Sunday, June 06, 2010

The Dinosaur Media Celebrates Sunday

Dodd’s Big Bang

It is never too soon to begin celebrating the legacy of a departing U.S. Senator.

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, soon to be replaced in the beltway club by his clone, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, started to leave office on a bad foot, according to Richard Graziano, the publisher of the Hartford Courant, and the paper’s Opinion Editor, Carol Lumsden.

But he has since recovered.

In “Polishing His Legacy,” The Courant shines the apple of one of its favored politicians.

“Mr. Dodd,” the Courant editorial blushingly confides, was untimely thrust “into the chairmanship of the Senate health committee due to the fatal illness of Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. Dodd played an important role in the passage of landmark legislation that guarantees Americans nearly universal health care coverage and that many hope will begin to reduce costs.

“As chairman of the Senate banking committee, Mr. Dodd was the principal architect of the upper chamber's version of the most sweeping reform of financial system regulation since the Great Depression. This is a big deal. The Senate version is now being reconciled in conference committee with the House bill, passed in December. If Congress approves the compromise and the reforms work, we'll be spared a repeat of the kind of financial meltdown that has rocked the world since the fall of 2008.”

A lone dissenter in the pages of Courant, a Mr. SickOfPolitics, begs to differ” “You forgot to mention Mr. Dodd was also one of those responsible for the financial crisis along with his buddy Bwarney Frank.”

Dodd was principally responsible for undoing the last remnants of the Glass Steagall Act, a measure adopted during the enlightened administration of Franklin Roosevelt that prevented rapacious financial institutions from meddling with the bankbooks of Dodd’s constituents, as noted by Managing Editor of the Journal Inquirer Chris Powell in “Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes From A Blue State:"

“Certainly, the possibility of corruption has surrounded Dodd’s head like a black aureole for some time. Dodd is head of the banking committee, a position from which a corrupt politician could easily parcel out favors for campaign cash. Dodd has received oodles of campaign contributions from the finance industry, an interested party in the quid pro quo business; he was responsible, as Chris Powell of the Journal Inquirer reminds us, for the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act, a legislative breakwater that prevented financial institution from engaging in the banking business. The Banking Act of 1933 separated commercial and investment banking, and after it was partially dismantled, a tsunami of transformative economic changes washed over the country, laying waste to sound banking practices. After 12 attempts in 25 years to repeal obstructive provisions of Glass-Steagall, lobbying efforts were rewarded in Nov 1999 when Glass-Steagall was gutted.”
Some right thinkers are not egar to reward with editorial encomiums, Mr. SickOfPolitics will be pleased to note, arsonists who call the fire brigade to put out the ranging flames for which the arsonist is principally responsible.

And we may note in passing that there are some who believe that Dodd’s regulatory intervention is not only too late; it is the wrong regulatory scheme at the wrong time.

People who think such, however, do not write for the Courant.


In the pages of the nation’s oldest continuously published newspaper , the illustrious Hartford Courant, Ms. Irene Papousis, a writing teacher at Trinity College, celebrates the impending divorce of Mr. and Mrs. Gore.

We should not be tearful at the prospect, advises Ms. Papousis:

“I think the sadness we might instinctively feel about their divorce is part of our tacit belief that, when it comes to marriage, mating for life is a desirable — perhaps the most desirable — thing. The Gores met while they were in high school. I imagine that they've been each other's only partners all these years. They lived out our romantic fantasies: 'Finding a soulmate.' 'True love.' 'Together for life.'"
Ms. Papousis admits to being puzzled by the divorce. The nation well recalls the two lovebirds liplocked at the Democratic convention that chose Al Gore to be its nominee for president. Some may have thought, unadvisedly, that such gestures at the tail end of a forty year marriage betokened a renewal of the pledge taken by married folk to honor one’s partner “till death do us part, in sickness and in health” -- even in times of global warming.


Ms. Papousis brushes aside all this as a mere fantasy in the brave new world of the 21st century and offers her own competing fantasy:

“I have no idea why they decided to divorce. But I have my own fantasy about it: They're still friends; they still like each other; they had a passionate and eventful marriage. Now, however, they're tired of each other and they've admitted as much. They both want to energize their lives by letting go of the too-familiar paths of their married life.”

Really, shouldn’t marriages licenses, like drivers licenses, be issued with expiration dates? It might, in these pinched times, save on the cost of legal fees.

Freedom Of Assembly? Naugh!

And, in a trifecta of idiocy, Rick Green, again of the Hartford Courant, took a baseball bat to the Family Institute of Connecticut, a group pledged to defend First Amendment religious rights, and the duly elected members of the board of education of Enfield for having had the effrontery to question a suit brought by the ACLU against God fearing Christians, atheists who genuinely believe in the inefficacy of religion – and therefore shouldn’t give a hoot about religious contamination – and defenders of the assembly clause of the First Amendment, which holds that even lowly students should have the right to assemble for graduation where ever they damned well choose – atheist be’damned!

The FIC tore out large chunks of Green’s hair here.

As for the tribunes of the people, they are concerned mainly with defending their own First Amendment Rights. As for the other rights protected in the self same First Amendment – such as the right to peaceably assemble... not so much.
Post a Comment