The famous clown Emmett Kelly of Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey altered his makeup after July 6, 1944 with the addition of a painted tear beneath his eye and the rest shall we say is history. It was forever known as “The day the clowns cried”.
His permanent tear and perpetual silence commemorated the great circus fire in Hartford, Connecticut when the main tent burst into flames and over 160 lives, many of them children, were lost in a short period of time. The unidentified body of Little Miss was never claimed and remained a mystery until recent times. The sadness of that day was recorded in this new clown face for the whole world to see and triggered changes in laws that prohibited the circus from coming to Connecticut for some time.
We are now confronted with a new assault on the circus with Connecticut Bill 6555 in the 2009 session, An Act Concerning the Humane Treatment of Elephants. In this bill the mere possession of the tool commonly used in the customary manner to control these wild animals would become a misdemeanor. In all likelihood this act essentially bans “the circus” from “coming to town”.
After all, the animals are trained and controlled by such practices around the world and are not about to be retrained just to come to Connecticut . Uncontrolled elephants would certainly present additional problems that this law does not address. Zoos seem to be exempt, but you wonder how the keepers control these beasts.
This law, then, only has the undesirable effect of banning circuses in Connecticut and the moments of magical imagination that only a live circus can provide to old and young alike.
But Dad (or Mom or Partner), all the other kids in other states get to go, PLEASE!!!
What special interest group could be so mean?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Classroom YouTube Entertainment
Picture a classroom in CT where the nerd math teacher is trying to explain a complex law of physics using his body language and props to demonstrate cause/effect. Charades, the game, can also depict this image in case you never pay attention in math or physics.
Without consent, some character pulls out a cell phone to record with some primitive description to mock the ungainly (but sincere) attempt to teach something useful.
If we follow form in CT, each school board will discuss, debate, and relive their youth in a repetitive fashion to invent a unique policy to ban, condemn, or outlaw this practice once it is recognized as unacceptable behavior. You don't make fun of people, we are taught, right?
Why can't we just get some law(s) passed to nip this now, rather than wait for some episode where someone might get hurt? That is what Plato's Philosopher King would do (Plato).
Without consent, some character pulls out a cell phone to record with some primitive description to mock the ungainly (but sincere) attempt to teach something useful.
If we follow form in CT, each school board will discuss, debate, and relive their youth in a repetitive fashion to invent a unique policy to ban, condemn, or outlaw this practice once it is recognized as unacceptable behavior. You don't make fun of people, we are taught, right?
Why can't we just get some law(s) passed to nip this now, rather than wait for some episode where someone might get hurt? That is what Plato's Philosopher King would do (Plato).
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Term is Up!
Term limits for elected officials are a death knell for their way of life. They can no longer be re-elected as "career diplomats", party with rich, powerful, and special interest groups, direct funding to their special causes to avoid the radar screen filter for election contribution limits or ever hold sway over those who they think they govern. (Remember their job is to serve not govern -- big difference!)
No -- the power, the money, and the adulated position they hold would be gone and they'd be "just plain folks" like the rest of us.
On a more positive note, however, the rest of us benefit from term limits. New ideas from fresh faced views, a truely competitive elective process, dilution of special interest powers, more citizen engagement in a healthy democracy, and an end to the deals that can only last to the duration of their term.
Some might say that the loss of knowledge would be damaging. A distraction, maybe, but no loss. You only need common sense and a grounded moral background -- and an appreciation of individual freedom -- to be a Connecticut legislator. We have plenty of able willing citizens who commonly volunteer to provide facts, information, and interpretation if asked. We have seen a number of such efforts in recent times.
It is also fair to cite the state agencies' professional staff as a wealth of knowledge with practical familiarity with executing and operationalizing legislation.
This nirvana, however, can never happen. There will never be a chance to ever introduce this notion to this legislative body so resistant to such proven measures adopted elsewhere through referenda.
You need to have a voter-initiated referendum to put this idea to the electorate directly in order to achieve an up or down vote without legislative involvement. Otherwise their mischief continues.
No -- the power, the money, and the adulated position they hold would be gone and they'd be "just plain folks" like the rest of us.
On a more positive note, however, the rest of us benefit from term limits. New ideas from fresh faced views, a truely competitive elective process, dilution of special interest powers, more citizen engagement in a healthy democracy, and an end to the deals that can only last to the duration of their term.
Some might say that the loss of knowledge would be damaging. A distraction, maybe, but no loss. You only need common sense and a grounded moral background -- and an appreciation of individual freedom -- to be a Connecticut legislator. We have plenty of able willing citizens who commonly volunteer to provide facts, information, and interpretation if asked. We have seen a number of such efforts in recent times.
It is also fair to cite the state agencies' professional staff as a wealth of knowledge with practical familiarity with executing and operationalizing legislation.
This nirvana, however, can never happen. There will never be a chance to ever introduce this notion to this legislative body so resistant to such proven measures adopted elsewhere through referenda.
You need to have a voter-initiated referendum to put this idea to the electorate directly in order to achieve an up or down vote without legislative involvement. Otherwise their mischief continues.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Voice of Anonymity.....?
We should all know that in CT most legislation proposed is done through the work of special interest groups who approach individual legislators or committees. The process is well known, documented, and controlled (somewhat), but is widely recognized for its values (to some):
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Who do you want to marry today?
If you married your wife, that would be your wife.
If you married your guy, that would be your guy wife.
If you married your first cousin who had a sex change, it could (if the Hartford legislature passes the bill) quality as a gender wife.
What gender or wife is that?
When does this stop?
How far do we go?
Why don't we all marry each other and call it a day? -- a love fest or "love in" will end all wars.
The CT General Assembly is about to perpetrate another attack on the sanctity of marriage to say nothing of love as defined by the common moral authority of common law and society.
The least we could do is put this to a referendum vote to verify majority consent.
But wait we didn't authorize (November 2008) the Constitutional Convention when would have made the voter referendum possible. What are we do do?
If you married your guy, that would be your guy wife.
If you married your first cousin who had a sex change, it could (if the Hartford legislature passes the bill) quality as a gender wife.
What gender or wife is that?
When does this stop?
How far do we go?
Why don't we all marry each other and call it a day? -- a love fest or "love in" will end all wars.
The CT General Assembly is about to perpetrate another attack on the sanctity of marriage to say nothing of love as defined by the common moral authority of common law and society.
The least we could do is put this to a referendum vote to verify majority consent.
But wait we didn't authorize (November 2008) the Constitutional Convention when would have made the voter referendum possible. What are we do do?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
CT Constitution and Budget Cap
If you wonder why CT has such a hard time doing its budget, you can understand the overall issue by reading the CT Constitutional Amendment available below:
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
CT Constitutional Convention Needed Now!
In fall 2008 CT voters did not elect to have a state constitutional convention as they could have. Few politicians ever acknowledged the opportunity and to a large extent did not endorse the concept when they even spoke of it.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
UConn Health Center -- never enough money
As UConn Health Center continues its annual plea for monies, I reflect on its construction history. As the costs inflated over its period of construction, the most inspiring audit revealed the large number of wheelbarrows that went missing from the construction center (truth).
It is now clear that the wheelbarrows were shipped to UConn Storrs for future use in carrying back annual appropriations from the state legislature as more money was needed (joke).
With UConn's inflated salaries, benefits, and egos we must ponder what contribution is really made with the taxpayers investment in contrast to alternatives, competing, and special interests.
It is now clear that the wheelbarrows were shipped to UConn Storrs for future use in carrying back annual appropriations from the state legislature as more money was needed (joke).
With UConn's inflated salaries, benefits, and egos we must ponder what contribution is really made with the taxpayers investment in contrast to alternatives, competing, and special interests.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
CT 2009 budget
You have a squeeky clean governor, Jodi Rell, trying her best to create a responsible budget and adhere to the shortfall forecasts. Still, nothing happens.It makes you wonder, if she is the "good", where must the evil lie? The answer? The Legislature, with inert Republicans!
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Common Ground on the 2009 CT Budget Figure
Where is the person who can define the constitutionally mandated cap on CT legislative spending? Since nobody knows what it is, then a definition does not exist.
We don't even know what a balanced budget is suppose to look like -- nor when it will be formulated. I guess passing the cap a few years ago also created a memory lapse to match the budget number lapse.
Burning former Governor Lowell Weiker in effigy didn't work. So what are we to do next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)