The Sir Douglas Quintet consisted of a bunch of Texans who picked a British sounding name to try to ride the wave, so to speak. According to Wikipedia they had three reasonably good selling singles, but I only remember this one, She’s About a Mover, making them one hit wonders in my book, at least. Lead singer and band eponym Doug Sahm went on to carve out a fairly illustrious career, however.
Consistent with Jon Stewart’s evenly-spread-the-blame call for civility, the Daily Show has come to Southeastern Connecticut to report on the recent actually civil campaign between Democrat Andy Maynard and RINO (and I write that with deep respect) Stuart Norman.
This is the first time the Daily Show has visited our neck of the woods since some atheists tried, successfully I think, to stop Jewett City from mixing church and state in a matter involving a bell tower.
Now, Maynard and Norman’s willingness to participate in this proves something else about these guys. Not only were they able to be civil to one another and treat the voters with respect, they are also either unbelievably brave or unbelievably foolish. Take your pick. I’m assuming that the Stewart folks will try to make them look good, if for no other reason that to advance Stewart’s meme, but I’ve watched a lot of Daily Shows, and I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re not very good at making their victims look good, even when they seem to want to.
For what it’s worth, both Norman and Maynard deserve the recognition. Wouldn’t it be nice if every campaign was run like theirs-an honest exchange of views.
We can all look forward to seeing Andy and Stu on television, along, I’m told, with some of our friends and neighbors who were interviewed for the show. I’ll be posting it here, once it’s aired. I would like to add that I think it’s a shame that they didn’t think to get the take of local political bloggers (of which, come to think of it, I am the lone example) on the subject.
Why do they even bother?
The New York Times reports that Harry Reid is once again promising to bring DADT repeal to the Senate floor.
Is there any sentient being out there who doesn’t already know that Reid will meekly forget the whole thing once the Republicans use their minority to block the bill? Is there any sentient being who thinks that either Reid or Obama will put any pressure on the Republicans, or attempt to frame the debate in any way, shape or form to try to actually get the measure to a vote? Why even bother. They make such a pitiful gesture out of the whole thing that they just end up alienating the people they are supposedly trying to help, and reinforce the Republican’s confidence that they are calling the shots.
This is a bit like Charlie Brown telling everyone he sees that he just had a great idea: he’s going to ask Lucy to hold the football for him.
I’d much rather hear Reid say that he’s going to change the rules come January. We might as well face facts on DADT and just about everything else. The Democrats have successfully allowed the Republicans to call the shots. The best Obama can hope for in the next two years is to get his appointees and his judges confirmed, and he can’t do that unless the Senate changes its rules.
Feeling depressed by the state of the world these days? Over 55? Head on over to Itunes and watch the Beatles Concert at the Washington Coliseum. Their first appearance on U.S. soil after the Sullivan show. It’s free, at least for now. You can’t watch it without feeling just a little better, albeit perhaps a little older.
Looks like we may have another bailout coming:
Widespread problems in how U.S. lenders documented foreclosures could spark a wave of legal challenges resulting in massive losses to banks and serious new troubles for the housing market, a federal watchdog warned on Tuesday.
…
In the worst-case scenario, the panel said banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own, legal challenges could call into question the validity of 33 million mortgage loans — many of which were then securitized and sold to investors — and banks could face billions of dollars in unexpected losses.
If, indeed, the worst happens, the banks will once again go to the Feds with their hands outstretched. These are the banks who purchased a Republican Congress just a few weeks ago, the same Republicans who were blaming Obama for the bailout that they voted for and from which their contributors benefitted so much.
Here’s what should happen, if the Democrats had any brains and/or political sense. The Democrats would step back and let the Republicans, with a smattering of blue dogs, take the lead in trying to rescue the banks. Make them step up, load and clear. Obama should threaten to veto any new bailout. This time, we should nationalize, as we should have done the last time. At all events, the Democrats should force the Republicans to put their fingerprints indelibly on any bailout.
Here’s what will happen. Obama will step up to “do the right thing”. He will seek bipartisan compromise. He will get some Democrats to fall on their swords, whose votes, along with those of safe-district Republicans, will be enough to get the banks what they want. Once the deed is safely done, the Republicans will tar the Democrats with it.
Then Obama will blame himself for not fostering a more bi-partisan atmosphere.
To which one can only observe that even Charlie Brown never blamed himself when Lucy pulled back the football.
A while back I noted that the New London Day printed a story about some ghostbusters, without giving even a passing clause to the idea that, just possibly, there are no such things as ghosts.
PZ Myers points out over at Pharyngula that the New York Times is apparently as credulous as the Day.
The Times printed an entire story about a revival of the use of exorcism in the Catholic Church without once questioning the basic premise that a person can be possessed by a demon. Apparently, when it comes to spooks or religion, there aren’t two sides of the story. “Balance” is apparently reserved for scientific issues like global warming, where scientific consensus is balanced by the misrepresentations of the self-interested and the deluded.
Since everything is evidence that global warming is a myth, I submit the following as exhibits, pictures of roses taken today in my wife’s garden.
The pictures were taken after we took a walk in a nearby state park, enjoying the typically balmy temperatures of mid-November.
My wife, who as a gardener pays attention to these things, tells me that we have yet to have a killing frost, which according to Connecticut’s DEP is now about a month overdue.
By they way, I realize this is, in a sense, only a single data point, much like Fox’s cold day in January. But those roses, and the little insect, owe their existence to a sustained deviation from the norm, so I maintain they are a little more significant that a cold day in the winter.
Several weeks ago I had a banner night free associating on youtube, and put a bunch of songs in reserve. I actually started with this one, which I sought out because I recently purchased the album, Manassas, and figured a cut from it would be a good choice. So here’s Steven Stills and the band singing It Doesn’t Matter.
But I really write tonight to bemoan my musical fate. Few of those reading this appreciate the sacrifices we bloggers must make to contribute our mite toward their edification and amusement. Two weeks ago (Oh, unhappy fate) I posted what I then thought (and still do, I must confess) was the funniest Friday Night Video of them all, featuring a wholesome Midwestern couple singing One Toke Over the Line on the Lawrence Welk show.
Perhaps it was the stress of the election. Perhaps it was Lawrence Welk, inflicting a righteous punishment from somewhere up in Polka Heaven. Whatever the reason, the song would not-has not-left my head since that date. By Tuesday, while the political sky was falling, I was in my own personal Hell, having lost all hope that it would ever abandon me. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fine song-go ahead, give it a listen-but it has a bit of the jingle to it, and it got me at a vulnerable time with all my defenses down.
It has receded somewhat, but is still there, two weeks on, lurking in the background, popping up in those half awake, half asleep times in the night, or acting as background music of which I am more or less dimly aware, somewhat like the accursed and ubiquitous Muzak that was put here on earth by an unjust god to punish saints and sinners alike. I hold out hope that someday it will disappear, but then, of course, should I realize it has gone, it will come back to haunt me yet again.
I will soldier on. If I can face two years of John Boehner I can face a lifetime of One Toke Over the Line.
Every once in a while a case comes along that reveals a lot about the Supreme Court’s priorities. Such a case was argued yesterday.
The case pits states rights against corporate interest. Which will win? And should it even be close?
The case involves a class action brought by a California couple who are suing AT&T for fraud. Buried in the fine print of their contract with AT&T is a provision that requires them to arbitrate any dispute they may have against AT&T. The provision also states that they must bring their claim individually, and cannot bring it as a class action. This is a typical provision buried in the boilerplate of thousands of consumer contracts.
The purpose of such provisions is fairly clear. They allow the corporations to engage in profitable small scale consumer fraud while depriving the affected consumers any meaningful remedy. In this case, AT&T told its customers it would give them a free cell phone if they signed a contract, then charged them a $30.00 sales tax for the phone. Only a lawyer could argue that it’s still a free cell phone that way, but that doesn’t mean that every judge will agree.
Federal law encourages arbitration, but there is no law that says you can’t bring an arbitration claim as a class action. AT&T argues:
In its main brief in the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 09-893, the company said “no rational business will agree” to class-wide arbitration, which it called “a lose-lose proposition” with all the cost and risk of litigation but none of the procedural protections and appellate oversight.
Let me translate. AT&T is saying that they would have no incentive to arbitrate a class action because they can’t game the system. They like the system that makes it utterly impracticable for a consumer to bring a claim, which that consumer will likely lose in arbitration anyway. Right now they have a “win-win” situation, with them on both sides of the dash.
Now, California courts have ruled that restricting the class action remedy in a consumer contract is unconscionable as a matter of state law. Unconscionable clauses are non-enforceable. The California courts have not declared arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to be unconscionable (which they are) because that would run afoul of a federal statute passed at the behest of the AT&Ts of the world by a compliant Congress, which “favors” arbitration. But the corporations didn’t think to legalize contract clauses that limit class actions. Since there is no federal law on that subject, state law should apply.
So, the California couple argued (and have so far prevailed) that the class action restriction voided the entire clause, and they were free to go to court and bring a class action, which they did.
Now, it should be a non-controversial principle of law that a state court, absent explicit federal legislation pre-empting the question, has the right to determine what is and what is not unconscionable. A real fan of states rights and “limited federal government” would do all he or she could to protect the state’s right to determine its own laws. In other words, the “conservative”, “strict constructionist” response to this case should be clear. AT&T should lose. That happens to also be the liberal response, but of course, we don’t count.
But what if the state’s laws interfere with a corporation’s desire to cheat the American public? Ah! There’s the rub. Many members of the court feel AT&T’s pain, particularly Alito and Scalia, who were, after all, appointed for their pro-corporate, and not their anti-abortion, credentials. So now we will see. When conservative theory conflicts with corporate interests, which wins? Once again, it will likely be all up to Kennedy, because I’m fairly certain we’ll see the true stripes of the other four when this one gets decided.
Not that it really matters whether the establishment right wing crazy or the tea party right wing crazy wins the day in Alaska, but…
I was intrigued by the fact that Joe Miller is making an interesting article in his federal lawsuit challenging the way ballots are counted in Alaska. He is claiming that any person writing in Murkowski’s name with the incorrect spelling was actually voting against her, because a number of folks called some right wing radio hosts and said that was what they intended to do.
Odd that they just wouldn’t vote for Miller, but, consider the following.
Everyone knew that Miller was going to file this lawsuit, assuming Murkowski won. Everyone knew that the spelling issue would be one of the claims he would make. Is it a stretch to suspect that those callers were plants by the Miller campaign to sow the factual seeds for their later legal claim? Personally, I don’t think it is, but maybe I’m paranoid.
