Hartford IMC reports on racial profiling in West Hartford

This is a must-read. Too many of us living in “liberal” suburbs think this only happens in blue collar communities or urban areas. I’ll say no more – the first hand experience of the writer speaks for itself.

http://hartfordimc.org/2009/08/26/a-lesson-in-privilege-from-the-whpd/

Filed under: Fighting oppression, Must read

Candidate Simmons: I wouldn’t have voted to confirm Sotomayor because she didn’t rule the way I want!

Rob Simmons, who appears to be the lead Republican Party candidate running against Chris Dodd for his senate seat in 2010, announced this morning that he opposes the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomajor (with a confirmation vote expected this afternoon).  Now, I have no use for Chris Dodd.  I think he’s probably a crook, but even if he weren’t he’s still just another millionaire sitting in the U.S. Senate fiddling while working people are being thrown out of their jobs and their homes in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  But I like Simmons even less, and I think his sudden, 11th hour announcement on this issue is the worst kind of opportunism.  Perhaps more importantly, his explanation stinks.

It seems Simmons is saying that if he were in the Senate he would vote against Sotomayor because she didn’t vote the way he thinks the court should have in the Ricci v. New Haven affirmative action case.

So Simmons’ “position” is this: An otherwise qualified judge ruled in a way that I didn’t like, once.  So in retribution for not doing what I want, I would have voted against her as a Supreme Court nominee.

Does this sound familiar?  Isn’t it what we’ve been hearing from every conservative white crybaby in the last few weeks?

Sergeant Crowley: Professor Gates hurt my feelings when he yelled at me, so I arrested him.

Officer Barrett:  It’s not fair that I got suspended (with pay!) just because I called Prof. Gates a banana-eating jungle monkey!  And anyway I apologized so that means you can’t punish me!  It’s not fair!  I’ll sue!

“Tea Baggers”: I don’t like what the Democrats are saying about health care reform so when they speak I’ll scream really, really loud so no one can hear them.

Firefighter Frank Ricci: When affirmative action helps me get a job because of my ‘learning disability’ then that’s good…but if it helps other people instead of me, then I’ll sue!

Ironically, the people who are fronting for these clowns have been talking for years about self-reliance and standing on your own two feet, and criticizing people who have suffered worse treatment than they can even imagine for supposedly “playing the victim.”  Now they’re screaming bloody murder – not for being victimized but simply being held accountable.

Filed under: They're Not Like Us

In 2011, half of all homeowners will be “underwater” on their mortgages

It’s been the American Dream and the single most universally shared assumption about “making it” in America from World War II to . . . well, today. Now, if there is a single measure of the depth of the collapse of the U.S. economy, this is it.

A New York Times article cites Deutsche Bank predictions that by 2011, 48% of all homeowners in the U.S. will owe more on their mortgages than the value of their homes. At a time when working people are being encouraged to believe that prosperity is just around the corner, this is a frightening number. All the more so because so many people who held risky sub-prime loans have already lost their homes, and these numbers include large numbers of standard, supposedly less risky mortgages As the article points out

The drop in home prices is fueling a vicious cycle of foreclosures as it eliminates homeowner equity and gives borrowers an incentive to walk away from their mortgages. The more severe the negative equity, the more likely are defaults, since many borrowers believe prices will not recover enough.

For at least the last half-century, the bedrock of conventional wisdom was that buying a home was always a smart move because home values would always either remain steady or increase. Indeed, the reason that so many homebuyers were able to be convinced that they could afford houses that stretched their budgets to the limit is the long-held belief that investments in real property are virtually certain to increase in value. Now, even if the conventional wisdom turns out to be true over the long haul, that won’t do much to help the working families that can’t pay their mortgages now, and for whom walking away may be the only option.

But there are two larger questions to be asked after looking at the Deutsche Bank predictions. One: How is it that these numbers are so completely at odds with predictions about economic recovery from the recession? Or if the two are not contradictory, then what kind of economic recovery are the capitalist economists predicting in which defaults, foreclosures and evictions will continue to be an every day part of life for working people? And two: Based on events over the last three decades, is it possible that we are experiencing a series of increasingly deep and increasingly frequent recessions, interspersed with dismal “recoveries” that leave working people with fewer and lower paying jobs and even less access to economic security?

Filed under: Economic crisis

Connecticut’s most controversial legal cases . . . really?

I received a postcard today advertising the Connecticut Bar Association’s latest publication, “Controversial Court Cases in Connecticut, Part II.” The postcard reads, in dramatic, bold lettering:

Explore Six of the Most Notorious Cases to Rock the Connecticut Judicial System

The list of “controversies” seems to include, judging by the cases listed:

*chopping up your spouse in a woodchipper (presumably they regard this as ‘bad’)

*being a serial killer (ditto)

*being a rich, white guy and being able to fight for years and years to keep your ass out of jail by claiming without any evidence that they have the wrong guy

*being a poor, black guy and spending half of your life in jail before they figure out they have the wrong guy

*being railroaded into jail because you’re mentally challenged and can’t defend yourself

and, of course,

*wanting to be able to get married to your long-term partner who is of the same sex.

Controversial? Well, some of them, maybe. But c’mon . . . featuring “The Woodchipper Killer” (woooohhhh….scary….like a horror movie) alongside the case settling the question of the constitutionality of barring same sex marriage seems bizarre. Add to that the fact that the book’s cover graphic is supposed to look like blood is spilt all over it. What the hell does that have to do with same sex marriage?

Filed under: Uncategorized