Skip to main content

Defending The Indefensible

The scramble for victim’s status has begun. Criminals, it turns out, also may be the victims of their own crimes, and provocateurs may be the victims of their own provocations.

Shortly after Governor Dannel Malloy announced to reporters that Republican Party opposition to his “Second Chance Society” program was inherently racist – not in intent but in outcome -- the Republican leadership in the General Assembly bit back.

Mr.  Malloy’s formulation allows the accuser to sidestep the imputation that he is a liar, or worse: We all know you are not a racist. Your intentions are good, even praiseworthy – but the outcome of your intentions is racist. By this means, one may forgive the Devil himself.


Republican leader in the General Assembly Themis Klarides spoke for many in her party when she objected to Mr. Malloy’s bullying tactics, and the Governor’s  pot-boiler rhetoric was gently reproved by Democratic  Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey, who noted, “This is a difficult policy issue, where there can be legitimate disagreement, but ascribing motives to people on opposite sides of the issue is not productive or helpful toward the ultimate goal of passing legislation that is important to hard working families.” Majority leader Joe Aresimowicz also was critical of the Governor’s remarks: "We cannot condone injecting racism into the debate over challenging legislation. Questioning the intentions of those with differing opinions is counterproductive to the work that needs to be done in the Legislature."

So far, Mr. Malloy has offered no apology for imputing racism to those who had the temerity to disagree with him on a matter of policy. Surely Republicans may overlook the lack of remorse on his part since – his intention was good, though its outcome was not praiseworthy. Mr. Malloy’s economic fixes – the fixes that have not fixed – fall into the same pattern: The Governor’s intentions no doubt are praiseworthy, but the outcome of his tax and spend policies has caused a prolongation of the recession, business flight and a persistent, long term erosion of state revenue, occasioning more taxes, which spur more spending. The road to penury is indeed paved with good intentions, but the outcomes are rather unfortunate. Ah, but perhaps Mr. Malloy may not have intended these adverse consequences when he adopted policies that have produced these exact outcomes. Can we not overlook the outcomes and fasten our moral attention rather on Mr. Malloy’s noble intentions?

It would appear that there is a causative space between intention and outcome that is a veritable Devil’s playground. And this economic and moral breathing space permits economic and moral actors to claim innocence even when they are intimately involved in actions that give way to predictable consequences.

Following his first four years as Governor, Mr. Malloy -- having imposed on his state the largest tax increase in its history, which followed by a decade Governor Lowell Weicker’s imposition of an income tax, the second largest tax increase in Connecticut history – pledged numerous times during his second run for office that he would not propose new taxes. And he kept his word: The out of balance budget Mr. Malloy presented to Connecticut’s Democratic dominated General Assembly was light on taxes and heavy on spending cuts – precisely the kinds of cuts that he knew could not be accepted by a progressive legislature intent on defending the interests of the poor and downtrodden. The progressive Democratic dominated General Assembly, as represented by the Assembly’s budget writing committee, quite predictably rejected the draconian cuts and proceeded to progressivize the budget by adding a slew of new taxes that are, most writers in Connecticut’s liberal top-heavy media tend to agree, well intentioned – outcomes be’damned.

Now, everyone in Connecticut knows that the outcome of adding the final straw to the camel’s back is – a camel’s broken back. Everyone knows that excessive spending produces excessive taxation, which moves money and productivity from the middle class to government coffers. Everyone knows that the bulk of such funds are added to support a metastasizing administrative state. Everyone knows that such states are hostile to business activity -- and ultimately to the poor -- for this reason: The camel cannot be expected to abide the placement on its back of the final straw that will break it. And so the camel that carries the Connecticut economy will resist its burden by moving to states the policies of which produce more favorable outcomes.

Mr. Malloy knows all this. He knows it. That is why he pledged during his last campaign to hold the line on taxes. And that is why he should veto the ruinous budget proposal disgorged by the progressive Democratic dominated General Assembly.


For the sake of legislative comity, everyone can agree that the intentions of those who have constructed the road that would lead Connecticut to the gates of Hell are honorable. But the predictable outcome of the budget produced by progressives in Connecticut’s General Assembly must be vetoed by Mr. Malloy, if he is to retain a shred of plausibility. The victims of the present Finance Committee budget will be… all of us awaiting the predictable final straw that will break Connecticut’s back.

Comments

peter brush said…
Questioning the intentions of those with differing opinions is counterproductive
----------------
ascribing motives to people on opposite sides of the issue is not productive
-------------
It seems to me possible to read the statements of our esteemed legislators from the Party of Rev. Al Sharpton and John Calhoun (Yale College and Tapping Law) as allowing that the Republicans are "racist," i.e., really rotten to the core, but that it's not prudent at this time to say so to their faces. As you note, however, Governor Mal-loy hasn't apologized. People of his illk take pride in the moral rectitude their mere accusation against their enemies shows them to possess. However, in this case, the accusation is not merely petty, it's nonsensical. The Governor is not merely stupid and childish, but he's a mendacious fraud ignorant of the meaning, if any, of his own lies.

If I'm not mistaken the Republicans were attacked for casting doubt on the practical validity of a Mal-loy proposed adjustment to the State's silly drug statutory edifice. We apparently have a law(s) that says more penalty will be applied to drug dealers if they operate within a certain distance of a school. (I imagine this would include private, even Christian, schools, but obviously leaves home-schooled kids unprotected.) The racist result of this rule is that those like the late son of my Representative, Senorita Minnie Gonzales, who operate in urban zones are more likely to get extra special treatment from our out of control racist law enforcement system than are those like Dannel's boy who operate in places like Darien. For those new to the State, our cities are where our Blacks and Hispaniards reside, not to say where the social engineers have installed them. Therefor, if you are opposed to the adjustment that says drug dealers may operate closer to schools you don't like Blacks and Hispaniards. And, voila, Professor Mal-loy has demonstrated the truth about Abraham Lincoln's Party, and as Attorney Euclid might say, "quod erat demonstrandum."

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't it equally, so to speak, be said that those who favor drug dealing closer to our racially segregated Mal-loy schools are hostile to the kids of colour in the Hartford District? Couldn't we also "ascribe motives" to the people of the State who live in such a deliberately and prolonged segregated "style?" Are we to look across the Nutmeg landscape and determine that the very nice people here give a rat's rear end about black kids in Bridgeport or New Haven?
What Orwell said about the word "fascism" can now be said about the word "racism." Guys like Malloy (Boston College and Law School) and Al Sharpton (Samuel J. Tilden High School) literally don't know what they're talking about.
-----------
Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’
One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.
Don Pesci said…
"Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't it equally, so to speak, be said that those who favor drug dealing closer to our racially segregated Mal-loy schools are hostile to the kids of colour in the Hartford District?"

You are not wrong. If the law is abolished, cities, where drug dealers are more active, will no longer fall under the umbrella of protection the law affords. The proper way to handle excessive prosecution is to repeal laws that govern the prosecution of minor drug crimes or -- better still - remove the legislative brambles that interfere with justice as administered by judges and juries. They are better at administering justice than publicity seeking legislators. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the proper separation of powers that prevents wannabe tyrants from calling their opponents racists. Malloy fetched that leaf from the Obama campaign playbook, which manufactures false crises so as to be able to parade up and down publicity aisles as tin-pot saviors and acquire votes in state and national elections.
peter brush said…
"Our black and Hispanic population is concentrated in certain communities,'' Malloy said Wednesday.
---------------
And, Spike Lee likes it like that, but while we're supposed to be all concerned about the plight of the poor and dysfunctional, can we not spare a minute to consider what this sort of "concentration" has done to our cities?

It is my understanding from Daniel Boorstin that when Nutmegistan was founded by Thomas Hooker and Associates there were precious few lawyers present. However, the non-lawyers had reverence for English law, and did their best to recreate it here. Now we have tons of lawyers who have no such reverence, but who have a very high regard for themselves and for their skill at making a lot of the stuff they throw stick to the wall. Natural law and common sense have been thrown out. Now our attorney pols are wicked smart, have extraordinary vision, and can really push us around.
-------------
"Our black and Hispanic population is concentrated in certain communities,'' Malloy said Wednesday.
---------------
"Being trained a lawyer is in of itself a gift," Malloy said. "And it's not just a gift to the individual who received that education. It is a gift to the broader society to have that individual in the society, and it comes with obligations as well, not simply to one's client but to one's society. That's the gift we were given and that's the gift we act on on a regular basis. We are called to see things in ways that other citizens don't see."
-----------
Q: What do you call a smiling, courteous person at a bar association convention?
A: The caterer.

Q: What's the difference between a female lawyer and a pitbull?
A: Lipstick.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50
A: Senator.

Q: Why did God invent lawyers?
A: So that real estate agents would have someone to look down on.

Q: What's the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a lawyer on a motorcycle?
A: The vacuum cleaner has the dirt bag on the inside.
peter brush said…
"The Day" of New London has no problem with Malloy's characterization of the negative position on urban drug dealers operating closer to schools as "racist." I presume the editors at that minor organ of mass communication are also of the opinion, not to be judgmental, that "affirmative action" is even more obviously "racist."
--------------
Sorry, but one of the definitions of racism is “racial prejudice or discrimination” and these laws are prejudicial and discriminatory in their outcome.
http://www.theday.com/article/20150515/OP01/150519506
-----------
Affirmative Action/Contract Compliance Division

The State’s affirmative action commitment formally began in 1973 by an Executive Order of Governor Meskill. Affirmative action plan development and implementation is now guided by a detailed set of statutes and administrative regulations. These regulations, which were adopted in 1984, establish procedures to be used by State agencies as they pursue and report their affirmative action activity. Connecticut is the only state in the country that administratively regulates affirmative action plan development so thoroughly.
http://www.ct.gov/chro/cwp/view.asp?a=2521&Q=315740
Dan Ryan Galt said…
What Mr Brush said.

Humility seems to be a trait that is as foreign to our Dear Leader, Mr Malloy, as is honesty.

Thank you Mr Pesci and Mr Brush for articulating what more than a few of we, the wagon pulling class, here in the Un-Constitution State feel and think. The posts and comments here are a reality check that puts things in perspective and reassures me that I am not quite as crazy as I am led to believe when I turn on the local news or read our version of Pravda, The Hartford Courant.

Q: What is the difference between a lawyer lying in the road and a bear lying in the road?
A: There are skid marks in front of the bear.

Q: What is the sad about a 1959 Cadillac Sedan DeVille going over a cliff with five lawyers inside?
A: A Sedan DeVille seats six.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p