Here is the Green Monster picture I couldn't manage to post on Saturday. I am slowly gaining competency with my iphone, but the process is far from complete.
So I got back from my reunion, which was a good time, although no thanks to the alma mater. There was a nice turnout of some of my favorite people, many of whom I had not seen in decades. And someone managed to get a big screen feed of the Celtics-Heat game in the room, giving us an additional bit of local color for the festivities. Inexplicably, however, the alumni relations folks decided that at 10:00 PM it was time for us oldsters to hit the road despite the fact that fourth quarter had just begun and most of us were far from being done talking and sharing a glass with dear old friends. The last straw was when some twenty-something alumni relations guy sidled up to me and asked me to give him my beer. No, I said, I'm still working on it.
"Sir, I need to take that from you now."
"I don't think so."
"You have to give me the beer."
"You have to take it from me -- and I wouldn't bet on that happening."
"Am I going to have to call security?" [Seriously.]
"Call whoever you want motherfucker, they're not going to get my beer either." (It's like getting between a mother bear and her cub you know.)
Guy goes to campus cop to complain. Cop looks at him with contempt, looks over at me, continues to watch game with the rest of us.
The game finally ends (badly of course) and all of the booze is taken away ("they took the whole fucking bar" as someone inevitably observed) and booted us out at 10:45. All of us were left a bit astonished after having traveled from all over the country to attend the event. It did not strike me as the best way to some day separate us from our money on the university's behalf.
- Reading Krugman yesterday, I was struck by the thought that it seems like it has been a really long time since the world's elites have collectively lost their senses in such an impressive fashion. Really, think about it -- the west is plagued with unemployment and the dominant response is to cut government payrolls and diminish various government benefits. In turn, economies continue to contract, thereby further diminishing government revenues, exacerbating the very problem that is allegedly being targeted. Spain has achieved Depression levels of unemployment, while half of its young adults are without jobs. Meanwhile the European Central Bank continues to fight phantom inflation while economies contract across the continent; in England austerity continues to shrink the British economy, and the U.S. flounders with sluggish growth. (Amazingly enough, the U.S. has probably responded better to the bad times than most of the other western countries despite our own semi-hidden brand of austerity.) Why the western ruling class cannot understand the devastating impact of widespread and long lasting unemployment is beyond me.
- I now know who the Secretary of Commerce is.
- I still have an over long, half-written piece about unions that (as God is my witness) I will finish and post, but I thought Roy pretty much nailed the zeitgeist the other day regarding a world in which one-third of union household voters can support Scott Walker:
The one significant and ominous thing about the Wisconsin recall election is that most of the voters in a state that is not in the deep South think the problem with our economy is that garbagemen and schoolteachers make too much money.
If this is really the way things are going, then our future will be neo-feudalism, distinguished from earlier variants only by the populist buy-in with which the lords will occasionally refresh their mandate by pointing out to their serfs that someone covered in shit like themselves -- not a celebrity, banker, or manager -- was nonetheless able to build an addition on his house or buy a new car a few years early.
Nothing is certain, but the Almighty has pulled the U.S. out of a lot of jams in the past 236 years and no lucky streak lasts forever. Buy Gold, and by that I mean Cuervo.
Other than omitting granite countertops, I think this is pretty much perfection.
Alright, I've got an arbitration tomorrow and need to contemplate my strategy for tomorrow. Join in the fray.
oddjob, a while back you mentioned something about oedipus and how the conflict didn't resonate so much anymore. you might find this article interesting
Posted by: big bad wolf | June 12, 2012 at 08:58 PM
you're kidding me about the bar at the reunion! at my 30th, our class dinner was of course fabulous and lasted late. a lot of us also stayed in a dorm with some other (younger) classes -- the bar was open until midnight-ish there, and people had stashes.
sadly, i represented my generation when i took a few trips to the lobby along about 2 a.m., in nightgown and sweater, to ask all those darned whippersnappers to hold it down please because people at the far end of teh hall were trying to sleep. it seemed like my job, since i used to run a dorm. probably i should have dressed more authoritatively, although i recall attending to noise issues and an actual fire similarly attired, back in the day. several of us decided that next time, our much larger classmate who used to work security (and went back to bed when he saw i was on the case) should go rattling up there and deliver the message.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 12, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Missed my 30th last weekend because I'm getting married and moving shortly, but at my 25th the alma mater was quite civilized in that regard, unless you're attached to hard liquor, in which case it was barbaric.
Speaking of our leadership flipping its collective wig, dear, God, read Brooks's latest. Apparently we don't have a leadership problem, we have a followership problem because we shit-covered peons aren't sufficiently respectful to institutions (because of overweaning vanity, don'tcha know) and don't respect some unicorn he insists on calling "just authority." Jesus H. Child-Napalming, Child-Molesting, Watergate-burglarizing, arms-for-hostages-trading, election-stealing, 9/11-allowing, war-starting, torturing, housing-bubble-blowing, deregulating, nonprosecuting-of-banksters Christ with a big side of courtier journalism and a dollop of vote suppression on top, whatever could our institutions possibly have done to merit such disrespect?
Posted by: Lex | June 12, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Good lord. "You have to give me the beer." "Am I going to have to call security?" [Seriously.]
You're kidding, right.
At 10:00 PM. ??
Won't the Foundation be thrilled?
Posted by: nancy | June 12, 2012 at 09:41 PM
lex, congratulations!
brooks is not one of the brightest bulbs, bless his grainy little heart.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 12, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Lex -- Congrats. Excellent. Marriage -- familial optimism is good. Go forth.
Blessings.
Posted by: nancy | June 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Yes, Lex, how wonderful! All best wishes.
Posted by: Paula B | June 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM
As someone whose own marriage just became an adult -- if only we were too -- congrats for the good parts, they'll make the rough stuff -- and there will be some -- bearable. My only advice is that any relationship is better with the addition of cats.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Seriously, you had to post a picture of a baseball field? That's cold, man. That's just cold.
"Speaking of our leadership flipping its collective wig, dear, God, read Brooks's latest."
Well, yes, of course I read Brooks, but I'm always careful with my coffee whle doing so. I can't afford to keep buying new keyboards, and coffee tastes good in the mouth, but it smarts a bit coming out of one's nose.
Did I close my italics tag? Yes, I believe I did.
Posted by: Bill H | June 13, 2012 at 01:17 AM
Just reloaded the page to set the timer to zero so hope I won't lose this one.
I haven't attended any reunions SC but that sounds pretty outrageously conscribed to me. I think though you handled yourself well, if you had been Sarah Palin you would have said something like 'shut the fuck up little twerp or I'll punch you in the neck.'
Marriage is a legal thing, it provides certain tax advantages and other privilages that are revocable. I have 'lived' with the same woman for 37 years or thereabouts on the sole basis that we love each other. But my motto is, to each, his or her own. So I can celebrate someone else's celebration. Take care of each other.
Now I pledge to go back to the previous thread and try again to respond.
Posted by: KN | June 13, 2012 at 01:18 AM
First, breathe a sigh of relief, we kept Gabby's seat -- and kept the laughable, noxious Jesse Kelly out of Congress yet again. 52-45. Now if we can hold the seat in November after redistricting. Maybe we'll be lucky and Jesse will win another primary, but Col. McSally would be a much more formidable opponent. Of course, a strong showing, ideally a win, by Dr. Carmona in the Senate race would be a big help, and he deserves support anyway. (Jeff Flake is not as awful as, say, his colleague, Trent Franks, but he's pretty bad. We could use the pick-up which certainly seems gettable.)
And on another political front, what do you think of how the California 'Top Two' Primary System worked out? I haven't even been aware of it until recently, and the main info I am getting is from AZBlueMeanie who is very strongly opposed to it, and fighting Arizona's attempt to introduce the same system. But he's usually a solid guy, and the whole idea sounds like one of those ideas that is great in theory, like initiative and referendum, but which, in practice, reveals holes the theory skimmed over. What do our Californians think?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 02:27 AM
bbw,
I was listening to the MIT station a lot this weekend and remembering the DJ Oedipus, who was quite the cutting edge guy in our time.
Lex,
My congratulations as well.
And yes, I read the Brooks piece and could only think of the old leftist line about how it's time to dissolve the people -- they are so disappointing.
The bar was just beer and wine, but a couple of enterprising folks brought their own bottles of gin and vodka -- these too were confiscated.
nancy,
The amazing thing to me about the reunion is that they managed to get a pretty decent crowd from my class and a whole bunch of people were quite successful, a bunch of doctors, a bunch of lawyers, several business people -- including at least one Wall Street type who had been so successful that he had retired in 2008 -- and they treated us like errant children.
My only other college reunion experiences have been with my wife at Barnard/Columbia and they were decidedly superior. We were treated incredibly well and the champagne flowed freely until some point that I no longer wanted or needed any. (And the sit down dinner was me at a table with nine women, so I enjoyed myself immensely.)
Bill,
I have to show off my pictures because I am so pleased each time I figure something out with this phone. I am afraid I am going to be one of those people -- glued to their iphones -- soon.
KN,
Being a lawyer, I guess I am overly enamored about the legal aspects of marriage, but I like all of the certainty that it brings to a series of rights and obligations. It's not the most romantic of notions, but it is a pretty good real world institution in many respects.
Jim,
I am opposed to non-partisan primaries. I actually do believe that parties have the right to pick their candidates and that this sort of thing dilutes that.
Jesus it's a gray, rainy day here in Hartford and I've got arbitratin' to do.
I'll check in this evening.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 13, 2012 at 07:40 AM
Sir C., it's now possible to go to UMass and get a law degree.
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 09:41 AM
(Oh, and if I'd been treated that way by my college? I'd complain to someone responsible for alumni outreach. That behavior you encountered was simply inappropriate.)
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Mitt and Ann Romney’s horse, Rafalca, and its rider have done well enough in Olympic trials to “almost certainly” compete in dressage at the London games.
That’s just the thing Mitt Romney needs to attract regular voters, Stephen Colbert said on Tuesday....
:)
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 09:48 AM
While US families lost 40% of their wealth over the last three years, did the Romneys have to give up a few of their horses or mansions? Does Mitt claim dressage as a business-related expense in the same way some of his gazillioniaire friends write off their golf and deep-sea fishing?
Posted by: Paula B | June 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM
"what do you think of how the California 'Top Two' Primary System worked out?"
If it wound up making any difference it has not been apparent here in San Diego. The only district where it winds up with two Republicans in the general in a district where no Democrat was running anyway, so the original result would have been one Republican running unopposed. It didn't increase turnout, which was dismal, and all of the expected candidates got all of the expected votes. Every incumbent, 100%, was retained.
Did you get that? Every single incumbent in both parties was retained.
Posted by: Bill H | June 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM
I've known about SCOTUSblog for years, but somehow never got around to checking it out before -- I wanted to see what they were saying about Bullock, the Montana challenge to Citizens United. (I'd originally dismissed this as 'nothing but nullification' -- and even in a good cause, or a great one like this, I would find it hard to accept that frm a state court. But I've seen some of the argument, and there are enough points raised to make me hope the case gets cert.)
But there are even more cases coming up or just decided that are going to make me even more of a pest than usual. For example, when I brought up the 'top 2' primary system, I was unaware that Washington State had a similar system -- introduced by the Grange, of all organizations 'out of the pages of History' at least to an Easterner like me -- and that there has been a considerable amount of litigation over it, one case currently in the 'petition for cert' stage.
There's a fascinating wrinkle in the Washington system that all the parties have sued over. Pne problem in 'top two' primaries is the danger of 'false flag' candidacies, of one party getting a number of candidates to run as supposed members of the other party -- which is, apparently listed on the ballot in most of these schemes -- to split the vote so that the first party can get both top slots even though they are a minority in the district. (This apparently occurred in at least one race in California last week.)
Washington -- apparently obeying suggestions from SCOTUS in a previous case -- allows each candidate to claim 'prefers Republican' or 'prefers Libertarian' or whatever, and the parties can do nothing to challenge this. (The Libertarians apparently made the argument as well that this amounted to a 'trademark violation' a position the 9th Circuit rejected out of hand.)
The Libertarians have an even stronger point, to me, when they claim that this makes it practically impossible for a third-party to have access to the November ballot, the election that actually determines the occupant of the seat. The State claims that access to the primary is sufficient, and the 9th Circuit apparently agrees. (Strangely enough, as far as I can tell, no one is citing the "White Primary Cases" on either side, and -- again the briefs are available, but difficult for me to call up yet -- no one is arguing that the fact that the November ballot includes the Presidential race makes the two not equivalent, despite the state's claim. Nor do I know if Washington could or would use such a system in regards to the Presidency, and if they chose to, what would stop them.)
Reading th brief for cert from the Libertarians, they make some other points, including the fact that the Party is not only unable to disavow a candidate, but is also prevented from having its official nominee so designated.
Anyway, will be curious to see how that decision turns out.
[this was written before I saw Jayhawk's comment, which I'll get to]
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 11:27 AM
To all: Many thanks for the good wishes.
To Prup: My bride comes with a cat, Tracy, whom she found a couple of years ago as a kitten, apparently abandoned at a rest area on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi. I'll see if I can embed a photo here:
Posted by: Lex | June 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Before I go back to the Top Two question, I see that a Massachussets town, Middleborough, has decided to fine people for 'public profanity.' There have been several national pick-ups of this, but the local paper seems to have the best coverage. (I just loooove the idea that 'profanity is in the eye of the beholder -- if the beholder has a uniform and badge' part of the law.) Admittedly it has a likely shelf life half that of a Romney statement, at best, before it is thrown out by a court, but I find the whole thing charming -- in an ugly sort of way.
I'll get back to the Top Two question later, but there's a pile of dishes and four hungry cats ahead of commenting on my current to do list, and then either a nap or watching the Nationals' game first.
Nut I do want to ask, is there anyone here who is on the opposite side, who actually likes the 'top two' system, or are we all lining up to throw stones? I really would be interested in hearing a defense of it.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM
awwww, lex. what a sweet kitty! your wife sounds like a keeper, too, since she has the magical ability to rescue those in need.
how did you embed the photo?
Posted by: kathy a. | June 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM
"On the first morning that swearing in public became a civil offense in Middleborough, Corey Mills said he heard more swears than he has ever heard in his life. He was answering the telephone at the police station, where he is a sergeant...."
This is the Boston Globe article on the matter. It gives enough background to make the whole thing more understandable to those of us who don't live in Middleborough, MA.
(As it turns out the law has been on the books for decades, but it was a criminal offense and so not enforced because it was deemed not worth it to go there. Thanks to the vote to decriminalize the ban now violating that law is a civil offense subject to ticketing and a fine. Apparently this whole thing is mostly about loud adolescents. What a surprise (not).)
I think probably the biggest day-to-day challenge to this ordinance is that in metro Boston "fuckin'" is a strikingly commonplace word in the residents' spoken parlance (as former Boston denizens on this blog will attest). :)
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 01:11 PM
Somehow I doubt that when Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson started the Christian Coalition, and James Dobson started Focus on the Family this was the long-term outcome they were aiming for:
Belief in God Plummets Among Youth
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 01:22 PM
No, oddjob, but some preacher is bound to explain that that was why Satan inspired Al Gore -- or was it Bill Ayers -- to create the Internet.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Jesus it's a gray, rainy day here in Hartford
There were a lot of those when I was there as a college student. That's enough reason to stay away from reunions. Besides, I made practically all of my lasting friendships either in high school or grad school, but not college.
It did not strike me as the best way to some day separate us from our money on the university's behalf.
SC, you are a master of understatement.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 13, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Lex - Congrats on your upcoming nuptials! Marriage is a wonderful institution - if you're going to commit yourself to an institution, it ain't a bad one to check into.
And you beat me to it with respect to Brooks.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 13, 2012 at 02:56 PM
re: cussing -- lots of lawyers have vocabularies colorful enough to compete with or exceed those of teenagers and/or drunken sailors (outside the courtroom), so it ought to be fun to see where that ordinance goes. hasn't anybody in middleborough ever heard of the first amendment?
Posted by: kathy a. | June 13, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Another GOP'er comes in from the cold.
Worth the (short & sweet) read, I think.
(Hat tip, Sully.)
Posted by: oddjob | June 13, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Lex - blessings on your upcoming marriage.
Paula - I read somewhere today (sorry I can't find the link now when I need it) that the 40% drop in wealth reported in the news was for the years 2008-2010.
Posted by: jeanne marie | June 13, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Ah, here is a link. Federal Reserve report is from 2070-2010. There have been modest gains since then
Posted by: jeanne marie | June 13, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Oddjob -- You know in a just world, the GOP affiliation should be costing my dumbshit congresswoman her job. She holds the seat that Tom Foley had for 28 years. Instead, the Dems, as usual since Foley was defeated, gave up before the race even started, again running a virtual unknown with little name recognition, no organization to speak of, and a very slight website. If ever there was a year to not cede ground, this one is it.
Also, Lex. re Brooks. That was one terrific rant.
Posted by: nancy | June 13, 2012 at 06:41 PM
More than worth it, oddjob, especially for those who still accept a false equivalence between the parties. (But I still am worried that all these conservatives fleeing the GOP and winding up with us will keep giving us an excuse to move -- OY! -- even further rightward. That's why I've always hoped to see a Friedmanesque new center-right party, not because I'd vote for it, but to serve as an insulation against the craziness and to give a barrier to keep us firmly at least center-left, where we belong. Let the current Repblicans turn into the Federalists, and I'll put up with the New Whigs.)
and, kathy, I know of few police officers whose language would meet Knights of Columbus standards of purity, but the big thing for me is the discretion, the 'profanity is in the eye of the beholder -- if the beholder has a uniform and badge' part. C'mon, the guy who wrote the law has to have been an ex-clerk who wanted to give his old boss a good laugh.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 13, 2012 at 07:34 PM
There was a district in the north of CA where four Dems split more than half the vote, leaving two Republicans to go on to the November ballot.
I was surprised as how evenly the vote was spread across the twenty-three challengers to Feinstein. I swear, she's the one Dems complain about the most and yet hardly anyone votes against her when it matters.
Locally, our three-way may have doomed us to a Republican old-money for Supervisor. His supporters were totally cool with his gaming the system and lying about the other candidates. Nevermind the old guy doesn't intend to do anything once he gets into office except make sure his buddies get their mansions' building permits approved.
Posted by: Crissa | June 13, 2012 at 09:30 PM
prup, what makes you so sure the knights of columbus are so pure amongst the brethren, or in their own castles, or whatever? but yeah, the "eye of teh beholder" part is quite special.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 13, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Prup -- Cussing tickets. When I used to take the kiddies to the park, I found that all it took to get the blaspheming teens to pipe down was to resort to my
librarian/schoolmarm/friendly-mom persona to shame them. 'Come on guys, you don't want to be doing that, do you?' Worked every time. Although not sure I'd have been so successful with a squad of teen females.
It was sort of a mini-application of Wilson's 'broken window' theory. Eyes, or in this case ears, on the street. Yes, free speech. But there's also learning how to behave in public. I'm pretty sure the guy in the alley I passed doing the 'hey lady, look' indecent exposure thing, thought he was expressing himself too. Best response of course is to laugh. Or defuse. And yes, I know -- my inner 'our Miss Brooks' is showing. But somebody's got to try to teach the kids some manners. :) Indoor voices, remember?
Posted by: nancy | June 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM
"I was surprised as how evenly the vote was spread across the twenty-three challengers to Feinstein."
Indeed. Her 49% of the overall vote, with 12% going to the highest Republican candidate and a whopping 2% to the second highest Democrat says a lot about the value of incumbency. That's why our government should be called an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Posted by: Bill H | June 14, 2012 at 12:56 AM
SC -@07:40 AM - partly to my point though not stated explicitly, what about the equal protection clause? Why should a legal contract inhere privilages not available to those who choose not to enter into it? The married tax filing advantage is just an example that even republicans can appreciate I guess. There is a down side too. You can't simply agree that your mutual affection has been stretched too thin and walk away, you have to go through a process of dissolution that at the minimum is onerous and in the extreme a kind of torture.
It is interesting that out of the myriad of women that I have known, so few understood that the institution of marriage was not a formality that worked to their advantage, but was rather a device to discourage their sense of self and any hint of an independent nature. I know almost everyone will disagree with me, but forming a casual allegiance based upon reciprocal reinforcement seems to work amazingly well.
No law can determine behavior. It can only punish it after the fact which scientifically is the equivalent of whippng the dog for pooping in the kitchen a week later.
I don't much mind people mouthing off as loudly or obscenely as they wish, the only thing I would prefer not to hear in the streets nearby is gunfire. A few days of that is enough for a lifetime.
Prup, I'd be willing to try to think out a justification for the top two system but I haven't. As pointed out elsewhere, it can be gamed rather easily. So it would be difficult to formulate a working scheme. Priority voting seems to make much more sense.
To those whom I owe a response, apologies, I haven't been able to find the comments in prior threads. But thanks for the nice remarks about my points of view.
Now lets see if I can get this comment through the filters....
Posted by: KN | June 14, 2012 at 03:38 AM
Sorry for the harshness, it's late, and both of the last two posts stepped on the same mental 'sore corn.'
KN: You say that 'no law can determine behavior.' I used to parrot the same cliche, sure it was true -- and certain it was handy in arguing against marijuana prohibition. Then I used it to argue the futility of a new law. Oh, it was a good idea on a relatively minor matter, and most New Yorkers liked the idea, but I knew it was ridiculous to think it would actually work. It might change a few people's behavior for a couple of months, if they saw themselves being watched, but most people would ignore the law from the beginning, and after a few months, maybe a year, everything would go right back to where it was.
The law was the 'pooper-scooper' law, and thirty years or so after it was passed, people are still piking up after their dogs over 95% of the time, at least. It is a rarity to see dog shit on the sidewalks, and was anywhere in the city when i was mobile. People's behavior changed, at first because it was the law, but later as they discovered that the law made sense, and they liked the cleaner sidewalks and cities.
Which got me thinking. Car insurance, and how many people buy it just because it is the law, but they buy it. And how many people really do, or would, park in a handicapped space if they had any idea the space was used regularly and not 'just there.' And laws don't just punish behavior, they regulate and coordinate it. The purpose -- and effect -- of a law demanding that people drive on a specific side of the road isn't to punish behavior.
Even paying taxes. Sure it isn;t voluntary, but traditionally Americans paid a higher proportion of the taxes they actually owed -- according to the law -- than most countries. (Traditionally France is one of the worst for actual cheating.) I'm not talking about taking any legitimate loophole, or even getting a friendly Congressman to pass a loophole, but at one time even unreported cash payments were relatively rare. That has changed over time, with the usual culprits, Vietnam and Reagan causing much less respect for the government -- in the abstract, not a particular group of officials -- than had been in the past.
Finally, (I'll get to Bill tomorrow, and to sleep after this last point here) the one earlier place this was a cliche was from the mouths of Southern segregationists. And Civil Rigts changed behavior -- and not just the behavior outlawed.
I want to say more on that, and probably will, but g'nighzzzzzzzzzz....
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 14, 2012 at 04:58 AM
Instead, the Dems, as usual since Foley was defeated, gave up before the race even started, again running a virtual unknown with little name recognition, no organization to speak of, and a very slight website.
You're describing the Massachusetts Republican Party. It's a shame the Dems. in so many parts of the country are that weak. They have the better arguments, but don't understand how to make those arguments in compelling ways. If there were more Dems. like Paul Wellstone I think American voters would listen to those arguments much more carefully. Speaking up unapologetically, with clear convictions supported by facts is an excellent way to be taken seriously.
Posted by: oddjob | June 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM
This is brutally funny (& a short read)!
Jonathan Chait hits a home run. (Hat tip, Talking Points Memo.)
Posted by: oddjob | June 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM
It's a shame the Dems. in so many parts of the country are that weak. They have the better arguments, but don't understand how to make those arguments in compelling ways.
These days, I'd be happy for the Dems to be making any identifiable argument. I realize we're trying to be a big tent and all that, but either we're too big a tent, or too bought by corporate money (or both) to form a coherent argument.
Back in 2006, it seemed that Daily Kos in particular was nudging on the process of fielding Dem candidates in practically every Congressional district, including many we'd given up on for years. And we got Lamont to run against Lieberman, and beat him in the primary too.
Those were pretty decent first steps, but it doesn't seem like there's been much of a follow-through. I've said this before, but what bugs me isn't that the Kos folks don't know what to do - what bugs me is that they don't even seem to be having a debate over there about what the next steps are.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 14, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Oh oddjob, poor Sally Quinn as twitter fodder. Almost painful but not quite.
The good old days indeed. I lived on Capitol Hill for a time during that era and had to take the metro every day as far as I could to Foggy Bottom, then make the rest of the way on foot into Georgetown, a good half-hours hike -- the good denizens of Sally's circle wouldn't hear of running the metro line any further, allowing us cross-town riff-raff access. Would have been so disruptive for the dinner-party attendees of the day.
All kinds of clueless, huh? This was especial running-joke-time-to-retire-Sally cringeworthy. Cargo-culture!
Posted by: nancy | June 14, 2012 at 04:04 PM
the good denizens of Sally's circle wouldn't hear of running the metro line any further
I suspect something of the same sort prevented the Blue Line of Boston's subway system from ever being extended further out than Revere (a suburban small city just a few miles north of Boston along the shoreline). There's a commuter rail line that also runs through Revere and not at all far from the end of the subway before heading on to Rockport and Newburyport, but there's no connection between the two. Back in the day Boston's well-to-do had homes along the shore further north and I suspect the brahmins quietly made certain the legislature never bothered with trying to link the two together.
(Don't want to make it too easy for them (in this case it would have been Irish and Italian working class "riff raff") to be wandering about Manchester By-The-Sea.....)
There is still no link.
Posted by: oddjob | June 14, 2012 at 04:25 PM
All kinds of clueless, huh?
If she thinks it's cute to be groped at a dinner party by a senator while he's simultaneously groping her mother that's her business.
Myself I think that isn't something I'd choose to share with the rest of the world.
Posted by: oddjob | June 14, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Nancy, I believe decisions on where to run the Metro were made before Sally Quinn ever worked at the Post. Better to blame Jackie O, Perle Mesta, the Harrimans and their ilk, 10-20 years before they started building it (late 1970s?). When I lived in Georgetown in the mid-1960s, trolley tracks still ran down M Street (and other streets scattered throughout the city).
Posted by: Paula B | June 14, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Paula, by the time I was riding the Orange line in '80 and '81, Sally had married into the 'circle' and was no doubt dining with the Harrimans-Alsops-Grahams. For all its liberalism, these elites didn't push for that essential flaw in the Metro system to be reconsidered afaik. I read that a Green line connector is still under review but stalled. [?] I imagine at the time, the northern VA real estate wheeler dealers had also weighed in heavily about which way those tunnels and tracks should head. $$$
And l-t-c, here's P.M Carpenter today in response to one of our ongoing concerns. The President's message today both nationally and down-ticket is ending the stalemate with this election. That's nice and clear.
Posted by: nancy | June 14, 2012 at 06:55 PM
oddjob,
Jesus, I wish I had written that Chait piece. I am sure that there are people more repellent than Sally Quinn in Washington -- I just can't think of any.
I am not sure if the lack of a link between the Blue Line and the North Shore was as a result of snobbery. I just think that the subway was designed for the people closer in and the commuter rail for those of us further up the shore. I think they were viewed as serving really separate purposes. (And the North Shore line did hook up with the subway -- but it did so at North Station on the Green Line.)
I used to drink in Manchester by the Sea when I was feeling hoity toity -- and in Marblehead.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 14, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Jesus, I wish I had written that Chait piece. I am sure that there are people more repellent than Sally Quinn in Washington -- I just can't think of any. Here ya go Sir C. Some more twittering http://bit.ly/LMY8VX
Expand
Reply Retweeted Favorite"> about Chait, Strom and Sally.
Can this woman eat lunch in public again? That's the question. Not looking good.
Posted by: nancy | June 14, 2012 at 08:25 PM
All: Thanks again for the good wishes. I do believe in the institution. This is my second go-round, but it's to a woman I've been friends with since we met in high school almost 35 years ago, so perhaps this won't be just the usual triumph of optimism over experience.
kathy a: At the risk of abusing our host's hospitality, I embedded the photo with the following code, substituting left and right arrows for the brackets:
[img src="insert picture url here"] (picture appears here) [/img]
Don't forget the [/img] or you will break the Internet.
Posted by: Lex | June 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Where y'all find the time to keep up with this blog I'll never know, my time slot is 'after everything else is done'. Pitifully late usually - anyway -
Prup - not at all harsh, perfectly reasonable anecdotal evidence. But I would still assert that it is not the law that determines people's behavior but the increased awareness of the benefits of the behavior that were incidental to the brief 'chilling' effect you hypothesized that would result from the law. Why do people still violate the laws about speed in automobiles? The actual consequences of excessive speed under certain conditions are far worse than the consequences of a ticket, yet people still speed. Becuase most of the time the dire consequences do not occur.
Correlation is not causation.
I would not argue laws have no effect, they do, for example the drug prohibition laws create an enormous clandestine industry with the only regulation being raw intimidation and brutality. There are certainly limits to punitive consequences. If your multi-million dollar drug trade depends on killing a few hundred people who are competitors and perfectly willing to kill you, the law is not even a consideration.
That is not to say that law cannot be implemented in a way that has positive consequences instead of punitive consequences and hence a better chance of determining behavior. I can't think of any such law off the top of my head but I am (fairly) sure a few must exist.
Posted by: KN | June 15, 2012 at 01:45 AM
oddjob - agreed, unfortunately Senator Wellstone is dead. Grayson is unelected, Weiner was over proud of his manly enodowment but he was the sole voice in congress pointing out that Justice Thomas broke the law and lied about his income for some 20 years. Which is the worse offence? How does it transpire that the advocates for justice and fairness and equality and such other stupid ideas end up shamed and humiliated or eliminated while a moron like Palin is regularly given a platform on Faux news to lie about reality?
I saw an interesting debate today somewhere on the tubes about whether facism (I always have trouble spelling that word) is an unholy alliace between government and corporations or government by corporations. I think we are seeing the answer to that question in our present politics.
Posted by: Kn | June 15, 2012 at 01:57 AM
oddjob - I missed your earlier reference to a UMass law degree ... my own school true and simple. Though lawyers as a class may merit some cirtique, I welcome them to the fold. Not all geologists are 'good' either.
Posted by: KN | June 15, 2012 at 02:04 AM
I just think that the subway was designed for the people closer in and the commuter rail for those of us further up the shore.
Except that if you look at a map of the area you'll see that the Blue Line serves far less of the people it could compared to the other three lines. At this point, what with the greyhound track closed and that property directly abutting the rail line I think it would be a relatively straightforward thing to add a commuter rail station at Wonderland and hook that station to the Wonderland Blue Line station via some sort of pedestrian connection (that would have to navigate Route 1A somehow, but that could be done). Then, assuming the owners of the property manage to continue its use for gambling in some association or other with Suffolk Downs the property also serves as an extremely convenient link to both downtown Boston (via the commuter rail) and Logan Airport (via the subway).
At present using the commuter rail to get to Logan Airport is a nuisance. It would be easier to get off at a Wonderland stop and switch there to the subway. Having that extra public transportation connection would also increase the public transportation choices (& therefore possible employment choices) for working class folks in places like Revere, Lynn, Salem, & Beverly.
Posted by: oddjob | June 15, 2012 at 09:30 AM
nancy: There isn't even a listing for a Democratic candidate in the 5th on the Act Blue page -- and they usually list even those candidates they have raised $0 for. I had been considering suggesting some ways you could help, but if she's this bad, maybe not. Can you at least mention her name? (Meanwhile you have a couple of very interesting candidates in other districts.)
At least this year the National Party isn't ignoring the races the way they did under Kaine. There are a lot of surprisingly strong candidates out there this year, and while I was seeing us barely holding on, we have some good shots at making gains.
I'm going to run a series of pieces on some of the races that deserve more notice -- and crosspost them as comments at Benen/Maddow in the daily 'noon round-up' or the end of day open.
Lets start with one of the bigger surprises, a race in one of the most Republican states that we are competitive in.
North Dakota is a strange state, politically. It is a strongly Republican State where Romney leads Obama by 17 points, where Republicans in general lead Democrats by 18, and where, despite this, the state keeps electing Democrats to Congress. Not occasionally, repeatedly, and not always Blue Dogs. When Rick Berg won the At Large Congressional seat in 2010, he was the first Republican Congressman since 1980. John Hoeven won the open seat after Byron Dorgan resigned, taking a seat that had been Democratic since 1986.
And this seat has been Democratic since 1961 -- and the two Republicans who occupied it continually since 1923 until then were both supported by the NonPartisan League, a Progressive Era organization founded originally by a socialist.
The election of Hoeven was a landslide, but he had been one of the most popular Givernors in the country, and the Democrats -- perhaps in this one instance wisely -- basically punted the seat. And they hardly worked hard to re-elect the incumbent Blue Dog Congressman, Earl Pomeroy. (Though Pomeroy was also an opponent of the Iraq war as early as 2007 who called President Bush a 'clown' -- on YouTube -- and voted for the ACA.)
Rick Berg is no John Hoeven. His one term in Congress will be remembered mostly for his "What's the minimum wage?" quote. (Other Representatives were unable to answer as well, but I believe Berg was the first. And his made news partially because he is the 14th richest Representative.) His positions are Conservative to TeaBagger, but ironically, when he endorsed the 'establishment' candidate to replace him, his candidate was defeated by another TPer. And a least one blog regularly refers to him as Rick 'Slumlord' Berg for his founding of Goldmark Property Managment, a company which has failed to get BBB Accreditation and has numerous complaints filed against it over various items, particularly overcharging to keep from returning security deposits.
Berg's record includes at least one unique piece that certainly helps explain why there is a 9% difference in support between men and women. To quote North Decoder and Howie Klein
Berg's campaign has been poor as well, but most importantly his opponent is a smart, popular ex-Attorney General, Heidi Heitkamp, who Klein calls a real "Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt" Democrat. (I've seen other NDs call her a "ConservaDem" though and am not sure which is more accurate.)
The polls show her either even or a few points ahead, Berg has recently been getting horselaughs for failing to reserve a website using his favorite catch-phrase "The North Dakota Way" and letting Heitkamp open one with that name mocking him. And Heitkamp is using the 'help' he's getting from Karl Rove as a way of fundraising for her side -- and if anyone has a couple of bucks...
And the Congressional race -- one AL seat -- may be interesting as well. The Republican is even to the right of Berg -- and Berg supported his opponent, as did the Party organization, in the primary. The Democrat, Pam Gulleson, seems to have a real 'plain folks appeal' but I've been unable to get a feel for how the race is going. Again, a little cash that way might go a long way in a state where media is cheap.
I'm going to try and get one of these notes up every other day or so dealing with the races that don't make it into the national news. There are a LOT of races we are more competitive in than we expected to be, and we can start paying attention, start creating the synergy that blogs have created in the past, and start shifting the needle maybe a couple of points are way, It elected Tester and Webb, and a lot more in 2006 and 2008 -- where we didn't lose a single Senate seat.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Prup -- She's Cathy McMorris Rodgers -- I didn't mention her by name because I thought I'd been something of a broken record about her in comments here. Most recently I linked to a Seattle Times piece announcing her appointment as the House liaison to Romney's campaign. Her opponent will be Rich Cowan who presently runs 'North by Northwest', a film production company. I've had trouble even reaching his campaign by e-mail.
She's the token female you see in every Capitol steps photo-op, standing next to Boehner and Cantor. You'd think she'd be easy pickings but around here incumbency and name recognition are likely to trump competency. And unfortunately because of Foley's long tenure in Congress, the local Democratic party structure pretty much withered and has yet to be revived.
The local GOP-oligarch-owned paper has published a number of letters by authors who seem to have finally noticed that she's done exactly nothing for her constituents except be a placeholder. Seeing letters like that make it to print is rare, so, here's to maybe...
Posted by: nancy | June 15, 2012 at 03:24 PM