the way, I can’t supply a link to the Day’s article, because as I write, the Day’s website is down. You’ll have to trust me on the quote, and my assertion that the reporter, Matt Collette, expressed not a word of wonder at the arithmetically absurd position of all three candidates.

UPDATE: Here’s the link.


Filed in Media | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music

Friday, July 30, 2010

I try not to repeat myself on this feature, which is getting harder and harder. I checked, and, surprisingly, I haven’t put up Jefferson Airplane/Starship before, at least not since I moved from .Mac to WordPress lo those many years ago.

A couple of decent clips of some of their best songs, White Rabbit:

And Somebody to Love:


Filed in Music | | Comments (1)

Irony free zone

Friday, July 30, 2010

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen are on the attack against Wikileaks, particularly its founder Julian Assange. While they are unable to point to any specific deleterious effect of the leaks (other than the exposure of the morass in which we find ourselves), they nonetheless are claiming that he has blood on his hands.

Just a couple of days ago, the Defense Department disagreed with its head guy:

The Pentagon is telling NBC’s Michael Isikoff that a special assessment team looking over the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war logs has found nothing that could damage national security.

What’s amazing is that these two can accuse someone else of having blood on their hands with respect to the war in Afghanistan, a war whose needless continuance they have overseen and defended, while many American soldiers, and of far less moment, but still worth pointing out, many Afghans have died needlessly. All the perfumes of Arabia can’t wash the blood from their hands, but without a hint of irony they accuse Assange. Perhaps they’ve taken a lesson from the bloody handed Lady MacBeth, with Assange playing the role of the hapless grooms:

I’ll gild the faces of the grooms withal; For it must seem their guilt.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Trickle down

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Colbert on extending the Bush Tax Cuts:


Filed in Economics, Video | | Comments (0)