New Hampshire has always been the Dixie of New England, and they’ve proved it in spades recently.
The Tea Party dominated New Hampshire Legislature on Wednesday overrode the governor’s veto to enact a new law allowing parents to object to any part of the school curriculum.
The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the measure in July, saying the bill would harm education quality and give parents control over lesson plans.
“For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher’s plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women’s rights movements,” Lynch wrote in his veto message. “Under this bill, a parent could find ‘objectionable’ how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative. Classrooms will be disrupted by students coming and going, and lacking shared knowledge.”
The bill basically makes it impossible to teach, unless you happen to teach in a school district in New Hampshire in which there are no crazy people. There is a redeeming feature, sort of, in that only parents with the money to develop the alternative curriculum can make the demand. On the other hand, that means that only parents with money have this new “right”. But the demands on the school system could still be enormous. How does a teacher teach using multiple curricula? What happens when a parent insists that you teach a lie? And make no mistake, that’s the point of this: forcing schools to teach religion in the guise of science.
The way out, and probably the path that will be taken, is for the schools to decide that the curricula demanded requires hiring a new teacher, and telling the parent that they have to pay for that new teacher. At worst, that converts the bill into a mini-stimulus package. Still, this is yet another example of the states that swerved to the right in the last election getting what they voted for, if not what they expected.
UPDATE: A fellow from newsy.com asked me to add this clip to this post, and as it does seem to cover the salient points, I decided I would.
I’ve been critical of Obama on many occasions, but when he does good, he deserves credit and our thanks. Today he made some recess appointments that have given the Republicans the vapors. Go to Kos and thank him here.
Somewhere I saw that this might lead to a Republican push for impeachment. Wouldn’t that be nice? That might be the only way the Democrats could take back the House and keep the Senate.
But like Jesus, Reagan laid down commandments of his own, and again as with Jesus, his most rabid followers tend to disobey them more often than the non-believers. Latest apostate, Newt Gingrich has announced he is about to break Reagan’s 11th Commandment, (Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). Newt is only the latest self proclaimed Reagan worshipper (as in all other things, Willard’s avowals are a bit suspect, but he does make the claim) to disobey Ronnie’s imprecation. Is there a Republican hell to which they’ll be consigned? We can only hope.
A few days ago I noted that the big question in the election was which side was the most dispirited. I said I thought it would be the Republicans, and it looks like it may turn out that way. As Steve Benen notes total turnout for Republicans only slightly exceeded turnout in 2008, when they were, indeed, dispirited. Meanwhile, Obama posted some respectable numbers, given that he had no competition.
The Republicans have a choice between a man they viscerally and instinctively (with cause ) dislike and a menu of alternatives that appeal only to the fringes. Is it any wonder that Republicans stayed away from the caucus in droves. As Benen points out, while turnout to the Republican caucus was only slightly up from 2008, registered Republican turnout was down. The percentage of Independents and Democrats taking part in the Republican caucus increased, and who knows how many of those Democrats showed up just to do a bit of mischief? Though, truth be told, most of the non-Republicans were probably independents showing up to voluntarily impoverish themselves by giving Ron Paul the right to hand the keys to the country to the corporations. Still, what this means is that actual Republican turnout was lower than last time around; not a good sign for the GOP. Maybe it’s the case that in the long run, crazy doesn’t sell.
Along these lines, there have been a lot of Romney/Kerry comparisons, with some justification. Democrats settled on Kerry because they perceived him as being more electable than his competitors, some of whom (e.g., Dean) inspired more enthusiasm. But unlike Romney, Kerry was not widely disliked. He was merely uninspiring. That, to my mind, is a critical difference between the two. Kerry did not lose a single anti-Bush vote, but a lot of anti-Obama votes may stay home because they can’t stomach Romney, or they may throw their votes to a third party (Run, Ron, Run).
After much (well, some) reflection I’ve decided not to write a list of predictions this year, at least not like I did last year. I could easily just re-print my predictions from last year, except the one about the iPad, which I’d have to change from iPad 2 to iPad 3. Sure, that would mean I’d repeat a few errors, most fairly minor, but I’d still end up way ahead of the typical pundit. If I cheated and skipped the ones where I fell short, there’s an excellent chance I’d get a perfect score at Year’s end. It’s a depressing thought, but probably true, that with the exception of the added inanity of an election year, things will probably pretty much repeat themselves. The Republicans will obstruct, Obama will give in and declare victory, and the economic near Depression will continue, despite the fact that our problems could be rectified fairly easily and painlessly. Only a David Brooks could miss any of that. Am I right?
Of course, the year will be leavened by bizarre events, of which, much like some events of this year it can truly be said, no one could have predicted. In this category we must put events like the rise and fall of Herman Cain, an event far more bizarre than the just reported repeat of the New Year’s blackbird die-off in Arkansas. Somewhere waiting in the wings is the Herman Cain of 2012. No doubt there is someone loonier than Herman all set to run for the Senate. There’s so many in the House that no one bothers to count.
So these are some reflections, as well as some intermixed predictions about the coming horror show. Yes Virginia, against all odds, 2012 will be more insane than 2011.
First, I’m not saying a thing about Connecticut. I’ve learned my lesson after my disastrous prediction last year. Malloy and Company will have to take care of themselves.
So, on to the Nationals.
Very little happens in most election years, at least so far as domestic legislation is concerned, and that should be true in 2012 in spades, given the Republican intransigence of the past three years. So lets look ahead and see if there’s a snowball’s chance that we can pull this country out of its nosedive by electing a rational and responsive government in 2012. (Hint: we can’t)
Of one thing we can be sure, absent a miracle. No one wants it, but Willard 1% Romney will be the Republican candidate for president. The only question is where he will find delegates he can trust not to stampede to the first Great White Hope (and I do mean white- sorry Herman) someone proposes before the first ballot, in the vain hope that they can stave off the inevitable. He’ll find such delegates, no doubt, though like Linda McMahon he may have to pay for them. Now, a prognosticator could really prove his or her mettle by predicting the VP candidate. I think he’ll be looking for a person with brown skin, not to attract the votes of such people, but for PR purposes and to assure the party of racists that they are, in fact, not racists. Brown Republicans are not exactly thick on the ground, so I’m thinking Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal. But my level of confidence on this is not great. Maybe he’ll go for a Palin clone. The Republican party is chock a block with them, so I wouldn’t even try to choose among them.
One thing about the election is hard to predict: whether there will be a third party candidate. If, as everyone suspects, the Republicans swallow their medicine and nominate Romney, there will be a lot of unhappy ideologues. It’s certainly possible that someone like Ron Paul would take the plunge. There’s also a “centrist” group out there called Americans Elect, a rather shadowy organization with announced policies almost identical to the positions Obama has taken. Their actual agenda is somewhat unclear-they won’t disclose their financial backers. Since they are presumably smart enough to know what Obama has actually been doing, and since the money appears to be coming from Wall Street types, the point is probably to siphon votes from Obama to give the presidency to a Republican. I don’t think that works, particularly with Romney as the Republican candidate. My own feeling is that any third party candidate, other than a Nader type (none on the horizon ) helps Obama. But this is about predictions, so here goes. I’m wishing and hoping, and therefore predicting, that Ron Paul will take this opportunity to further fleece the ignorant dupes that are ponying up all that money. Should that happen, and were I Obama, I’d insist that he be at the debates.
The biggest question about the election: whose side is more discouraged. My own prediction is that it will be the nut balls on the Republican side, who, besides despising the Doctor Fell getting their nomination, might very well have a third party to consider. Our side will be so scared of the alternative that we’ll come out for Obama in sufficient numbers to get him over the top. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. I’m disappointed with the guy, but at least he’s not a psychopath, sociopath, or robot.
Turning to other elections, I think the Democrats will gain seats in the House, but as they will speak with many voices, and will waste much time trying to be all things to all people, and will be loathe to upset the beltway pundits by being “partisan” or “engaging in class warfare” (translation: resisting the oligarchs) they will not be able to capitalize on the widespread loathing of this Congress.
I.e., the Republicans keep control of the House.
Alas, unless they nominate a slew of Christine O’Donnells (and there is always hope), the Republicans take control of the Senate. Though I am technically getting into 2013 here, I will repeat what I’ve said before. If they do manage to take the presidency, they’ll abolish or cripple the filibuster. If, by some miracle, the Democrats retain the Senate and take the House, they will not even think of changing such a hallowed institution, which served the country so well in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Since we’re talking about the Senate, let us turn our attention to our own fair state. For every silver lining, no matter how thick, and no matter how silver, there’s a cloud. We here are being blessed with tons of silver. Joe Lieberman will no longer be the Senator from Connecticut. This we know, and this might be evidence for the existence of God, were it not for the fact that the same God would have been responsible for inflicting him in the first place, and no all wise, all powerful, and all loving entity would do such a thing to his miserable creatures. But, as I say, there is a cloud on the horizon. Look for Joe to take his place on Fox as their go-to token Democrat. This may not happen on 2012, given that he won’t, unfortunately, be out of office until 2013, so I’m right if it happens anytime before June, 2013.
Another silver lining, with not much of a cloud: I think Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, no matter how much Wall Street money is thrown at her.
One big story from last year, that no one predicted, was the Occupy movement. It’s not so much that no one could have predicted demonstrations, it’s that no one could have predicted that anyone would pay attention. For this we have cops and pepper spray to thank. It’s a strange world.
So, whither Occupy? Will they turn out and vote, or has Obama turned them off to electoral politics. It may be one of his most bitter legacies that having raised the hopes of a generation, and then dashing them so effectively, he may have convinced them that change through the electoral process is impossible. Here’s hoping that’s not so, and here’s also hoping that they’ll think of more creative ways of getting their message before the people and into the national conversation. It doesn’t matter whether people “approve” of them or not. Public opinion is far more complex than we are led to believe. Not that many “approved” of the tea party, but they won big by forcefully pushing while no one pushed back. If the occupy folks can keep income inequality in the forefront, some good things might happen.Then again, the media might get itself under better control and relegate them to the limbo into which all left wing movements are consigned.
Turning now to the economy, both world and national, once again we see more of the same.
As incredible as it may seem, Europe has been even stupider than us in its response to the economic crisis there, though they have at least a fig leaf of an excuse because no one has dealt with a trans-national currency like the Euro before.
Here at home, we will do nothing to deal with the current crisis or to prevent its recurrence.
Obama has come to the conclusion that nothing will happen, which means he is perhaps cured of his bi-partisan delusion. Better late than never, but had he never succumbed to this beltway disease, he may very well have accomplished some things in his first two years in office that might have forestalled or minimized the Republican tsunami in 2010. Unfortunately, this Democratic disease of timidity is the factor that results in the ever rightward drift of our politics. Democrats get thrown out of office for not doing what they promised. Republicans get thrown out for doing what they promised.
Unlike during the depression, no really effective action was taken this time around to prevent a repetition of the events that led to the current economic decline. The recent uprisings against the Bank of America’s $5.00 debit card fee and Verizon’s 2.00 bill paying charge certainly show that the American people are ready for some fundamental changes. A few short years ago those charges would have gone virtually unnoticed. The Republicans, of course, will do nothing, and the Democrats will follow suit, despite the PR value that just advocating change would yield. Why jeopardize that cushy lobbying job should you lose reelection by displeasing the corporate puppet masters?
Bankers will continue to make outsize salaries, whether the banks make money or not.Meanwhile they will continue to moan about how poorly treated and misunderstood they are. It’s not easy having lots of green.
Now that we’ve dealt with politics and economics, lets turn to minor issues, like the continued survival of the human species and other miscellany.
It’s been warm lately, but what of that. At some point we will have a snowstorm or a very cold day, and the folks at Fox will make jokes about Al Gore. Other than that we will hear nothing about the environment. The Obama people may do something worthwhile under the radar through regulation, but not anything major.
Turning to other matters.
The iPad 3 will be almost indistinguishable from the present one. It will have Siri, which would easily work on the present iPad, but Apple won’t allow that because they want a feature or two to induce Apple zombies to upgrade. Where do I get in line? Right behind Lon, I believe.
Someone will win the Oscars.
Some famous people will die and some Hollywood people will misbehave.
The Red Sox are back! Once again the folks in Boston have fashioned a team almost guaranteed to break our hearts. It’s what we’re used to, and, as we all know, it’s what we truly missed during those freakish years starting in 2004.
So, of some things we can be sure. As to the messy and bizarre little details, we will have to await events. Of this we can be certain. The decline continues; not to be abated in this electoral cycle, absent a truly extraordinary miracle. The world gets warmer, the people get poorer, and the barbarians are at the gates, in the form of an unholy alliance of the plutocrats and the theocrats. I’ll leave the rest to Randy:
The end of an empire is messy at best And this empire is ending Like all the rest Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea We’re adrift in the land of the brave And the home of the free
No, wait. I can’t leave it there. I’m under strict orders from a certain someone not to be a cranky old man. So forget about what Randy has to say, and forget about all my dire premonitions. Take a bit of the advice from Monty Python that I’ve repeated so often:
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
Don’t grumble, give a whistle
And this’ll help things turn out for the best…
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…
The Catholic Church, always looking out for the main chance, is recruiting bigoted Episcopalians to swell the ranks of the priesthood.
Meanwhile in Israel the Orthodox Jews are proving they have something in common with the Catholics here and Muslims almost anywhere. Like the Catholics here they believe that their religious freedoms are infringed if the state doesn’t step in and impose their beliefs on everyone else. Like the Muslims most of what they want to impose involves the subjugation of women.
Postscript: I must say this in defense of the Catholic Church. True, it is currently mired in the 14th century, but Catholics are not, as the linked article states, “expected to pray to the pope”. Who know, however, what the future may hold.
Seeing that the New Year is coming, it’s only right that this week’s pick be somewhat appropriate. Other than Auld Lang Syne, which I would post only if tortured, no obvious candidates come immediately to mind. There are no New Year carols, after all. But choose I must.
One must first determine, then, whether one should pick something that reflects on the year that’s passed, or the year to come, and must then determine whether to pick music with an optimistic or realistic pessimistic outlook. As to the former, I shall look forward to the coming year, fraught as it is with possibilities. As to the latter, I’ve decided to do a bit of both, but lightly on the realism, because a certain person with whom I live has put me on notice that I am becoming a cranky old man.
Many years ago, in fact it was our very first New Year’s eve together, my wife and I, along with one (or more, my memory’s hazy) of our roommates, chanced to put on a recording of Beethoven’s Ninth. Perhaps the substances we were inhaling had something to do with it, but no piece of music before or since has ever filled me with such…well, joy. In my own opinion it beats Strauss hands down as an appropriate piece of music for the day. This video is especially good, and really, how can you ever give up hope completely if you belong to a species even one of whose members can create something so beautiful. So here’s hoping that against all odds, 2012 will see some small measure of progress.
But as I hinted above, one can’t be too optimistic, and, when I think about the coming year it does make me want to cry for help. Which brings us to the second part of this feature, which was suggested to me, oddly enough, by this very silly clip, which appeared on the results of my search for Beethoven’s Ninth.
Anyway, here they are, speaking for all of us as we face a year that, speaking realistically, looks to be even worse than the last.
We in Connecticut will likely not experience this first hand, except to the extent there’s some spillover from the Senate race in Massachusetts, but it looks like a pattern is developing in Iowa. The big money guys with the Superpacs are taking care of the negative ads, while the beneficiaries of those ads, mostly Willard (1%) Romney, can appear to be above the fray, needing to say they approve of only the positive stuff their own campaigns put out. It’s a sort of non-coordinated coordination. The Balloon Juice blogger at the link suggests that over time this might result in different fund raising patterns for the two parties.
I don’t know how much Citizens United has helped cause the rise of the SuperPac, but this seems to represent a new direction in politics, and perhaps one that will allow Republican elites to maintain some control of the party. Outsiders with strong grassroots support, like Ron Paul can raise a lot of money from small donors and still get blown away in the money race by big institutional donations to SuperPacs.
This also de-incentives Republican efforts to expand their small donor base in general elections. It will be interesting if, in 5 or 10 years, Democrats dominate the small donor direct-to-campaign (and party committee) game while Republicans rely mostly on big donors. Things are already headed in that direction.
There may be some truth in this, and while it would appear to be the case that it will leave the Democrats at a disadvantage, there may be a silver lining. The disadvantage is obvious. In the general elections those SuperPacs will swivel to attacking Democrats, and there won’t be a commensurate response from our side. On the other hand, if Democrats are beholden to small donors, they may actually start advocating for progressive policies, since that will be where the money is. There is a limit to what money can do. In Iowa it is sinking Newt, but then, that was only a matter of time. No amount of money appears sufficient to make Mr. 1% a popular guy, however and, call me an optimist, but I don’t think money will be able to take down Elizabeth Warren. Moreover, many voters, particularly the young, are getting their information from the Internet. Rather than being passive receptacles of ceaselessly bombarded propaganda, they seek out their own information sources, so perhaps-at least we can hope-the mass media dominance of the corporations will have less impact. Of course, the corporations are intent on getting control of the net, and, with the help of politicians of all stripes, they may do so, in which case this whisper of a hope may vanish.
Steve Benen reports that Bill Kristol is still casting about for late entries into the Presidential sweepstakes, and apparently Kristol’s not the only one:
This comes, by the way, a day after National Review’s Rich Lowry ran a piece quoting “a pretty prominent conservative officeholder,” who conceded that when it comes to the Republican Party and the 2012 presidential candidate, “[W]e don’t have our A team on the field.”
Which leads those of us out here in the hinterlands wondering: Precisely who is on that A team? This is a party, afte all, that has looked to people like Fred Thompson, and only recently, Rick Perry and Chris Christie as potential Messiahs. Christie may still be on the list, but only because he has declined to join the fray. A litte sunlight, and all these princes (and princesses) turn to frogs. I’m a partisan guy, no doubt, but I can recall a day when there were Republicans out there that I could imagine as president without simultaneously giving up hope for the republican (small “r”, there-an important distinction) experiment so bravely lauched by our sainted forefathers. Such people no longer exist. In twelve short years we have come from a point where we had to fear the presidency of a moron like George Bush to the point where a George Bush clone would look good by comparison with our other choices, and remember, by 2000 the choices were so bad that the media felt it necessary to try to turn John McCain into a man of principle. At such a time as this it was perhaps inevitable that only a chameleon like Romney could stand a chance to win as a Republican.
Bill Kristol bears more than a little responsibility for this state of affairs. It was he, to cite just one example, that first proposed Sarah Paln for the vice presidency. In typical fashion, he has never admitted how wrong he was, except implicitly by rejecting the current crop, few of whom are any worse than Sarah. The right may have marginalized the Republican party as a national presidential party. It can still win Congressional elections, of course, and given the Democrat’s startling ability to lose big in census years, it has the advantage of drawn to order districts. But so far as presidential elections go, where it’s fairly hard to hide the crazy, only Democratic incompetence or electoral fraud can save it. Unfortunately for the country neither of those commodities is in short supply.
