Sunday, April 02, 2006

Daylight Savings Time Open Forum

Ugh. The start of Daylight Savings Time is one of the few days in which I really, really hate working on Sundays.

There's some controversy surrounding Rell's pick for Chief Justice.

Striking Sikorsky workers will vote on another contract proposal. I have a feeling that neither side is going to like the way this one will eventually turn out.

What else is happening, today?

30 comments:

MikeCT said...

Obscure candidate of the week:

Scott MacLean, Channel 3 morning news director and Congregational minister, is running for Congress against John Larson, though you wouldn't know it. There hasn't been a Republican congressman elected in the first district in 50 years, but that's not deterring MacLean: "After 25 years of thinking about it, you have to finally look at yourself in the mirror and say, 'Are you ever going to do this or are you going to be a big bag of wind?'" MacLean is indeed windless.

Unfortunately, he has deleted his more colorful statements from his Web site, presumably on the advice of others. At one point, he adopted the slogan "Purple for Progress." (Red, blue, holding hands, get it?) He is no relation to the Purple One, but he has made an invitation for technologically hip youth get involved and help create a "A good, web savy graphic 'look' that will capture young people's interest." Indeed, he has declared that "I am running for Congress as the voice of the next generation." (Funny, but he doesn't look like the voice of the next generation.) He has said that doesn't want to push his youthful followers beyond their limits, though: "I am asking young people for their vote, if they are old enough." Toddlers, stay home and phone bank!

The CT GOP can't seem to bring themselves to recognize their friendly purple pal as a red candidate. Of his opponent, he says, "I’m more pro-me than anti-him."

Anonymous said...

Jeez, the Courant has all scared...do you know Jodi has nominated a CATHOLIC to be Chief Justice????.....

We need to mobilize immediately to prevent this from happening, the Constitution be dammed...

Anonymous said...

i give it two weeks after his confirmation before the press corps gets in his face as he's walking out of church and he gives them the "sicilian" sign

no, but really, do people honestly think there's merit to making a pointed effort to keep a Catholic off the bench?

Anonymous said...

I was just going to post that Zarella is Catholic! Catholics have no place in CT!!!

Anonymous said...

I suggest we deport all the Catholics in CT (even those born in the state) and make CT a sanctuary for all agnostic and atheist undocumented immigrants

spamcop said...

I say we ban right-wing Catholic conspiracy theorist spammers pretending to be more than one person by posting over and over again in the hopes that someone will take their crackpot fantasies seriously if they repeat them often enough!

Anonymous said...

ok, let's bail on freedom of speech while we bail on freedom of religion, yep, that's the ticket

Aldon Hynes said...

Spamcop, I’ll see your bid and up it one. I say we spend a little time talking about the real issues around Zarella. First, lets address the less significant ones. Zarella is a devote Catholic. So is Chief Justice Sullivan, whom he has been nominated to replace. No issue there, move on.

Zarella and Sullivan were both appointed by Rowland. Zarella hosted at least one fundraiser for Rowland. The two of them were the two dissenting justices on whether or not the committee investigating Rowland could subpoena him. They argued it was a purely political issue. This does make me wonder about Zarella’s judgment, and assessing a justice’s judgment does seem like fair game.

I am curious about the section in the Courant that says, “When the majority in a 2003 death penalty case ruled that it was acceptable for the court to look beyond the plain meaning of a statute, to legislative history and other sources, Zarella wrote a scathing dissent.”

I am not a legal scholar and I would love to hear people more informed on this weigh in with their comments. It sounds as if Zarella is some sort of literalist more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. To me, harkening back to my own religious roots, this sounds a lot like the approach of the Pharisee’s which Jesus condemned.

Another big issue seems to be whether the judicial branch should be supervising an array of social service agencies. Knowing very little about this issue, my gut reaction this time is to side with Zarella, but I am very interested in hearing other sides.

All of this feeds into some bigger questions. Does the role of advice and consent applies at the State level, the same way it does on the National level? I don’t know Connecticut law well enough to say if it does or doesn’t, but it seems like it should. If it does, then the Senate should really investigate these issues thoroughly and not simply be a rubber stamp.

Based on this, it seems as if McDonald and Lawlor raise an important question about the timing of the nomination and how it can best be fit into a busy schedule. This ties back to the whole question of how long the legislative session should be.

So, spamcop, will you see my bid and help raise the level of discussion here? Anyone else still in the game?

Anonymous said...

Aldon:

Bill Curry did not win the 2002 election

Therefore , Joette Katz will not be Chief Justice

Anonymous said...

With a grain of salt:
Rumor has it that Cathy Cook, the Republican State Senator from the 19th District, will be leaving the State Senate to be a sacrificial offering in one of the state wide campaigns- Secretary of State or Comptroller. The expectation is that after she gets crushed in that election, she'll be named commissioner of DMR by a newly elected Jodi Rell.

Weicker Liker said...

Hey MikeCT....

Yes, the purple candidate has gone from quoting Jimmy Stewart to Mike Krzyzewski.

Anonymous said...

Why would Cathy Cook run an election to lose? Maybe with Rell at the head of the ticket Republicans are expecting a big year?

bluecoat said...

I am concerned about what would appear to be Rell's opposition, by way of her Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano who must have been bullied on the playground as a kid, to changing the juvey age to include 16 and 17 year olds as reported here in today's CT Section of the NYT entitled Redefining Juvenile Criminals by Avi Salzman.

The Norwalk Advocate also covered the issue here entitled Many teens caught in 'never-never land of the law'

Is there a pattern here with Jodi being 'tough on crime' instead of a compassionate conservative concerned about the children as she represented to the public in her state of the state? Or is it just another example that she is really not in full command of her administration and how to address the issues?

Anonymous said...

Treating juveniles as adults is counterproductive and foolish. More from Raise the Age CT, which has an online local documentary on the topic. Also see the Juvenile Justice Alliance, and CT Voices for Children.

Factoid: Over 10,000 16- and 17-year-olds in Connecticut are automatically tried as adults every year. Connecticut is one of only three states that considers all 16 and 17 year olds "adults" in its courts - no matter how minor the offense.

bluecoat said...

The administrative arguments against raising the age to where it belongs are excuses not reasons but that's what you get when Team Rowland is still hanging around. Maybe all these 16 and 17 year olds should be sent to Vitginia beach for the duration if you catch my drift.

bluecoat said...

The war, Farrell said, is "the biggest issue that I hear from people all over the district." according to the CT Post here on Sunday but that's not what I am hearing but I just don't travel in circles friendly to my candidacy (that I don't have) as it sounds Farrell may be doing.
The war (in Iraq) was discussed this morning on Meet the Press linked here and Zinnin's perspective has always rang true for me but I just don't see it as a defining issue for the 4th Congressional district.

Anonymous said...

No vote should be taken on the Cheif Justice position until AFTER the 06 election.Jodi Rell has never been elected Governor and until she is or isn't on her own no vote should be taken on who will lead the court.

Partisan politics?
Yep,but thats the rules of the game.

bluecoat said...

And here from today's CT Post is a perspective on healthcare in new England without commentary by yours truly at least for now.
It should be a campaign issue but who knows where the political winds will blow.

I wrogly posted this on the blog discussion so i best go out and enjoy the air today..

CtKnows said...

Anonymous 2:39... Partisan Politics,, what is it you think Jodi Rell is doing. BTW I am not a fan of hers, like it or not she is the Governor and it's her right/duty to nominate a Chief Justice. If the legislature fails to act Zarella becomes the next Chief Justice. Not politics... the law

Anonymous said...

Hey, isn't this Nick Carbone?

Anonymous said...

GC: I find this interesting...folks can make (hopefully) outrageous statements bashing Catholics (see post: "Catholics have no place in CT" among others) and they are left up. However if some says "Homosexuals have no place in CT," it is promptly taken down accompanied by a stern warning. Talk about a double standard!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they will send all the Catholics to the same place the owner of Brass Mill Mall sent the "Easter Bunny", who is now called a "Spring Bunny".

What's next. a "December Tree" lighting?

Anonymous said...

I wonder why John DeStefano thinks keeping the estate tax is such a great idea.

It seems to be "working" in WA State for Governor "Three Recounts" out there

Major employer quitting state
Tom Stewart to move 5 firms, citing estate tax

By BILL VIRGIN
P-I REPORTER

Services Group of America Inc. plans to move its headquarters, and 90 jobs, from West Seattle to Scottsdale, Ariz., by the end of this year, and the once-politically prominent owner of the company says Washington's estate tax is to blame for the shift.

The parent company of Food Services of America and four other firms also plans to lease its five-story building just south of the West Seattle Bridge and eventually sell it, the company said Friday.

Tom Stewart, 61, is the sole owner of Services Group, one of the state's largest privately held companies, with $2.5 billion in annual revenue, 4,000 employees nationally and 1,100 in the state. Its subsidiaries, including Food Services of America, distribute food to schools, hospitals, restaurants and government and military facilities.

"With the Legislature and the governor electing to impose the highest state inheritance tax in the nation on family-owned companies, it has left us with little choice but to move," the company said in a statement. "Among other long-term financial considerations, this one threatens the long-term future of the company."

Washington's current estate-tax law was enacted by the Legislature last year after the state Supreme Court threw out an earlier version. The tax applies to estates of at least $2 million and has a graduated rate; estates of more than $9 million are assessed $1.44 million and 19 percent of the amount above $9 million, according to the Department of Revenue.

Stewart, who wasn't available for comment, has had a home in Arizona for 27 years and last year officially changed his residency to that state, the company said. Had Stewart and the company remained in Washington, the state would have taxed his estate at 19 percent, said Gary Odegard, vice president of corporate communications. "He's not going to do that."

Anonymous said...

It is interesting in that Ruban the governers so called ethic tzar is leaving the capital. This is before Garfield is investigathed, maybe the gov is worried that Garfields and rubins relatiobship will become public and questions why Garfield did bot recluse himself from the investigation of the governors campaign. Cronizim

Anonymous said...

Sean Smith strikes out again and another columnists notices Joe's nervousness:

Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith said this past week when asked about supporting the winner of the August primary, "This is a campaign, man, we are in this to win. We're not thinking about those contingencies." Note to Sen. Lieberman: You may want to have someone who doesn't speak like a Valley Boy issuing your statements. This is 21st-century Connecticut, dude.

Lamont takes a sunnier view of the post-primary climate. His campaign manager, Tom Swan, says, "Ned Lamont will support the Democratic nominee." A switch in roles is taking place in the Senate race. Lamont sounds like the confident front-runner, Lieberman like the nervous and petulant challenger.

....On his own in a radio studio fielding calls, a common battlefield in campaigns, Lamont is a pro.


Smith continues to lower the bar for Joe. In the Greenwich Time, the New Britain DTC chair says that over half of the city's delegates support Lamont.

Anonymous said...

What is Garfield and Rubin's relationship?

Anonymous said...

You guys learned nothing from the Plofsky mess ,did you.

State bureaucrats have jobs for life. Investigations are worthless unless you can establish they pocketed money. If it a question of judgment or bias, the institutional protections send the investigators back ala bug v. windshield

Anonymous said...

Where is Rubin going?

Anonymous said...

Back to UCONN ...

bluecoat said...

IN the Team Rowland ConnDOT (with Chris Cooper who once spoke for Rowland speaking for them) can't get its act together on transportation becuase there is no real plan or planning process with true leadership from anybody here in today's Stamford Advocate is Debate over study of highway tolls deepens
The important thing tough is that the legislature keeps on spending and spending with no plan or guarantee of success.