Skip to content

Blago makes a nomination

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich has picked someone to replace Barack Obama, and Harry Reid has vowed to make sure he is never seated. It seems that Harry is at his best when he’s riding herd on fellow Democrats. You might recall that the only filibuster he quashed in 2008 was one led by Chris Dodd. Nor, if memory serves, would he honor a hold Dodd put on some legislation, though Republican holds have been sacrosanct. This is not to say that Blagojevich should have made the appointment, but it is odd how Reid just can’t bring himself to lay down the law to Republicans like he can do Democrats.

In any event, assuming Burris is certified by the Illinois Secretary of State (not a sure thing at all), its doubtful that Reid can keep him out of the Senate, nor does it seem proper to expel him once he’s seated, since he’s done no wrong. Assuming he’s certified, the odds are he will end up serving out the term.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Taking the pledge

Monday, December 29, 2008

Put this in the “Nobody Could Have Predicted” File:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a “virginity pledge,” but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

It’s no surprise that the pledges don’t work, but I would also suggest that it’s no surprise that the kids who take the pledge are less likely to use birth control or condoms. After all, those taking the pledge are not a cross-section, they are drawn primarily from that sector of our population that believes in promoting ignorance, especially about sex and sexually transmitted disease. Add the hostility of those same groups to birth control in all forms, and it’s no surprise that the lapsed abstainers are less likely to be prudent. It’s actually a wonder that the disparity is so small.


Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

Comments and Spam

Monday, December 29, 2008

I get only a few legitimate comments a week, but I’m fairly inundated with spam. Most of it gets caught by a fairly efficient spam catching plug in, but the rest filters through for me to “moderate”, meaning I have to pre-approve it before it actually gets published. In fact, I have to approve every comment that comes in from a first time commenter. The comments come via email, with convenient links to approve, disapprove, or spam the comment. Once a commenter has an approved comment, future comments get published automatically. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, and with one exception, (a frequent commenter who I have to approve each time he sends something),= it works.

One indicia of a probable spam, besides the fact that they are obviously computer generated (usually consisting of regurgitated snippets from the post in question, which some generic language “commenting” on it in an inane fashion), is the fact that they tend to comment about posts from the relatively remote past, unlike real humans, who can’t be bothered to browse the archives.

Today I got a comment about this post about the Mormons, which dates from more than a year ago. It seemed nearly cogent and reasonably responsive to the subject of the post, so I clicked on the approve link, which brought me to an “are you sure?” dialog box. At that point I had second thoughts when I recognized the sender as a spammer I had seen many times before.

Could these folks have possibly come up with sophisticated software to get through the front door, so to speak, so they could post “pre-approved” spam comments thereafter? It seems like it would be pretty difficult. Or, could it be, that “payday loans” was really reading my blog and truly wanted to post a comment. Highly unlikely, it would seem. On the off chance that she or he really wanted to join the discussion I am reproducing the comment below, since I have since marked it as spam. As to anyone else that might chance to read this, what’s your opinion? Is it real, or is it computer generated?

I’m sorry you have such a bad view of the mormons. I myself have had nothing but good encounters with the mormons. I too went to Temple Square, actually twice now, and I was permitted to enter the tabernacle. Its the mormon temple they don’t let you in because some special mormon ceremonies go on there. I guess non- mormons wouldn’t understand their symbolism or meaning so they don’t allow non-mormons to enter. My experience has been that mormons are very, emphatic is the word you use, so yes, emphatic about their religion and arguing about it. This is because so many people have ciriticized and hated them for so long that this is how they are trained. They go around in couples to preach their church to those who want to listen, and yet all most people do is try to argue with them, push them to contention and nonsense like that. They only ever want to tell me whatever I want to listen to. I say sure come tell me about your church, i’m not going to join it, but sure, tell me about it, i have no problem learning. you should try that. My study of religion has lead me to believe that if there is only one, true religion on this planet, I would go with the mormons. Mostly because they are the only ones bold enough to proclaim it, but they are also the only ones different enough to be it. Mainstream christianity is so much the same, every church is the same. The services may be different, but they teach the exact same things. How can one say they are the true one? Mormons have a leg up on the competition so to speak. I would give them a chance if I were you. Not join them per se, but I mean, listen to them, look into what makes them unique, and try to get past Ko lob and godhood and what not. They say, milk before meat. I think if you understand the basic doctrine and theology of the mormons, these crazy sounding things might make more sense.


Filed in Ramblings, Religion | | Comments (1)

A More than Twice Told Tale

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Further proof, if any were needed, that something has to be done about the compensation system in corporate America. From a Times article about the collapse of Washington Mutual, we read that Washington’s aggressive foray into the world of sub-prime mortgages was spearheaded by a go-getter chief executive, Kerry Killinger, who created a corporate culture that encouraged lending to anything that breathed.

….[P]ressure to keep lending emanated from the top, where executives profited from the swift expansion — not least, Kerry K. Killinger, who was WaMu’s chief executive from 1990 until he was forced out in September.

Between 2001 and 2007, Mr. Killinger received compensation of $88 million, according to the Corporate Library, a research firm. He declined to respond to a list of questions, and his spokesman said he was unavailable for an interview.

…

The ultimate supervisor at WaMu was Mr. Killinger, who joined the company in 1983 and became chief executive in 1990. He inherited a bank that was founded in 1889 and had survived the Depression and the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s.

An investment analyst by training, he was attuned to Wall Street’s hunger for growth. Between late 1996 and early 2002, he transformed WaMu into the nation’s sixth-largest bank through a series of acquisitions.

A crucial deal came in 1999, with the purchase of Long Beach Financial, a California lender specializing in subprime mortgages, loans extended to borrowers with troubled credit.
…
By the time shareholders joined WaMu for its annual meeting in Seattle last April, WaMu had posted a first-quarter loss of $1.14 billion and increased its loan loss reserve to $3.5 billion. Its stock had lost more than half its value in the previous two months. Anger was in the air.

Some shareholders were irate that Mr. Killinger and other executives were excluding mortgage losses from the computation of their bonuses. Others were enraged that WaMu turned down an $8-a-share takeover bid from JPMorgan.

…

Billions that investors had plowed into WaMu were wiped out, as were prospects for many of the bank’s 50,000 employees. But Mr. Killinger still had his millions, rankling laid-off workers and shareholders alike.

Read the whole article and decide for yourself whether any rational person could have believed that this house of cards wouldn’t collapse at some point. Killinger, the man most responsible, walked away with enough to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of his days, while destroying the company he was allegedly obligated to protect.

There is no way corporate America will stop this method of compensation that is drive solely by short term “profits”. It is simply too lucrative for the people involved, who now effectively control the corporations for which they work. Killinger made about $20 million dollars a year for running a scam. The president of Toyota makes about a million dollars a year-comfortable but chicken feed by comparison. We need a confiscatory income tax again-it is one very effective way to make corporate types feel that their futures are bound up with those of the shareholders they allegedly serve.

And speaking of serving shareholders, I was amused by this paragraph from the story:

JPMorgan Chase, which bought WaMu for $1.9 billion in September and received $25 billion a few weeks later as part of the taxpayer bailout of the financial services industry, declined to make former WaMu executives available for interviews.

Which means that these valuable executives, who did such great work at Washington Mutual, are still raking in big bucks at JPMorgan Chase, which by the way received $25 billion of our money shortly after it bought Washington Mutual.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Silver Linings

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Even Depressions do some good:

Hundreds of churches across the country have received foreclosure notices in recent months, and even more are behind on mortgage payments. An economic downturn tends to increase church attendance, but the amount each churchgoer donates tends to decrease. And newer members usually donate less than older ones. Churches can trim spending by cutting staff and social activities, but for many parishes, the biggest monthly expense is the mortgage.

…

The rise of nondenominational churches and a resurgence in the evangelical movement also led to more religious institutions seeking to borrow. Churches were often founded in storefronts or school auditoriums, but as they grew, they built sprawling edifices, including so-called mega-churches. At the same time, some older churches lost members as young people went elsewhere, and had to borrow to survive.

Particularly annoying to us tax paying agnostics is the recent trend, in Groton at least, for the bizarro churches to build on large amounts of acreage, effectively taking huge chunks of property off the tax rolls. Maybe this trend will return that acreage to productive uses.


Filed in Economics, Religion | | Comments (0)

A little Holiday Excursion

Saturday, December 27, 2008

My family has established yet another Holiday tradition-a trip to New York City between Christmas and New Years. In years past we have taken in a Broadway play, but times are tough and belt tightening is in order, so this year we decided to go to the Guggenheim. Herewith a few pictures of the Big Apple.

It wouldn’t be New York, of course, if you didn’t run into a superhero. Based on the movies I’ve viewed, the place is crawling with them, and sure enough, when we stopped along the way to the museum for a coffee, who should we see but Spiderman? The fact that we were at the atrium at the Sony Store was, I’m sure, purely coincidental.

The Guggenheim is a beautiful building, though I must say the current featured exhibition, photographs by Catherine Opie, left me a bit cold. The other main attraction consisted of a collaboration of artists that, according to the museum’s website:

Working independently and in various collaborative constellations, they eschewed the discrete aesthetic object in favor of the exhibition environment as a dynamic arena, ever expanding in its physical and temporal parameters.

I have no reason to believe they did not succeed in their artistic endeavors, as I have no idea what the above means. Mostly the fruit of their efforts consisted of slogans written on the wall, or hanging from the ceiling, many of which made no sense whatsoever. However, this one, despite all our troubles, seemed to ring true as we usher in the age of Obama:

But alas, not everyone shares that optimistic viewpoint. This is the Holiday season, a time, as we all know, when depression runs deep for many. At least one person must have concluded that everything was not going to turn out alright, so, apparently, he threw himself off the upper level, landing in a pool of water in the lobby. You can just make out his body in this photo:

This being New York, and as you can see, he was totally ignored. Some time after I took the foregoing shocking photo I was able to get closer. It’s my understanding that they are still trying to identify the poor fellow:

I leave you with this photo that my son took, which depicts the fog enshrouded buildings on the West Side of Central Park, with the pond in the foreground. I thought it was a great picture.


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (1)

Everyone wants a job with Obama

Saturday, December 27, 2008


Filed in Humour | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music-The White Stripes

Friday, December 26, 2008

Both of my sons are here for the Holidays, and I asked the younger, a former college radio music director, to recommend a music video for tonight. My thinking was that he could recommend something of which I was unaware, and which might broaden my horizons and those of the folks who read this blog.

I have, in fact, heard of the White Stripes. They were the first and possibly only band to perform on the Daily Show.

This video has a bit of a Holiday connection too, at least for me. Our youngest was an almost fanatical Lego fan, so for several years there were lots of Legos under the tree. Needless to say, I’ve bent my no-lip synching rule in this case. So, without further ado, the White Stripes:


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

George Bush and the pardon power

Friday, December 26, 2008

Might I direct the reader’s attention to the discussion over at Talking Points, particularly this post, about Bush’s attempt to “revoke” a pardon that he granted to a scam artist from Long Island.

First let me confess that if not for my own laziness I would have written about this before. As soon as I heard about Bush’s pardon “revocation” it struck me as odd. How can a President revoke a pardon. If it could be done, what would stop a President’s successor from revoking one of his (or her) pardons?

As Josh Marshall points out, the press has not gone out of its way to delve into this question. Marshall did, and his findings are interesting:

First is the argument put forward by the White House itself, that the president had sent requests for pardons to the Pardon Attorney but that the Pardon Attorney had yet to “execute and deliver grants of clemency to the named individuals.” According to the White House press release from Wednesday, the president got to him before he’d done that and “directed the Pardon Attorney not to execute and deliver a Grant of Clemency to Mr. Toussie.”

But from what I can tell, the Pardon Attorney doesn’t ‘execute’ anything. The current system of having the Pardon Attorney create certificates of pardon only goes back to the Eisenhower administration, and was then apparently only done to relieve the president of the chore of signing so many pardons and commutations. I spoke to former Pardon Attorney Margaret Colgate Love (1990-1997) who told me that “receiving the president’s warrant and sending notifications to the petitioners is purely ‘a ministerial act of notification.'” In layman’s terms, at this end of the transaction, the Pardon Attorney’s role is really just a matter of paperwork. “When we received the Master Warrant from the president,” said Love, “what our job was was to notify them, by telephone, and eventually by written notification. The document evidenced the president’s action. We never assumed that that document had any necessary legal significance.”

So just as a factual matter, the idea that the Pardon Attorney needs to ‘execute’ the pardons seems to be bogus. End of story.

The second argument has to do with notification. The idea here is that even though the president is the actor, his pardon only takes effect when the petitioner is notified. This reasoning depends on the Du Puy case from 1869, in which the Court ruled that President Grant could take back two pardons earlier issued by President Johnson because the petitioners had not yet been notified of their pardons. But the Du Puy case comes from a technological universe in which the US Marshal’s notification would have been the first the petitioner heard about it. But clearly that’s not the case anymore. There’s little doubt that Toussie heard about his pardon in the news prior to the president’s decision to rescind it.

More to the point, from talking to people familiar with the process, I understand that it is standard procedure for the petitioners or their counsel to be notified of their pardon either before or simultaneous with the public announcement. So there’s every reason to be believe that Toussie or his attorneys were specifically notified of his pardon, despite not getting the framable document that does not appear to have any legal significance.

If Mr. Toussie decides to litigate this question, it seems to me his case will hinge on whether the White House did, in fact, notify him or his attorney prior to making the pardon public. Secondarily, as Josh says, he can argue that notice to the world is notice to him. Thirdly, of course, it will hinge on whether a judiciary solidly in the Republican camp will care to embarrass a former Republican president.

It seems to me that this is just another instance of Bush believing that he has unlimited power. In this case, he is claiming to have unlimited power to revoke an exercise of what is a virtually unlimited power to begin with. No one argues (and I’m not sure why) that the Congress has any ability to regulate or restrain the pardon power, by, for instance, requiring that the president follow any particular process. It is hard to see, given that assumption, how any president can impose any procedural constraints on himself or his successors.


Filed in Bush | | Comments (0)

Tragic News from Up North

Wednesday, December 24, 2008


Filed in Humour | | Comments (0)