My Left Nutmeg - Recent Comments

You really

adamjschmidt — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:30:04 GMT

Can't let that go can you? Am I allowed to have an opinion on any issue while a civilian? Or only if I parrot the "correct" opinion?

yeah, that too.

CaptCT — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:14:30 GMT

"Terrorist Fist Jab"...

dauphinb — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:49:24 GMT

...has gone on my list of potential band names!

Good Government Hijacked

dauphinb — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:45:30 GMT

Before I get to my main point...

And I m sick and tired of all the talk about our perfect Constitution and what the founding fathers wanted. We are so far away from the founding fathers' intentions that I believe most would roll over in their graves if they saw the state of our nation now. [emphasis added]

...you do know this is about the state Constitution, right?

And please take note that there are many municipalities in CT that have a referendum clause - are they unAmerican? not representative democracies?

I hate like death to use the word "unAmerican" in any sort of substantive political debate — it's way too emotionally loaded — but speaking as a resident (and DTC member) of a town that's had 9 budget referendums over the last 3 years, I can say that I think the referendum process is certainly unfortunate and ineffective.

Like most items of legislation, a town budget is full of details not obvious to the general population, and not easily understood by anyone who hasn't carefully studied both the budget (which fills several thick notebooks, in my town's case) and the laws and regulations to which it must conform. I know several members of my Town Council, and I know they do study it carefully, and get presentations from the heads of the funded departments, and debate the budget in open meetings, all over a period of months. And then we let the voters overturn all that work based on no more information (in many cases) than one brief story in the Courant or Journal Inquirer, and with no more than a couple weeks for advocates on either side to educate them. Does that sound sane to you? This year, we were forced to referendum by 200 signatures collected by 1 guy who didn't even oppose the budget... he just thought we ought to spend several thousand of the town's dollars holding a meaningless election because it suited his personal notion of what "democracy" means.

Direct democracy seems appealing in the abstract, but it's not an effective way to run a town, much less a state or a nation. And yes, I do think representative democracy works (sometimes a bit too well: the "will of the people" in my town diverges from my own ideas pretty significantly). And in those instances when it doesn't work, the best response is almost always to fix it to make it more representative, not to subvert or abandon it.

I think there's a proper role for popular referendum, as a check on a legislative body that's truly out of sync with the popular will... but it should be a last resort, and as such, the barrier to entry should be high (signatures from perhaps 30% or more of the eligible electors), and a supermajority vote should be required to overturn the proper acts of a duly elected legislative body. It ought to be the sort of thing that almost never happens.

Similarly, opening up any constitution for total rewrite is a drastic, break-glass-in-case-of-fire solution that should be approached only with fear and trembling.

Come on now people, we can pass universal healthcare in CT, change the transportation policies, stop pork-barrel spending, stand up for consumers, we can do so much. YES WE CAN!

Of course we can do all those things. What makes you think we must set fire to the constitution in order to accomplish them? Is there really any one of those items that you believe cannot be addressed either through legislation or the current process for amending the Constitution?

The Constitution is about defining how we do things, not what we do. Until somebody shows me that it's structurally impossible to accomplish our social and political goals within the current Constitution, I will continue to say NO to a Constitutional Convention.

Holyland

nolopro — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:21:43 GMT

I always thought it would make for a great paintball park.

Waterbury's cross

CaptCT — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:10:24 GMT

Lamont didn't buy a share of the cross -- he donated money to help them fix it. The cross sits at the top of a big hill, and can be seen for miles, especially at night when it's lit up. When it's broken and not lit, it serves as a symbol of a dysfunctional city. Repairing the lights on the cross makes the world a little brighter for the people of Waterbury, IMHO.

As for Holy Land USA -- it was a place for young Catholic school kids to go for a sort of walking history tour of the life of Jesus. For little Catholic kids, it was pretty cool. Then the statues were vandalized, and it just got scary looking. There are lots of Catholics in Waterbury, and so I imagine Catholic parents might be interested in bringing their kids to Holy Land USA someday.

Sadly, at the bottom of that hill is one of Waterbury's worst sections of urban blight -- former brass factories turned into brownfield sites, abandoned buildings, environmental waste. You get the picture. If someone could figure out a way to fix that urban blight, they'd help the city a whole lot more.

I wonder if John Rowland's development group is doing anything about it.

Rich people are weird, dude

mattw — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:53:51 GMT

When Ned was at the Oyster Festival in 2006, there was a guy carving a giant bear statue out of an enormous log using a chainsaw. He seemed to genuinely consider buying it for Annie.

I don't know what logic would inspire someone to buy a share of a huge steel cross in Waterbury, but maybe having a coupla ten million dollars kicking around would change my outlook on the value of that particular investment.

And I'd love to see that whole quote -- that's an awfully artful ellipsis there.

Vote Yes in November regarding the Constitution question

SvenVonErick — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:32:17 GMT

Redress of Grievances to our government is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Special interests taking over our government should be why we have a vote to change the free for all that has been going on too long.

Those that have a free ride or special position in government don't want the gravy train to end. They take care of all their corporate and special interest friends.

The people need to take back their government in Connecticut. The court system in Connecticut is a national embarrassment. What Chief Justice Sullivan, in my opinion, warranted a jail term, not a two week suspension with full pension.

The Judiciary Committee legislators in Connecticut are for judges appointed as favors and for unfairness in the courts. The committee is made up of mostly lawyers and lawyers make more money if their is blanket bureaucracy and unfairness.

Rowland AND Rell would have been addressed in 1997 after the Advocate broke the story of their corruption if we had a proper Grand Jury System. That system:
http://starkravingviking.blogs...

Say good night "Both Ways"...

Jake Blount — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:38:19 GMT

Shays is toast!!!